When Bill Clinton was in charge of things, he gave his wife the dubious task of reforming health care in the United States. When it was all said and done, lots of rural hospitals had closed, 75% of all home health agencies quit, 75% of all national health insurance providers got out of health insurance, and the price of health insurance tripled. When I started selling health insurance in 1991, I had my choice of providers to choose from. Aetna, Travelers, Allstate, you name it, I had it. When I finally gave up on selling health insurance was when there was only one provider left in Kentucky, Blue Cross. Since Blue Cross didn’t use independent agents at the time, I was just out. My clients were just screwed. The state of Kentucky forced Human to compete with Blue Cross, it failed. Kentucky then formed a high risk pool to “compete” with Blue Cross. The net result of that was Anthem Blue Cross of Kentucky dropped its non-profit status so it could pay dividends on the fortune it was reaping thanks entirely to the health care reform of the 90′s. The net result of reform in Kentucky, and nationally was less competition, fewer options, fewer services, profoundly more expensive insurance, fewer people covered, and most importantly, more people relying on government programs. In simple words, it was a disaster. Today, amidst Anthem’s request for an additional 30% premium increase in some areas, Anthem is spending millions of dollars lobbying for protection, it’s CEO’s are making tens of millions, and their policies are becoming even more restrictive, if you can get it.
Bottom line, government reform was a disaster. We were much better off without it.
Now, we’re looking at a new reform push. So far, this is sort of what’s on the table in DC:
I see a problem with this. I hope you do too.
I have a better suggestion for health care reform:
Pretty droll huh?
This is where it gets exciting. In 2008, the Federal Health and Human Services agencies employed 64,750 people and cost over $700 billion. Now, keep this in perspective, this is just the federal agency. Every state has their own health and human services division. In California, they are requesting $7.9 BILLION just to balance their budget. That’s your money. And, more importantly, that’s my money. Now, in the case of California, their HHS agency is broken down into various divisions:
- Department of Aging
- Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
- Department of Child Support Services
- Department of Community Services and Development
- Department of Developmental Services
- Emergency Medical Services Authority
- Department of Health Care Services
- Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board
- Department of Mental Health
- Department of Public Health
- Department of Rehabilitation
- Department of Social Services
- Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
- Office of Health Information Integrity
- Office of Systems Integration
Going back to the federal chart, as it is now, you have these agencies:
- Office of the Secretary
- Administration for Children & Families
- Administration on Aging
- Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality
- Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
- Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
- Food & Drug Administration
- Health Resources & Services Administration
- Indian Health Service
- National Institutes of Health
- Office of Inspector General
- Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration
Each agency has many divisions or programs. Just picking one at random, Indian Health Services has the following programs:
- Community Health Suicide Prevention
- Desert Visions Youth Wellness Center
- Aberdeen Youth Regional Treatment Center
- Continuing Dental Education (CDE)
- Phoenix Area Council of Nurse Administrators
- Optometry
- Pharmacy Issues
- Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee
- Physical Rehabilitation
- Physicians
- Child Abuse
- Child Health
- National Pediatric Height and Weight Study
- Diabetes
- Epidemiology
- Elder Care Initiative
- HIV/AIDS
- Kidney Disease
- Maternal Child Health
- Perinatology Training Certification
- Medical Imaging
- Native American Cardiology Program
- Women’s Health
- Chief Clinical Consultants
- Clinical Information Resources (CIR)
- Consumer Health Information
- Contract Health Services
- Continuing Education
- Research Program
- Community Health Representative (CHR)
- Head Start Program
- Health Promotion Disease Prevention (HPDP)
- Injury Prevention
- Portland Area Injury Prevention
- Nutrition and Dietetics Training
Some agencies are bigger, very few are smaller. Now, here’s my rub on all this:
Every single federal agency has a large administrative staff. Every single program has an administrative staff. Everyone wants to blame the private sector, ie insurance companies and doctors on the inappropriate cost of insurance, but I think the biggest direct impact is being completely ignored. And, in the case of this latest reform measure, pandered to. Now, IMO, medically, an Indian is treated exactly the same way as a Veteran. Someone suffers the same injuries in Miami as they do Portland. There is no difference in what Head Start should be teaching an Indian student than a student in Appalachia. And, most importantly, a federal administrator of a program that is again administered on the state level is a complete and total waste of money.
How’s about this idea? Eliminate HHS entirely? Then, eliminate 90% of the state level programs entirely. Instead of HHS duplicating all the functions that are performed at the state level, create a funding stream in its place with a hand full of auditors, several very good computer programmers, and, a few data support staff to make their lives bearable. We don’t need that level any more. If you’re billing the feds for medical services by paper, you’re toast. The data collected by the provider is more than enough to get the job done. All HHS needs to do is verify the data is accurate. That most often can be done by cross-referencing existing data.
Having freed up several hundred billion dollars, send that directly to the states. In turn, the states will set up county clinics in the fashion of the health clinics of the 60′s and 70′s. In these cases, they will be staffed by hourly staff and provide the most rudimentary health services such as flu shots, boosters, and other routine medical services not requiring any specialty. These clinics will be staffed almost entirely by registered nurses. The heart of this proposal would be the fact that these clinics would be free to whoever walked in the door. No discrimination of any type. Black, white, illegal immigrant, felon, business tycoon, man, woman, child, it makes no difference. If you feel sick, go to the clinic. If you really are sick, they’ll send you to either a hospital or a specialist. This would replace the mandated health insurance coverage proposed currently. The money saved in this scenario is unfathomable. I can not even begin to imagine where to start in trying to figure out how much it would save. Start by scratching the cost of administrating medical cards, medicare, and medicaid on the federal, state, local, and private sectors. They’re all gone in this scenario.
In the case of hospitals and specialty services providers, a single payor on the state level will establish rates and services to be paid for. This allows for regional preferences in services. If one state wants to provide substance abuse for glue sniffers, that’s their decision. However, because one state chooses to provide services for glue sniffers, it’s not forced on the states that don’t have a problem with glue sniffers as the current system does.
I could go on and on and on for hundreds of pages. But, I hope you get the concept already. The basic intent of this, which I think is obvious, is to eliminate the ridiculous expense of wasted administrative costs.
But, it gets even better. Say you don’t like the services offered under the state plans. Simple enough. Private insurers will be allowed to offer any coverage they want over and above the state level services. You want annual botox injections, find an insurer who pays for them. You want semi-annual lypo? No problem. I’ve got the policy for you. This would actually expand the avenues insurers could offer, and allow them to generate more profitable policies since the everyday expense of processing expenses for headaches and hangover visits to clinics are gone. Their would be no limits at all on the health insurance industry. They could charge what they want, where they want, and for what services they want. Over and above the minimal clinical level services, free market would dictate the cost and services offered.
Rather than delving into every single aspect of the current public health care model, the same philosophy would apply to them all. Rather than pandering to almost every conceivable population sector, the entire population would be treated equally. There are populations with special needs, such as the infirm and mentally handicapped. The states would administer those programs without the redundancy and burden of incredible documentation required to appease federal funding.
Now, as with any scenario, there is room for, and there will be, some fraud. That would be handle as each state sees fit. However, I’m quite certain that under this scenario the room for fraud is reduced profoundly as most of the people working within the clinics and public services will be paid simply on an hourly/contractual basis. There is no way to overcharge for individual services provided as there is no individual billing.
And, another big upside to this is I won’t charge $1,500,000,000,000 to implement it.
The reason this will never happen in my lifetime is equally simple. It’s political suicide. At least 100,000 people would lose their jobs. A democratic society can’t make that choice. That’s the reason you have that garbled mess at the top of the page. Once a program is started, it never dies. The politics of taking services away from people is too lethal. Until we as a society accept the fact that something has to be given up in order to keep it at all, we’ll just keep watching health care eat up our budgets and infringe on other things we could be doing such as cleaning up our environment and pushing more efficient and greener technology that would make our environment safer, and our lives healthier.
And, until a leader such as Obama is willing to sacrifice everything for what he believes in, people won’t buy into their own sacrifices.
Bottom line, this mess proposed won’t pass as it is now. It’s too expensive and does too little. Even if it does pass, it won’t solve a single problem. The price of health care will just be $1.5 trillion more expensive than it is now. To put that in perspective, that’s $5,000 for every single person in this country. That’s $400 a person a month. May as well just keep things as they are and expand Medicare.
President Obama decided early on he couldn’t be the eyes and ears of the entire planet. So, he took on peeps to do it for him and gave them the lofty title of “czar”. Now, just for an aside, the term “czar”:
- an emperor or king.
- the former emperor of Russia.
- an autocratic ruler or leader.
- any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
Now, I know #4 is what presidential administration czars do. But, with this administration so far, it seems to be #3 serving #1. Given that bias, it would probably make my concerns about Obama’s science czar more understandable. I wrote about John Holdren on April 9th. He’s under the impression that global warming is already so dire, we should consider shooting particulates into the atmosphere to grow more clouds. That’s not a terribly whacky idea. Probably wouldn’t work tho. However, as we’ve gotten a chance to get to know John better, some of his other ideas are becoming the source of fodder. In 1977, Holdren teamed up with Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb
- Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
- The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
- Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
- People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Now, as crazy as this might seem, a lot of people believe in the New World Order. The key intention of the New World Order is to reduce the world’s population by about 5.5 billion or so. However, given the rate of growth of the world’s population, that probably needs to be about 6.5 billion if adjusted for inflation. All of this sounds kinda crazy don’t it? Well, it just gets better.
Without the full context, which you can read following the link, this might seem a little fuzzy. In essence, this person felt that Medicaid paying for abortions was a good form of population control of the lower class, and therefore was legal and should always be. When Harris vs McRae upheld banning Medicaid funding for abortions, this person realized that her perception of Medicaid abortion funding had been wrong. It was never intended to be a form of birth control for the lower class, it was an individual decision. The person that was perfectly OK with government funded abortions being a form of lower class birth control is Ruth Ann Ginsburg, a justice to the Supreme Court.
Still think it can’t get any crazier? Of course it can:
Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? Vodka, that’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water? On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason. Water, that’s what I’m getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth’s surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water? And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids. Are you beginning to understand? Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol? Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water? Well, do you know what it is? Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
That of course was spoken by Sterling Hayden. You can breathe a small sigh of relief because unlike the previous two, Sterling Hayden was a fictional character from the movie Dr. Strangelove
Once the perceived threat of overpopulation lost it’s moxie, of course, the imminent ice age became the threat. That didn’t last too long before global warming became the alarm du jour. Holdren was all over that one too. Among other predictions, Holdren predicted the oceans would rise thirteen feet globally by 2010. Unless the oceans rise, oh, thirteen feet in the next five months, he’ll be about as wrong as a person could get. Even the most pessemistic predictions at this time don’t support anything close to what Holdren predicted:
The U.N.’s climate change panel may be severely underestimating the sea-level rise caused by global warming, climate scientists said on Monday, calling for swift cuts in greenhouse emissions.
“The sea-level rise may well exceed one meter (3.28 feet) by 2100 if we continue on our path of increasing emissions,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Even for a low emission scenario, the best estimate is about one meter.”
There’s so much more. MasterResource took a stab at some of John Holdren’s claims:
Giving society cheap energy at this point would be equivalent to giving an idiot child a machine gun.
– Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power,” Federal Academy of Science Public Issue Report, May-June 1975, p. 5.
We can be reasonably sure … that within the next quarter of a century mankind will be looking elsewhere than in oil wells for its main source of energy. … We can also be reasonably sure that the search for alternatives will be a frantic one.
– Paul and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence, Rivercity Press,
Riverside, MA, 1974, 1975, p. 49.
Many of the conservation measures temporarily undertaken when the mini-crisis was in its acute stage – lowered speed limits, car-pools, reset thermostats, etc. – should be instituted on a permanent basis … In the long run, energy should be made expensive, especially for large users, as an incentive to conservation (emphasis added).
– Ehrlich and Ehrlich, The End of Affluence, op. cit., p. 48.
Laws may well be passed strictly limiting the number of appliances a single family may possess.
– Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How to Be a Survivor,
Rivercity Press, Rivercity, MA, 1971, 1975, p. 69.Unnecessary lighting in offices and factories should … be banned.
– Ehrlich and Ehrlich, The End of Affluence, p. 226.
It should immediately be made illegal to construct a building with windows which cannot be opened.
– Ehrlich and Harriman, How to Be a Survivor, pp. 73–74.
Completely frivolous uses of power, such as gas yard lamps that are permanently lit, should be outlawed altogether.
– Ehrlich and Ehrlich, The End of Affluence, p. 227.
If you look into John Holdren’s bio, he has a long and distinguished career with many titles and stuff. So, I really gotta wonder two things.
- Why is he always so incredibly wrong?
- Why would someone who’s got such a history of being not so much wrong, but amazingly wrong, be appointed the highest science position of authority in the land?
I can only offer two reasons:
- Holdren, Ginsburg, and Obama are most definitely members of the New World Order ( Illuminati ), or
- Obama’s political agenda trumped all else, including established science.
You can make your own decision, I’ve obviously already made mine.
14
Jul
That’s my opinion. No one really cares all that much tho. But, maybe they would if I had some uppity title like Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That’d be kind of impressive dontcha think? Well, I can’t claim the title, but the guy who can, Dr, James Hansen, has. He doesn’t like Cap and Trade at all. His issues with Waxman-Markey:
- It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
- It sets meager targets — 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year’s level — and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious “offsets,” by which other nations are paid to preserve forests – while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
- Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”
- It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, “businesses and households won’t be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,” thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.
And his summary?
The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It’s less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Now, ya think MSNBC and CNN will listen to some with a title like that? I’m not holding my breath either.
13
Jul
I just listened to Russ Feingold’s ten mintues of fame during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. He’s nuts.
“That is why I suggest to everyone watching today that they be a little wary of a phrase they may hear at these hearings – ‘judicial activism.’ That term really has lost all usefulness, particularly since so many rulings of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court can fairly be described as ‘activist’ in their disregard for precedent and their willingness to ignore or override the intent of Congress. At this point, perhaps we should all accept that the best definition of a ‘judicial activist’ is a judge who decides a case in a way you don’t like. Each of the decisions I mentioned earlier was undoubtedly criticized by someone at the time it was issued, and maybe even today, as being ‘judicial activism.’ Yet some of them are among the most revered Supreme Court decisions in modern times.
Perhaps he should accept that the best definition is the one most widely used:
: the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent —compare JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
That’s not my definition, that’s dictionary.com’s. Or perhaps:
Judicial activism is a critical term used to describe judicial rulings that are viewed as imposing a personal biased interpretation by a given court of what a law means as opposed to what a neutral, unbiased observer would naturally interpret a law to be. The term is most often used to describe left-wing judges.
That’s the definition according to the more fluid wikipedia. The only problem I have with that one is rather than calling it “left-wing”, the word “liberal” should have been used. Defining laws as one sees fit doesn’t get any more liberal than that. You don’t get any more liberal than Russ Feingold. First he tosses out any written definition, then he redefines the word as he wants it to be, then uses that personally re-defined word to attack those that he sees fit. In this case, it’s anyone who prefers the law be enforced as it’s written. If there’s a problem with that law, have the Congress change the law. It’s called sepration of powers. Here’s the written definition for Russ:
the principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government.
Notice that legislative and judicial are two SEPARATE branches. Judicial is not supposed to make laws, legislative is not supposed to enforce laws. Therefore, in very simple text, that is accepted, are the very fundamental roles that keeps our government in balance. A judge that does not get that very fundamental balance doesn’t deserve to be in a position to conflict with the other branches. And quite frankly, a senator who doesn’t understand their role in the government doesn’t deserve to be there either. But, people will keep voting for them anyway.
Then Feingold takes it a little deeper:
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it. That long record – which is obviously the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her – demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. Instead, a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context, have prompted some to charge that she is a racist. I believe that no one who reads the whole Berkeley speech could honestly come to that conclusion. The speech is actually a remarkably thoughtful attempt to grapple with a difficult issue not often discussed by judges – how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging.
He’ll be even more shocked to find out that not one person has said anything against her racial and ethnic heritage. What we’ve taken exception to is her own words:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
I would like to know how Russ Feingold can tell anyone that singling out a class of people solely on their race is anything BUT racism? How singling a class of people based on their gender is anything BUT gender discrimination? I could care less what her ethinicity is, she’s made a point of mine. I could care less what she’s got between her legs, she’s made a point of mine. Come on Russ, do me a favor, explain how I should feel any different about appointing someone who spoken racism and gender discrimination against both my race and my gender.
And, the last lie that I’m going to nail Russ on is this is not about “a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context”. According to many readily available sources:
Sotomayor has used the “wise Latina” phrase repeatedly in speeches dating back to 1994.
That’s from Time magazine. It’s not taken out of context. She doesn’t claim that it is. Feingold just says it is to make his point that people are making stuff up to attack an imaginary issue.
Then he sums it up woth:
how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging
The answer is, it shouldn’t. If I were to assume it did, and that was OK, then I’d have to assume that as a white male living in Appalachia, she’d have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to deal with my problems. That’s troublesome to me. And, it should be troublesome to a white male living in mostly rural Wisconsin. Do mineral rights mean anything to her? Eminent domain? I mean, there are a lot of issues that aren’t normally dealt with by a “wise Latina” from the Bronx. If she were strictly interpreting the law as it’s written, she wouldn’t have to worry about whether the issue was regarding a white Latina or a wise male living in Mississippi. She’d just apply the law. Everyone would be treated exactly the same. I wouldn’t go to that extreme, but after singling out “white males” in her speech, she overturned a discrimination case involving white males. So, the evidence is there to be questioned.
I have supported my claims through links to sources. I’d like to see Feingold do the same. The fact is Russ Feingold is making stuff up. Given how readily available that information is, that means he’s just flat out lying.
I’m waiting for Keith Olbermann to scoop this story. And, I’m waiting for Nancy Pelosi to condemn Feingold’s actions as more of the same from the Culture of Corruption that is the Democrat Party.
And what’s even more amazing about this farce is that Al Franken should be speaking right about now about the merits of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
13
Jul
Today we’ll start one of the most annoying processes in politics I can think of. Nominating a Supreme Court justice will bring us a week of guaranteed partisan political bickering and posturing. No ifs, ands, or butts. Guaranteed.
Now, I don’t have that much of an issue with that aspect of it. I just won’t watch any of it. But, I do have a problem when people forget the first principal of law.
Now, there is a reason that statue represents the fairness of the legal system. When a person walks into court or laws are determined for our entire society, it should make no difference whether a person is white, black, Latin, Asian, mixed, albino, Canuck, short, fat, too tall, or whatever. The law is the law. Period. The law applies to everyone equally. The law is not open to interpretation. When a judge decides it’s open to their own personal interpretation, then bias becomes an issue. Period. Whether intentional or not, a person’s opinions are biased on any subject. Outside of the legal system, that’s called opinion. When one forms an opinion, they have created a bias regarding that opinion. At that point, their judgment is no longer blind. At that point, whatever that opinion is carries the weight of the law. At that point, it is no longer possible to render a fair decision no matter how hard a person tries. That’s why I like very dull, very unimaginative judges. Just take the rules given to them and apply it. How simple can it be?
That however, almost never happens. People are people and they form opinions. Some people try to seperate their opinions from the legal practice, others don’t. I prefer the ones that at least try.
Now, that’s my underlying philosophy. The reason I go to all that trouble is beacuse in the case of confirming Sonia Sotomayor, if a person objects to any aspect of this woman, they’re immediately being put in the position of being an anti-Latina bigot. I’m not. I could care less what her background is. When the nominee renders a decisision, I want whoever it is reading what the laws are and applying them. I don’t want them thinking they are smarter than the law, more special than the law, or, can make that law a little better because of their own personal insight. Sonia Sotomayor just doesn’t fit that philosophy. She obviously feels her being both a Latina and a woman give her special insight that does not apply to anyone else. That’s just bias. As a white male. I would be concerned she would show a preferance to women and minorities. That’s not fair. As such, with her history, if a case conerning my gender or ethnicity made it to the Supreme Court based solely on her vote, I’d ask for her to be recused when rendering a decision due to her obvious bias.
Additionally, this is getting pretty pathetic. Not only has she illustrated repeated examples of bias, but not only does it not bother some legislators, they think it’s great:
“I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her,” – Diane Feinstein.
Feinstein then states as fact that Sotomayor has a lot of experience. Feinstein won’t discuss the experience. She will however, discuss the fact she’s a woman.
Of course I’m pleased that we will have another woman on the court. I do think it’s important not to just have one. Our nearest neighbor Canada also has a court of nine members and in Canada there’s a woman chief justice and there are four women all told… About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers and they ought to be represented on the Court. – Sandra Day O-Connor
Once again, the only issue that matters is that she’s a woman. No discussion on her legal opinions.
The Senate’s top Democrat praised federal judge Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday as an extraordinarily well-qualified Supreme Court nominee whose background as an “underdog” appeals to Americans.
The only discussion about her legal decisions is the fact she attended Princeton and Yale. All of the above basically dismissed Sotomayor’s speech that has drawn a lot of attention:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
None of them want to discuss the reverse discrimination case involving white males. It was a case in which both the judge in the lower court, and the Supreme Court, would side with the victims of discrimination. Being as everyone else thought she was wrong in that decision, it could be argued very easily that her personal opinion on the matter outweighed her concern for blind justice. And, if this were a situation where the law was complicated or obtuse, it would be different. Anthony Kennedy, in the vote to over-rule Sotomayor’s decision, cited this as support for his decision:
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited a violation of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion.
More specifically:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
10
Jul
10
Jul
Rasmussen released what has to be a very disturbing poll that shows Obama’s Approval Index plummeting in two key states, Ohio and Virginia:
The last two weeks of that poll have to be very disconcerting to the Obama PR peeps. For the first time in a year or two, it gives Republicans something to cheer about. Quite frankly, I think the trend in those two states will be reflected nationwide now that people are finally starting to realize exactly what it is they elected.
Everyone is talking about that Rasmussen report. To counter the buzz at Rasmussen, Harris Polls contacted me this morning to inform me that they have a poll going as well. They are taking a poll on fine fragrances.
Somehow I just couldn’t get too excited about that.
This one’s for Nancy:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”
Nancy Pelosi is sure of two things:
- No Democrat has ever done anything deceptive or the least bit beyond reproach. Ever.
- All Republicans and the CIA have lied to her. A lot.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion one has to come to when they see headlines like this:
Shortly after seeing a headline like this:
That maybe it’s not the CIA agents “misleading” Pelosi, but rather someone who looks an awful lot like this guy:
One Democrat is a confessed liar, the other one is the one I’m talking about. Ya think Nancy would ever admit that?
Nah, she’ll just claim Leon Panetta has another big lie he’s been telling her for a decade. He’s really Republican.
Barack Obama made a huge deal out of ending partisanship in DC.
He then pretty much slammed the door shut once he was elected. Democrats got all the positions of power. When Nancy Pelosi moved to squelch any chance of open, public debate on any issue, Obama was dutifully silent.
Yesterday we got a perfect example of just how partisan things are in DC under Obama’s spirit of bipartisanship. Obama had this opinion on the U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys Intercity Bus Security Grant Program:
“the awards are not based on risk assessment, and the homeland security investments in intercity bus security should be evaluated in the context of the risks faced and relative benefits to be gained.”
That opinion caused either one of two events to occur:
- The super-powerful American Bus Association sprung to action , rallying the voters to apply pressure all over the country. Feeling the pressure from disgruntled inter-city bus riders, Senators all over the country, including states that have no inter-city buses, caved under the pressure, and threw Obama under the inter-city bus and voted to keep the funding in place.
- OR, the fact that the amendment to remove the funding from appropriations was submitted by a Republican was too much to bear for the highly charged partisan Democrats and they couldn’t support it for that reason alone. Again, throwing Obama under the inter-city bus for no particular reason other than they couldn’t vote with a Republican.
Bottom line, Obama’s recommendation failed 51-47. It got so bad that among those voting against the amendment Obama recommended were Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Harry Reid of Nevada ( of course ), Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Thomas Harkin of Iowa, both Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mark Begich of Alaska. Can anyone tell me why someone from Hawaii would feel they know more about urban bus security than the President of the United States of America? Senators with obviously no dog in this race felt compelled to go against the President, and most ranking member of their party, rather than support a Republican. The world’s not going to come crumbling down because we, according to Obama, are wasting another six million dollars. But, don’t expect any miracles from this leader. When push comes to shove, Obama disappears.
