Sunday, January 24. 2010
Hey, what happened to the H1N1 scare? Guess the same thing that happened to the global warming scare: NASA: No Increase In CO2, Global Warming A Sham. Related, Expert Warns of 'Climategate' Conspiracy
Muslims Attack Christians and the Church Blames the Jews
Steyn: The Islamization of the World. What is so special about Moslems?
Rich Lowry: The New Catechism - Liberaldom has new articles of faith.
Prelutsky re government medical care:
Watching Senator Mary Landrieu sell her vote for $300 million and Sen. Ben Nelson sell his for a bigger piece of the Medicaid pie reminds me of an old story. It seems a man once asked a strange woman if she’d have sex with him for a million dollars, and she agreed. He then asked her if she’d do it for $20, and with all the outrage she could muster, she said, “What sort of woman do you think I am?!” He replied, “We’ve already established that. Now we’re merely negotiating the price.”
61% of US Voters Want Congress to Drop Health Care But Obama Vows to Fight On (Video)
Krauthammer:
An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Medical care in Canada:
“I love Canada,” said Lesnar. “Some of the best people and best hunting in the world, but I wasn’t in the right facility. They couldn’t do nothing for me. It was like I was in a Third World country, I just looked at my wife and she saved my life and I had to get out of there.”
He was treated in Bismarck and later at the Mayo Clinic.
White House nightmare persists. Who ya gonna call? David Plouffe
Somin: Restrictions on Corporate Speech Reduce Political Equality
A victory for speech at Front Page:
Can the government suppress free speech critical of elected politicians? In the home of the First Amendment, that may seem an unusual question to pose. But that was the question before the Supreme Court this week, as it handed down a landmark ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Reason: I Just Love New York Times Headlines Because ...
Krugman in 2002:
To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Why is the AG in charge of Jihad terrorists?
Insty:
A NEW BLACKLIST: Oakland Mayor to Theatre Board Member — ‘Do you now or have you ever supported traditional marriage?’ Good grief.
Saturday, January 23. 2010
At the OC Register. One quote:
At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Gov. Palin was "unqualified" then surely he was, too, Obama pointed to as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.
That was the story of his life: Wow! Look at this guy! Wouldn't it be great to have him ...as community organizer, as state representative, as state senator, as United States senator. He was wafted ever upwards, staying just long enough in each "job" to get another notch on the escutcheon, but never long enough to leave any trace.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is more attuned to popular political winds than President Obama, and her speaking out on Internet freedom is welcome across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, there are other forces at play. Her motives aren’t pure, not startling in a politician, but bear examination.
Her recent speech favoring Internet freedom, in the wake of Google’s resistance to Chinese Internet repression and hacking, is in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s ignoring human rights to now, including in Iran where internal regime change possibly offers a best hope for averting catastrophe. Her speech is hoped to really signal a turn.
Importantly, Sec. Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration is ready to commit significant resources to this effort. She said that, over the next year, the State Department plans to work with others to establish a standing effort to promote technology and will invite technologists to help advance the cause through a new “innovation competition” that will promote circumvention technologies and other technologies of freedom. Sec. Clinton also challenged private companies to stand up to censorship globally and challenge foreign governments when they demand controls on the free flow of information or digital technology.
We haven’t heard any support yet directly from President Obama. In light of her diminished bulb within his administration, is Hillary trying to brighten it and to position herself for his possible 2012 implosion?
Other forces at play include riding the positive publicity that Google received for its resistance to Chinese muzzling of the Internet, that seems more aimed at helping Google to compete elsewhere, and hacking into Western companies’ software codes, which threatens their future profits. (See my previous post.)
Another factor at play is that the Obama administration is more protectionist than prior administrations, a sop to his labor union backers. Protectionism is a recurring populist theme. But, Obama is still teetering as US multinational companies, who have also contributed heavily to gain entre to his chambers, favor continuing free trade policies. Still, for example in Vietnam, where Western investment is critical to regime stability, "investors have largely avoided [it] over the past year as reform momentum stalls." The Wall Street Journal notes the wider arena: “It's been said that Vietnam aims to copy China's economic development model. Trying to frighten foreign investors into line, a la Beijing and Rio Tinto [Brazil], isn't a lesson worth copying, especially for a poor country trying to join the league of middle-income nations.” Using “human rights” leverage to increase US multinationals’ access to less fettered investing may be more a pressure tactic to open markets than to open minds. The Obama administration gains support from the unions and big business by now highlighting Internet freedom concerns.
More attention to Internet freedom, also, serves to ameliorate scathing criticism from such needed major media players as the Washington Post, which editorialized on December 31, 2009 about increased repression in China and Vietnam:
Some Vietnam analysts believe the government's crackdown is intended to set the stage for a ruling party congress scheduled for 2011. Yet surely Vietnam, like China, has taken note of the Obama administration's relaxed attitude toward supporting dissidents and its public proclamations that human rights issues must be balanced against other interests. While the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam has criticized the crackdown, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said nothing in public about the arrests when she met Vietnam's foreign minister in October. Instead she focused attention on the "tenfold" increase in bilateral trade she said had taken place since 2001.
That trade boom makes Vietnam sensitive to Western criticism of its human rights record. So the staging of trials of pro-democracy activists during the holiday season is almost certainly not a coincidence. The tactic just might be working: A State Department spokesman said Wednesday that no public statement had been made about Mr. Kim's case, because "no one asked." He then e-mailed us a statement saying "the United States is disappointed in the results of the trial" and noting that Mr. Kim's case was among those raised during a U.S.-Vietnam dialogue on human rights in November. No doubt Hanoi regards such talk as perfunctory; certainly, the Obama administration has done nothing that would suggest otherwise.
The Obama administration has demonstrated that foreign policy is secondary to its radical domestic priorities, and thus is more flexible in tamping down concerns about its fundamental fecklessness in facing up to threats abroad. Hillary Clinton’s speech is therefore an easy sop.
OK, all said aside, if the Obama administration actually follows through with more than words, energetically, that is very welcome despite ulterior motivations. As Human Rights Watch just reported, "Rights-respecting governments should speak up to protect peaceful activists and rights defenders in Vietnam and insist that the government abide by its international commitments," Adams [Asia director] said. "Donors have been far too quiet about rights in recent years, but Vietnamese activists say that they will never succeed without consistent support from influential governments." The same goes for elsewhere among despotic regimes.
China has rejected Hillary’s appeal to more openness, calling it “information imperialism.” Russia, Vietnam, Iran, Arab states, Venezuela, Bolivia express similar scorn.
Will the Obama administration actually show real spine on Internet freedom, or continue on its path of hollow words. Despots are betting on the latter.
Fortuna
The wind blows east, the wind blows west, And the frost falls and the rain: A weary heart went thankful to rest, And must rise to toil again, 'gain, And must rise to toil again.
The wind blows east, the wind blows west, And there comes good luck and bad; The thriftiest man is the cheerfulest; 'Tis a thriftless thing to be sad, sad, 'Tis a thriftless thing to be sad.
The wind blows east, the wind blows west; Ye shall know a tree by its fruit: This world, they say, is worst to the best; -- But a dastard has evil to boot, boot, But a dastard has evil to boot.
The wind blows east, the wind blows west; What skills it to mourn or to talk? A journey I have, and far ere I rest; I must bundle my wallets and walk, walk, I must bundle my wallets and walk.
The wind does blow as it lists alway; Canst thou change this world to thy mind? The world will wander its own wise way; I also will wander mine, mine, I also will wander mine.
Friday, January 22. 2010
Outdoor Life magazine, “The source for hunting and fishing adventure”, brings us celebrities who enjoy these sports. Here’s some of my favorites. Comments are excerpted from the magazine.
“Palin can make moose chili for us anytime.”
Lorrie Morgan: “legendary country crooner cutie…[has] ‘always been good with a gun,’ she says.” [Let’s have a shoot-out.]
Jewel: “blond, beautiful, and a talented singer and performer [roped] her husband and former rodeo cowboy Ty Murray.” [Well tie me up!]
Miranda Lambert says “I’ve got some trophy mounts.” [I’ve got the horns!]
Natalie Gulbis “lamented catching nothing. We bet she won’t have a problem finding a better fishing guide.” [My rod is ready.]
Check the link above for others, men. And this link.
Avril Lavigne: “"My brother used to be like, 'You're a girl. You can't go hunting or fishing. I'd be like, 'You're stupid.' And we'd get into a huge fight." Alrighty then!” [Love to wrassle!]
Eva Longoria: “"I can skin a deer and a pig and a snake- and rabbits." If there is a more perfect woman, someone please tell us- like, now!”
OK guys, get hunting and angling if you want to be skinned.
Tiger Woods “makes frequent angling trips.”
Heading up north today for some skiing, thanks to golbal climatistical instability.
Hopenchangen. It was a joke. Nobody took it seriously as other than as virtuous posturing - except possibly the O, who is already beginning to resemble a lame duck.
Related: The CRU was just the tip of the iceberg. One quote:
NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”
And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.
As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.
The details of the giant hoax just keep emerging, don't they? Not to worry - somebody will find new reasons to need global governance by our betters.
Hugo Chavez accuses U.S. of using weapon to cause Haiti quake. Of course. Who wouldn't want to damage Haiti? Or own it? What a prize.
Dept. of Schadenfreude: Weeping into their cappucinos in Amherst. "Send them all to Amherst" he says where, presumably, any enemy of Americans and freedom will be welcome. Hasn't radical murderous sociopathic chic gone a bit stale yet?
The Krautman addresses the proletarian uprising, He begins:
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable...
NJ's new governor: “I’m Gonna Govern Like A One-Termer”
Three excellent Maggie's-type links at Thompson
The world is getting richer. Must be due to climate change.
Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors. So who is supposed to create the wealth they want to redistribute? Or are we all supposed to be poor and stupid?
Re the banks, at Dino:
President Obama is part of that portion of during their lives, the business world where most of life takes place. the US that has had little or no contact with the private sectorHe is anti-business and he knows almost nothing about business. In a sense he lives in an alternate reality. Not good news for the rest of us.
Via Legal Insurrection in April:
What history shows us is that a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic President, urged on by a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic Congress, is a prescription for political self-destruction. Leave Democrats to their own devices, and they will screw themselves politically, just when they are at the height of power.
Re the Supremes' decision, Althouse is good: Hillary Clinton was promoting free speech on the internet...On the day that the Supreme Court struck down a U.S. statute as a violation of free speech.
Related, Surber reminds us:
The ACLU is a corporation.
Common Cause is a corporation.
The New York Times is a corporation.
Stick the hand-wringing over corporate speech already. Americans know better.
And Maggie's Farm, I suppose, is an informal corporation. Oh, I almost forgot. We are a not for profit "commune," so I guess we're OK with free speech either way.
Image on right borrowed from Chicago Boyz
Too much free speech? The NYT freaks out. Why, I ask myself, should some businesses be gagged when media corporations, unions, and George Soros is not? The Times Corporation, a de facto arm of the Left wing of the Dem party and clearly enamoured of their own political speech, beclowns itself with pure partisanship masked as sanctimonious purity.
Not an elite. From Brown:
"If you were to tell me growing up that a guy whose mom was on welfare and parents had some marital troubles, and I had some issues growing up, that a guy from Wrentham would be here standing before you right now and going to Washington, D.C., are you kidding me?" Brown said at a postelection news conference.
News from the Middle East: Giant Hummus Plate Astonishes World. And from Betsy, Why doesn't the world community get upset about Saudi Arabia?
New Republic: Ram it through
Harsanyi:
Fifty-eight percent of those polled by The Washington Post recently claimed they preferred smaller government with fewer services, with only 38 percent favoring a larger government with more services (and, yes, it is a terrific struggle not to place ironic quotations marks around the word services).
This is the highest number for the “smaller government” category since 2002. And a full year into President Barack Obama’s term, most polls, and state elections, tell us that the electorate is walking — maybe sprinting? — back from the progressive economic policies that now dominate Washington.
From the new face of organized labor at NRO:
*A majority of union members in America (52 percent) now work for the government. This is up sharply from 49 percent in 2008. Put another way, Sherk finds, three times more union members now work in the Post Office than in the auto industry.
Union membership in the productive sector of our economy continued its long-term downward spiral, falling from 20.1 percent in 1980 to a mere 7.2 percent in 2009.
A full 37.4 percent of government employees now belong to unions in 2009, up 0.6 percentage points from 2008.
* Private-sector unions lost 834,000 members in 2009. Public-sector unions, in contrast, actually gained 64,000 members.
Thursday, January 21. 2010
I cannot explain why this is, but it's been like this for quite a while. Maybe some readers can splain it to me:
Story here, with the Supremes' decision.
I agree with a commenter there who said "The scary part is that four justices think that this does NOT violate the First Amendment." What are those justices reading that I am missing?
Breaking: Pelosi announces that she can’t pass Senate ObamaCare bill.
Maybe, in time, Congress can come up with some reasonable fixes, like interstate insurance competition, some subsidies for the poor, encouragement of major medical policies, tort reform, disconnect insurance from employment, etc. But this monstrosity of a government takeover seems dead for now.
Thank you, Scott Brown - and thank you, Massachusetts.
Good luck with that: Voters-Be-Damned… Obama Plows Ahead With Radical Agenda- Will Nationalize Student Loan Industry
When will Sen. Brown be called a RINO?
Politico: Dazed Democrats rethink entire strategy
Canada Free Press: Saying No to Emperor Obama
Big Journalism: Behold the Face of the Tolerant Left: Keith Olbermann, Unplugged and Unhinged
John Kerry's next?
Bush: One year out of office
Thinking more about a Repub health plan
Barone: Liberals still want to pass health care - but not the ones who have to face voters in November
George Will on the health care bills:
In their joyless, tawdry slog toward passage of their increasingly ludicrous bill, Democrats cling grimly to Robert Frost's axiom that "the best way out is always through." Their sole remaining reason for completing the damn thing is that they started it.
Why does the press always interpret "anger" when Conservatives win elections? Especially given things like this: Far left has taken over Democratic Party, Sen. Bayh says.
And things like this: Barney Frank Deals Potential Death Blow to Obamacare
And this: Lanny Davis says Blame the Left for MA
Walking back climate change claims
Q&O:
I’ve come to the conclusion that most of the left are closet authoritarians who, at the drop of a hat, would resort to what this blogger describes if they could get away with it, always with the naive belief that this dictator would be “a benevolent despot”. Of course, as pointed out previously, definitions mean little to the left who apparently don’t realize that “benevolent despot” is an oxymoron of the first degree.
Kimball: “Massive profits and obscene bonuses”: more populist nonsense from Obama
Wednesday, January 20. 2010
With the global warming fear-mongering headed down the toilet, what's next?
Above via Chicago Boyz -
From Red State, which begins:
When the left starts talking about nations becoming ungovernable, stock up on guns and ammo, because that usually means they’ll start forcefully agitating for a more governable country according to their definition of governability.
In many ways, I hope that America is relatively ungovernable. I have no particular respect for anybody who wants to be governed other than by their own internal governor, and I detest anybody who wishes to govern me and my life. I neither want nor need very much governing.
Gridlock is good.
I saw this: Obama to take “combative” approach to Brown victory. "Combative" against me, a hard-working, honest, fellow taxpaying citizen? Why?
Because I'm a Tea Party sort of gap-toothed brain-damaged gun- and Bible-totin' neanderthal Ivy Leaguer? Why me? I planned my life, played by the rules, worked hard, and have been moderately successful. What did I do wrong that I deserve to be combatted for?
From The Tea Party Spirit Of Scott Brown’s Supporters:
First, the Tea Party folks are not the fringe. They enjoy more approval than either the Republican or Democrat party. Second, on what planet do the media live? All Americans, of all political persuasions, are sick of the government. One only has to look at Nancy Pelosi’s approval ratings to know that she’s pretty universally reviled. Ditto Harry Reid. Do the delusional press think that only Tea Partiers are fed up and skewing these approval numbers?
Going in to the 2010 November elections, should Congressional Republicans just be saying no to Democrats’ ObamaCare or offer their own program?
Reluctantly, as there are some constructive remedies in the Republican approaches, no is the correct answer. President Obama and Congressional Democrats in recklessly swinging their 2008 majority stick have blithely poked the hornets nest and are being chased by a popular uprising saying “no to Washington.” There’s no reason to help Obama or Democrats or to damage Republican prospects.
Hard-core proponents of ObamaCare say they’re already damaged politically, and would lose more liberal support if delaying, so they might as well charge ahead, and even unilaterally ram it through. As ABC reports, however, the public has spoken, “no.”
Congressional Democrats still have a large majority and will not accept a Republican program unless large elements of the Democrats’ is included. That would still move us down the road toward government control of individual choices, toward larger deficits and higher taxes. Most hard-core left Democrats have not and will not give up on getting their way.
Congressional Democrats and the liberal media would use a Republican alternative as an opportunity to shred Republicans as uncaring or not doing enough to meet their visions, and delusions, that there is a magic bullet that solves all real and purported problems.
Washington is still Washington, regardless of party, and lobbies would again kick into high gear to tilt to their own narrow advantage Republican proposals. Enough Republicans, like Democrat politicians, would be swayed, and Republicans as a whole would be tarred and Republicans’ most energetic base be turned off by smarmy politics as usual in Washington.
Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tricare, civil service employees and other government health spending already have constituencies of almost half the population. They will fight against almost any changes, especially benefit reductions or higher out-of-pocket costs or taxes, and many Republican leaners among them would turn away from Republicans.
If Republicans do get or get near a Congressional majority in November, there will be a better chance for enacting some strictly limited improvements. But, they must be highly focused and uniformly supported, without any addition of Democrat statism. Rather than being put forth as going for too much and all-or-nothing like the Democrats have theirs, the Republican proposals should be presented as reasonable incrementals that improve without financial excesses or intrusion into personal lives. That doesn’t mean that improvements will be minor but, rather, reasonable, respectful of individual needs, and limit government interference in free choices.
Here’s what would work, cumulatively helping the poor, the middle-class, and the more affluent, enlarging care for all without taking away deserved care.
1. Allow individual tax-deductions for premiums. Individuals who don’t get that deduction currently would be encouraged to obtain health insurance. The poorer would be no worse or better off. The middle-class uninsured would be on equal terms to those receiving employer-paid benefits.
2. Broaden IRS Section 125 to allow individuals to use pre-tax income for health care expenses. Eliminate the current “use-it-or-lose-it” provision so such savings can accumulate toward catastrophic needs, Part D Medicare Rx “donut-hole” expenses, professional long-term care for loss of two or more of the currently defined “activities of daily living”, or other IRS Section 213 (the Section that lists allowed professional medical treatments) retirement medical care. Section 213 would be broadened to include Over-The-Counter medications, if prescribed by a doctor or dentist. Again, the middle-class would be benefitted who aren’t employed and provided Section 125 plans or employed and not offered employer Section 125 plans. Current health savings accounts, HRA’s and HAS’s, would remain the same, and be immediately vested if funded.
3. Retain Medicare Advantage programs, which have higher benefits and lower co-pays than straight Medicare, and are more widely used by the poorer, but limit those higher benefits and lower co-pays to medical, dental and vision care, dental care not currently provided. This would allow some reduction in government subsidies. Other ancillary non-core benefits would be eliminated, so broader need core benefits would be provided. Medicare Advantage plans use networks with negotiated rates and some gatekeeper-usage controls, which reduces their costs and, as presently, would have to compete with each other.
4. Require full portability of individual medical insurance to other carriers at the same or lower actuarial level of benefits, reducing loss of coverage when moving to another area and increasing competitive measuring across carriers that reduces confusion. Rather than guarantee issue incenting individuals to wait until after they’re sick or injured, driving up the premiums of the more responsible, individuals would have more incentive to at least lock-in more affordable and more catastrophic benefits.
5. Allow insurers to offer their plans nationally, to increase choices of benefit levels. Of course, premiums in each area would reflect local costs. This would, also, increase measurement and knowledge of local variations in costs on an apples-to-apples basis, and competitive pressures reduce higher outliers.
6. Allow all immigrants, whether legal or illegal, to enroll in private or government health plans but require full payment of full-cost premiums. This would reduce their uninsurance among the more more responsible and those able to afford premiums. Legal immigrants would be required to provide proof of insurance, whether private or governmental, and could not be naturalized to citizenship unless providing proof of “credible” medical insurance (“credible” as per the current HIPAA law) from the date of entry to the US.
7. Provide means-testing (includes income and all financial assets up to, say, medical expenses of 10% of their combined total) of uninsured citizens and legal immigrants who obtain professional health or dental care, possibly professional long-term care (as discussed above) in order to apply for government assistance. The government assistance would be for the cost in excess of that 10% per year that is above the same rates as the provider’s highest rates negotiated with a private insurer + 20%. Currently, “list” prices charged those uninsured may be 30-100% higher than negotiated with insurers. This would protect the poor while incenting obtaining coverage, at least cheaper catastrophic coverage. Those qualified uninsured would be required to enroll in the appropriate government program.
8. Require tort medical cases to be heard by specialized courts, to reduce the sway of emotions in outsize judgments. Tort attorneys would receive fees up to 30% of pre-negotiated settlements, but 25% of trial judgments, encouraging more reasonable and less legally costly results for those who deserve recompence.
9. State Medicaid or SCHIP programs offering benefits above the federal level of benefits or enrollee income would be ineligible for any federal subsidies. Higher “welfare” states would not be able to pass their largesse on to taxpayers elsewhere, and would have to justify them to their own voters.
10. Private or government retiree health programs would be required to become fully actuarially funded within 5-years, or face loss of tax-reduction in the case of private plans or be required to reduce of benefits in the case of government plans. This would include previously negotiated union plans.
The Democrats’ vision of the “perfect” is the enemy of the “good.” There is little public support for the Democrats’ overexpansive, excess cost, intrusion into our very lives. There is widespread support for the above reasonable improvements.
Definitely the political essay du jour: Mort Zuckerman's He Did Everything Wrong. A few quotes:
..they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.
It’s very sad. It’s really sad.
and
In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.
and
Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.
I hope Sissy popped a bottle or two of bubbly last night
Auster:
On January 19, 2010, in a Massachusetts election, the "Scott heard round the world" defeated, or at least put into disarray and confusion, the greatest leftist attempt in history to turn America into an unfree, statist society.
Rush's advice to the Dems:
We of good cheer should offer our friends on the other side of the aisle some good advice:
DON'T CHANGE A THING.
KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE PRESIDENT.
SUPPORT THE STRATEGY OF REID AND PELOSI.
Experiences are more rewarding than material objects. But isn't shopping "an experience"?
Roy G Biv, and what color is Vermont?
"Climate" bill tax is dead.
California: An Obituary
Insty: "PETER SUDERMAN: Everyone Hates Health Care Reform."
At City Journal: The Union Rules - What better to call the White House’s latest handout?
Michael Mann's climate stimulus package
Chart below via a piece at Carpe Diem:
Tuesday, January 19. 2010
A book. That was quick.
- h/t to a piece at Classical Values about the book.
Fun with Martha Coakley attack ads from Iowahawk via Doug Ross. I agree that the satire is marginally distinguishable from reality, but that's how reality can sometimes defeat the power of satire. A brief sample:
Narrator: "Did Scott Brown really murder his first wife in a fit of rage?"
PAN TO KNIFE LAYING IN A POOL OF BLOOD ON A KITCHEN FLOOR
Narrator: "Could you cast a vote for an accused murderer, child sex addict and batterer of the elderly?"
PAN TO SMILING COAKLEY IN COLOR
Narrator: "Say no to alleged criminal behavior: it's time for Martha Coakley."
Quite related: The Globe attacks Brown today: apparently Brown condones violence. Pathetic.
Re Brooks' The Pragmatic Leviathan today, I very much disagree with his view that the O admin is pragmatic and non-ideological, but I do think he is right about this:
The American people are not always right, but their basic sense of equilibrium is worthy of the profoundest respect. President Obama has shown himself to be a fine administrator, but he erred in trying to make himself the irreplaceable man in nearly ever sphere of public life. He erred in not sensing that even a pragmatic government could seem imperious and alarming.
If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life. Even in blue states like Massachusetts, voters want a government that is energetic but limited — a servant, not a leviathan.
From Insty on that topic:
We’ve controlled Haiti before, didn’t like it, and gave it back. Haiti’s best defense against invasion is that if you seize Haiti . . . then you have Haiti. I mean, if this were St. Bart’s or Bonaire you’d have something, maybe, but . . .
Related, The Englishman appropriately quotes from Kipling's 1899 The White Man's Burden - a poem variously viewed as ironic or sarcastic or literal - or an ambiguous mixture of all (which I suspect). One verse:
Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought.
Related: Extreme moral preening at SDA. An EMS guy I know left for Haiti on Monday. He is a Godly guy who has the skills to do something that matters.
|