Well here we are, the last day of 2007. I suppose I should write something profound, but I never feel all that profound this time of year. While others are busy making resolutions, I find that I have never been the resolution type of guy. Actually, I don’t think that that is 100% true, I think it’s more that I don’t like NEW YEARS resolutions. Why? Frankly, when you decided it’s time to do something – whether it’s lose weight, save money, quit smoking, or whatever, just do it. Why wait until an arbitrary date. Frankly if I decide on December 4th that you’re going to quit smoking on January 1st, that means you’ll probably smoke more for the rest of December, making it that much harder to quit on the first.
I can’t say I’m not sad to see 2007 go. It wasn’t the best year on a lot of levels, and I have a lot of hope for 2008. 2007 started off with the deaths of my Aunt and Cousin in January, and while there have been no more deaths this year, there have still been challenges. Outside of the loss of loved ones, I think the biggest disappointment for me is the fact that as I write this year-end remembrance, I am writing from California rather than Iowa. Cindy and I put our house on the Market in March and we were hoping to be in Des Moines by the time Madison started school in the fall, but you all know what the housing market is like right now, and it looks like it may be another couple of years before we get back to the Midwest. For twenty-plus years I’ve been pressuring Cindy to move the family back to Iowa, and now that she is as excited as I am about that idea, the bottom falls out of the housing market.
Not that everything went wrong in 2007. Blake graduated from high school and is now in his first year of college, and he was recently promoted to a management position at his job. Madison started Middle School this year, and she is doing very well in school. Cindy started a new job at a high-end quilting shop and she is really enjoying that. Cindy owned and operated a fabric store for more than 15 years, and now she is getting to do all that she loves without the burden of being the boss. As for myself, I would say the highlight of the last year was first reconnecting with a couple of old high school and college friends that I haven’t seen in over 20 years, and secondly starting this blog. Which of course means that I am truly grateful for you, dear reader. Oh, I’d still probably write the damn thing even without any readers, but it’s nice to have a few of you out there – and hopefully a few more in 2008.
Speaking of 2008, I am looking forward to what the next year will bring. As something of a political junkie, I am thrilled that the caucus/primary season is mere days away, and I look forward to our electing a new president in 2008. Frequent readers to this site know that I am fighting hard to keep that from being a Clinton presidency, but it looks like it’s going to be a tight race, a tighter race than we have seen in many, many years.
I guess I do have a New Years resolution after all. Actually, I guess this would be a 2009 resolution, but I’ll throw it out there now: In the event that either Hillary or John Edwards (I fear them both) is elected president, I pledge to respect that fact that this man or woman A) is president, and B) is MY president. That means while I may be critical of some of their actions, I will do my best to not show petty personal criticisms, and even though these individuals represent very little that I stand for, I will give them my prayers and hope that their presidency is a successful one.
Look, I’m no fan of George Bush, and as a conservative I have been very disappointed in his presidency. However, I have been more disappointed in my fellow Americans who have ripped this man at every opportunity, and totally fail to see anything successful coming out of his eight years. Sure, those successes didn’t come as fast or often that we would have liked, but if you listen to a “typical” voice from the left, Bush has an I.Q. below 50, and his administration has done nothing of any positive value. Nearly every liberal I know takes every opportunity to call Bush every name in the book, while at the same time accusing him of every crime imaginable, but of course with zero solid evidence.
Look, one of the things I am looking for most in the coming year is the end of the Bush era – and hopefully the end of the “Bush-Clinton” Era, an era that began before my college student son was even born. But if that era does not end, I will not follow the path that so many on the left have gone down (and yes, a lot of people on the right went down that path during Bill Clinton’s years in office). I respect the office of the President of the United States of America, and the occupant of that office deserves my respect. Not necessarily will I agree with their beliefs, but I will not humiliate myself with grade-school name calling. Over the last several years the rhetoric from the left has gone from being annoying, to boring, to laughable. Many on this side – including many formerly distinguished lawmakers – have gone from critical opponents to cartoon figures, using words like “Neo-con” to such a degree that they have totally taken away any meaning that word had by applying it to anyone with a viewpoint different from their own.
In 2008, and more importantly in 2009 and beyond, I resolve to not be that person.
Happy New Years Everyone!!!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Useful Idiots Will Sell Our Enemies Rope To Hang Us.
Greetings from Dublin, California. As you know, the family is spending a long weekend with friends in The San Francisco Bay area, and we had a wonderful time today at the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, followed by a lovely Thai meal. The photo at the right is Madison, weightless in space (kinda).I want to share with you today a commentary from Michael K. Hurder writing in The Valley Times, an East Bay newspaper. Those of you familiar with San Francisco know what a hotbed of liberalism this area is, so to find an article such as this in a Bay Area newspaper is refreshing to say the least.
Lenin was right! Several years back the president and the vast majority of the U.S. political circle heeded the U.S. (ahem) intelligence community’s assessment that Saddam Hussein was a really bad man. They all agreed that Saddam was a threat to the world and the U.S. directly, that he had WMD, possibly even nukes and the absolute chutzpah to use them. All but Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oaklan, decided to oust the bad man…. at least verbally.
Only then did the Democrats find out that there existed a man in the White House who would do just that. (Arianna Huffington ststaed that the Dems would never have gone to war over that intel in spite of all the huffing and puffing they did prior to the invasion. My guess is they thought President Bush was as gutless as they).
Some years down the road it turns out the intel was “less than accurate.” The same folks who pretty much demanded the president do what he did immediatelty attempted to crucify him. It didn’t work.
After all, we were attacked and our security was still at risk. He was re-elected.
Fast forward to today. The U.S. (ahem) intelligence community has now tendered a report stating that Iran is not a near-term nuclear threat. The president, having been scorched from relying on such intel sources before, doesn’t buy it.
The press and the Democratic Party do buy it and run with it. The president is now being attacked for not heeding what could be another dose of “less than accurate” intelligence.
Some folks might even call it speculation.
No matter. If it goes against president Bush it must be good.
Forget that Iran is led by vicious, blood-thirsty theocratic dictators, who have openly stated that we in the west must die; according to sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Harry Reid, it’s Bush who is the enemy of the U.S. (Does either of them realize that Bush is not running in ’08?).
In the meantime, Joe Liberal moves to the press driven beat of the socialist drum, ignores another threat and blames Bush on the editorial page while slurping down another latte.
Lenin was absolutely correct. The useful idiots among us will indeed sell our enemies the rope with which they will hang us.
Lenin was right! Several years back the president and the vast majority of the U.S. political circle heeded the U.S. (ahem) intelligence community’s assessment that Saddam Hussein was a really bad man. They all agreed that Saddam was a threat to the world and the U.S. directly, that he had WMD, possibly even nukes and the absolute chutzpah to use them. All but Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oaklan, decided to oust the bad man…. at least verbally.
Only then did the Democrats find out that there existed a man in the White House who would do just that. (Arianna Huffington ststaed that the Dems would never have gone to war over that intel in spite of all the huffing and puffing they did prior to the invasion. My guess is they thought President Bush was as gutless as they).
Some years down the road it turns out the intel was “less than accurate.” The same folks who pretty much demanded the president do what he did immediatelty attempted to crucify him. It didn’t work.
After all, we were attacked and our security was still at risk. He was re-elected.
Fast forward to today. The U.S. (ahem) intelligence community has now tendered a report stating that Iran is not a near-term nuclear threat. The president, having been scorched from relying on such intel sources before, doesn’t buy it.
The press and the Democratic Party do buy it and run with it. The president is now being attacked for not heeding what could be another dose of “less than accurate” intelligence.
Some folks might even call it speculation.
No matter. If it goes against president Bush it must be good.
Forget that Iran is led by vicious, blood-thirsty theocratic dictators, who have openly stated that we in the west must die; according to sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Harry Reid, it’s Bush who is the enemy of the U.S. (Does either of them realize that Bush is not running in ’08?).
In the meantime, Joe Liberal moves to the press driven beat of the socialist drum, ignores another threat and blames Bush on the editorial page while slurping down another latte.
Lenin was absolutely correct. The useful idiots among us will indeed sell our enemies the rope with which they will hang us.
I'll see you tomorrow Lost Iowan readers, from the warmth and comfort of home. And thank you to Alan and Tamera and the kids for being such wonderful hosts this weekend.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
In Her Own Words......
Okay, I promised to lay off of the "Get Hillary" stuff this weekend, but as you know me and the family are on vacation this weekend, and I'm just too busy to type, so we're going to give you one more previously prepared Hillary blog, and today we’re going to let Hillary speak for herself. Warning: Some of Hillary’s language can be “Salty”.
"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." - Hillary Clinton in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997
"If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle”
"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular."(Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a 'great' commander in chief her husband was)
"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter."( Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the "religion of peace")
"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."(Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)
"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)
"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"(Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)
"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco)
"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"(Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)
"A right-wing network was after his presidency...including perverting the Constitution."(To
Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)
"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"(Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)
"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."(Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)
"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)
"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"(Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)
"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (Hillary in 1996)
"I can't worry about every under capatilized business" (Testifing before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care)
"God bless the America we are trying to create."
"We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word."
“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” (on Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions)
“If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” (on Bill Clinton)
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
"I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator." (on her presidential ambitions)
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian." - Hillary Clinton in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1997
"If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle”
"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular."(Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a 'great' commander in chief her husband was)
"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter."( Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the "religion of peace")
"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."(Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)
"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)
"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"(Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)
"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco)
"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"(Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)
"A right-wing network was after his presidency...including perverting the Constitution."(To
Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)
"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"(Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)
"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."(Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)
"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)
"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"(Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)
"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (Hillary in 1996)
"I can't worry about every under capatilized business" (Testifing before congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care)
"God bless the America we are trying to create."
"We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word."
“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” (on Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions)
“If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” (on Bill Clinton)
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
"I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator." (on her presidential ambitions)
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
Friday, December 28, 2007
One Week Until The Iowa Caucuses (and a movie review)
We are once again going to talk about Hillary, and then I think we might take a couple of days off of politics before hitting them again as the Caucuses are upon us. Cindy and I are taking the kids up to Dublin, California near San Francisco for the weekend, and I'm going to try to have something non-Hillary to discuss tomorrow, but just in case I don't have time, I already have my next Hillary blog ready to go.
But before we discuss Hillary today, I want to give a quick movie review. Not so much a review as a reaction. Last night the missus and I went to see Charlie Wilson’s War. What I expected, considering that the film was written by Aaron Sorkin, was a liberal film, and an entertaining one, and I got both.
Sorkin is probably best known as the creator of The West Wing, and he also created what I consider to be the greatest show ever on television: Sports Night. The writing is always the real star of a Sorkin project. While Sorkin definitely has a liberal agenda in all of his projects, you can almost forgive it due to the sterling writing. As far as Charlie Wilson’s War is concerned, I just have two things to say about it. Number One, it is a highly entertaining movie – go see it. Secondly, for those of you who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, you MUST see this movie. I don’t think I’m giving anything away by sharing with you the quote from Charlie himself that closes out the film: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. Then we f@*%ed up the endgame."
And those same liberals calling for a quick withdrawal from Iraq are going to F-up that endgame as well. Some may see Charlie Wilson as the hero who defeated the Soviets. Others will see him (or more precisely, the government that refused to finish the job (sound familiar?)) as the one who gave the Taliban their start. I think this film does a fine job of showing how Liberal good intentions can lead to disastourus consequences. Which is a perfect segue into todays Hillary discussion:
Today we’re going to discuss Hillary and Education Reform. Bill Clinton was elected Gov
ernor in 1978, and during his first term Hillary began her career at The Rose Law Firm. Clinton lost his bid for reelection in 1980, but regained the Governors Mansion in 1982. During his second term, Hillary decided that she needed to move into the public policy arena, and she decided education would be the arena she moved into. Actually, it wasn’t so much that SHE decided on education, but one of the first things that greeted Gov. Clinton was a State Supreme Court decision declaring the states entire education-financing system unconstitutional. Of course Hillary fails to mention the court order as a motivation in her autobiography.
Anyhow, Bill was left with a choice: Cut aid to wealthy neighborhoods, or raise taxes to fund the poor ones. Since Bill lost reelection after his first term due to a tax increase, he was understandably gun shy. However, polling found out that the people of Arkansas would accept a full one cent increase in the state sales tax IF it truly led to improved education. At the time Arkansas ranked 49 out of 50 states, behind only Mississippi.
So Hillary led an education reform in Arkansas. Her reform was based on several ideals: Raising both test performance AND teacher pay, giving schools “report cards” based on student performance, getting additional help to the schools that did not meet standards and, if they continued to not meets standards, the school would be decertified and closed. In other words, Hillary implemented “No Child Left Behind” before Bush, almost word for word.
The benchmark of her program was to test all teachers, to offer training to those on the fence, and to get rid of the worst of the worst. After all, this is a state that had a teacher teaching her students about the horrific events of World War Eleven – That is how she read World War II.
When the teacher scores came in, Bill and Hillary were shocked. The teachers of Arkansas had failed miserably, and if the Clintons stuck to their guns – and their plan – they would have to fire greater than 50 percent of the teachers. And minority teachers took an even bigger hit. So true to form, the Clintons did what they do best – they took a poll. They polled the citizens of Arkansas to see what percentage of the teachers they would feel comfortable losing. Of course the REAL answer should have been any that didn’t meet the minimum standards. Their answer was 10%.
So true to form, the Clintons fired the bottom 10%. Hey, give them credit for at least doing that, but once again we have an example of Hillary (and Bill) “drawing a line in the sand”, and then changing the line based on a poll. The good news is thanks to Bill and Hillary’s “No Hillbilly Left Behind” strategy, Arkansas soared from 49th in the nation to 48th in only eight years.
The better news is that under eleven years of Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas now ranks 32nd in the Nation.And this is the women that so many people want to run our country.
I just don’t get it.
But before we discuss Hillary today, I want to give a quick movie review. Not so much a review as a reaction. Last night the missus and I went to see Charlie Wilson’s War. What I expected, considering that the film was written by Aaron Sorkin, was a liberal film, and an entertaining one, and I got both.
Sorkin is probably best known as the creator of The West Wing, and he also created what I consider to be the greatest show ever on television: Sports Night. The writing is always the real star of a Sorkin project. While Sorkin definitely has a liberal agenda in all of his projects, you can almost forgive it due to the sterling writing. As far as Charlie Wilson’s War is concerned, I just have two things to say about it. Number One, it is a highly entertaining movie – go see it. Secondly, for those of you who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, you MUST see this movie. I don’t think I’m giving anything away by sharing with you the quote from Charlie himself that closes out the film: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. Then we f@*%ed up the endgame."
And those same liberals calling for a quick withdrawal from Iraq are going to F-up that endgame as well. Some may see Charlie Wilson as the hero who defeated the Soviets. Others will see him (or more precisely, the government that refused to finish the job (sound familiar?)) as the one who gave the Taliban their start. I think this film does a fine job of showing how Liberal good intentions can lead to disastourus consequences. Which is a perfect segue into todays Hillary discussion:
Today we’re going to discuss Hillary and Education Reform. Bill Clinton was elected Gov
ernor in 1978, and during his first term Hillary began her career at The Rose Law Firm. Clinton lost his bid for reelection in 1980, but regained the Governors Mansion in 1982. During his second term, Hillary decided that she needed to move into the public policy arena, and she decided education would be the arena she moved into. Actually, it wasn’t so much that SHE decided on education, but one of the first things that greeted Gov. Clinton was a State Supreme Court decision declaring the states entire education-financing system unconstitutional. Of course Hillary fails to mention the court order as a motivation in her autobiography.Anyhow, Bill was left with a choice: Cut aid to wealthy neighborhoods, or raise taxes to fund the poor ones. Since Bill lost reelection after his first term due to a tax increase, he was understandably gun shy. However, polling found out that the people of Arkansas would accept a full one cent increase in the state sales tax IF it truly led to improved education. At the time Arkansas ranked 49 out of 50 states, behind only Mississippi.
So Hillary led an education reform in Arkansas. Her reform was based on several ideals: Raising both test performance AND teacher pay, giving schools “report cards” based on student performance, getting additional help to the schools that did not meet standards and, if they continued to not meets standards, the school would be decertified and closed. In other words, Hillary implemented “No Child Left Behind” before Bush, almost word for word.
The benchmark of her program was to test all teachers, to offer training to those on the fence, and to get rid of the worst of the worst. After all, this is a state that had a teacher teaching her students about the horrific events of World War Eleven – That is how she read World War II.
When the teacher scores came in, Bill and Hillary were shocked. The teachers of Arkansas had failed miserably, and if the Clintons stuck to their guns – and their plan – they would have to fire greater than 50 percent of the teachers. And minority teachers took an even bigger hit. So true to form, the Clintons did what they do best – they took a poll. They polled the citizens of Arkansas to see what percentage of the teachers they would feel comfortable losing. Of course the REAL answer should have been any that didn’t meet the minimum standards. Their answer was 10%.
So true to form, the Clintons fired the bottom 10%. Hey, give them credit for at least doing that, but once again we have an example of Hillary (and Bill) “drawing a line in the sand”, and then changing the line based on a poll. The good news is thanks to Bill and Hillary’s “No Hillbilly Left Behind” strategy, Arkansas soared from 49th in the nation to 48th in only eight years.
The better news is that under eleven years of Republican Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas now ranks 32nd in the Nation.And this is the women that so many people want to run our country.
I just don’t get it.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Hillary The Duck
Greeting Lost Iowan Diary readers. I hope that everyone had a safe and Merry Christmas, but with one week to go to the Iowa Caucuses, it’s time to get back to business.
Prior to taking a couple day break for Christmas, we were discussing Hillary Clinton and her run for the White House. Now many of you may believe that my motivation for stopping Mrs. Clinton from becoming our Commander in Chief stems from the fact that I am a conservative, and it is my “duty” to stop a Democrat from becoming President. While it is true that I am a conservative, what I am NOT is a Republican, rather I am a Libertarian. So that means I am supporting the Libertarian candidate, right? Well, while Libertarianism is a growing movement in the American political scene, at the same time it is also a minor player in national elections. So therefore, my goal is to support the candidate that best embodies the Libertarian ideals AND has a chance at winning. In 2004, I did vote Libertarian for president, because I was (and remain) disappointed in GW Bush, and of course Kerry was an even worse option.
Who I will be supporting this time around has not been determined, HOWEVER I can say with certainty it will not be Hillary Clinton. And while I am not pleased with the options on the left – with the possible exception of Obama – I could live with a Democratic President in 2008 as long as it is not Hillary Clinton. And if it is Hillary, well then I will just have to live with that to, but I will be able to do so knowing that I truly worked to stop her election. When I started my “Don’t Vote For Hillary” campaign a few days ago, my goal was to alert you to some of her past actions, actions that prove she is not a worthy candidate. I assumed that this would take two or three days of my blog, but I have become convinced that not only is there enough “dirt” on Hillary to keep this blog going up to the Caucus, but probably up to the November election – without repeating a single charge.
Today, we’re going to look at Whitewater. Generally the call of the left is that Whitewater amounted to nothing – after all, neither Hillary or Bill were convicted of any wrongdoing. True, and O.J. was acquitted of murder, so I guess he is 100% innocent as well. Lets look at a few facts:
Here’s what Bill and Hillary got:
n Jim & Susan McDougal paid 91% of the costs associated with the deal, Bill and Hillary retained 50% of the Equity
n When the property began to lose money, the McDougals paid off the loan the Clintons took out to finance their downpayment
n McDougal hired Hillary at a retainer of $2,00 per month to represent Madison Guaranty S&L as it’s attorney
n Jim McDougal held a fundraiser that netted $35,000 for Bill’s gubernatorial campaign.
And Here’s what McDougal got:
n Clinton appointed McDougal’s close friend Beverly Lambert as Arkansas Banking Commisioner. McDougal also got “control” of the Savings and Loan board through several appointments he says he “arranged.” Clinton, McDougal explains, was “amenable” to his suggestions to fill these positions.
n Lambert approved McDougal’s purchase of a bank in Kingston, Arkansas. “It was good to have the right connection in state government,” McDougal said.
n Clinton named Beverly Bassett, McDougal’s candidate, as securities commissioner.
n Bassett allowed Madison to issue preferred stock to raise capital. Hillary was McDougal’s attorney on this deal.
n Clinton sat in on a meeting McDougal had with the state’s Health Department after a state inspector refused to grant septic permits to a subcontractor on one of his developments. McDougal got the permits. As the banker put it: “If I kept up my connection with Clinton, I would never encounter any bureaucratic roadblocks.”
Whitewater was an ill-timed investments, just as interest rates were starting to climb. “I felt responsible” McDougal said “for bringing the Clintons into an unprofitable deal and I decided to make the payments myself rather than ask Bill and Hillary for more money.”
The Clinton’s have always claimed that they never made money on Whitewater, but that misses the real point: Jim McDougal stopped them from losing their shirts. But McDougal didn’t lose HIS shirt, as the deals he made through his relationship with Clinton paid off. This is a classic quid pro quo – a largely questionable relationship between a governor and his wife and a banker/developer.
The Clintons have claimed that the final report of the Independent Counsel on Whitewater exonerated them, that the report found no wrongdoing? The facts are this: All the Independent Counsel said was that “the evidence was insufficient” to prove the Clintons did anything wrong. Why were they unable to find the evidence? Well, Jim McDougal was dead and Susan McDougal was jailed for contempt rater than cooperating with the investigation. Why not cooperate if there was no wrongdoing? Instead Susan waited it out expecting a presidential pardon, which she received. Who was left to testify? The IC’s report was a far cry from exoneration.
As a side note, when it was apparent that Susan McDougal might turn on the Clinton’s, good friend Hillary exclaimed “She’s such a Liar. She worked for [famous conductor] Zubin Metha and stole his silver. She’s crazy, unstable and totally dishonest. You can’t trust a thing she says” Susan was eventually acquitted of stealing for Metha.)
Sheesh, and this is how she talks about a FRIEND. Look, all I know is when you look at all of the facts, it reminds me of a saying my Uncle Clarence was fond of: “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” And Hillary quacks the loudest of them all.
Prior to taking a couple day break for Christmas, we were discussing Hillary Clinton and her run for the White House. Now many of you may believe that my motivation for stopping Mrs. Clinton from becoming our Commander in Chief stems from the fact that I am a conservative, and it is my “duty” to stop a Democrat from becoming President. While it is true that I am a conservative, what I am NOT is a Republican, rather I am a Libertarian. So that means I am supporting the Libertarian candidate, right? Well, while Libertarianism is a growing movement in the American political scene, at the same time it is also a minor player in national elections. So therefore, my goal is to support the candidate that best embodies the Libertarian ideals AND has a chance at winning. In 2004, I did vote Libertarian for president, because I was (and remain) disappointed in GW Bush, and of course Kerry was an even worse option.
Who I will be supporting this time around has not been determined, HOWEVER I can say with certainty it will not be Hillary Clinton. And while I am not pleased with the options on the left – with the possible exception of Obama – I could live with a Democratic President in 2008 as long as it is not Hillary Clinton. And if it is Hillary, well then I will just have to live with that to, but I will be able to do so knowing that I truly worked to stop her election. When I started my “Don’t Vote For Hillary” campaign a few days ago, my goal was to alert you to some of her past actions, actions that prove she is not a worthy candidate. I assumed that this would take two or three days of my blog, but I have become convinced that not only is there enough “dirt” on Hillary to keep this blog going up to the Caucus, but probably up to the November election – without repeating a single charge.
Today, we’re going to look at Whitewater. Generally the call of the left is that Whitewater amounted to nothing – after all, neither Hillary or Bill were convicted of any wrongdoing. True, and O.J. was acquitted of murder, so I guess he is 100% innocent as well. Lets look at a few facts:
Here’s what Bill and Hillary got:
n Jim & Susan McDougal paid 91% of the costs associated with the deal, Bill and Hillary retained 50% of the Equity
n When the property began to lose money, the McDougals paid off the loan the Clintons took out to finance their downpayment
n McDougal hired Hillary at a retainer of $2,00 per month to represent Madison Guaranty S&L as it’s attorney
n Jim McDougal held a fundraiser that netted $35,000 for Bill’s gubernatorial campaign.
And Here’s what McDougal got:
n Clinton appointed McDougal’s close friend Beverly Lambert as Arkansas Banking Commisioner. McDougal also got “control” of the Savings and Loan board through several appointments he says he “arranged.” Clinton, McDougal explains, was “amenable” to his suggestions to fill these positions.
n Lambert approved McDougal’s purchase of a bank in Kingston, Arkansas. “It was good to have the right connection in state government,” McDougal said.
n Clinton named Beverly Bassett, McDougal’s candidate, as securities commissioner.
n Bassett allowed Madison to issue preferred stock to raise capital. Hillary was McDougal’s attorney on this deal.
n Clinton sat in on a meeting McDougal had with the state’s Health Department after a state inspector refused to grant septic permits to a subcontractor on one of his developments. McDougal got the permits. As the banker put it: “If I kept up my connection with Clinton, I would never encounter any bureaucratic roadblocks.”
Whitewater was an ill-timed investments, just as interest rates were starting to climb. “I felt responsible” McDougal said “for bringing the Clintons into an unprofitable deal and I decided to make the payments myself rather than ask Bill and Hillary for more money.”
The Clinton’s have always claimed that they never made money on Whitewater, but that misses the real point: Jim McDougal stopped them from losing their shirts. But McDougal didn’t lose HIS shirt, as the deals he made through his relationship with Clinton paid off. This is a classic quid pro quo – a largely questionable relationship between a governor and his wife and a banker/developer.
The Clintons have claimed that the final report of the Independent Counsel on Whitewater exonerated them, that the report found no wrongdoing? The facts are this: All the Independent Counsel said was that “the evidence was insufficient” to prove the Clintons did anything wrong. Why were they unable to find the evidence? Well, Jim McDougal was dead and Susan McDougal was jailed for contempt rater than cooperating with the investigation. Why not cooperate if there was no wrongdoing? Instead Susan waited it out expecting a presidential pardon, which she received. Who was left to testify? The IC’s report was a far cry from exoneration.
As a side note, when it was apparent that Susan McDougal might turn on the Clinton’s, good friend Hillary exclaimed “She’s such a Liar. She worked for [famous conductor] Zubin Metha and stole his silver. She’s crazy, unstable and totally dishonest. You can’t trust a thing she says” Susan was eventually acquitted of stealing for Metha.)
Sheesh, and this is how she talks about a FRIEND. Look, all I know is when you look at all of the facts, it reminds me of a saying my Uncle Clarence was fond of: “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” And Hillary quacks the loudest of them all.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
God and 57 Cents
I was going to resume my Hillary discussion tonight, but I just have too much of the Christmas spirit in me for that. I have a nice little story that I ran across recently that I wanted to share with you, but before I do that I would like to thank you dear readers for helping me reach an important milestone. Today I had my 1,000 visitor to my post, which is better than I ever expected to be at this point when I started two-and-one-half months ago. I think it's fitting that this even occured on Christmas, and equally as fitting that my 1,000 visitor was my good friend chris, aka The Red Hog, whose own ramblings at www.redhogdiary.com inspired me to start this blog. Thank you dear friends, I hope you have as much fun reading as I do writing.
And now, the story of God an 57 Cents:
A sobbing little girl stood near a small church from which she had been turned away because it was too crowded. "I can't go to Sunday school," she sobbed to the pastor as he walked by.
Seeing her shabby, unkempt, appearance, the pastor guessed the reason and, taking her by the hand, took her inside and found a place for her in the Sunday School class. The child was so touched that she went to bed that night thinking of the children who had no place to learn about Jesus.
Some two years later, this child lay dead in one of the poor tenement buildings and the parents called for the kind-hearted pastor who had befriended their daughter to handle the final arrangements. As her poor little body was being moved, a worn and crumpled purse was found that seemed to have been rummaged from some trash dump. Inside was found 57 cents and a note scribbled in childish handwriting that read, "This is to help build the little church bigger so more children can go to Sunday School." For two years she had saved for this offering of love.
When the pastor tearfully read that note, he knew instantly what he would do. Carrying this note and the cracked, red pocketbook to the pulpit, he told the story of her unselfish love and devotion. He challenged his deacons to get busy and raise enough money for the larger building.
But the story doesn’t end there! A newspaper learned of the story and published it. A realtor who read it offered them a parcel of land worth many thousands. When told that the church could not pay so much, he offered it for a 57 cents. Church members made large subscriptions. Checks came from far and wide. Within five years the little girl's gift had increased to $250,000.00—a huge sum for that time (near the turn of the century). Her unselfish love had paid large dividends.
When you’re in the city of Philadelphia, look up Temple Baptist Church, with a seating capacity of 3,300, and Temple University, where hundreds of students are trained.
Have a look, too, at the Good Samaritan Hospital and at a Sunday School building that houses hundreds of Sunday scholars, so that no child in the area will ever need to be left outside during Sunday school time.
In one of the rooms of this building may be seen the picture of the sweet face of the little girl whose 57 cents, so sacrificially saved, made such remarkable history.
Alongside of it is a portrait of her kind pastor, Dr. Russell H. Conwell, author of the book, Acres of Diamonds.
Goes to show what God can do with unselfish love for others and 57 cents.
And now, the story of God an 57 Cents:
A sobbing little girl stood near a small church from which she had been turned away because it was too crowded. "I can't go to Sunday school," she sobbed to the pastor as he walked by.
Seeing her shabby, unkempt, appearance, the pastor guessed the reason and, taking her by the hand, took her inside and found a place for her in the Sunday School class. The child was so touched that she went to bed that night thinking of the children who had no place to learn about Jesus.
Some two years later, this child lay dead in one of the poor tenement buildings and the parents called for the kind-hearted pastor who had befriended their daughter to handle the final arrangements. As her poor little body was being moved, a worn and crumpled purse was found that seemed to have been rummaged from some trash dump. Inside was found 57 cents and a note scribbled in childish handwriting that read, "This is to help build the little church bigger so more children can go to Sunday School." For two years she had saved for this offering of love.
When the pastor tearfully read that note, he knew instantly what he would do. Carrying this note and the cracked, red pocketbook to the pulpit, he told the story of her unselfish love and devotion. He challenged his deacons to get busy and raise enough money for the larger building.
But the story doesn’t end there! A newspaper learned of the story and published it. A realtor who read it offered them a parcel of land worth many thousands. When told that the church could not pay so much, he offered it for a 57 cents. Church members made large subscriptions. Checks came from far and wide. Within five years the little girl's gift had increased to $250,000.00—a huge sum for that time (near the turn of the century). Her unselfish love had paid large dividends.
When you’re in the city of Philadelphia, look up Temple Baptist Church, with a seating capacity of 3,300, and Temple University, where hundreds of students are trained.
Have a look, too, at the Good Samaritan Hospital and at a Sunday School building that houses hundreds of Sunday scholars, so that no child in the area will ever need to be left outside during Sunday school time.
In one of the rooms of this building may be seen the picture of the sweet face of the little girl whose 57 cents, so sacrificially saved, made such remarkable history.
Alongside of it is a portrait of her kind pastor, Dr. Russell H. Conwell, author of the book, Acres of Diamonds.
Goes to show what God can do with unselfish love for others and 57 cents.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas To All
And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his espoused wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. And the angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, "I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:4-11)
"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by the stable. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.
"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."
"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."
Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.
"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."
Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"
"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.
Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.
"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.
"Whatever," said the painter.
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.
"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.
An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.
"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.
Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.
Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"
"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.
The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"
"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.
"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.
A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."
At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.
The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"
Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"
"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."
"Let me get back to you," Mary said.
In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"
"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."
Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."
One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"
"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."
"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.
The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."
After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.
Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.
Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"
Have a wonderful and safe Christmas, and if you are fortunate to have family around you, please enjoy all that they bring.
"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by the stable. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.
"Besides," said a Sadducee who was with him, "there are no such things as angels, and telling a child that they're real will only hinder the child's emotional development."
"And I have to tell you," said the Pharisee, "this whole thing looks very much like a Nativity scene. That's a no-no, too."
Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.
"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."
Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?"
"Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.
Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped.
"We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary.
"Whatever," said the painter.
Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them.
"I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.
With the arrival of ten child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.
An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.
"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.
Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist.
Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"
"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.
The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!"
"Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi.
"Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.
A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world."
At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face.
The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"
Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?"
"That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."
"Let me get back to you," Mary said.
In the meantime the Magi had been asked by others how much their gifts had cost, and when told the price several protested and said the money could have been better spent on the poor and homeless. "Besides," said one, "what can a baby do with gold, frankincense, and myrrh?"
"You don't understand," said one of the Magi, "we brought these gifts to honor and worship this child who has been born King of the Jews."
Whereupon the child advocates protested that adults should not pre-determine a child's future. "It should be left up to the child to decide for himself what he wants to be."
One of the shepherds called out from the back of the crowd: "The prophet Micah wrote that out of Bethlehem would come a Ruler to shepherd God's people"
"That's just a myth," said the head of the Prophet's Seminar who had just arrived with his committee. "We scholars have determined that the prophet's actually said very little of what they are credited with saying, and everything they reportedly said about a Messiah was added years later by other writers."
"How did you determine that?" asked Joseph.
The most intelligent member of the Prophet's Seminar was chosen as spokesperson and replied, "We cast lots."
After much talking, the various advocates agreed to meet again at a later date in a place more suitable for them and continue their discussions about the child's welfare. Gradually they drifted out of the stable and left the shepherds and the Magi alone with Joseph and Mary and the child.
Mary took Joseph's hand and said, "Husband, tell me again what the angel Gabriel said to you about our son.
Squeezing her hand, Joseph answered, "He said that we should call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mary looked down at her son and sighed deeply, and then said to one in particular, "I wonder if they will let him?"
Have a wonderful and safe Christmas, and if you are fortunate to have family around you, please enjoy all that they bring.
Monday, December 24, 2007
As if I Needed Another Reason To NOT Vote For Hillary...
Ok
ay, yesterday I started a series letting you know about Hillary Clinton’s past, and we will continue on that one today, but before I do that, I need to pause and give a hearty “Congratulations” to my friend The Red Hog. The Hog’s Chicago Bears dismantled my beloved Packers today in a rout. Sure, my Packers are heading to the playoffs while the Bears stay home and watch them on TV, but it still stings…..
Okay, lets get back to Hillary. Actually, before we go any further, let me address something. These “snippets” of Hillary’s past come from two main sources: The “mainstream” news (I am not repeating only Fox News), and secondly (and mainly) coming from sources close to Hillary such as Dee Dee Meyers, George Stephanopolis, and Dick Morris – All former Clinton “Insiders”.
U Deflecting the attacks directed at her for doing legal work while her husband was governor, she said “this is the sort thing that happens to women who have their own careers and their own lives. And I think it’s a shame, but I guess it’s something that we’re going to have to live with. “
But the criticism she attracted had nothing to do with the problem of juggling careers and a personal life. It had to do with a clear conflict of interest, and was a precursor to the gender card deflections we are seeing today.
U On Whitewater, Hillary claimed the “purpose of the investigations was to discredit the President and the Administration and slow down it’s momentum. Whitewater signaled a new tactic in political warfare: Investigation as a weapon for political destruction.”
The Republicans obviously pursued Whitewater to “slow down” Clinton’s “momentum.” That’s what opposition parties are supposed to do. But they never would have had the chance had the Clinton’s not entered into a shady real estate deal in the first place…..
U Many commentators – and not only those on the right – compare Hillary to Nixon, citing “enemies lists” and paranoia. Consider Michael Chertoff. Senator Hillary voted twice against the confirmation of Chertoff – once as chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and again on his appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.. What does Hillary have against Chertoff? He served as a special prosecutor to the Republicans on the Senate Whitewater Committee.
Now the fact that she voted against him twice doesn’t prove retaliation, even I know that. The fact that both times he was confirmed 99 to 1 – With Hillary casting the only “Nay” – is suspicious.
U Hillary rarely misspeaks, she is a VERY scripted person. At a January 3rd, 2004 fund-raiser in St. Louis, she invoked the great Indian civil rights leader, Mahatma Gandhi and then, in an attempt at a joke: “Mahatma Gandhi – he ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr Gandhi, you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station.” Excuse me?
Now this is not so much an indictment of Hillary, as it is the free pass from the press. Had you ever even heard of this? Probably not. But remember when George Allen called that volunteer for his opponent “Macaca?” Is that any more insensitive than Hillary’s comments? And yet Allen is derided by the press, ultimately costing him the Senate and a run at president. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Allen, that was a stupid and insensitive comment. But for Hillary to get away with what she got away with…. Can you say “Double Standard”
U Hillary studied law at Yale, and was a solid student. In the summer of 1971 Hillary took a job clerking for – as she describes in Living History – a “small law firm”, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein in Oakland, CA. However, TW&B was far from a small firm. It’s lead partner, Robert Treuhaft, and his wife, Jessica Mitford, were long-time members of the American Communist Party, with Treuhaft being the party’s lawyer. As a matter of fact, TW&B was known as Oaklands “Red Lawyers”.
Am I calling Hillary a communist? No, not at all, nor do I believe even in her youth she was. However, given her station at Yale and the fact that she had her choice of summer internships, the fact that she traveled 3,000 miles for THIS job tells you something of her orientation at the time. The fact that she glossed over this part of her life in her autobiography.
As a matter of fact, Hillary goes to great lengths to hide her leftist leanings of her twenties. Like the fact that at Yale Hillary was especially active in the defense of the Black Panthers. Eight members of the extremist group had been charged with the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, whom they suspected of being a government informant. Insight magazine describes how Rackley was “clubbed, burned with cigarettes, doused with boiling water and stabbed with an ice pick before being taken out and shot twice in the head by his comrades.”
Now keep in mind that Hillary VOLUNTEERED to help these people. The fact is, the Panthers were torturers and murderers of black people, and Hillary Clinton organized demonstrations to get them off. And again, it isn’t that Hillary was this left leaning. Heck, I even voted for Carter in 1980, but I don’t run from my past. I think the fact that I was that dumb back then just shows how far I’ve come. And at the time Hillary had a lot of company – Being a leftist radical in the sixties was more the norm than the exception. Times change. We change. She changed, but you’d never know it, because Hillary won’t let us see that side of her.
I will lay off of Hillary tomorrow because it’s Christmas, and no one needs to be reminded of Hillary on Christmas, that is unless you are watching How the Grinch Stole Christmas, in which case it is hard to not think of Hillary.
ay, yesterday I started a series letting you know about Hillary Clinton’s past, and we will continue on that one today, but before I do that, I need to pause and give a hearty “Congratulations” to my friend The Red Hog. The Hog’s Chicago Bears dismantled my beloved Packers today in a rout. Sure, my Packers are heading to the playoffs while the Bears stay home and watch them on TV, but it still stings…..Okay, lets get back to Hillary. Actually, before we go any further, let me address something. These “snippets” of Hillary’s past come from two main sources: The “mainstream” news (I am not repeating only Fox News), and secondly (and mainly) coming from sources close to Hillary such as Dee Dee Meyers, George Stephanopolis, and Dick Morris – All former Clinton “Insiders”.
U Deflecting the attacks directed at her for doing legal work while her husband was governor, she said “this is the sort thing that happens to women who have their own careers and their own lives. And I think it’s a shame, but I guess it’s something that we’re going to have to live with. “
But the criticism she attracted had nothing to do with the problem of juggling careers and a personal life. It had to do with a clear conflict of interest, and was a precursor to the gender card deflections we are seeing today.
U On Whitewater, Hillary claimed the “purpose of the investigations was to discredit the President and the Administration and slow down it’s momentum. Whitewater signaled a new tactic in political warfare: Investigation as a weapon for political destruction.”
The Republicans obviously pursued Whitewater to “slow down” Clinton’s “momentum.” That’s what opposition parties are supposed to do. But they never would have had the chance had the Clinton’s not entered into a shady real estate deal in the first place…..
U Many commentators – and not only those on the right – compare Hillary to Nixon, citing “enemies lists” and paranoia. Consider Michael Chertoff. Senator Hillary voted twice against the confirmation of Chertoff – once as chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and again on his appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C.. What does Hillary have against Chertoff? He served as a special prosecutor to the Republicans on the Senate Whitewater Committee.
Now the fact that she voted against him twice doesn’t prove retaliation, even I know that. The fact that both times he was confirmed 99 to 1 – With Hillary casting the only “Nay” – is suspicious.
U Hillary rarely misspeaks, she is a VERY scripted person. At a January 3rd, 2004 fund-raiser in St. Louis, she invoked the great Indian civil rights leader, Mahatma Gandhi and then, in an attempt at a joke: “Mahatma Gandhi – he ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr Gandhi, you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station.” Excuse me?
Now this is not so much an indictment of Hillary, as it is the free pass from the press. Had you ever even heard of this? Probably not. But remember when George Allen called that volunteer for his opponent “Macaca?” Is that any more insensitive than Hillary’s comments? And yet Allen is derided by the press, ultimately costing him the Senate and a run at president. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Allen, that was a stupid and insensitive comment. But for Hillary to get away with what she got away with…. Can you say “Double Standard”
U Hillary studied law at Yale, and was a solid student. In the summer of 1971 Hillary took a job clerking for – as she describes in Living History – a “small law firm”, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein in Oakland, CA. However, TW&B was far from a small firm. It’s lead partner, Robert Treuhaft, and his wife, Jessica Mitford, were long-time members of the American Communist Party, with Treuhaft being the party’s lawyer. As a matter of fact, TW&B was known as Oaklands “Red Lawyers”.
Am I calling Hillary a communist? No, not at all, nor do I believe even in her youth she was. However, given her station at Yale and the fact that she had her choice of summer internships, the fact that she traveled 3,000 miles for THIS job tells you something of her orientation at the time. The fact that she glossed over this part of her life in her autobiography.
As a matter of fact, Hillary goes to great lengths to hide her leftist leanings of her twenties. Like the fact that at Yale Hillary was especially active in the defense of the Black Panthers. Eight members of the extremist group had been charged with the torture and murder of Alex Rackley, whom they suspected of being a government informant. Insight magazine describes how Rackley was “clubbed, burned with cigarettes, doused with boiling water and stabbed with an ice pick before being taken out and shot twice in the head by his comrades.”
Now keep in mind that Hillary VOLUNTEERED to help these people. The fact is, the Panthers were torturers and murderers of black people, and Hillary Clinton organized demonstrations to get them off. And again, it isn’t that Hillary was this left leaning. Heck, I even voted for Carter in 1980, but I don’t run from my past. I think the fact that I was that dumb back then just shows how far I’ve come. And at the time Hillary had a lot of company – Being a leftist radical in the sixties was more the norm than the exception. Times change. We change. She changed, but you’d never know it, because Hillary won’t let us see that side of her.
I will lay off of Hillary tomorrow because it’s Christmas, and no one needs to be reminded of Hillary on Christmas, that is unless you are watching How the Grinch Stole Christmas, in which case it is hard to not think of Hillary.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
And you want to vote for this woman because….?
Okay, the Iowa Caucuses are less than two weeks away, and New Hampshire is right behind. While I have yet to decide on a Republican candidate – most of them are “fine”, none of them outstanding – I know one thing for sure: A Hillary Clinton Presidency would be a disaster. Over the course of the next couple of posts I want to lay out some of the things that Mrs. Clinton has said and done in her past. Taken separately, none of these things is enough to derail her campaign, but taken as a whole I think you will really see a picture emerging that shows you who Hillary Clinton really is.
Please, if you know anyone who is considering voting for this women, direct them to this post. I have spoken to a few people who plan to vote for this women, although surprisingly not one of them could name an actual accomplishment other than “She’s a women” and “She was first lady”. Okay, but shouldn’t there be more?
Lets look at a little bit of Hillary’s past
U Even though Hillarys “landmark” Book, It Takes A Village was actually written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman Todd (based on interviews with Clinton), Hillary to this day refuses to give Todd any credit for a role in writing the book.
U Hillary doesn’t use “dirty tricks” like the Republicans. As a matter of fact, she says “Oh, you better be careful about that former drug use, the Republicans will pounce on that.” And somehow, this actually works. Then again, the number of Mensa members in the mainstream media is pretty low.
U Hillary told a group of New Zealanders she was named after famous New Zealander Sir Edmund Hilary, the first man to scale Mt. Everest. One problem: Sir Edmund climbed the mountain five years after Hillary was born, meaning she was named after a person no one knew on the other side of the world.
U Hillary told Katie Couric on the Today Show that daughter Chelsea narrowly missed being at Ground Zero on 9/11, having gone for a jog at the time of the attacks. In fact Chelsea, according to her own account, was “alone at a friend’s union Square apartment in Manhattan” and was unaware of the attacks until said friend phoned her. Could Hillary be mistaken? Well, we are talking about more than a week after 9/11, so Hill and Chels probably had talked since then.
U Hillary’s campaign “plants” questions at her own press conferences (not to mention Republican debates). And if you think this was a “one time thing”, watch the video of Grinnell college student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff – the girl who asked the planted question – explaining how she was approached. This was a well organized plan that was surely used more than once. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/clinton-aides-plant-question
U In a 1997 race-relations forum for teenagers in Boston, Hillary revealed “the pain” of a “childhood encounter”: “During a junior high soccer game a goalie told me ‘I wish people like you would freeze’” Stunned, the future first lady asked how she could feel that way when she did not even know her. “I don’t have to know you” the goalie shot back “to know I hate you”. Wow, that must have been devastating, or at least it would have been if it had happened. Problem is, there was no girls soccer in Chicago until 1972 – Hillary was in junior high in the 60’s. Kind of reminds me of Bill claiming how sad he was at the burning of Black churches in Arkansas during his youth – until a reporter turned up the embarrassing fact that there were zero Black churches burned in Arkansas during Clinton’s youth.
U During Bill Clinton’s first run for reelection as Governor of Arkansas, The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to follow Hillary around on the campaign trail – considering Hillary was a Chicago native. After a day of campaign stops and chicken dinners, a women came up to Hillary and handed her a handmade pair of earrings, shaped like Razorback Pigs – The University of Arkansas mascot. Once the women walked away, Hillary turned to the reporter and said “Do you see the kind of shit I have to put up with?” Poor Hillary.
Now none of these examples are enough to discount Hillary as a candidate, and maybe all of them together aren’t enough. Heck, it’s not like she was caught with the FBI files of 900 Republicans or something like that. What’s that? She was? Oh well……
But I do think that these examples start to paint a picture of who this women really is. But tomorrow we will start to fill that painting in, showing you even more of the real Hillary.
And one thing to my liberal fans – okay, fans is probably not the right word – before you start defending these lies, and defend them if you want, would any of you let even one of these lies go if it was George Bush we were talking about, and not Hillary? I didn’t think so…..
Please, if you know anyone who is considering voting for this women, direct them to this post. I have spoken to a few people who plan to vote for this women, although surprisingly not one of them could name an actual accomplishment other than “She’s a women” and “She was first lady”. Okay, but shouldn’t there be more?
Lets look at a little bit of Hillary’s past
U Even though Hillarys “landmark” Book, It Takes A Village was actually written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman Todd (based on interviews with Clinton), Hillary to this day refuses to give Todd any credit for a role in writing the book.
U Hillary doesn’t use “dirty tricks” like the Republicans. As a matter of fact, she says “Oh, you better be careful about that former drug use, the Republicans will pounce on that.” And somehow, this actually works. Then again, the number of Mensa members in the mainstream media is pretty low.
U Hillary told a group of New Zealanders she was named after famous New Zealander Sir Edmund Hilary, the first man to scale Mt. Everest. One problem: Sir Edmund climbed the mountain five years after Hillary was born, meaning she was named after a person no one knew on the other side of the world.
U Hillary told Katie Couric on the Today Show that daughter Chelsea narrowly missed being at Ground Zero on 9/11, having gone for a jog at the time of the attacks. In fact Chelsea, according to her own account, was “alone at a friend’s union Square apartment in Manhattan” and was unaware of the attacks until said friend phoned her. Could Hillary be mistaken? Well, we are talking about more than a week after 9/11, so Hill and Chels probably had talked since then.
U Hillary’s campaign “plants” questions at her own press conferences (not to mention Republican debates). And if you think this was a “one time thing”, watch the video of Grinnell college student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff – the girl who asked the planted question – explaining how she was approached. This was a well organized plan that was surely used more than once. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/clinton-aides-plant-question
U In a 1997 race-relations forum for teenagers in Boston, Hillary revealed “the pain” of a “childhood encounter”: “During a junior high soccer game a goalie told me ‘I wish people like you would freeze’” Stunned, the future first lady asked how she could feel that way when she did not even know her. “I don’t have to know you” the goalie shot back “to know I hate you”. Wow, that must have been devastating, or at least it would have been if it had happened. Problem is, there was no girls soccer in Chicago until 1972 – Hillary was in junior high in the 60’s. Kind of reminds me of Bill claiming how sad he was at the burning of Black churches in Arkansas during his youth – until a reporter turned up the embarrassing fact that there were zero Black churches burned in Arkansas during Clinton’s youth.
U During Bill Clinton’s first run for reelection as Governor of Arkansas, The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to follow Hillary around on the campaign trail – considering Hillary was a Chicago native. After a day of campaign stops and chicken dinners, a women came up to Hillary and handed her a handmade pair of earrings, shaped like Razorback Pigs – The University of Arkansas mascot. Once the women walked away, Hillary turned to the reporter and said “Do you see the kind of shit I have to put up with?” Poor Hillary.
Now none of these examples are enough to discount Hillary as a candidate, and maybe all of them together aren’t enough. Heck, it’s not like she was caught with the FBI files of 900 Republicans or something like that. What’s that? She was? Oh well……
But I do think that these examples start to paint a picture of who this women really is. But tomorrow we will start to fill that painting in, showing you even more of the real Hillary.
And one thing to my liberal fans – okay, fans is probably not the right word – before you start defending these lies, and defend them if you want, would any of you let even one of these lies go if it was George Bush we were talking about, and not Hillary? I didn’t think so…..
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A RUSH To Judgment
Okay, so a couple of days ago AP releases a photo of Hillary Clinton looking, well, looking like I am sure Hillary would not want us to see her looking like (see right), and all of the sudden it’s an international incident. I have two things about this whole thing that bother me. First of all, would this even be an issue if they had released a photo of Romney, Guliani or Huckabee? I’m not even going to put Fred Thompson in that group, because he always looks like that. And what do those three have in common? Sure, they’re all Republicans, but today that doesn’t matter. Today, that group represents MEN.Look, campaigning, especially in the last two weeks before the Caucus, is grueling work, and it takes it’s toll. But because Mrs. Clinton is a women, the rules need to change. Once again, we have pulled out the gender card. Look, Mitt, Rudy or Mike would rather not have an unflattering photo of them hit the newspapers (Maybe that’s why they stay out of tanks and don’t put on helmets – ah, nothing better than a twenty year old reference), but if it happened, they’d move on. Somehow we’re picking on Hillary.
The other issue with this whole photo business is the once again piling on Rush Limbaugh. In case you haven’t heard (and if you haven’t, you haven't been listening to the news), the MSM has been jumping all over Limbaugh because he said this: “So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?” Wow, what an evil, sexist bigoted homophobe. Okay, I know there is nothing homophobic about this remark, but I think it’s the law that you can’t call Limbaugh – or any conservative for that matter – any name without throwing “Homophobe” in the mix.
Now taken by itself, that comment does seem kind of mean spirited. However, if you read the entire transcript of what Limbaugh said – Available at: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/12/rush-limbaugh-others-debate-hillary.html - You will see that Limbaugh was actually sticking up for her, and taking on American culture and it's obsession with looks. Limbaugh even goes so far as to preface his comments by saying that the left – Media Matters in particular – will misquote him, and misquote him they did.
This, from Huffington Post: "The comment that Rush made about Sen. Clinton's looks made him appear oafish. It seems that he can't attack her on her political positions, so he must revert to sexist remarks."
And at http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/12/18/cold-old-and-tired-ii/ they go so far as to cherry-pick Limbaugh’s comments while then coming to the same conclusion Limbaugh came to – but they are too dumb to realize that their “enlightened” conclusion is the same one Limbaugh has already espoused. And this idiot headlined his article “Cold, Old & Tired II”.
This from “Radar Online”: “Spinning off a Drudge report on Hillary Clinton's haggard looks, E.D. pill-gulping tubby Rush Limbaugh sounds off on our appearance-obsessed culture. If it's any consolation, Rush sounds like a bloated windbag, too.”
And what’s worse is reading the comments attached to these stories. It shows the overall I.Q. of the readership of these sites and what there target market is. Let me give you a hint of what that I.Q. is: If it were the temperature in your house, you’d turn on the heater.
Remember when Bubba ran the first time. Remember how his weight ballooned on the campaign trail, and the press jumped all over him? Remember that great Saturday Night Live skit where Clinton is out jogging and runs into a McDonalds to schmooz with the normal folk, all the time finishing their meals as he talked to them. Classic. So why should it be any different with Hillary, or any women candidate.
Remember Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State during the 2000 elections? The press, as well as Lettermen, Leno and the like, slammed this women because of the amount of makeup she wore. Was she fair game? Well, it was mean-spirited, but as a public figure that comes with the territory. But the difference here is that Harris was a Republican, and we all know Republicans are fair game.
Look, I think I’ve been pretty above the board as far as Clinton (Hillary) is concerned. I have never tried to hide my distrust and dislike for this women, but I have kept my attacks on her policy and actions, not on her personality. Okay, one time I did say it looks like she shops at the Lane Bryant Outlet, but look at her …. she does. And to that I am going to add one last personal comment, which I consider to be a fact, not an attack: Since Hillary left the White House, I estimate that she has packed on at least 40 pounds. I state this, because if during that same period of time G.W. had packed on 40 lbs., we would have heard about it. It seems there is a double-standard at work here folks, and if we have to tip-toe around this issue, how many other formerly acceptable topics are going to be taboo in a Hillary White House?
And the thing I find most interesting of all is that all of these people bashing Rush for being insensitive to Hillary’s looks – even though he didn’t – had no problem whatsoever bashing Rush for HIS looks. Typical Liberal Double-Standard.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Putting Sicko Behind Us Once And For All
Okay, lets wrap up this Sicko thing. It might be (okay, it will be) a longer post, but that beats dragging this horse into a fourth day. If you haven’t read the last two posts, you may want to before reading this one. Go ahead, I’ll wait……..
When we last left off we were talking about the costs of healthcare in the U.S.. According to “Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries” (see link at end of post), health care costs increased at 4.4% from 1980 to 2003, and 3.6% from 1990 to 2003. Lets meet in the middle, and say that since 1980, healthcare has increased about 4% per year. Remember yesterday I talked about my first new car? During the same period of time that healthcare increased 4%, automobile prices increased at just over 5% annually. And what about housing. I know I live in an area (California) where housing costs have risen faster than average, but between 1996 and 2006, houses here increased at over 12% annually. That’s THREE TIMES the rate that health insurance increased.
So why aren’t we talking about national housing? Or national transportation coverage?
Okay lets talk about those evil pharmaceutical companies. In 2002 (the last year I have figures for) the thirteen largest U.S. pharmaceutical companies allocated their sales revenue to particular objects of expenditures and profits as follows: cost of goods sold, 25.3 percent; selling and administration, 32.8 percent; R&D, 14 percent; taxes, 7.3 percent; and net after-tax profits, 20.6 percent.
Now I know a lot of companies would love to have 20% annual profits. Then again, this would be a huge drop for other companies. And how much profit should these companies make. 5%? 10%? Really, I have no idea, tell me. Lets say that we decide they should only make 10% profit. And lets say you have a horrible disease that requires $600 a month in med’s. Now it’s only $540 a month. Does that make a huge difference? No. Sure, it helps, but we have people saying these drugs should be basically free. The problem is, few people are going to continue to develop drugs that cost them $500, and then charge $20.
Consider this: These days it takes 15 years and over ONE BILLION DOLLARS (yes, that’s billion with a “B”) to bring a new drug to market. Roughly 20% of that cost is in pre-clinical (developing the drug),and 80% of the cost is in post-clinical (testing the drug). Lets say on the average that the first five years are spent developing the drug, and then 10 years testing (in reality, it’s usually a bit longer to test a drug). Suppose we relax the FDA rules a bit, and now we cut that testing time in half. But that would cause thousands of unnecessary deaths? Would it?
How many of these drugs are tested hundreds of times in the first five years with zero problems, only to be proven fatal at the last minute? Probably not a lot. And don’t you think that trimming $400 million off of that one billion would lower the cost of a drug? Also, consider this. Lets say that I run a drug company, and I come out and say “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and this drug will save 20,000 lives a year.” But lets say that the trial we just finished shows no different results than the trials we finished five years ago. That means what I, as the spokesperson SHOULD be saying is this: “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and because the FDA required us to overtest this drug, 100,000 people we could have saved have died, and not as many of you that we can help will be able to afford this drug.” Think about it.
“But Bob” you say, “That means that unregulated and lethal drugs will sneak onto the market” Maybe, but remember that I am not advocating abolition of the FDA, just injecting it with a little common sense. And think about this, even with the outrageous testing required today, some bad drugs slip through. Also, lets go back to Sicko for a minute. Remember how all of those insurance companies will vilified in the movie for letting people die because they wouldn’t pay for experimental treatments. Well what exactly do you think those experimental treatments are? They are treatments that are still in the FDA testing process.
Look, I’m probably not going to take an untested drug for my heartburn, but lets say I have leukemia, and I have a month to live, and there is a drug company that has a new drug that might save my life, but it won’t be ready for human testing for three more years. Screw that, I don’t have three more years. Why not let me, at my own risk, try the drug. Worse case is I die, but hey, that was guaranteed to happen anyhow. But lets say it works. Not only is that great for me, but how many millions of dollars have I saved the drug company, and maybe helped bring a valuable drug to market a year or two sooner, saving thousands of lives.
Look, take lawyers out of the equation, and you can probably slash medical costs by 50% in a single day. But no, that’s not even a focus of the politicians, especially the democrats who are firmly in the pocket of the trial lawyer association.
Now lets talk about coverage. We already know that health insurance costs way too much, and while the politicians give that lip service, what they really are screaming about is the need for 100% of Americans to be covered. So how many people don’t have coverage right now?
Well, according to the latest poverty data, 47 million people in America are without insurance. But lets look at those numbers a little more closely. The median household income in the U.S. is $48,200. Were you aware that 38% of the uninsured – almost 18 million people – have incomes higher than $50,000, with 20% of all uninsured making $70,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need a government welfare program for folks making $70,000. Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.
One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage. That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens. Now I know I have friends that disagree with me on this, but I do not feel that we should be paying for insurance for those in this country illegally. I know Mr. Moore doesn’t think it’s a crime for Americans to go into Canada and lie to get health care, but the bottom line is that any American doing that is breaking the law, and any undocumented person in the U.S. is also breaking the law.
So far we have identified 30 million of that 47 million who are either able to pay for their own insurance, or are in this country illegally. We are down to 17 million people without insurance in America. And it is estimated that 20% of those 17 million uninsured are between jobs, meaning they are only temporarily without insurance. Now we have 13.6 million unemployed. Add to that the fact that as many as a third of those 13.6 million are eligible for public health programs don’t even bother to apply.
So now we’re talking about somewhere around 10 million uninsured. Sure, that’s a lot of people, and we need to address a way to help those people, but the bottom line is we are talking about 3.3% of the population. So we are willing to totally destroy and (hopefully) rebuild a system to help 3.3% of the population. And the bottom line is that the cost to do so will be probably 100% more than if we just gave the 3.3% full insurance benefits. Ludicrous.
If I had to point to one thing in Sicko – and in almost every liberal discussion of nationalized healthcare I have read – is the use of the word “Free”, as in “Oh no, healthcare here is free”. Hey Rainbow McDolphin, let me clue you into something – IT AIN’T FREE. We are all paying for it higher and higher taxes.
Last Sunday my local paper ran a story about a women who has kicked a meth addiction, and is getting her life back together, and more power to her. I’m thrilled that this women beat this awful drug, and it’s a story we don’t hear often enough. But consider this line, which a quote from the story: “She has worked at the deli at Von’s Supermarket for 16 months and gotten off all government assistance, except Section 8 housing assistance and Medi-Cal government health insurance.” Oh, is that all? And how many thousands of dollars a year is that?
Look, I’m not picking on this women, hers is truly a wonderful story. But the fact that this writer, and way to many on the left, simply toss this off as no big deal, means a great deal. If you have to pull that cash out of your pocket, you know what you are spending. If that cash never makes it to your pockets, you haven’t a clue what the real cost is. Every time I hear one of those Canadians or French in Sicko say “Oh no, it’s free” I cringe. It’s like hearing a battered woman say “Oh no, he really loves me and I know I can change him.” Sure, the two have nothing to do with each other, but they are equally clueless.
Like I said yesterday or the day before, I don’t rule out that national healthcare could work, but I can’t give you a solid answer on that because no one has bothered to lay out a detailed plan that shows all the costs involved. And like I said, even if we don’t nationalize health care, we still have a lot of work to do to correct the problems. Where to start? Well, it was Shakespeare who said “First, we kill all the lawyers.” A little harsh Bill, but I think you’re on the right track
U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10
The cost of bringing a drug to market is over a billion dollars: http://www.unav.es/english/news/105.html
Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
When we last left off we were talking about the costs of healthcare in the U.S.. According to “Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries” (see link at end of post), health care costs increased at 4.4% from 1980 to 2003, and 3.6% from 1990 to 2003. Lets meet in the middle, and say that since 1980, healthcare has increased about 4% per year. Remember yesterday I talked about my first new car? During the same period of time that healthcare increased 4%, automobile prices increased at just over 5% annually. And what about housing. I know I live in an area (California) where housing costs have risen faster than average, but between 1996 and 2006, houses here increased at over 12% annually. That’s THREE TIMES the rate that health insurance increased.
So why aren’t we talking about national housing? Or national transportation coverage?
Okay lets talk about those evil pharmaceutical companies. In 2002 (the last year I have figures for) the thirteen largest U.S. pharmaceutical companies allocated their sales revenue to particular objects of expenditures and profits as follows: cost of goods sold, 25.3 percent; selling and administration, 32.8 percent; R&D, 14 percent; taxes, 7.3 percent; and net after-tax profits, 20.6 percent.
Now I know a lot of companies would love to have 20% annual profits. Then again, this would be a huge drop for other companies. And how much profit should these companies make. 5%? 10%? Really, I have no idea, tell me. Lets say that we decide they should only make 10% profit. And lets say you have a horrible disease that requires $600 a month in med’s. Now it’s only $540 a month. Does that make a huge difference? No. Sure, it helps, but we have people saying these drugs should be basically free. The problem is, few people are going to continue to develop drugs that cost them $500, and then charge $20.
Consider this: These days it takes 15 years and over ONE BILLION DOLLARS (yes, that’s billion with a “B”) to bring a new drug to market. Roughly 20% of that cost is in pre-clinical (developing the drug),and 80% of the cost is in post-clinical (testing the drug). Lets say on the average that the first five years are spent developing the drug, and then 10 years testing (in reality, it’s usually a bit longer to test a drug). Suppose we relax the FDA rules a bit, and now we cut that testing time in half. But that would cause thousands of unnecessary deaths? Would it?
How many of these drugs are tested hundreds of times in the first five years with zero problems, only to be proven fatal at the last minute? Probably not a lot. And don’t you think that trimming $400 million off of that one billion would lower the cost of a drug? Also, consider this. Lets say that I run a drug company, and I come out and say “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and this drug will save 20,000 lives a year.” But lets say that the trial we just finished shows no different results than the trials we finished five years ago. That means what I, as the spokesperson SHOULD be saying is this: “Hey, here’s our new drug Xythphobical, and because the FDA required us to overtest this drug, 100,000 people we could have saved have died, and not as many of you that we can help will be able to afford this drug.” Think about it.
“But Bob” you say, “That means that unregulated and lethal drugs will sneak onto the market” Maybe, but remember that I am not advocating abolition of the FDA, just injecting it with a little common sense. And think about this, even with the outrageous testing required today, some bad drugs slip through. Also, lets go back to Sicko for a minute. Remember how all of those insurance companies will vilified in the movie for letting people die because they wouldn’t pay for experimental treatments. Well what exactly do you think those experimental treatments are? They are treatments that are still in the FDA testing process.
Look, I’m probably not going to take an untested drug for my heartburn, but lets say I have leukemia, and I have a month to live, and there is a drug company that has a new drug that might save my life, but it won’t be ready for human testing for three more years. Screw that, I don’t have three more years. Why not let me, at my own risk, try the drug. Worse case is I die, but hey, that was guaranteed to happen anyhow. But lets say it works. Not only is that great for me, but how many millions of dollars have I saved the drug company, and maybe helped bring a valuable drug to market a year or two sooner, saving thousands of lives.
Look, take lawyers out of the equation, and you can probably slash medical costs by 50% in a single day. But no, that’s not even a focus of the politicians, especially the democrats who are firmly in the pocket of the trial lawyer association.
Now lets talk about coverage. We already know that health insurance costs way too much, and while the politicians give that lip service, what they really are screaming about is the need for 100% of Americans to be covered. So how many people don’t have coverage right now?
Well, according to the latest poverty data, 47 million people in America are without insurance. But lets look at those numbers a little more closely. The median household income in the U.S. is $48,200. Were you aware that 38% of the uninsured – almost 18 million people – have incomes higher than $50,000, with 20% of all uninsured making $70,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need a government welfare program for folks making $70,000. Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.
One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage. That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens. Now I know I have friends that disagree with me on this, but I do not feel that we should be paying for insurance for those in this country illegally. I know Mr. Moore doesn’t think it’s a crime for Americans to go into Canada and lie to get health care, but the bottom line is that any American doing that is breaking the law, and any undocumented person in the U.S. is also breaking the law.
So far we have identified 30 million of that 47 million who are either able to pay for their own insurance, or are in this country illegally. We are down to 17 million people without insurance in America. And it is estimated that 20% of those 17 million uninsured are between jobs, meaning they are only temporarily without insurance. Now we have 13.6 million unemployed. Add to that the fact that as many as a third of those 13.6 million are eligible for public health programs don’t even bother to apply.
So now we’re talking about somewhere around 10 million uninsured. Sure, that’s a lot of people, and we need to address a way to help those people, but the bottom line is we are talking about 3.3% of the population. So we are willing to totally destroy and (hopefully) rebuild a system to help 3.3% of the population. And the bottom line is that the cost to do so will be probably 100% more than if we just gave the 3.3% full insurance benefits. Ludicrous.
If I had to point to one thing in Sicko – and in almost every liberal discussion of nationalized healthcare I have read – is the use of the word “Free”, as in “Oh no, healthcare here is free”. Hey Rainbow McDolphin, let me clue you into something – IT AIN’T FREE. We are all paying for it higher and higher taxes.
Last Sunday my local paper ran a story about a women who has kicked a meth addiction, and is getting her life back together, and more power to her. I’m thrilled that this women beat this awful drug, and it’s a story we don’t hear often enough. But consider this line, which a quote from the story: “She has worked at the deli at Von’s Supermarket for 16 months and gotten off all government assistance, except Section 8 housing assistance and Medi-Cal government health insurance.” Oh, is that all? And how many thousands of dollars a year is that?
Look, I’m not picking on this women, hers is truly a wonderful story. But the fact that this writer, and way to many on the left, simply toss this off as no big deal, means a great deal. If you have to pull that cash out of your pocket, you know what you are spending. If that cash never makes it to your pockets, you haven’t a clue what the real cost is. Every time I hear one of those Canadians or French in Sicko say “Oh no, it’s free” I cringe. It’s like hearing a battered woman say “Oh no, he really loves me and I know I can change him.” Sure, the two have nothing to do with each other, but they are equally clueless.
Like I said yesterday or the day before, I don’t rule out that national healthcare could work, but I can’t give you a solid answer on that because no one has bothered to lay out a detailed plan that shows all the costs involved. And like I said, even if we don’t nationalize health care, we still have a lot of work to do to correct the problems. Where to start? Well, it was Shakespeare who said “First, we kill all the lawyers.” A little harsh Bill, but I think you’re on the right track
U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10
The cost of bringing a drug to market is over a billion dollars: http://www.unav.es/english/news/105.html
Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Continuing On Our Sicko Journey
Yesterday I pointed out some of the more interesting facts in Michael Moore’s movie Sicko. Like I stated yesterday, I actually enjoy Moore’s films, I find them amusing as long as you don’t buy into his one-sided propaganda. However, I did not find that to be the case with Sicko, which was all propaganda and no style.
I guess success has gone to Moore’s head, and he no longer feels he has to mix propaganda with humor to sell his point, rather that we will simply all bow and pray at the alter that is Michael Moore.
And like I said yesterday, I am not trying to make light of the subject of Mr. Moore’s film. We have serious healthcare issues in America, and they need intelligent debate to find solutions. And ladies and gentlemen, Sicko is not intelligent debate. Sicko is snake oil.
You know what, I’m not even opposed to a national single-payer healthcare, if that in fact is the right answer. Of course, I am not yet convinced that that is the right answer. Granted, the system that we have right now is not the right answer either.
The way I see it, there are two things that need to be discussed: Coverage, and costs. And we will discuss that in just a minute, after I discuss a couple of other points that Moore brought up.
First of all. At one point Moore tells us that “Every year 18,000 Americans will die simply because they don’t have health insurance.” And that’s the end of that argument. No proof, no citing where this information came from. But if Michael says it, the left believes it.
We are treated to several stories of individuals who were denied certain procedures because they were “experimental”, and some of these individuals later died. The conclusion that Moore reaches is that if the insurance company had just approved the procedure, those people would be alive today. The simple truth is that even if all of those procedures were approved, almost all of those people would have died. But Mr. Moore conveniently left that part out.
The widow of Tracy Pierce, the man who died from end-stage renal cell carcinoma, discussed in Sicko how her late husband was denied numerous treatments for his cancer. Presumably, his oncologist wanted to experiment with cancer therapies not commonly used (or approved) to treat his type of cancer. Many of the newest therapies are very expensive - a regimen can cost $50,000 - yet have little clinical evidence to suggest a benefit against a cancer they were never proven to treat.
In Moore’s movie, we’re told that Tracy’s Dr. claimed that if they could find a donor, “there were promising bone-marrow treatments for beating Tracy’s cancer.” Now go back and reread that sentence. If I, as a doctor, told you that, wouldn’t you feel hope. The truth is, while some studies show promise in developing bone marrow transplants to cure kidney cancer patients, that kind of medicine does not yet exist. In other words, as hard as it is to take, Tracy was going to die with or without the transplant.
The truth is American health care system treats serious diseases more aggressively than national health systems. The health care systems in Canada, Britain and France would not routinely cover this experimental therapy either. But again, Mr. Moore fails to mention this.
When Moore speaks to a Canadian who states that the system should look out for all, Moore asks him if he is a socialist. He responds that he is a conservative, and asks Moore “is that bad?”, to which Moore responds, “No, It’s just a little confusing?” That’s right Michael, because we all know that conservatives want nothing more than to build a great big bonfire made out of the bodies of the poor, while maybe using gays for kindling. Sheesh…
Look, We all know that healthcare is a mess, and if you could convince me that national healthcare would give me the same coverage for the same cost without losing anything, I’d be all for it. But the truth is, all of the talk of national healthcare during this election cycle has left out one tiny thing: The Details.
I can give you several examples of why health insurance costs so much more than it used to, and yes greedy insurance companies pay a role, but the main reason is advancement in technology. Look, when I was a kid we had a family doctor – Dr. Penly. I would visit his office on College Hill, and in that office the most advanced piece of technology was probably the scale he weighed us on. Nowadays Drs. load up on the latest and greatest equipment at the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then to justify that equipment, they use it. My daughter recently fractured her risk, and when the cast came off she was still in pain. The doctor’s recommendation: She needs an MRI. The cost? About $3,000. We decided to wait (even though our insurance would have covered the MRI), and a week later she was fine.
I wondered what Dr. Penly would have said to my parents if I complained that, having just had the cast taken off from my fractured wrist, my wrist hurts. He would have said “Of course it hurts, it’s been fractured and immobile for four weeks. Heck, take a healthy wrist and immobilize for a month and it’s going to be sore. Just take it easy at first, and if it still hurts in a week or two, let me know.”
When I was a freshman in college I bought my first “new” car, a 1979 Chevy Monza, for about $3,300. It wasn’t the cheapest car available, but close. That year I could have bought a very basic Chevette for $2,595. Today, the cheapest new car out there is a Chevy Aveo, for $10,595. Now if you put those two cars next to each other, the cheapest car today is much better than the cheapest car from 1979. The gas mileage is better, there are airbags in today’s car. Even the stereo is better. My point? Prices are going up because the product is getting better, and today we are paying for equipment, drugs, and other things not available 30 years ago, and the result is we are living longer. And yes, it costs us more.
But that doesn’t mean that were getting what we paid for. When I was a kid, people had insurance, but not like we have today. We had catastrophic insurance, which was to say we had insurance to cover major illnesses and hospital stays, but everyday medical costs, from physicals to a Dr. visit when you had a cold, were paid for out of pocket. Yes, this means out of pocket costs are higher, but insurance was much, much cheaper.
Today a family of four pays about $12,000 a year for insurance (in most case your employer pays the majority of this). Assume that I offered you catastrophic insurance for ½ that price, and you covered “regular” expenses. And assume that seeing the doctor averaged $200 a visit. Now that’s a hell of a lot more than a $10 or $20 co-pay, but your family would have to visit the doctor THIRTY times to spend the same money that you are spending now. Assuming that everyone in your family visited the doctor twice a year, you could save $4,400.
Look at it another way. Right now you have auto insurance on your car, and lets say you pay $600 a year to cover your car, with a $500 deductable. And if you are like me, you hope that you never have to use that insurance. Now lets say I come along and offer you a new kind of car insurance. It will still cover the things your old plan did, but at the same time it will cover oil changes, tires and breaks, and any other maintenance needed. How much do you think that insurance would cost? And if you had it, how much would you use it.
There are a ton of reasons – both good and bad – that we pay what we pay for insurance. And I’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg. As for coverage (who gets it and who doesn’t), that will have to wait until tomorrow.
I guess success has gone to Moore’s head, and he no longer feels he has to mix propaganda with humor to sell his point, rather that we will simply all bow and pray at the alter that is Michael Moore.
And like I said yesterday, I am not trying to make light of the subject of Mr. Moore’s film. We have serious healthcare issues in America, and they need intelligent debate to find solutions. And ladies and gentlemen, Sicko is not intelligent debate. Sicko is snake oil.
You know what, I’m not even opposed to a national single-payer healthcare, if that in fact is the right answer. Of course, I am not yet convinced that that is the right answer. Granted, the system that we have right now is not the right answer either.
The way I see it, there are two things that need to be discussed: Coverage, and costs. And we will discuss that in just a minute, after I discuss a couple of other points that Moore brought up.
First of all. At one point Moore tells us that “Every year 18,000 Americans will die simply because they don’t have health insurance.” And that’s the end of that argument. No proof, no citing where this information came from. But if Michael says it, the left believes it.
We are treated to several stories of individuals who were denied certain procedures because they were “experimental”, and some of these individuals later died. The conclusion that Moore reaches is that if the insurance company had just approved the procedure, those people would be alive today. The simple truth is that even if all of those procedures were approved, almost all of those people would have died. But Mr. Moore conveniently left that part out.
The widow of Tracy Pierce, the man who died from end-stage renal cell carcinoma, discussed in Sicko how her late husband was denied numerous treatments for his cancer. Presumably, his oncologist wanted to experiment with cancer therapies not commonly used (or approved) to treat his type of cancer. Many of the newest therapies are very expensive - a regimen can cost $50,000 - yet have little clinical evidence to suggest a benefit against a cancer they were never proven to treat.
In Moore’s movie, we’re told that Tracy’s Dr. claimed that if they could find a donor, “there were promising bone-marrow treatments for beating Tracy’s cancer.” Now go back and reread that sentence. If I, as a doctor, told you that, wouldn’t you feel hope. The truth is, while some studies show promise in developing bone marrow transplants to cure kidney cancer patients, that kind of medicine does not yet exist. In other words, as hard as it is to take, Tracy was going to die with or without the transplant.
The truth is American health care system treats serious diseases more aggressively than national health systems. The health care systems in Canada, Britain and France would not routinely cover this experimental therapy either. But again, Mr. Moore fails to mention this.
When Moore speaks to a Canadian who states that the system should look out for all, Moore asks him if he is a socialist. He responds that he is a conservative, and asks Moore “is that bad?”, to which Moore responds, “No, It’s just a little confusing?” That’s right Michael, because we all know that conservatives want nothing more than to build a great big bonfire made out of the bodies of the poor, while maybe using gays for kindling. Sheesh…
Look, We all know that healthcare is a mess, and if you could convince me that national healthcare would give me the same coverage for the same cost without losing anything, I’d be all for it. But the truth is, all of the talk of national healthcare during this election cycle has left out one tiny thing: The Details.
I can give you several examples of why health insurance costs so much more than it used to, and yes greedy insurance companies pay a role, but the main reason is advancement in technology. Look, when I was a kid we had a family doctor – Dr. Penly. I would visit his office on College Hill, and in that office the most advanced piece of technology was probably the scale he weighed us on. Nowadays Drs. load up on the latest and greatest equipment at the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then to justify that equipment, they use it. My daughter recently fractured her risk, and when the cast came off she was still in pain. The doctor’s recommendation: She needs an MRI. The cost? About $3,000. We decided to wait (even though our insurance would have covered the MRI), and a week later she was fine.
I wondered what Dr. Penly would have said to my parents if I complained that, having just had the cast taken off from my fractured wrist, my wrist hurts. He would have said “Of course it hurts, it’s been fractured and immobile for four weeks. Heck, take a healthy wrist and immobilize for a month and it’s going to be sore. Just take it easy at first, and if it still hurts in a week or two, let me know.”
When I was a freshman in college I bought my first “new” car, a 1979 Chevy Monza, for about $3,300. It wasn’t the cheapest car available, but close. That year I could have bought a very basic Chevette for $2,595. Today, the cheapest new car out there is a Chevy Aveo, for $10,595. Now if you put those two cars next to each other, the cheapest car today is much better than the cheapest car from 1979. The gas mileage is better, there are airbags in today’s car. Even the stereo is better. My point? Prices are going up because the product is getting better, and today we are paying for equipment, drugs, and other things not available 30 years ago, and the result is we are living longer. And yes, it costs us more.
But that doesn’t mean that were getting what we paid for. When I was a kid, people had insurance, but not like we have today. We had catastrophic insurance, which was to say we had insurance to cover major illnesses and hospital stays, but everyday medical costs, from physicals to a Dr. visit when you had a cold, were paid for out of pocket. Yes, this means out of pocket costs are higher, but insurance was much, much cheaper.
Today a family of four pays about $12,000 a year for insurance (in most case your employer pays the majority of this). Assume that I offered you catastrophic insurance for ½ that price, and you covered “regular” expenses. And assume that seeing the doctor averaged $200 a visit. Now that’s a hell of a lot more than a $10 or $20 co-pay, but your family would have to visit the doctor THIRTY times to spend the same money that you are spending now. Assuming that everyone in your family visited the doctor twice a year, you could save $4,400.
Look at it another way. Right now you have auto insurance on your car, and lets say you pay $600 a year to cover your car, with a $500 deductable. And if you are like me, you hope that you never have to use that insurance. Now lets say I come along and offer you a new kind of car insurance. It will still cover the things your old plan did, but at the same time it will cover oil changes, tires and breaks, and any other maintenance needed. How much do you think that insurance would cost? And if you had it, how much would you use it.
There are a ton of reasons – both good and bad – that we pay what we pay for insurance. And I’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg. As for coverage (who gets it and who doesn’t), that will have to wait until tomorrow.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Putting "Sicko" On The Operating Table
A couple of weeks ago I promised my friend Chris, aka The Red Hog, that I would watch the latest Michael Moore film, Sicko. Now there is very little that Michael Moore and I agree on, yet despite that I truly do enjoy his films. I find most of the information in them questionable, but despite that I find him entertaining. That is, until I saw Sicko.
Let me start by saying that the American Healthcare System is broken. I understand that, and even though I am going to slam some of Moore’s findings in this film, I AM NOT saying that there is nothing wrong with healthcare in America today. There is a lot wrong, but we have a choice. We can sit down and look at the problems logically, and act upon those findings. Or we can overreact to the worst case scenario examples sentimentally put forth in this film, and implement knee-jerk reactions that end up making the system much worse than we started with.
I can tell you right now, there is no way to respond to the lies and allegations – as well as the truths – put forth in this film in a single post. This is going to take two days at least, maybe three. Lets break down some of the things we see in this film.
First we see an elderly couple forced to sell their home and move in with their kids after declaring bankruptcy due to health care related expenses. We are told that Larry and Donna Smith. Larry and Donna actually had health insurance, but they couldn’t keep up with the out of pocket expenses. Donna was a newspaper editor, Larry worked for years as a union machinist. But then Larry had three heart attacks, and Donna got cancer. To add insult to injury, on the day they arrived at their daughters house, her husband, a contractor, was leaving to work in Iraq because work was slow in Denver.
Now lets address a couple of things. Why aren’t we addressing the fact that Larry's employer, A UNION, failed him. I don’t know the facts (Moore doesn’t give them to us), but I know most insurances cap the amount of out-of-pocket expenses you would be forced to pay. Mine does, apparently Larry’s did not. Why did the union provide Larry with substandard insurance.
And we are told that Larry had a heart attack, then another, then another. Did Larry follow his doctors advice after the first heart attack, or did he continue to live a non-healthy lifestyle that lead to his second attack, and then his third. Now I don’t want to pick on Larry, but how many people in this country have health care issues precisely because of the poor choices they make. Hey, I include myself in that group. I’m a diabetic, and while that disease controls my diet, I do not follow that diet 100% of the time.
And isn’t it sad that Larry and Donna’s son-in-law had to go to Iraq to find work. It’s a shame that a gun was put to his head forcing him to take that job….. what’s that, there was no gun put to his head. Look, it’s winter in Denver. Is it a surprise that there is a slowdown in construction jobs in Denver in the winter? Where is the happiness that Dad is still able to provide for his family? Look, having to take temporary work in Iraq is not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination, but I would gladly do that before not being able to provide for my family.
Later, after an American is caught breaking the law by trying to pass herself off as a Canadian, Moore responds thusly: “Yes what Adrian was doing was illegal, but we’re Americans, we go into other countries when we need to. It’s tricky, but it’s allowed.” Allowed Mr. Moore? By whom? It should be noted at this time that my liberal friends claim A) we should provide medical care for those in this country illegally, and B) We should have a health care system like they have in Canada. And yet in Canada, they do not allow coverage to those their illegally. Hmm…..
In order to put to rest all those claims that Canada’s health care system is not up to par with America’s, Moore’s start witnesses are: his Canadian relatives, Bob and Estelle. Don’t get me wrong, Bob and Estelle seem like very nice people, but if Moore chooses to address a very legitimate concern – that Canada’s state-run healthcare is subpar to U.S. healthcare – I’m sure he could find a more convincing expert than Bob and Estelle. Then again, maybe he couldn’t. Oh well, if you can’t fight them with substance, dazzle them with sentimentality.
Which brings us to one of my favorite arguments in the whole movie, that Hillary Clinton was not successful in implementing her national Healthcare Plan because she is “Sassy, smart and sexy” and “some men (cut to shot of Newt Gingrich) couldn’t handle it.” There it is folks, the bottom line: We do not have nationalized healthcare because Hillary Clinton is just too darn sexy.”
Look, I’ll give you the fact that Hillary Clinton is Smart. Sassy? Well…. I don’t see it. Sexy? Are you kidding me? No, seriously, are you kidding? Moore doesn’t even mention the fact that most feel that Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care task force failed due to the secrecy that shrouded it. The task force held it’s meetings in private, despite the fact that Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees (and as First Lady, Hillary was a non-government employee) to have open meetings. Moore fails to mention the fact that these meetings included a sprawling crowd of more than 500 people, including a pile of nongovernment employees from liberal foundations and even big insurance companies.
No big deal? Consider that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Hillary and her health care “Mentor” Ira Magaziner had “intended to deceive the court” when they asserted in sworn statements that only federal government officials were members of the task force. Judge Lamberth called their conduct “reprehensible” and wrote “The executive branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of this court.” Those consequences included a $285,000 fine for misconduct.
But those actions were inconsequential, and they had nothing to do with dooming Hillarycare. The fact is, the lady is just too damn sexy.
More on Sicko tomorrow…….
Let me start by saying that the American Healthcare System is broken. I understand that, and even though I am going to slam some of Moore’s findings in this film, I AM NOT saying that there is nothing wrong with healthcare in America today. There is a lot wrong, but we have a choice. We can sit down and look at the problems logically, and act upon those findings. Or we can overreact to the worst case scenario examples sentimentally put forth in this film, and implement knee-jerk reactions that end up making the system much worse than we started with.
I can tell you right now, there is no way to respond to the lies and allegations – as well as the truths – put forth in this film in a single post. This is going to take two days at least, maybe three. Lets break down some of the things we see in this film.
First we see an elderly couple forced to sell their home and move in with their kids after declaring bankruptcy due to health care related expenses. We are told that Larry and Donna Smith. Larry and Donna actually had health insurance, but they couldn’t keep up with the out of pocket expenses. Donna was a newspaper editor, Larry worked for years as a union machinist. But then Larry had three heart attacks, and Donna got cancer. To add insult to injury, on the day they arrived at their daughters house, her husband, a contractor, was leaving to work in Iraq because work was slow in Denver.
Now lets address a couple of things. Why aren’t we addressing the fact that Larry's employer, A UNION, failed him. I don’t know the facts (Moore doesn’t give them to us), but I know most insurances cap the amount of out-of-pocket expenses you would be forced to pay. Mine does, apparently Larry’s did not. Why did the union provide Larry with substandard insurance.
And we are told that Larry had a heart attack, then another, then another. Did Larry follow his doctors advice after the first heart attack, or did he continue to live a non-healthy lifestyle that lead to his second attack, and then his third. Now I don’t want to pick on Larry, but how many people in this country have health care issues precisely because of the poor choices they make. Hey, I include myself in that group. I’m a diabetic, and while that disease controls my diet, I do not follow that diet 100% of the time.
And isn’t it sad that Larry and Donna’s son-in-law had to go to Iraq to find work. It’s a shame that a gun was put to his head forcing him to take that job….. what’s that, there was no gun put to his head. Look, it’s winter in Denver. Is it a surprise that there is a slowdown in construction jobs in Denver in the winter? Where is the happiness that Dad is still able to provide for his family? Look, having to take temporary work in Iraq is not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination, but I would gladly do that before not being able to provide for my family.
Later, after an American is caught breaking the law by trying to pass herself off as a Canadian, Moore responds thusly: “Yes what Adrian was doing was illegal, but we’re Americans, we go into other countries when we need to. It’s tricky, but it’s allowed.” Allowed Mr. Moore? By whom? It should be noted at this time that my liberal friends claim A) we should provide medical care for those in this country illegally, and B) We should have a health care system like they have in Canada. And yet in Canada, they do not allow coverage to those their illegally. Hmm…..
In order to put to rest all those claims that Canada’s health care system is not up to par with America’s, Moore’s start witnesses are: his Canadian relatives, Bob and Estelle. Don’t get me wrong, Bob and Estelle seem like very nice people, but if Moore chooses to address a very legitimate concern – that Canada’s state-run healthcare is subpar to U.S. healthcare – I’m sure he could find a more convincing expert than Bob and Estelle. Then again, maybe he couldn’t. Oh well, if you can’t fight them with substance, dazzle them with sentimentality.
Which brings us to one of my favorite arguments in the whole movie, that Hillary Clinton was not successful in implementing her national Healthcare Plan because she is “Sassy, smart and sexy” and “some men (cut to shot of Newt Gingrich) couldn’t handle it.” There it is folks, the bottom line: We do not have nationalized healthcare because Hillary Clinton is just too darn sexy.”
Look, I’ll give you the fact that Hillary Clinton is Smart. Sassy? Well…. I don’t see it. Sexy? Are you kidding me? No, seriously, are you kidding? Moore doesn’t even mention the fact that most feel that Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care task force failed due to the secrecy that shrouded it. The task force held it’s meetings in private, despite the fact that Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees (and as First Lady, Hillary was a non-government employee) to have open meetings. Moore fails to mention the fact that these meetings included a sprawling crowd of more than 500 people, including a pile of nongovernment employees from liberal foundations and even big insurance companies.
No big deal? Consider that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Hillary and her health care “Mentor” Ira Magaziner had “intended to deceive the court” when they asserted in sworn statements that only federal government officials were members of the task force. Judge Lamberth called their conduct “reprehensible” and wrote “The executive branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of this court.” Those consequences included a $285,000 fine for misconduct.
But those actions were inconsequential, and they had nothing to do with dooming Hillarycare. The fact is, the lady is just too damn sexy.
More on Sicko tomorrow…….
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Some Wacko’s Are Armed With Guns, Other Wacko’s Are Armed With Lies
U You know, I was reading an online report yesterday documenting the services at the Colorado “Mega-Church” on Sunday, one week after the shooting by an anti-Christian nut who was later shot by an armed guard, And I was surprised that it had only been one week since the shooting. It was news for a couple of days, and then it went away.
Usually after a Church/Mall/School shooting, we have weeks of debate and attempts at legislation that will make us all safer, and yet after this shooting the news has been oddly silent. Apparently the debate has been settled, an armed and trained public is the solution that seems to work.
U SMEAR CHANNEL RADIO: You know, I’m a big fan of the left’s ability to get to a story first. Maybe because that’s because they don’t let things like facts stand in the way.
For nearly a week, a baffling series of posts by so- called "progressive" bloggers have claimed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is set to purchase Clear Channel Communications and install his own "neo-con" regime inside its talk radio and television stations.In fact, it is Romney's former firm, Bain Capital LLC, that is leading a leveraged buyout of Clear Channel, teamed with Thomas H Lee Partners LP. The deal has been delayed for a number of reasons, including the need to obtain regulatory approval.
At first, the headline seemed so silly, it was easy to mistake it for a spoof or prank. Days later, however, this 'Net myth has spread so far and wide across the left side of the blogosphere that it seems clear many liberals have been duped.
Worse, some may intentionally be spreading misinformation: even when commenters point out that Mitt Romney left Bain Capital before taking over the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, most "progressive" blogs have failed to retract the bogus story. Even if he remains a retired shareholder, Romney is most certainly not calling the shots at Bain.
From the beginning, it has been set in stone that Clear Channel's current management team would remain in place after the deal is finalized. Because that has never been in dispute, there is simply no way Mitt Romney could take over the company's programming, even if he did remain in an active role with Bain Capital.
So far, only the Huffington Post has run a clarification, but it merely added to the inaccuracies.
Below are links to some of the bigger liberal blogs. See how they are reporting this story:
Blatherwatch: http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2007/12/romney-buys-cle.html#comments
My DD (Direct Democracy): http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/16/134450/66
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/romneys-bain-capital-buy_n_76801.html
Firedoglake: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/bain-capital-founded-by-romney-buys-clear-channel/
Randi Rhodes Show: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t107831.html
DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/21/141627/161
So how did the blogosphere's left side cook up this smear campaign? It has been difficult to determine who started it, but appears to have been triggered by the AP story about the deal's extension into 2008 as a result of regulatory delays. That gave somebody on the left the idea to insert Romney into the story and from there it spread like wildfire.
Don't hold your breath expecting a series of retractions: the tin foil hat crowd has never met a conspiracy theory it didn't lovingly embrace.
Usually after a Church/Mall/School shooting, we have weeks of debate and attempts at legislation that will make us all safer, and yet after this shooting the news has been oddly silent. Apparently the debate has been settled, an armed and trained public is the solution that seems to work.
U SMEAR CHANNEL RADIO: You know, I’m a big fan of the left’s ability to get to a story first. Maybe because that’s because they don’t let things like facts stand in the way.
For nearly a week, a baffling series of posts by so- called "progressive" bloggers have claimed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is set to purchase Clear Channel Communications and install his own "neo-con" regime inside its talk radio and television stations.In fact, it is Romney's former firm, Bain Capital LLC, that is leading a leveraged buyout of Clear Channel, teamed with Thomas H Lee Partners LP. The deal has been delayed for a number of reasons, including the need to obtain regulatory approval.
At first, the headline seemed so silly, it was easy to mistake it for a spoof or prank. Days later, however, this 'Net myth has spread so far and wide across the left side of the blogosphere that it seems clear many liberals have been duped.
Worse, some may intentionally be spreading misinformation: even when commenters point out that Mitt Romney left Bain Capital before taking over the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, most "progressive" blogs have failed to retract the bogus story. Even if he remains a retired shareholder, Romney is most certainly not calling the shots at Bain.
From the beginning, it has been set in stone that Clear Channel's current management team would remain in place after the deal is finalized. Because that has never been in dispute, there is simply no way Mitt Romney could take over the company's programming, even if he did remain in an active role with Bain Capital.
So far, only the Huffington Post has run a clarification, but it merely added to the inaccuracies.
Below are links to some of the bigger liberal blogs. See how they are reporting this story:
Blatherwatch: http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2007/12/romney-buys-cle.html#comments
My DD (Direct Democracy): http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/16/134450/66
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/romneys-bain-capital-buy_n_76801.html
Firedoglake: http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/13/bain-capital-founded-by-romney-buys-clear-channel/
Randi Rhodes Show: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t107831.html
DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/21/141627/161
So how did the blogosphere's left side cook up this smear campaign? It has been difficult to determine who started it, but appears to have been triggered by the AP story about the deal's extension into 2008 as a result of regulatory delays. That gave somebody on the left the idea to insert Romney into the story and from there it spread like wildfire.
Don't hold your breath expecting a series of retractions: the tin foil hat crowd has never met a conspiracy theory it didn't lovingly embrace.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Cheesesteak & Fraud......
1) A close adviser and chief fundraiser to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted on fraud charges. Yet if you read the story in either the Chicago Tribune or the L.A. Times, you won't read which party the governor belongs to. That's right. Blagojevich is a Democrat, yet the Trib didn't bother to include this fact in their piece. I have a nice prize for someone who can find me an article in a major U.S. paper of a republican scandal where the word “Republican” is conveniently left out. Any takers? I didn’t think so.
2) Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, was in court the past week defending his “English Only” ordering policy in his Philadelphia restaurant. A small sign that asked customers to order in English has sparked a huge controversy with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint against Joe.
Some people are calling Vento’s actions racist, but Joe himself said the signs were posted because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform, and the increasing number of people from the area who could not order in English.
"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the En
glish language," Vento told the commission. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."
The thing I find most interesting about this case is that first of all, Joe is not being sued by an offended customer, but rather by the “Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations”. However, Paul M. Hummer, an attorney for the commission, testified that the sign is not about political speech, but about "intimidation," and that it suggested business from certain individuals was not wanted.
Now I know a lot of business owners, and even the most racist among them – of which I do not consider Mr. Vento to be – are really only interested in one color: Green. To suggest that Mr. Vento would prefer to lose money is outrageous, especially since no one could come up with any supporting evidence that these were Mr. Vento’s motives.
In typical over-reaction from the left, Camille Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, testified that Vento's signs harkens back to the "Whites only" postings of the Jim Crow era. "The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said
Let me ask you this Ms. Charles: Suppose that Joe served what he THOUGHT a customer was asking for, but instead served them something different, and because of a rare peanut or shellfish or whatever allergy, that person died. Would you be rushing to Joe’s defense then.
I think Joe’s words: "This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language", are brilliant. Sure I think it’s annoying as a merchant myself trying to figure out what a non-English speaking patron is looking for, but imagine if you are that person who can’t speak the language. How many employment and just normal day-to-day transactions are closed to you because of the language barrier.
Sure, dealing with people who don’t speak English is a minor annoyance to some, but it is a huge barrier to these peoples advancement. By continuing to deny the fact that immigrants to ANY country need to learn the language to prosper in that country, makes those on the “pro-immigrant” side responsible for these immigrants slower assimilation into society.
2) Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's Steaks, was in court the past week defending his “English Only” ordering policy in his Philadelphia restaurant. A small sign that asked customers to order in English has sparked a huge controversy with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which filed the discrimination complaint against Joe.
Some people are calling Vento’s actions racist, but Joe himself said the signs were posted because of concerns over the debate on immigration reform, and the increasing number of people from the area who could not order in English.
"This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the En
glish language," Vento told the commission. "I'm not stupid. I would never put a sign out to hurt my business."The thing I find most interesting about this case is that first of all, Joe is not being sued by an offended customer, but rather by the “Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations”. However, Paul M. Hummer, an attorney for the commission, testified that the sign is not about political speech, but about "intimidation," and that it suggested business from certain individuals was not wanted.
Now I know a lot of business owners, and even the most racist among them – of which I do not consider Mr. Vento to be – are really only interested in one color: Green. To suggest that Mr. Vento would prefer to lose money is outrageous, especially since no one could come up with any supporting evidence that these were Mr. Vento’s motives.
In typical over-reaction from the left, Camille Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, testified that Vento's signs harkens back to the "Whites only" postings of the Jim Crow era. "The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said
Let me ask you this Ms. Charles: Suppose that Joe served what he THOUGHT a customer was asking for, but instead served them something different, and because of a rare peanut or shellfish or whatever allergy, that person died. Would you be rushing to Joe’s defense then.
I think Joe’s words: "This country is a melting pot, but what makes it work is the English language", are brilliant. Sure I think it’s annoying as a merchant myself trying to figure out what a non-English speaking patron is looking for, but imagine if you are that person who can’t speak the language. How many employment and just normal day-to-day transactions are closed to you because of the language barrier.
Sure, dealing with people who don’t speak English is a minor annoyance to some, but it is a huge barrier to these peoples advancement. By continuing to deny the fact that immigrants to ANY country need to learn the language to prosper in that country, makes those on the “pro-immigrant” side responsible for these immigrants slower assimilation into society.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
TP'ing The Christmas Tree
It’s Sunday, and as usual I have a few random thoughts to share.
U I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio saying she is an “Agent of Change”, and you know what. I believe her. Look at all of the Clinton staffers that she’s changed into Obama staffers.
U Every now and then you run across something in the paper that just makes you giggle. I shouldn’t, but…. Like this article from The Des Moines Register:
Butts declared incompetent in toilet paper theft case
Marshalltown, Ia. -- A woman charged with stealing toilet paper from the Marshall County courthouse has been declared incompetent to stand trial.Suzanne Butts, 38, was arrested in June after a courthouse employee saw her taking three rolls of toilet paper from a supply closet. The judge said Butts could still face charges if her mental condition improves. Butts could have faced up to two years in prison for the toilet paper theft.
Okay, it could be the obvious humor involving a person named “Butts” and the theft of toilet paper, but what really blows my mind about this case is that it ever became a case at all. The fact that someone could go to jail for two years for stealing three rolls of toilet blows my mind.
U Last Tuesday the house passed Resolution 847, a bill introduced by Steve King, Republican from Iowa. I am extremely proud to be from Iowa, and while I am a proud conservative, I’m not that proud of Mr. King. Resolution 847 passed 372 to 9, with 50 either voting “Present” which is a no vote (No as in “I choose not to vote”), or not there to vote at all. What is Res. 847? “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith!”
Don’t get me wrong, I certainly recognize the importance of both Christmas and the Christian faith, but I’m not sure this is the kind of thing our legislature needs to be dealing with. To me, this is pandering at its worse, especially given that we have actual important work that congress could be doing. But, given that they are not bothering with that, I guess they need something to do. Here is some of the text of this resolution:
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
If you wish the entire text of the Resolution, it can be found here:
U I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio saying she is an “Agent of Change”, and you know what. I believe her. Look at all of the Clinton staffers that she’s changed into Obama staffers.
U Every now and then you run across something in the paper that just makes you giggle. I shouldn’t, but…. Like this article from The Des Moines Register:
Butts declared incompetent in toilet paper theft case
Marshalltown, Ia. -- A woman charged with stealing toilet paper from the Marshall County courthouse has been declared incompetent to stand trial.Suzanne Butts, 38, was arrested in June after a courthouse employee saw her taking three rolls of toilet paper from a supply closet. The judge said Butts could still face charges if her mental condition improves. Butts could have faced up to two years in prison for the toilet paper theft.
Okay, it could be the obvious humor involving a person named “Butts” and the theft of toilet paper, but what really blows my mind about this case is that it ever became a case at all. The fact that someone could go to jail for two years for stealing three rolls of toilet blows my mind.
U Last Tuesday the house passed Resolution 847, a bill introduced by Steve King, Republican from Iowa. I am extremely proud to be from Iowa, and while I am a proud conservative, I’m not that proud of Mr. King. Resolution 847 passed 372 to 9, with 50 either voting “Present” which is a no vote (No as in “I choose not to vote”), or not there to vote at all. What is Res. 847? “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith!”
Don’t get me wrong, I certainly recognize the importance of both Christmas and the Christian faith, but I’m not sure this is the kind of thing our legislature needs to be dealing with. To me, this is pandering at its worse, especially given that we have actual important work that congress could be doing. But, given that they are not bothering with that, I guess they need something to do. Here is some of the text of this resolution:
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
If you wish the entire text of the Resolution, it can be found here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-847
Thank God Representative King and his co-sponsors (can you believe there are 60 of them) passed this, otherwise we wouldn’t know that on December 25th we observe Christmas, or that it is celebrated annually.
If I were a Congressman, I would have been one of the “Present” votes. I certainly wouldn’t have voted “Nay”, because there is nothing in the bill that is objectional. And yet nine Representatives did vote “Nay”, and not surprisingly, all were Democrats.
But the one thing I found most amusing, Steve King – the resolutions author – missed the vote.
Thank God Representative King and his co-sponsors (can you believe there are 60 of them) passed this, otherwise we wouldn’t know that on December 25th we observe Christmas, or that it is celebrated annually.
If I were a Congressman, I would have been one of the “Present” votes. I certainly wouldn’t have voted “Nay”, because there is nothing in the bill that is objectional. And yet nine Representatives did vote “Nay”, and not surprisingly, all were Democrats.
But the one thing I found most amusing, Steve King – the resolutions author – missed the vote.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Kid’s Say The Darndest Things…..
I have my friend Tamara to thank for today’s post. File these stories under “Why we love children”
A kindergarten pupil told his teacher that he’d found a cat, but it was dead. “How do you know that the cat was dead?” she asked him. “Because I pissed in its ear and it didn’t move.” Answered the child innocently. "You did WHAT?!!” the teacher exclaimed in surprise. “You know,” explained the boy, "I leaned over and went ‘Pssst!’ and it didn’t move.”
A little girl goes to the barber shop with her father. She stands next to the barber chair, while her dad gets his hair cut, eating a snack cake. The barber says to her, “Sweetheart, you’re going to get hair on your Twinkie.” She says “Yes, I know, and I’m going to get boobs, too.”
An exasperated mother, whose son was always getting into mischief, finally asked him “How do you expect to get into Heaven?” The boy thought it over and said, “Well, I’ll run in and out and in and out and keep slamming the door until St. Peter says ‘For Heavens Sake Dylan, come in or stay out!”
It was that time, during the Sunday morning service, for the children’s sermon. All the children were invited to come forward. One little girl was wearing a particularly pretty dress and, as she sat down, the pastor leaned over and said “That is a very pretty dress. Is it your Easter dress?” The little girl replied, directly into the pastor’s clip-on microphone “Yes, and my Mom says it’s a bitch to iron.”
When I was six months pregnant with my third child, my three year-old came into the room as I was preparing to get into the shower. She said “Mommy, you are getting fat!” I replied, “Yes honey, remember Mommy has a baby growing in her tummy.” “I know,” she replied, “but what’s growing in your butt?”
One day the first grade teacher was reading the story of Chicken Little to her class. She came to the part where Chicken Little warns the farmer. She read, “….and Chicken Little went up to the farmer and said ‘The sky is falling!’” The teacher then asked the class. “and what do you think the farmer said?” One little girl raised her hand and said “I think he said ‘Holy shit, a talking chicken!’” The teacher was unable to teach for the next 10 minutes.
And finally, I have one of my own stories to add. I wish it wasn’t, but this is a true story.
When my son Blake was about three years old he was getting into playing army and cop’s and robbers with his friend Kenny, and we never discouraged it because we weren’t all that P.C. with regards to raising our kid. However, we did tell him not to use the word “Kill”.
So we we’re at the video rental store looking for a movie, and this women came in with her two boys, about 5 and 6 years-old. These two were maniacs, and they were running around the video store screaming and yelling, and shooting each other with pretend guns. One boy was screaming “I KILLED YOU, I KILLED YOU” at the top of his lungs, and my three year-old calmly walked up to them and yelled “HEY!”. The boys stopped in their tracks and Blake said calmly but very sternly “DO NOT SAY KILL”, to which the older boys, both perplexed, replied “Okay”.
Pleased that the boys had actually listened to him, he continued “And don’t say shit or godammit!”
Oh, the pride!!!
A kindergarten pupil told his teacher that he’d found a cat, but it was dead. “How do you know that the cat was dead?” she asked him. “Because I pissed in its ear and it didn’t move.” Answered the child innocently. "You did WHAT?!!” the teacher exclaimed in surprise. “You know,” explained the boy, "I leaned over and went ‘Pssst!’ and it didn’t move.”
A little girl goes to the barber shop with her father. She stands next to the barber chair, while her dad gets his hair cut, eating a snack cake. The barber says to her, “Sweetheart, you’re going to get hair on your Twinkie.” She says “Yes, I know, and I’m going to get boobs, too.”
An exasperated mother, whose son was always getting into mischief, finally asked him “How do you expect to get into Heaven?” The boy thought it over and said, “Well, I’ll run in and out and in and out and keep slamming the door until St. Peter says ‘For Heavens Sake Dylan, come in or stay out!”
It was that time, during the Sunday morning service, for the children’s sermon. All the children were invited to come forward. One little girl was wearing a particularly pretty dress and, as she sat down, the pastor leaned over and said “That is a very pretty dress. Is it your Easter dress?” The little girl replied, directly into the pastor’s clip-on microphone “Yes, and my Mom says it’s a bitch to iron.”
When I was six months pregnant with my third child, my three year-old came into the room as I was preparing to get into the shower. She said “Mommy, you are getting fat!” I replied, “Yes honey, remember Mommy has a baby growing in her tummy.” “I know,” she replied, “but what’s growing in your butt?”
One day the first grade teacher was reading the story of Chicken Little to her class. She came to the part where Chicken Little warns the farmer. She read, “….and Chicken Little went up to the farmer and said ‘The sky is falling!’” The teacher then asked the class. “and what do you think the farmer said?” One little girl raised her hand and said “I think he said ‘Holy shit, a talking chicken!’” The teacher was unable to teach for the next 10 minutes.
And finally, I have one of my own stories to add. I wish it wasn’t, but this is a true story.
When my son Blake was about three years old he was getting into playing army and cop’s and robbers with his friend Kenny, and we never discouraged it because we weren’t all that P.C. with regards to raising our kid. However, we did tell him not to use the word “Kill”.
So we we’re at the video rental store looking for a movie, and this women came in with her two boys, about 5 and 6 years-old. These two were maniacs, and they were running around the video store screaming and yelling, and shooting each other with pretend guns. One boy was screaming “I KILLED YOU, I KILLED YOU” at the top of his lungs, and my three year-old calmly walked up to them and yelled “HEY!”. The boys stopped in their tracks and Blake said calmly but very sternly “DO NOT SAY KILL”, to which the older boys, both perplexed, replied “Okay”.
Pleased that the boys had actually listened to him, he continued “And don’t say shit or godammit!”
Oh, the pride!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
