1
Jul
Minnesota chose Al Franken to represent them in DC.
And we all thought electing a “professional” wrestler as governor was a joke.
Everyone knows his SNL stint as the unfunniest of the initial SNLers. But, I bet a lot of people didn’t realize he’s an accomplished author as well. A couple of his tomes:
- Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot
- Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
- Why Not Me?: The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency
And, we can’t forget his Air America stint. It’s daily crashing and burning was lots more entertaining than its content.
Franken has made a career, although I don’t see how, of attacking and mocking people he doesn’t agree with for whatever reason he may see fit. His SNL career was cut short by attacking Silverman at NBC, his publishing career has pretty much been only about attacking Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley, and conservatives in general. And, of course, his broadcast career was based exclusively on attacking conservatives. I see two outcomes of his stint in DC. He wont’ get anything done. And, I would imagine Minnesota’s “other” senator, Amy Klobuchar, will tire quickly of trying to get anything done for Minnesota with Franken running his mouth. As a freshman senator, and a reputation of attacking those he disagrees with, Franken’s a double-weighted anchor around Amy’s, and Minnesota, neck. However, a large enough minority of voters voted for this joke to get him close enough to steal the election. So, Minnesota, you’ll reap what you sew. You send us an unfunny joke to represent you all, we’ll send a punchline back when you need us.
Too often in politics an idea springs up, gets a wave of support amongst the masses, political correctness yields to political pandering, and legislation passes because of that idea.
Then, after the fact, people understand why the idea was never enforced in the first place. Nebraska has done just that. Trying to deal with the abortion and abandoned babies issues, Nebraska passed a Safe Haven law that allowed parents to drop off kids up to eighteen years old.
So they did. People drove thousands of miles to ditch their kids. Gary Staton really took advantage of the law and ditched nine kids. Now, originally his story had some meaning to it. His wife died. He couldn’t handle it, wouldn’t ask for help, so he just decided to let the state take care of them. As it turns out, most are with some sort of family anyway and he hangs out with them all the time. He just doesnt have to be a father, raise them or bother with the expenses of providing for them. Otherwise all is good for Gary thanks to the Safe Haven law. Well, politicos, seeing how well it worked for Staton, decided they needed to change it. So, they dropped the age from eighteen years to thirty days.
Doesn’t matter much to Gary I imagine, his new girlfriend is expecting twins.
I’m OK with Safe Haven laws for babies. I do think some obligation should be expected of the parents that do abandon their kids and expect you and me to take care of their obligations.
On the spot castration should do it. The drop off spots are hospitals and they won’t compound their mistakes later on that way.
But, that’s not the way it’ll be I’m sure.
Personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be an issue any more. Should put a dent on the abortion issue as well.
Sonia Sotomayor, in a move to appease those criticizing her ethics, quit the Belizean Grove. Now, the problem she’s got is this just looks stupid to me, and some others. What’s the point in quitting AFTER membership becomes an issue? I mean, really? What’s the point? It’s already an issue, you honestly agreed with their agenda enough to join in the first place, and, quitting after the issue was raised just makes you look very shallow. Being a member was the damage already done. Abandoning them because the membership was exposed makes it look even worse. Should have just toughed it out at this point. I mean, are you going to quit being a female Latino because some people questioned your comments about being a better judge than white guys? It just don’t work that way. Once a member of something, in the political world, always a member. Bob Byrd to this day is still discussed about being in the KKK. That was supposedly sixty years ago when he quit. So, Sonia, you will always be attached to the Belizean Grove even if you quit when it was politically convenient.
So, now that the lifelong tether has been established, I had to wonder what this apparently all girls club was all about. This is their mission statement as best I can tell:
Having observed the power of the Bohemian Grove, a 130-year-old, elite old boys’ network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders, and realizing that women didn’t have a similar organization, Susan Stautberg and 26 other founding members created the Belizean Grove, a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.
Members are highly accomplished leaders in a wide venue of fields, are dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections. With this vision in mind, members are invited not only for their professional accomplishments but also for their generosity and compatibility.
The Grove is an international nurturing network that helps women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment, while also opening up more leadership opportunities to these women of diverse backgrounds, talents, ages, and skills. The Grovers are leaders from 5 continents, from profit, non-profit and social sectors. They are heads of major government agencies, businesswomen, military officers, academics, non-profit leaders, musicians, authors, diplomats, design gurus…
In retaliation of a perceived “elite old boys network”, they decided to form an “elite old girls network”. Simple enough. From reading, this was how some honorary members of the past described the elite old boys network:
- “That’s where all those rich Republicans go up and stand naked against redwood trees right?” – Bill Clinton
- “The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the Easterners and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it’s just terrible! I mean I won’t shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.” – Richard Nixon
- Jack London was a member and occasional visitor. He later wrote a book about a few idiots who ran the world.
Other sources of information include references to gay orgies, KKK-like attire, sacrifices to pagan gods ( owls ), and of course, a planning session for the New World Order. Other crazier stories involve animal shape-shifting and worse.
But, the big picture is you had to be elite by someone’s definition. Once you acheived that level of being elite, then all the trappings of the Bohemian Grove were yours.
That is apparently what the Belizean Grove aspired to emulate.
That is apparently what Sonia Sotomayor sought to emulate as well.
So, this is becoming kind of scary. Not only is Sonia Sotomayor a sexist and racist, she’s apparently a gay orgy kind of chick with a lust for younger babes, and either is a shapeshifter, or can get animals to do it ( I was fuzzy on that part ). And, to top it off, being a member of the New World Order, she’s from another planet and wants to kill off about seven billion people by 2012.
I just don’t think Obama thought this out too well.
Now, back to the story. This story ran Sunday:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a crowd of more than a thousand in St. James Sunday night that she will continue to advocate for children and adults who have developmental disabilities…..
Accompanying Palin on the trip is her husband, Todd, and the couple’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, as well as Palin’s sister, Heather Bruce and Bruce’s son Karcher, also 14.
From that content, David Letterman found lots of humor:
“One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”
A lot of people immediately attacked Letterman for the rather tasteless joke under any circumstances, much less about a fourteen year old girl. Letterman immediately replied:
We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter [Bristol]… and now they’re upset with me…” Letterman says on tonight’s show. “These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl…. Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No.” Saying he hopes he’s “cleared part of this up,” Letterman extended an invitation to Palin to come on the show as a guest.
The problem is Bristol was clearly not in the news, and Willow was. “Her daughter” at the game Letterman is referring to was Willow, not Bristol. She’s fourteen, not eighteen. Even the people writing Letterman’s reply had to stick in a note letting people know that he was referring to Bristol, and not Willow. David never mentioned any names during his joke, and he’s equally vague in his reply. Bottom line, this is a bad joke gone horribly wrong. It wasn’t funny in the first place, and it did leave a lot of room open for suggestion that he thinks Alex Rodriguez would knock up a fourteen year old.
Even if he wasn’t thinking about Alex Rodriguez knocking up fourteen year olds, that’s pretty much what he said due to sloppy writing, limited research, and an over-enthusiasm to once again take a shot at Sarah Palin. Some people call it Palin Derangement Syndrome. With the other personal comments Letterman made about Palin, he just looks like he’s eaten up with it. His offer for her to come on the show is shallow. He knows she won’t come anywhere near him right now. I wouldn’t either if someone kept attacking me and my family like he has.
Some suggestions I think would do David some good:
- Apologize. What he said was not what he meant ( I’m giving the benefit of the doubt. ) When in doubt, take the high road. Admit it was poorly worded and for that he should apologize. It would make a lot of people feel a lot better about this situation.
- Give it a rest. The election’s over. Attacking young children of politicians is never funny. And honestly, the constant vitriole is beyond tiresome, it’s becoming worrisome. If I want biased personal media attacks on politicians, I’ll watch Keith Olbermann. If Iwant witty dialogue, some humor, and skewed insights into current events, I don’t watch Keith Olbermann. Get it? Don’t try to be Keith Olbermann.
- Don’t make jokes that involve sex with teenage girls ( even if it wasn’t Willow, Bristol is only eighteen. ) Sixty-something year old men talking about teen girls having sex has a definite ick factor to it.
- If he hates something so much he can’t apply common sense to the dialogue, skip it.
- And, quite frankly, I think he should bend over backwards to undo the harm he’s done for the entire purpose of her visit here, raising awareness for children with Downs Syndrome. Her whole message has been lost thanks to his over-enthusiasm in trashing someone purely over partisan politics and using her children to do it.
- And, lose the beard. It makes him look like a creepy old man who thinks about having sex with fourteen year old girls. ( bah-bump-bump! Isn’t THAT funny! Yeah, thought so.)
I’d make the bold comment that I won’t watch Letterman any more unless he apologizes. But, I haven’t watched him in years. My guess is fewer and fewer people will be in the future. He used to be very funny, very witty, and very imaginative. I used to watch him every night religiously. The reason I quit watching him is he seems to be becoming a bitter old man. I just don’t think that’s funny any more.
If you wanna comment, don’t defend the joke here or feel compelled to trash Sarah Palin and her family. Letterman’s already done that. I will discuss whether he should apologize or not. But I’ll be up-front, I see no justification for him not to.
June 15, 2009 UPDATE:
David apologized:
Excellent move Dave.
First of all, let’s see what MEDPAC is. From their site:
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent Congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. The Commission’s statutory mandate is quite broad: In addition to advising the Congress on payments to private health plans participating in Medicare and providers in Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program, MedPAC is also tasked with analyzing access to care, quality of care, and other issues affecting Medicare.The Commission’s 17 members bring diverse expertise in the financing and delivery of health care services. Commissioners are appointed to three-year terms (subject to renewal) by the Comptroller General and serve part time. Appointments are staggered; the terms of five or six Commissioners expire each year. For more information on the commissioner appointment process, please clickhere. The Commission is supported by an executive director and a staff of analysts, who typically have backgrounds in economics, health policy, public health, or medicine.
Now, the prevailing theory that pretty much underlines this entire story is that as MEDPAC goes, so goes the nation. Jay Rockefeller is supposedly pondering moving MEDPAC into the Executive Branch to give it the authority to actually establish policy as opposed to merely recommending policy to Congress and allowing Congress to implement it or not. Ezra Klein seems to think this is a most excellent idea:
But this is the first time, at least to my mind, that we’ve seen anything that actually looks able to deliver on controlling costs. To flip the old line, this is where health care reform becomes entitlements reform.
Now, the primary assumption Klein makes is that Congress is ill-suited to handle the complexities of issues MEDPAC addresses. I’m not sure exactly what Klein thinks would be the ideal person to address all the complexities of health care provision. But, he seems to think MEDPAC has it under control. So, I thought I’d take a look at what it takes to be someone so incredible they obviously have more wisdom than HHS, Congress, and the private health industry combined. Without further ado, the MEDPAC advisory board:
- Christine Bechtel, Washington, D.C. (3 year term), Vice President, National Partnership for Women & Families
- Arthur Davidson, M.D., Denver Colorado (2 year term), Denver Public Health Department; Director, Public Health Informatics; Director, Denver Center for Public Health Preparedness; Medical epidemiologist; Director, HIV/AIDS Surveillance, City and County of Denver
- Adam Clark, Ph.D., Austin, Texas (1 year term), Director of Research and Policy, Lance Armstrong Foundation;
- Marc Probst, Salt Lake City, Utah (3 year term), Chief Information Officer, Intermountain Healthcare
- Paul Tang, M.D., Mountain View, California (2 year term); Vice President and Chief Medical Information Officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation;
- Scott White, New York City, New York (1 year term); Assistant Director, Technology Project Director, 1199 SEIU Training and Employment Fund; Expert in Health Information Privacy & Security
- LaTanya Sweeney, Ph.D., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (3 year term); Director, Data Privacy Lab, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Technology and Policy, Carnegie Mellon University; Expert in Improving the Health of Vulnerable Populations
- Neil Calman, M.D., New York City, New York (2 year term); President and CEO, The Institute for Family Health, Inc.
- Connie Delaney, R.N., Ph.D., Minneapolis, Minnesota (1 year term); Dean, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota
- Charles Kennedy, M.D., Camarillo, California (3 year term); Vice President, Health Information Technology, Wellpoint, Inc.
- Judith Faulkner, Verona, Wisconsin (2 year term); Founder, CEO, President, Chairman of the Board, Epic Systems Corporation
Can someone out there tell me exactly why they think someone who’s sole mission is to represent the interests of unions is qualified to determine medical benefits and cost containment for the entire country? Can someone show me when a union has ever come up with a plan to contain costs? And, although this is supposed to be monitoring Medicare, several members are employed exclusively in the for-profit sector. Bottom line from this list, it’s a bunch of people selected by the President solely for the benefit of the President. There is no guarantee whatsoever these are the most qualified people in the country to determine pricing for a multi-billion dollar industry. In other words, it’s probably a good thing Congress takes their recommendations with a grain of salt. It’s probably a good thing that there’s a check in place for MEDPAC. And, here’s a list of who those members would be that provide a balance to the recommendations of MEDPAC currently:
- John Boozman
- Charles Boustany
- Michael Burgess
- Paul Broun
- Bill Cassidy
- John Fleming
- Phil Gingrey
- John Linder
- Tim Murphy
- Ron Paul
- Tom Price
- Phil Roe
- Mike Simpson
That’s just the Republican side. There’s more. I particularly partake of the medical interests espoused by the Rural Health Care Coalition. Medical needs in rural areas are a lot different than in urban areas. We just don’t have as many resources. Here’s a list of who sits on that caucus:
- Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
- Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
- Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH)
- Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN)
- Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-NY)
- Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)
- Rep. John Olver (D-MA)
- Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
- Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-LA)
- Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN)
- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
- Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME)
- Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)
- Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
- Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)
- Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX)
- Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
- Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)
- Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL)
- Rep. John Peterson (R-PA)
- Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
- Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI)
- Rep. Gresham J. Barrett (R-SC)
- Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
- Rep. Charles Pickering (R-MS)
- Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
- Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
- Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)
- Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC)
- Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL)
- Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR)
- Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
- Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)
- Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)
- Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD)
- Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)
- Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
- Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY)
- Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
- Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
- Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN)
- Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
- Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)
- Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
- Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
- Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK)
- Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
- Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)
- Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
- Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
- Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)
- Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR)
- Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
- Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
- Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)
- Rep. John Salazar (D-CO)
- Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS)
- Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
- Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
- Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)
- Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
- Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
- Rep. Virginia Brown Waite (R-TX)
- Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)
- Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
- Rep. Dave Camp (D-MI)
- Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
- Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)
- Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV)
- Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
- Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO)
- Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
- Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)
- Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
- Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA)
- Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
- Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE)
- Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
- Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
- Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
- Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY)
- Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
- Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR)
- Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
- Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL)
- Rep. John Spratt (D-SC)
- Rep. James Clybrun (D-SC)
- Rep. Rick Larson (D-WA)
- Rep. Pete Fortney Stark (D-CA)
- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
- Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA)
- Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
- Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
- Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
- Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
- Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)
- Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
- Rep. John Tanner (D-TN)
- Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL)
- Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)
- Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS)
- Rep. Robert Cramer (D-AL)
- Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
- Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
- Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
- Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL)
- Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-MS)
- Rep. Arthur Davis (D-AL)
- Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA)
- Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
- Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)
- Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)
- Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
- Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
- Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA)
- Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
- Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
- Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
- Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY)
- Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)
- Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
- Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)
- Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
- Rep. John McHugh (R-NY)
- Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM)
- Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA)
- Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
- Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
- Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
- Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)
- Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
- Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
- Rep. Michael McNulty (D-NY)
- Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
- Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA)
- Rep. Cathy McMorris (R-WA)
- Rep. Jim Walsh (R-NY)
- Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX)
- Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
- Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN)
- Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
- Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME)
- Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)
- Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
- Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC)
- Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)
- Rep. Bob Etheridge (R-MI)
- Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
- Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
- Rep.Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS)
- Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
- Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
- Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK)
- Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
- Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
- Rep. Charles Wilson (D-OH)
- Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
- Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)
- Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ)
- Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
- Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
- Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD)
- Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA)
- Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
- Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
You’ve got doctors, you’ve got nurses, you’ve got every conceivable social demographic covered. That’s another 175 people with some degree of experience or concern about health care. And, what I like even better about this list than the first one?
We picked the second list.
Obama is pulling too much authority into the Executive Branch. He’s not doing it at the expense of Congress, he’s doing at the expense of your right to choose. If Medicare were a panacea of medical coverage, I would be more receptive. But, if you ask any medical provider who the worst payor is, I bet you bottom dollar Medicare would win out by a long shot. Many providers have pulled out of Medicare over the last few years due to their dragging out claims, challenging inane paper errors, and just being a bugger to deal with. That’s not cost containment as we need it. That’s cost containment at the expense of coverage. That’s the national plan you see unfolding for Obama’s health plan.
And, just for Ezra, as a provider, I can tell you from experience, when preparing rates for Medicare, you round UP, not DOWN. The reason being is Medicare only pays for a certain dollar amount that you can maximize. Additionally, most private sector insurers will not pay more than the Medicare amount. So, if you accept Medicare, and you do private business as well, you’d be nuts to charge Medicare anything less than slightly more than the maximum rate they offer. The trade-off? It allows you to discount the private sector, primarily those with poor or no insurance.
Those are the ones who will get hit the worst under Rockefeller’s scenario, which should be noted, is not on ANY of the lists above. If the Medicare rates are lowered, that leaves less margin to cover for those people. All they could hope for at that point is for the standards that denied them coverage under Medicare in the first place to be changed as well.
That, I would not rule out. You can’t have a perfect socialist utopia with out socialized medical care.
During the presidential campaign of 2008, John McCain, the straight shooter, said he’d consider taxing health benefits in order to pay for expanding health coverage to everyone else. It was one of the deciding factors in deciding the race. Obama jumped all over McCain on the issue, and of course, promied everyone his coverage would be free. He would never tax health benefits. Think I’m exaggerating a bit? Let’s look and see at a few examples:
Now, after being elected, Obama is open to taxing health care benefits:
President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised the issue with Obama during a private meeting Tuesday with the president and other Democratic senators and later reported the president’s response: “It’s on the table. It’s an option.”
I’m waiting for all those groups that so enthusiastically trashed McCain for pondering the idea to do exactly the same to Obama. Come on you unions and firefighters, I double-dog dare ya to stand by your word.
Sometimes I feel like most of my views are totally contrarian. That beliefs in traditional values and harsh consequences for harsh actions is something most people can’t deal with. Then I see something like this on Facebook:
Results: Is the death penalty wrong?
Now, Facebook’s as hip as it gets. This ain’t a bunch of old folks chatting, it’s people of all ages, races, denominations, etc.. What I like about social networking sites is it’s not controlled. When Foxnews releases a poll, I know it’s tilted to the right. With CNN, it’s tilted to the left. With MSNBC, it’s whatever they want it to be. In other words, it’s filtered. With a volunteer poll like Facebook, it’s not. My only reservation about proclaiming something CNNesque like “2/3 of all Americans support the death penalty” is out of the millions on Facebook, only 24,000 have taken this poll.
But, even with those 24,000, it makes me feel a lot better knowing at 16,568 other people think an eye for an eye is appropriate.
1
Jun
Anyone notice anything about the price of gas lately? I have. So has AAA:
| Regular | Mid | Premium | Diesel | 85 | **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price |
|
| Current Avg. | $2.512 | $2.668 | $2.762 | $2.378 | $2.085 | $2.744 |
| Yesterday Avg. | $2.502 | $2.656 | $2.751 | $2.369 | $2.077 | $2.733 |
| Week Ago Avg. | $2.424 | $2.575 | $2.666 | $2.324 | $1.986 | $2.613 |
| Month Ago Avg. | $2.061 | $2.189 | $2.267 | $2.254 | $1.766 | $2.324 |
| Year Ago Avg. | $3.975 | $4.221 | $4.372 | $4.791 | $3.316 | $4.364 |
It’s going up again. In fact, in 30 days, it’s gone up about 25%. That’s a pretty big jump if you ask me. Seems gas jumping 25% in 30 days would be news to some. It’s not to CNN. MSNBC does mention it, but is quick to point out that it was more expensive a year ago. Running for office, Obama talked about the price of gas and what he would do about it when elected. What has happened since he’s taken office is the retail price of gas has increased 42%. While the price of gas was “killing people” when he ran, it’s apparently not now that he’s elected. And, if you think it’s an issue now, the “press” will quickly remind you that you have no reason to complain now, it was more expensive sometime in the past and therefore all is good now.
And no one seems to care.
Congress passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009. It passed with broad support from both parties and Obama is expected to sign it within a week or so. A lot of people are saying it will solve the credit card abuses. Some see it differently.
That’s the way I see it. It’s simple logic that if your ability to cover risk is reduced, you reduce your risk. Call me crazy, but my days working in insurance actuarials sorta gives me the idea credit card risk isn’t a whole lot different.
And, this is yet another example of the federal government controlling the private sector. Of course, if I call it what it is, people will accuse me of fear mongering. Again.
20
May
There is a site that is asking people “Which frontrunner is the worst liberal judicial activist?”. Now, naturally, this is a loaded question. If you’re not a screaming liberal, they all look equally bad. So, imagine my non-surprise when I get the results so far:
Now, this presents two situations to me. First of all, there is no clear “worst”. If it’s one of these three, you’ve got an activist judge that feels the Constitution is open to interpretation as they see fit. The second problem is if these votes represent mostly Republicans, as I imagine it does, then there is no ghost chance at all any organized resistance to his nominee will occur. People either have semi-mixed feelings about what they don’t like, or, they don’t have a clue what it is they are objecting to and are just clicking for the sake of showing disapproval of anything Obama does. If it’s the former, that’s good. If it’s the latter, that’s bad. Either way, there’s nothing Republicans can do to stop his nominee even if they are the worst judge on the planet. So, may as well figure some way to get a postive spin on it.
My suggestion? Find liberal issues the nominee has voted against and throw those out there in a very public light. It most likely won’t stop the process, but it would sew more discontent with people who perceive Obama as becoming more and more afraid to do what it is his liberal base expected him to do.
Personally, I don’t care who his nominee is. Obama’s replacing a liberal with a liberal. It’s not going to change the court one iota.