The Poverty Pimp Paints Picture of Racial Tension and Division

I don't think there is a more divisive person on the planet fostering racial hate and tension than Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The Reverend was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace today in full poverty-pimp mode, stirring up hate and fanning the flames of Ferguson even as things begin to settle down.  You see, if things settle down and a community is left to heal its own wounds then people like Jackson become irrelevant and he can't stand that idea.

Jesse Jackson isn't alone in this race-baiting game; he is always joined by Al Sharpton and the media usually joins in as well.  Nobody wants to be irrelevant.

Consider this headline from The New York Times...

Timeline for a Body:  4 Hours in the Middle of a Ferguson Street

...as if nobody cared enough about Michael Brown to pick his body up out of the road.  It would seem obvious to most of us that this was a crime scene and anyone with an iota of sense knows that crime scenes must be documented, photographed, and investigated.  Yet there is the New York Times, fanning the flames against the police:

For about four hours, in the unrelenting summer sun, his body remained where he fell. 

The lengthy article ends with:

Mr. Brown’s body was checked into the morgue at 4:37 p.m., more than four and a half hours after he was shot.

You can just hear the writer tsk-tsking as he shakes his head in wonder.

I turned my television off a few weeks ago and seldom have it on anymore, yet one evening this week I tuned in to Fox to see what was going on while I ate supper.  Greta van Susteren was on and she was talking to some young reporter in hipster glasses and a plaid shirt.  The reporter, I forget his name, went on to air on-the-street interviews he had conducted with protesters in Ferguson.

One guy said that officer Wilson "should be arrested and convicted of first-degree murder!"

Ignorant.  Does he even know what the criteria for first-degree murder entails?  And the guy that said that made more sense than anybody else in the hip reporter's montage.  Sickening.

Why would a network air such garbage if not to fan the flames?  I was outraged, but even more so when the reporter cuts back to Greta who shakes her head and proclaims how we don't know the facts of this case yet but....let me just air this bullshit anyway because I don't want to be irrelevant and sensational television has always been my ticket to fame (see:  Natalie Holloway).

But back to the good Reverend Jesse Jackson today who was the guest of Chris Wallace along with Dr. Ben Carson on Fox News Sunday.  Dr. Carson, a man who is always calm and reasonable, offered solutions and sound advice on the situation while Jackson just did his usual smug shtick.

Consider this exchange between Wallace and Jackson:

WALLACE: Well, there has been a contention, the only point that I'd make, that he hit the officer in the face. And there are various unconfirmed reports about how severe that was. There is another report that he was charging at the officer. I mean I guess the question is, if we don't know, why are we declaring a verdict? 

JACKSON: Well, it seems to me that the police acted as judge, jury, and executioner. And even on the worst scenario, if he had hit him in the face, does that require at a distance, I was there where he'd been shot, about 20 feet, does that mean you shoot him six times, four times at point blank range? I don't think so.

One has to wonder how it is that Jackson has lived all these years without realizing that  it is at least possible that a person with adrenaline coursing through his system, as Brown must have been, can be almost superhuman.  It's at least possible that Wilson actually needed six shots to stop Michael Brown as medical experts have suggested based on the autopsy results and order of the shots.

The fact is that still nobody knows.

Yet Jackson has to incite hate against police in general by saying that they "acted as judge, jury, and executioner."

In response, Dr. Ben Carson:

You know, anger issues get in the way. And if you take race out of the issue altogether, and you take a group of young men and you raise them with no respect for authority, not learning to take on personal responsibility, having easy access to drugs and alcohol, they're very likely to end up as victims of violence or incarceration. It has nothing to do with race. So, yes, is there racism? Are there problems? Yes. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But we need to start looking at bigger issues here. We only have 320 million people in this country. We're on a global stage where we are competing with countries with over 1 billion people. We have to save all of our people. They are all precious. And we have to develop our resources appropriately.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

Jackson:

...it seems to me that when blacks kill whites, which is rare, it's swift justice. When whites kill blacks, it's rebellion (ph), when it's black on black, there's a shrug of the shoulders as a kind of (inaudible). Guns in, drugs in, jobs out. Racial disparity and alienation and mistrust are very combustible formulas, factors.

What?  I can't really decipher that in whole, but I do wonder why Jackson isn't in Chicago trying to stop all the killing there?

In the end, I think Victor Davis Hanson said it best this week:

What will save us are not more elite and self-serving “conversations” about racial difference, but a new classically liberal effort to consider race irrelevant in our shared American culture. Perhaps if we started treating people as unique individuals and not as hyphenated and anonymous groups, we could deal with these tragic shootings as individual tragedies rather than collective conspiracies.

It's time for people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to quit race-baiting and pitting us against each other and start working to solve problems.  If the two poverty-pimps need a tutorial on how to do that, I would recommend they watch this video which is full of people of all races who have chosen not to be a victim.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Slow News Day?

The New York Times has pulled all the journalistic stops today in its profile of Rick Perry's military career and Mitt Romney's barber.

Yes, it's true.  The Times dug up Rick Perry's old military and college buddies from 40 years ago and wrote a 1600 word profile on the Texas governor filled with such nuggets as this:

Uniforms were to be kept “neat and clean,” according to the student handbook, with “shoes and brass shined.” An infraction by one cadet meant punishment for the class.

The first year was so difficult, said Tony Best, a Perry classmate, “I saw guys come in and throw themselves on the floor, crying.”

Fascinating.

And Mitt Romney's barber?  We learn:

“He wants a look that is very controlled,” Mr. de Magistris said. “He is a very controlled man. The hair goes with the man.”

Mr. Romney’s is a restrained, classic look: short at the neck, neat on the sides and swept back off the forehead. “It is not something stylish,” Mr. de Magistris noted. “It is clean and conservative.”

No wonder the NYT never went after Obama's college transcripts or dug into his association with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers!  No wonder we knew so little about the candidate with such reporting chops as this on display.

Is it just a slow news day?

NYT: Black Friday Shoppers Forced To Go Out in the Dark of Night for Deals While Idle Rich Stay Home

If one is to believe the New York Times, all you Black Friday shoppers out there are miserable, poor underlings forced to leave the comfort of your Thanksgiving tables and stand in line at WalMart in the dark of night with a passel of kids in tow because you can't afford a babysitter.

Meanwhile, the idle rich never leave the comfort of their warm, comfy homes simply because they don't need to do all that:

Budget-minded shoppers will be racing for bargains at ever-earlier hours while the rich mostly will not be bothering to leave home.

Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Best Buy and Target will start their Black Friday sales earlier than ever — at 9 and 10 p.m. in some instances — with dirt-cheap offers intended to secure their customers’ limited dollars. A half a day later, on Friday morning, higher-end stores like Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom will open with only a sprinkling of special sales. 

Is The Times suggesting that retailers are sacrificing profits to help the lowly, unemployed shopper?

The low-end and midrange retailers are risking low margins as they cut prices to attract shoppers, while executives at luxury stores say that they are actually able to sell more at full price than in recent boom years. 

The Times misses the point that stores are opening earlier and earlier, not so much because people have fewer dollars and they're just feeling benevolent, but because they're trying to scoop each other.  

It's less of an altruistic move on the part of the big box store than a profit hugging move by savvy retailers.

And those damned rich people!  They can stay home and order their cashmere sweaters while tucked under their down comforters using their iPads and their American Express cards!

Meanwhile, many affluent shoppers will avoid the scene altogether, he said. “The women who are shopping the fourth floor at Saks are not Black Friday shoppers,” he said.

The Times also misses the point that a lot of those Black Friday shoppers actually enjoy the "sport" of it:

“Those in a more modest income situation are the people who are going to the Wal-Marts and the Best Buys and the Targets at 8, 9, 10, 11 p.m. with little kids in tow because they can’t afford a baby sitter,” said Craig Johnson, president of Customer Growth Partners, a retail consultant firm. “It’s a very unpleasant shopping experience, frankly, for a lot of people.” 

 I know a gal who gets together with her girlfriends and they comb the ads, plot their stops, and fan out.  They aren't miserable, poor shoppers having to suffer the indignities of WalMart at midnight while dragging kids behind them.  They just like the thrill of the chase.

The Times is simply adding fuel to the OWS fire.  The evil, idle rich get to sit home on Black Friday eating bon bons and tallying up their money market accounts while the unwashed masses sit in pup tents in front of a Best Buy in the drizzling rain.

Oh!  The unfairness of it all!


(Photo:  Henrietta Widsmith/The Shreveport Times)

(More at Memeorandum)

The "Republican Vacuum"

Do you think the Republican field is "a vacuum"?  The New York Times does.  They LOVE Huntsman.  Are you surprised?

Here's a lengthy profile of Obama's (former) man in China from the upcoming NYT magazine.

And how about that subtitle, eh?  "Someone has to win the nomination...".

Fishwrap of Record Targets the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana's Children

The New York Times has a piece today targeting Supriya Jindal's Foundation for Louisiana's Children.  The NYT finds it a "troubling phenomenon" that corporations would give donations to Mrs. Jindal's Foundation, especially since that corporation may or may not be doing business in Louisiana.

Mrs. Jindal's foundation places those high tech Promethean boards in schools - the majority in low income areas.  The Foundation's mission statement:

The Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children seeks to aid Louisiana’s children in all aspects of education, with special emphasis on mathematics and the sciences, giving teachers new tools that will foster an innovative and enriching learning environment.  Initially, the foundation is providing interactive whiteboard technology to schools across Louisiana. Studies show that such technology gives students the opportunity to learn by combining visual representations, sounds, and the ability to interact with the whiteboard and their fellow students. With varying styles of learning, these interactive whiteboards allow teachers to cater to all of our students.

To date, the Foundation has installed the Promethean Boards in some 50 schools across the state.  

If you buy into the NYTimes perspective, the primary reason companies such as Marathon Oil, Northrop Grumman, and Dow Chemical, among others, has given to the foundation is to encourage a favorable disposition from Governor Jindal on issues that benefit their individual companies.  Never mind that corporations regularly make it a practice to donate to charities.  Why not donate to a cause that would benefit the area in which you do business?

Louisiana political blogger and associate professor of political science at LSUS Jeff Sadow writes:

Of course, several pertinent pieces of information that provide context also get conveniently left out in this mini-Watergate saga. For one, the reason why these paragons of public integrity could find out if any donors had business with state government was because of, well … that fiend Bobby Jindal, who made the state put all that information online. And it’s very common for corporations to donate money because their bylaws have these “social responsibility” requirements that make them have to give away a certain portion of their revenues to charities, so why not in their own backyards where they have business? And if this all was so nefarious, being as the state gives out billions of dollars a year in state contracts (few that Jindal ever himself reviews personally), why aren’t those with similar, bigger, and far bigger amounts ponying up as well in response to Gov. Jindal’s virtual bite?

What is Mrs. Jindal's organization to do?  Refuse donations from anyone who does business in Louisiana?  That would rule out a lot of folks.  


There has been full and open disclosure about the donations and there has been no proof offered by the Times, other than allegations, that the corporations who donated received any special favors.  


It's the appearance of things that offends the Times:  "it creates the appearance he is being bribed," says Anne Rolfes, founding director of a Louisiana environmental group.  There is no evidence of this, or even evidence that Jindal is in anyway involved except for possibly the fact that he appears in a photo with his wife on the Foundation's donation page.

As "proof" of impropriety the Times offers AT&T who donated $250,000 because they wanted "to sell cable television services without having to negotiate with individual parishes."  Would Jindal have refused to sign off on that had the donation not been given?  No proof offered.

Marathon Oil's gift of $250,000 was supposedly to increase the amount of oil it can refine in Louisiana.  That's good for the economy and for Louisiana.  Don't we need that right now?  Would Jindal have refused approval without the donation?  Doubtful.

To the NYT, I say if you have proof that someone gained favor by donating to the Supriya Jindal Foundation, give it up.  If not, keep your insinuations and allegations in your back pocket until you can actually prove something.

Fish Wrap of Record is an Insult to Fish

In case there are any lingerers out there who still doubt any bias of The New York Times, today's editorial ought to seal the deal for you.  Entitled "Pomp, and Little Circumstance," the editors waste no time in blasting away at Republicans and calling the introduction of the move to repeal Obamacare, the introduction of new Rules, the swearing in itself, and the reading of the Constitution "unusual pomposity":

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely? 

I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question?

And it took only four paragraphs to get to the race card:

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person. 

Of course, requiring constitutional basis for legislation is now "vacuous."  

Now, sit down and hold on to your hats here, because this is especially rich after the kabuki theater of the Democrats we've endured the past few years:

The Republicans’ antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.

Bwahahahahaha!

Fish wrap, indeed!  I wouldn't insult my fish!

Enemy of the Country

All I can say about the WikiLeaks document drop is where is Julian Assange getting this information?

This just enrages me that this Julian Assange has not been captured, extradited to the United States and prosecuted, but maybe things don't work like that.  It's horrendous enough that he's publishing these documents, but I want to know where he's getting them.

Professor Jacobson wrote the best post I've seen on our government's seeming lack of response:

Have we lost our minds?  Wikileaks is about hurting us, bringing us down, damaging our relations with others, rendering us impotent.  This is not about open government policy, as if Wikileaks went a bit too far on its class project.

Julian Assange should have been indicted by now, and if the law did not allow more punitive measures in this circumstance, then the law should have been changed after the first document dump.  Assange is an enemy of our country and should be treated as such.

And as far as I'm concerned, the New York Times, is absolutely contemptible for publishing them.  Oh, I know that the foreign papers would publish them anyway, but ...If I'm in charge of the NYT?  Would. Not.Get.Published.


John at Powerline says:

Do the diplomatic cables "relate to the national defense"? Some of them certainly seem to. So a criminal prosecution of those involved in the leaks who are within federal jurisdiction (e.g., the New York Times) may be possible. Scott has studied these issues more closely than I have and may have more to say on the subject.  The Times explained its rationale for publishing the leaked cables here. The paper's most persuasive argument is that a number of foreign newspapers also have the documents and are sure to publish them, so the Times might as well join in.

(Insert unprintable expletive here).   As far as I'm concerned, this is an act of war. Prosecute Assange.  Find out the source of the documents leak and prosecute.  End this.

(More at Memeorandum)

Maureen Dowd's Irrational Rationality

Is Maureen Dowd attacking Christine O'Donnell in her latest column or Barack Obama?  It's hard to tell.  Both?  Probably.  She begins with one thesis and ends with another and I completely miss the rationale that ties them together.  Did she write two columns and a poltergeist in her computer blended them?  I don't know.  She tries to tie it together but it just doesn't work.

She begins clearly enough mocking Christine O'Donnell and her "Palin Mini-Me" look, (because that's what matters so much about politicians, right?  Their looks?) then picks up the witchcraft and Tolkein threads that have moved through the blogs this week. 

This is the line where Dowd attempts to ties her two threads together...

She’s also smart to think of politics in terms of passion and myth — two elements Barack Obama was able to summon during his campaign that are sorely missing from his presidency.

 ...because now she's mentioned Barack Obama and now she can spend the rest of her column about him without another word on O'Donnell (which isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

The last third of  Dowd's column deals with Obama's lack of passion and empathy.  She spends two thirds of her column mocking O'Donnell's passion yet then bemoans Obama's lack of it.  Which way do you want to go, Maureen?

This is actually the closing line which Dowd seems to believe ties it together:

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

Is she calling O'Donnell "insane" or just people with passion?

If this is best high dollar talent the New York Times can offer, there's hope for us all when it comes to making the big bucks.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Thumbs Down

The New York Times reports on the Glenn Beck rally this morning, suggesting it is "a thumb in the eye" of civil rights leaders that Beck's rally is on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech and will be held from the very place that speech was delivered.

Remarkably, the Times does NOT, however, see the Ground Zero Mosque project as a "thumb in the eye" of the families and survivors of 9/11.

Here's a thumbs down to the NYT.

Update:  Here's the live stream of the Beck rally.  LOTS of folks there!

New Depths of Scum Dragging for the NYT

I wish I had the time this morning to sit here and dissect and dismantle this NYT editorial regarding Eric Holder's testimony yesterday and his position on the KSM trial.  The entire editorial is full of misstatements, false information and erroneously drawn conclusions.  Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't spent a leisurely morning smacking down the Grey Lady.  But somebody will get to it.  I'd keep my eye on The Corner or Memeorandum - somebody is surely going to handle this one.

I can't resist a couple of quick notes, however. 

The editorial expresses nostalgia for the good old days of the Obama administration where it seemed like he was going to be "cleaning up the mess" George Bush made with detention policies.  You know how Obama likes to grab that mop and push everyone out of the way so he can clean up things. 

After the nostalgia, the editorial then blasts, among other things, "Republican fear mongering" as being the reason the KSM trip to NYC for trial failed.  There are lots of other reasons and somehow I don't call it "fear mongering" when you're pointing out verifiable truths.  For the Republicans to point out that bringing KSM to New York would be an expensive security logistical nightmare which is unnecessary given that we already have the means to try him at Guantanamo where he belongs is NOT "fear mongering."  It's called "truth", but that's something the NYT seems to have problems with.

This statement grabbed me:

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have a bill that would require the military detention and trial of anyone accused of any terrorism-related crime, including American citizens. That is the stuff of police states.

"The stuff of police states"?  Really?  Don't get me started.  As long as we're headed toward full blown socialism, NOW you're going to pick bones over "police states"?  We already have a "nanny state."  Why not?

Really, there's so much more, but I have to get ready for work.  I can't waste anymore time with the NYT this morning.

The New York Times and "The Uninsured"

The New York Times editorial this morning is on the uninsured in America. The Times is, of course, standing with Team Obama in the supposition that the masses of uninsured in America deserve ObamaCare. There are some problems, as I see it, in their analysis.

The Times breaks the uninsured out into groups, admitting that some of the groups overlap a bit:
The Working Poor, The Better Off, Young Adults, Already Eligible, The Underinsured, and Non-Citizens.

The number of uninsured is of great debate. Team Obama sticks with 47 or 48 million. Others put it much lower. And do you include illegals in the number? Why include people that choose to be uninsured? There are those who are eligible for Medicaid but never enroll for whatever reasons. The arguments on the numbers have all been made and remain inconclusive.

The Times frets that lack of insurance, for whatever reason, is harmful to the health of those uninsured.

In many cases, those that choose not to buy insurance even though they could pay for it, this is simply their choice - the gamble they've opted to take. Consider the young, entry level corporate worker making a nice salary whose employer offers kick-ass coverage through payroll deductible premiums. It's reasonably priced. But our young corporate hot shot has just purchased his first home in the suburbs and a new luxury automobile. He'd rather save that $300 a month, take his chances, and get that car paid off first.

We're really going to FORCE him to buy insurance? "Yes, we can!"

The Times looks at "The Working Poor." They cite Kaiser Foundation numbers of 30 million people who earn less than twice the poverty level, "or about $44,000 for a family of four." These people can't afford to buy private health insurance. NYT says "they surely deserve a helping hand." So why not insurance savings accounts? Or tax breaks?

The next group is "The Better Off" - those 9 million uninsured people who "come from households with incomes of $75,000 or more." The problem with them, according to NYT, is that many of them have "low-wage roommates or extended families living together." Hunh? Still, insurance savings plans and tax breaks could help them, too.

Within this group, NYT contends that in families that earn $88,000 for a family of four, they could probably buy insurance but choose not to, well they "ought to be compelled to join the system to lessen the possibility that a serious accident or illness might turn them into charity cases and to help subsidize the coverage of poorer and sicker Americans."

"Ought to be compelled"? Again, we're going to FORCE an American to buy insurance? To buy a commodity he doesn't necessarily want?

Their next group is the "Young Adults" which might also include our young corporate worker I mentioned above. NYT suggests that these folks "wold be helped by reform bills that would provide subsidized coverage for the poor and an exchange" where they could shop for cheaper plans.

Yes, cheaper plans like that old public option. That's the same one that's going to put their corporate plan out of business because they can't compete with the government plan. That's the one that is going to have to ration care to make ends meet. That one.

Their next group is the "Already Eligible" - mostly children who are eligible under SCHIP or Medicaid but don't enroll "because they do not know they are eligible or are intimidated by the application process."

Stop. We're going to overhaul the entire American health care system as it now exists because these people don't know they can get Medicaid or are scared to fill out the forms? Is this like throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Wouldn't it be ever so much easier to just help them get signed up and move on?

Finally we have "The Underinsured" who had policies with inadequate coverage or high deductibles, and we have "Non-Citizens." The Times says "none of the pending bills would cover" illegals, or non-citizens. Well, maybe and maybe not. Remember, Representative Dean Heller tried to introduce a measure that would ensure immigration status, but it was voted down. We'll have no way of knowing if illegals are covered or not.

All in all, the NYT assessment remains weak to me. The better answer, the more cost-effective answer, and the one that would help the most Americans would be to set up insurance savings plans, set up some tax incentives for purchasing plans, and work on tort reform. Fear of a malpractice suit drives more unnecessary tests and jacks up the cost of medical care far more than anything else in the medical field. There's no real way to work on health care reform without tort reform. That's like failing to turn on the light when you walk into a dark room.

It's ignoring the obvious.

(More at Memeorandum)

Obama Pens an Op Ed on ... ObamaCare

The New York Times is running an OpEd by Pathological-Liar-In-Chief today entitled "Why We Need Heath Care Reform." Let's take at look at it, shall we?

Sentence number two: "And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices." Now, who is he talking about? The loudest voices? Are those the voices of dissent? Of course they are! Has much of the media attention been focused on THEM, as he says, or on the town halls themselves and the legislators being held accountable? I'd say the latter.

In paragraph two he recounts the stories of some unfortunate folks who don't have insurance. In paragraph three he quotes the already proven inaccurate, and therefore intentionally deceptive, figure of 46 million people that are uninsured.

Right there, in paragraph three, he lied to me. So he's lost me right there. But, I'll forge ahead in the interest of investigation.

His next line? "There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American." Another lie. What he's proposing will NOT provide more stability and security to ME. I'm going to be worried every single day about losing the coverage I already have. When I DO lose it, I'm going to be worried about finding another private carrier to cover me. When I can't, and I have to go to one of the government options, I'm going to be worried about rationing and inferior care. That's not what I call "more stability and security."

Next line in question: "...you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family." Since there are no plans written just yet, much less any policies, I'm not sure how he knows this. What tests will be covered under ObamaCare? Will abortion be covered? How can he possibly guarantee that the care will be "high-quality" when there is no plan? Many experts suggest that care will likely be inferior as rationing will have to occur in order to keep costs down. So this is another lie.

Then he says, "Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits."

Okay. A couple of points here. One, of course, goes back to the rationing arguement. How else can he "cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency" without it? He's going to have to cut Medicare and Medicaid to do that. He's going to have to ration tests. And he's going to be sure that the big, bad insurance companies don't "improve their profits." But not one single word about tort reform or trial lawyers improving THEIR profits. Nada.

His next tangent is on the big, bad insurance companies who don't cover pre-existing conditions or who charge higher premiums if they do actually cover you. That's the free market, capitalist system. Which is, of course, his target.

And, oh my, look at THIS whopper; I'll have to address this one in parts: "If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies."

One: In the House bill there is a section that specifically says that life sustaining treatment will be "guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association."

I'd suggest that statement indicates a very real possibility that this bill is "putting the government in charge" of my insurance. Or at least my care, and that's what people are worried about.

Two: He continues to say "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
Intentionally misleading. You can't keep it when they pack their toys and go home because they can no longer compete with a government run plan. He knows this. He is for a single payer system. He said so. He's intentionally deceiving you here.

Three: "You will not be waiting in any lines." Really? I wait in the doctor's office for a long time sometimes now. He's going to do away with that? No, seriously, how can he know this? There is no plan. Is he trying to say there will be no rationing? If so, that's a lie. There MUST be to pay for this.

He begins to close his Op Ed with some finger shaking at the opposition: "We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed."

I shake my finger back at him. Yes, we disagree, but the thousands of people at these town halls across America DO believe these issues are real. It is not a "wild misrepresentation" to know that I will lose my current coverage or that care will be rationed. That the medications I need may not be covered under the government plan.

The end of life counseling is not a "wild misrepresentation" either. It's in the House bill, which is the only one I've read so far. And whether it's compulsory or not, which is still a matter of debate, it's no place for the government. Period.

Then he says, "Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable..." but nothing about tort reform. Again.

He says, "The AARP supports this policy..." but didn't AARP say this week that they haven't endorsed any plan? Let's look at the whole context of that quote: "And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year." Is he saying AARP just supports lower drug costs? But the way he links that with "reform must happen this year" talking about ObamaCare in general, he makes it sound like AARP supports ObamaCare. Deceptive. Sneaky. Misleading.

Oh my. Look at this one: "In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day."

Gotta love this. He warns against fear-mongering then he fear-mongers. I haven't seen that statistic that 14,000 Americans lose their insurance every day, but assuming it's true, it's nothing compared to the numbers that will lose their current coverage under his plan.

He criticized the insurance company profits five times in that Op Ed. He criticized insurance comapnies in general much more.

In the end, according to the polls, 54% of Americans currently favor doing nothing as opposed to enacting ObamaCare. I think that's lowballing, but it's still a majority.

Back up and regroup, Barry. Take a vacation.

Related posts:
Obama Sanders Doctors Once Again
Will Obamacare Cover Illegals?
"This Isn't About Me!"
Lack of Empathy?
Obama Now Worried About Saddling Our Children With Debt?
Obamacare Team Visits Reserve, LA.
"You WILL Lose Your Current Insurance"
Obamacare for Illegals
No More Private Insurance with Obamacare
Starting to Look at the Obamacare Bill
John Boehner Says the Republicans Have a Better Plan
"Say Hello to My Little Friend!"
Take a Look at Obamacare
Going Galt Over Obamacare
Congressman Fleming: What's Good for the Goose.

(More at Memeorandum)

The Gitmo Files

The New York Times database on the Gitmo detainees.....

The First Photo...

So here it is: the first photos of the coffin of an American soldier returned to Dover Air Force Base. This is an issue that has raged since the ban on such photos in 1991. The NYT reports that this is "Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers of Hopewell, Va.... Sergeant Myers, 30, was killed by an improvised explosive device near Helmand Province in Afghanistan on April 4, according to the Defense Department."

The new policy states that families must give permission for the photos which is an improvement over full media access, or non-access, to such occurrences. I can see both sides of the debate on this issue: one side cites this as a private moment and emotional moment for the family. The other side sees it as a free speech issue. As is often the case, it is all more complex than that.

That the family must consent to the photographs is an important point. The bodies in the returning coffins are not publicly identified so pressure is removed from the families to actually be there when they arrive. If the soldier has been identified publicly it is because the family has given consent, as in this case.

The problem lies primarily in the fact that the media is apt to use these photographs as a propaganda tool against the war and against our soldiers currently serving. The NYT has the quotes, both pro and con, from a few military families on the issue here.

The comments on the NYT post (linked above) seem to be favorable to the new photo policy, even while there are still some nutroots out there stilll blaming George Bush for it all.

It seems to me that the Pentagon has covered the bases as best they can on this issue. By turning the decision over to the families seems to be the right call, however, one must still be cautious of media manipulation. There is no doubt that these photographs can be used as a propaganda tool and that would be a total disservice to all; I am reminded of Cindy Sheehan; while I in no way want to minimize her loss, I also felt that she diminished the accomplishments and the honor of service of her son by her actions by turning him into a tool for the anti-war left.

The bottom line is that an image on its own simply reminds us of the sacrifice of our soldiers. It should not be used as a political statement either for or against the war.

(Photo credit: Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times)

Collins Admires Obama's "Cool"

We had a great weekend; we went to Dallas to visit my daughter and to take The Teenager to a Mavs/Suns game. It was his first NBA game and he's a huge Steve Nash fan. The weather was great and we went out to eat and a couple of wonderful restaurants. My daughter and her husband were lovely and gracious hosts and had we really didn't want to leave. And the good news is that I will be back in June to GO SEE ERIC CLAPTON! (I'm sorry, I'll quit screaming about it sometime soon.)

At any rate, I fell out of the news loop for 36 hours or so and in today's world, well, almost anything can happen. In the car on the way over (I wasn't driving) I read the Gail Collins Op-Ed in the NYTimes entitled "Barack's Continental Coolness" and rather wish I hadn't. It is certainly another contender for Malkin's Drool Bucket Award, getting close to, but not quite achieving the level of last month's Jack Cafferty Drool Bucket Award.

Collins actually lost me in her second sentence when she said, "...let's agree that the Obamas wowed them in Europe." Let's not. I'm not convinced that they were all "wowed" and Collins offers no evidence of this, so let's agree to disagree on that one, Ms. Collins, and move on.

She then continues with the Bush-Bashing -- will it EVER stop? -- when she says "...the previous administration set the bar so low that Barack was able to get hysterical applause just by telling a crowd of students that American's don't believe in torturing people." She is referring to the town-hall style meeting Friday in Strasbourg which was packed with a favorable, hand-picked audience by the Atlantic Youth Council.

And of course, our European friends who are so anxious for us to close Gitmo have volunteered to take how many of those enemy combatants? I lost count at two.

Collins wrote, "Back home, we're just grateful that we don't have to sit on the edge of our collective seats wondering how the president wil embarrass us next." This was only the fourth sentence of the article and Collins managed to Bash-Bush twice so far. But seriously, was Collins not embarrased at all by Obama's deep bow to the Saudi king? Or his tepid response to the North Korean missile launch? She wasn't embarassed by him giving Queen Elizabeth an iPod loaded with his own speeches and a mix of show tunes? She wasn't embarrased when he got off track on the Telepromter and was literally speechless? I was.

No, Collins was impressed by his "cool." And by the fact that "Obama was the most popular guy in the gang." She points out that he knows the difference between Australia and Austria -- the only problem with that is that he didn't know Austrian isn't a language.

Collins then continues to gush over Michelle and Carla going "outfit-to-outfit" and how they both had bows on their coats. To her credit, Collins admits the fashion fuss is a bit much, but notes that it did take our minds off losing our jobs and our terrible economic situation for a little while. Thank goodness for that.

After all the Bush-Bashing and Obamagasms, Collins finally gets around to bashing Republicans in general by taking note of Friday night's congressional action on the budget resolution. She disparages the estate tax agreement as a move that would "increase the deficit while stimulating the economy approximately as much as eliminating a sales tax on square potato chips."

Note to Ms. Collins: Did you read the Porkulus bill? Or the Omnibus bill? No? I didn't think so. Neither did Congress, but neither of those do much economic stimulating either.

So if this is the kind of news I missed by being out of the loop for 36 hours, I might plan another road trip sooner than I thought. My next "road trip" is to the garbage can where I will put Ms. Collins latest column.

The Lost Generation?

The New York Times is afraid that the Republican party is about to lose a generation. They cite a series of surveys through the years that show a decline in Republican voters in general and a sharp decline in young Republican voters in recent years.

I am always suspect of such surveys. Especially coming from the New York Times.

However, this reminded me of the article Meghan McCain did for The Daily Beast about how Republicans are not good with technology. "The Republican party isn't exactly Internet savvy," she said. Meghan blogged her father's campaign throughout the election.

Robert Stacy McCain seeks to disprove the NYTimes theory today with a series of photographs of young up and comers at CPAC. There are plenty of other young Republicans as well - Mary Katharine Ham for one. Go check out his photos of the faces of the future!

I disagree with the survey in general but don't disagree with the fact that Republicans should amp up the technology, and I think we are. There is a huge following on Twitter with the TCOT group - conservatives are making their presence known. One admirable thing about the Obama campaign was their web presence. Does this go hand in hand with the youth thing that NYTimes is referring to? Probably to a certain degree.

I don't think The Times should fret about us getting lost or dying out. We're here!

A Nuclear Iran

The New York Times article this morning about the Iranian nuclear program is just blowing my mind.

The first thing that comes to mind is why publish things for all the world to see (like the Soviets) that involve covert U.S. operations against Iran? But then I see that the information from the article comes from a book to be published on Tuesday by the author David E. Sanger, who is also Chief Washington Correspondent for the Times. Compromising U.S. security for self-promotion? Typical.

The gist of the article is that Israel, in early 2008, sent a shopping list to the U.S. for bunker-busters, refueling equipment, and permission to fly over Iraq. Not hard to figure that one out. The U.S. deflected the first two requests but said "hell no!" to the third.

Israel had given up hope, it seems, that Bush would handle the Iranian nuclear problem; the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report in late 2007 which said Iran had suspended development of nukes in 2003 didn't convince anyone. Bush didn't believe it and neither did Israel. So Israel decided to take things into their own hands. After some exercise missions, ultimately they decided that without American help they could not reach their targets or objectives.

Despite the continuing covert operations, one senior intelligence official says that Iran is now so close to achieving weapons capacity that it cannot be stopped.

The exit question here is now what does Obama do? He inherits this conundrum. During the campaign he said that he wanted to diplomatically engage Iran, but do you still do that when they are a nuclear power? That won't sit real well with Israel. Does Obama continue the covert operations against Iran (such as they are now that the Times has exposed the plan)?

Obama's decision to keep Robert Gates may give us a clue; Gates has said that we should not be considering a strike on Iranian facilities at this time. Surely the expertise Gates carries in this operation factored into Obama's decision to keep him on - a decision that befuddled many democrats.

There is no question that this is a tough one. Of course, Iran will say we're making it all up. But I guarantee that the Soviets are watching to see what we do.

Flash! Gas Prices Too Low!!!

From an editorial in today's New York Times which is advocating a gasoline tax for the purpose of raising gasoline prices:

"A bitter recession is not the most opportune time to ratchet up the price of energy. But if the Obama administration is to meet its twin objectives of reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases, it needs to start thinking now about mechanisms to curb the nation’s demand for energy when the economy emerges from recession in the future."

I'm no economist by any means - I can barely balance my checkbook, but this is such an asinine position to me. We're in extremely volatile economic times right now, and the New York Times is advocating a gas tax to keep gas prices higher.

Americans love their cars; we love the 1964 Mustang and we love big luxurious Cadillacs and we love our SUVs. We love our big 8-cylinder engines! We even love to buy American (usually). Does anybody seriously think that a freaking Prius LOOKS good? Could you imagine Tony Soprano in a Prius?? Try packing the family of four into a Prius and driving to grandma's house fourteen hours away. It's not going to happen.

The problem with the American auto industry, as most real people know, is the unions. The union costs force auto costs up higher than they should be; it's perfectly possible to get a well made, good car without the exorbinate costs. As an example, Steve bought a Hyundai SUV last year and it's a great car! It's solid and better made than some of the American counterparts we looked at and test drove.

The position of the Obama team has been that we need to lower our dependence on foreign oil. That's all well and good - let's drill in ANWAR then. Let's produce our own oil. Build refineries.

I may be over thinking this, but it seems that the additional objective here, of lowering greenhouse emissions, is the real focus of the New York Times editorial. Tax gasoline to make the price higher so people who don't want to pay $4 a gallon will go buy an ugly Prius (or some other toy-car) which will supposedly lower greenhouse gas emissions and solve global warming (which many scientists don't believe exists.)

It is a proven fact that lowering taxes in a recession is the right course of action. The Obama team needs to look at lowering corporate taxes rather than raising gasoline taxes. With the New York Times own dismal financial position right now, they are in no real position to be giving economic advice to the incoming administration.