These are 9 news stories that the establishment missed in 2009. Either they reported belatedly, partially, or not at all.
What strikes me about this list is how very important these stories were and how derided they were by the established elites. On the extremists-in-government stories, I recall how much attention was paid to these when the Republicans were in power. If they were important then, they were important this year, too.
News today that another terror attack occured on NW Flite 253 to Detroit.
That's two attacks in just a few months. This compares to the record of the Bush years.
The Fort Hood attack was definetly related to left-wing attitudes on profiling and political correctness. This one is too new for us to know about yet. The suspect appeared to be a Nigerian who transited in via London and Amsterdam. Nigeria has a substantial Muslim population.
One of the Bush Administration anti-terror policies had been the cooperation of European Banks to track terrorism's financing. The New York Times decided to override Bush's objections and publicized this part of the anti-terrorism policy. As a result, the European banks invovlved, discontinued their cooperation. Since then, the threat of exposure and retaliation has inhibited private European institutions from cooperating with the US government.
For all the harranging on Bush for his anti-terror policies being too strict, the proof was in the scorecard. No major terror attack on US soil for the duration of his watch. Obama takes over and now what?
It is time to re-examine the Bush anti-terror policies. Those that worked and have been removed ought to be reinstated. Safety ought to trump ideology on this issue.
This essay by Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times says that we can't do the Arab's fighting and dying for them. They have got to take ownership themselves of the fight against terrorism themselves.
True, kind of. The problem of indeginous support vexed Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. Southerners who said they supported the Union but weren't willing to sacrifice to do it. Still, the job got done. The army had to conquer and then occupy the land for many years, though.
Just finished the Coulter Health Care Series today (organized links and did some light editing) and this caused me to think about the ever-present labels that are throw at these people. She made a lot of good points. By "these people", I mean people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck.
What gets me is how many good points these people make and how these points are ignored by the more established pundits.
I watch Glen Beck occasionally and listen to Rush, also occasionally. Sometimes they seem to be wrong and sometimes they seem to be right. This is the same as when I listen and read commentary by more establishment types, New York Times and Washington Post editorials, for example. I must conclude that Coulter, Beck, Rush, et al are pilloried not for the things they get wrong but because they are so very effective at getting things right.
I wish their major points received more establishment attention. But then I learned early on that one "gotcha" erases many "attaboys".
This is a summary of Ann Coulter's series on Health Care. It lists the Administration's main talking points on this issue and her rebuttals thereto. I liked this serics because of the pointed and sharp nature of the responses as well as the summary of the supporters' reasons.
Some of her talking points were redundant and some were covered in multiple installments. I edited these points so that we can have a good summary of the health care debate.
TALKING POINTS
INSTALLMENT
DATE
The New National Health Care Plan will:
1. Punish the insurance companies. 2. Increase competition and keep insurance companies honest. 3. Stop insurance companies denying legitimate claims. 4. Give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." 5. Be the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.
12. Only a government run plan can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job." 13. The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
14. Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care. 15. America's relatively low life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves welfare-state health care is better.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This installment covers life expectancy.
(18) America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.
Like the infant-mortality ranking installment, here she cites different life-style choices and different reporting standards as the cause of the difference instead of the differences in access to medical care. In addition:
Quote:
These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.
My Views:
This concludes the series as far as I'm concerned. I gather she wants to continue it for commercial reasons, but she's starting to repeat herself. I like the fact-based information contained in this series.
Among the life-style choices she cites is obesity. This does seem to be a problem in our American culture. One continually reads of the problems with rationing in other countries and one wonders if the doctors will be better under a government program.
Overall, I think that we need to attend to the doctor shortage in our country. We need more medical schools and less law schools. Lawyers have too great a role in our medical system and doctors too little.
The Democrats do have some good ideas. Mandating Health Insurance is one. Uninsured people still get health care; the government gets stuck with the bill. That gives government the right to demand some kind of payment. Everyone ought to get the same benefit from their tax dollars: the insured and the uninsured, alike.
Finally, the portability problem ought to be addressed. That means that we keep our insurance policies when we leave our jobs and when we move to another state.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: Obama is having difficulty deciding on the new strategy in the Afganistan War. Should he try to win it? Should he accept a status-quo quagmire? Should he cut and run?
Quote:
The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals' and certainly not Bush's. It was Obama's meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity" during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq -- a good battleground for the U.S. -- to Afghanistan -- a lousy battlefront for the U.S.
My Views: There's a lot of reasons for leaving. A winning strategy does not appear to be in sight.
I am surprised that Obama has got to this point without knowing what to do. He's had a lot of time to learn about this issue. Certainly, when he ran for President last year, he gave the impression he knew what to do. There's been no real changes there in the last few years, so why's he having such a problem coming to grips with this?
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This installment covers claims comparing US infant mortality rates to those of other countries. It's comparing apples to oranges. The main causes are life-style choices such as smoking and teen births, rather than a lack of medical care. Also, other countries don't count premature births while ours do.
(17) America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours.
Quote:
Apart from the fact that we count -- and try to save -- all our babies, infant mortality is among the worst measures of a nation's medical care because so much of it is tied to lifestyle choices, such as the choice to have children out of wedlock, as teenagers or while addicted to crack.
My Views: She makes some good points. The major causes of infant mortality are premature births and low birth weight. In addition from from life-style choices, another major reason for the higher reported rate in the US is the reporting criteria. She cites examples of countries which classify all infant deaths in the first 24 hours as "miscarrage" rather than "death". 1/3 of all infant deaths in the US occur in the fist 24 hours. Adopting a single measurement of counting deaths would dramatically change the US ranking.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This installment covers:
15. Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.
16. America's relatively low life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves welfare-state health care is better.
Quote:
Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care.
My Views: One of the oddest things about this whole controversy is that the supporters think that if they only passed this thing, then the public will change from hating it to loving it. The problem is that they've got to pass it and it has to work. That means that defit does not increase deficit spending. It is difficult to see this happening.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
Was this really so important? The fact that the US has hosted lots of Olympics and other entire continents haven't hosted any would have bben a powerful factor if I had had vote. At the end of the day, I think that the Olympic Officials made the right choice. South America ought to get their just due.
Now as to what went wrong: one idea is that it wasn't Obama's fault. Chicago had such a corrupt reputation, that this caused people to be against this. I don't buy this. Rio has big problems, too.
No, I think that the significance of this news story is that Obama did screw up. This is not to diss him (okay, a little.) Rather, it demonstrates some important attributes to good salesmanship. This is a good case study in basic principles of sales. This article says that 3 basic principles were violated in O's presentation: 1) Believe in the product 2) Stress benefits to buyer, not to the seller 3) Talk about the customer, not the sales force
Given the drive to bring the Olympics to a new area of the world, it is doubtful that anything the Obamas could have said would have changed anything, but all the talk about what sacrifices they were making to be there was the wrong approach.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This installment covers portability and "the trigger". The trigger is the term for government insurance only if the commercial insurance companies don't meet certain targets.
List:
Only a government run plan can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job."
The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
Quote:
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion?
My Views: There's been a lot of talk about right-wing "lies" - particularly regarding statements from folks like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin. The left seems to be overstating their case, too. Both sides have exagerated the pros and cons of this issue. This series' value exposes the exagerations of the supporters of the Democrats' Bill. It also breaks down the issue into handy talking points.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
An old, long-wiskered man once said to Teddy Roosevelt: "I am a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat." Roosevelt then said: "Then if your father had been a horse thief and your grandfather had been a horse thief, you would be a horse thief?"
"No," the man said, "I would be a Republican."
The story is not true. All Republicans are not horse thieves. At the biggest estimate, not over 90 percent are horse thieves. Every once in a while you meet a pretty nice one.
Just want everyone to know: my grandfather was not a horse thief. He was a smuggler. Had a respectible job in Arizona working in the Post Office. That's how he got Grandma to marry him. Once they tied the knot, he got the smuggling operation going. (This was during Prohibition.) Was pretty good at it, too. Ran semi's out of Mexico. The FBI caught up with him, though. He did a stretch at MacNeil Island Federal Penitentiary. Grandma loaded up my father and the rest of the kid in the car and drove up to Seattle to wait for him to get out. That's how the family wound up in Washington State.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This time she covers Medicare, Illegal Immigration, and The Public Option. The Obama supporters are using different terminology for the same concepts. If we run health care like Medicare, then note that Medicare is already on the path to going bankrupt. As for Illegal Immigration, it is one thing to legislate that they will be excluded from the new health care plan, it is another to enforce the law. Won't Obama's policy to this mirror his policy on enforcing the present laws about illegal immigration? Public Option: they will do it under a different name.
List: The New National Health Care Plan will:
Be like Medicare.
Not cover illegal aliens.
Not have the "Public Option".
Quote:
Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."
My Views: Okay, she is provacative and witty at the same time. I just like this style of writing. Her strongest point is on illegal immigration. Hey! It's already illegal. If they don't want to enforce that, what makes anybody think that they would enforce an anti-illegal provision in The Health Care Bill any better?
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
Here's some interesting stuff that I've seen on the internet.
First this by Noemie Emery on the disunity of Conservatives. I never really understood why the intremural attacks on Sarah Palin. Sure, to some extent but the over-the-top rejections of her smacked too much of pandering to the establishment elite.
Second, this is an historical ranking of America's top political dynasties. I like the objective criteria employed. This gives me confidence in the historian's conclusions.
Last, I had forgotten Bill Clinton's ringing declaration last decade that "the era of big government is over". Did you forget, too? This article by Mike Flynn pinpoints the real reason why so many people are concerned about the direction that Obama is taking the country. It is not necessarily any one issue like health care. It is the larger concerns about government not only getting bigger, but stultifying.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: This is the big bomb that he dropped a week ago. He sees this developing into another Vietnam. Ingredients include: corrupt government, apathetic people, and feckless allies. Plus the enemy has North Vietnam style sanctuary in Pakistan.
Quote:
Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean.
My Views: My first thought was the predictablity of this. For years we have been told that Afganistan was the good war and that it was Iraq that was was the bad one. (John Kerry made this the central issue in his campaign against George W. Bush in 2004.)
Now that we're withdrawing from Iraq, sure enough, right on schedule, the calls for withdrawals from Afganistan begin. For many, being for Afganistan but against Iraq was just a ruse to be able to be dovish to left wing voters and hawkish to right wing voters.
As for George Will, these reasons he cites have been known for years. So, why didn't he come out against Afganistan before now?
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin are again in the news. One just turned upon her tormenters with a lawsuit; the other was driven out of office. One women ran for Miss USA; the other ran for Vice-President. For both women, it was not enough that they were defeated in their respective contests; they had to be humiliated, ruined, and stigmatized for all time. Both are part of a disturbing phenomenon in American culture.
Let’s take the two cases one by one.
CP was a beauty contest winner – and looser. As Miss California she lost the contest for Miss USA. She was ambushed with a gay-marriage question in the final moments and answered against it. The judge bragged afterwards how he used that answer to defeat her.
But that was not enough.
The pageant officials denounced her. An investigation targeted her – just her, not any of the other beauty contestants – and found some bad things. Not anything very bad, mind you, but bad stuff, nevertheless. This was the excuse for a new round of denunciations.
They even went after her Miss California title! A straight-up attempt to remove her from that failed. (The firestorm from the left triggered a backlash of negative publicity on the pageant.) Trump caved. (Donald Trump owns the beauty pageant.)
But as many of may know from much experience, there’s more than one way to get rid of someone. After a length of time, the officials who had denounced CP so vociferously, announced their excuse: she had failed to make 75 appearances. So they fired her and Trump okayed it. Now she’s suing.
Sarah Palin underwent a similar ordeal. Her family was targeted, the parentage of her children was questioned, and worst of all, so many ethics complaints were filed against her that she ran up $500,000 in legal fees just to defend herself. Then the newspapers announced she was getting divorced (false).
Both women did not handle the onslaught very well. Thrown into minefields, they stepped on a few. But did that justify the vilification that they both endured?
- And remember: Carrie Prejean was only a beauty contestant!
In the end, it was not these two women that were hurt the most; it was our culture. Whatever happened to the kinder, gentler America?
My take on George Will's latest. His essay was published in the Newsweek Magazine.
Summary: On at least two main issues in the news, health care, global warming, the legislation before Congress does not seriously face the facts. The global warming bill is called “cap and trade”.
Quote:
That legislation is a particularly lurid illustration of why no serious person nowadays takes seriously Washington's increasingly infantile bandying of numbers.
My Views: I’ve been drawing attention to the articles by George Will and Charles Krauthammer because they make serious criticisms of the issues. I fear that too much of the press is too infatuated with Obama to give these issues the kind of objective analysis that they deserve. In this essay, Will’s points ought to be addressed by responsible people in power.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: This installment covers abortions, rationing, and cost control with a humorous play on the CIA angle to distract attention from the Healthcare issue.
List: The New National Health Care Plan will:
Have no rationing.
Reduce costs.
Not cover abortions.
Quote:
With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.
My Views: I doubt that Obama is using the prosecution of CIA agents as a device to distract attention to the issue. This is just Coulter humor. As for the main topics, she makes some effective points. Abortion funding may not be explicitly included in the bill but does anybody seriously think that when passed and it comes to Obama implementing it, that abortion funding won't be there? As for rationing, well . . . how can it be otherwise? Others have looked at the costs of this thing is a very seriously way and there is a great deal to be concerned about.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
Lots of eulogies of Edward Kennedy. Here's a larger view of the significance of this event.
This is the first time since 1956 that there has not been a Kennedy on the national scene in the first rank. At the 1956 Democratic National Convention, John F. Kennedy mounted a short-lived bid for the Vice-Presidential nomination. While he lost to Estes Kefauver, he emerged from that convention as a national figure and a contender for President in 1960.
Since then, there has been a Kennedy as a possible contender for top honors through the 1980's. After Ted Kennedy's loss of the presidential campaign in 1980 to Jimmy Carter, he gradually fell back upon Senate power. He was a major player in the Senate until his death a couple days ago.
There are other Kennedys, of course. A Kennedy may even be elected to replace him in the Senate. But no Kennedy will have front-rank stature and this marks a change in America's politics.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: It lies somewhere between the extreme statements of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. Not "Death Panels" but not "non-existent", either.
Quote:
It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point the patient in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sickroom where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.
My Views: I find myself quoting CK so much because he gets so much right. I've watched MSNBC where all the concerns about death counseling are dismissed as so much lies, so it is nice to read a reasoned analysis of what the issue is really about.
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
Give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."
Be the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Quote:
You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.
My Views: There's been a lot of coverage of this issue and I fear that I am over-doing it myself. I can't help but notice that it has a number of dimensions: 1) The importance of the issue itself; 2) the political calculations involving the emphasis on the shortcomings of the insurance industry and not others such as the law firms; 3) the elitism towards public concerns expressed at town hall meetings and elsewhere; and 4) Obama's Administration imploding.
If I were Obama, I would at this point shift attention away from townhalls by challenging the Republicans to a debate - a real one - face to face using something like the old Buckey Firing Line format. Two teams line up and take turns banging away at an issue. D's vs. R's. Or else go one on one with a prominent R - like Sarah Palin. Presuming she would score badly, he could recover momentum.
Of course, there's the danger that the R's concerns aren't as bad as the D's and their amen corner in the media make it out to be - and that people like SP aren't as dumb as they're portrayed as being, either. Danger, yes but at this point if I were Obama, I would take the chance.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
The R's Have the Birthers But What Do the D's Have?
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: Okay, the Birthers may be a little nuts. But before we judge the conservatives and the Republicans we also ought to look at the nutjob politics that the other side have tolerated - and even supported!
Quote:
And as has been recently noted, a 2007 Rasmussen poll showed that 35 percent of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, while 26 percent aren't sure ...
My Views: It bothers me that so much of news coverage seems to be designed to influence rather than inform. The selective outrage at crazy political theories and the selective concern at the degree of crazy opinions and behavior in the political system is just one case of bother.
I would be a lot share the left's concern about the birthers a lot more if they weren’t so opportunistic in jumping on this story
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: The costs of Health Care are prohibitive. Obama has been using accounting tricks to disguise them. The Congressional Budget Office gave the lie to them. Now it's busted.
Quote:
Whatever structural reforms dribble out of Congress before the August recess will likely not survive the year. In the end, Obama will have to settle for something very modest. And indeed it will be health-insurance reform.
My Views: It has always seemed to me that the real problem is too few doctors. I saw somewhere that the number of medical schools has actually declined in the last decade. They're too costly. That's where the country ought to put its healthcare priorities: more doctors.
Insurance seems to be driven by malpractice suits. Legal reform to cut the lawsuits would help there.
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: Police answer a break-in call to find out the person was the inhabitant of the home. They ask additional questions and the guy freaks out. They arrest the guy and he yells race (he's black). Because he's a Harvard Professors with connections, this becomes a big story.
Quote:
Suppose a cop didn't arrest a guy who was ranting and raving -- in his own home -- and, an hour later, the hothead assaults someone. Policeman: I was as surprised as anyone that he shot his girlfriend! Every liberal in the country would demand the cop's head.
And by the way, try screaming at a judge that he's a racist and see what happens. Why should police officers deserve less protection than judges? They're in more danger.
My Views: I think that this is more about the elitist attitudes of the Ivy League than race. Race is just the excuse he used to play victim. If he wasn't black, then he would have yelled something else. Remember the Harvard President, Larry Summers - ejected because of his alleged sexist views - now in the Obama Administration? Same kind of stuff.
Trouble is that instead of providing intelligent "teachable moments" (Obama's phrase for this) we get this. Unfortunately, many people are taking away the opposite things from this then Obama intended.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Health care has become the signature issue of the Obama Administration but hope and change are not what marks his effort. Old fashioned Democrat special-interest group politics is. Exhibit: The Trial Lawyers Lobby.
Quote:
This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?
My Views: K leads with the image of rhetoric meeting reality. If only Obama's rhetoric matched reality. I for one was really hoping that a Democratic President could and would take on the Democrat special interests that have hobbled solutions to our political problems for so long. Yet, here there is no hope or change. He criticizes the Republican special interests and supports the Democratic ones. Same old politics; just lots more spending.
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Not much is happening in Space anymore and that's a shame.
Quote:
America's manned space program is in shambles. Fourteen months from today, for the first time since 1962, the United States will be incapable not just of sending a man to the moon but of sending anyone into Earth orbit. We'll be totally grounded. We'll have to beg a ride from the Russians or perhaps even the Chinese.
My Views: At this point in time, we can't really say that we're retreating from Space. Obama has a review underway and may launch a new space intiative - or he may not. What bothers me is that we can never move ahead in Space if every few years when a new Administration moves in, they say cancel everything and start something new. It has to be an Obama program, not a Clinton one, and certainly not a Bush one.
Trouble is that space programs need consistent progress, not cancellations and new projects all the time. If there is a new Obama program, and if it is an improvement over the ones the earlier Presidents had, and if our country will follow through on it, then this is well and good. At this point, I hope so.
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
Senate Hearings on Court Nominees: Excercises in Hypocracy
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: The treatment of Sonia Sotormayor is compared to how past Republican nominees have been treated. Her list includes:
Clarence Thomas
Miguel Estrada
Janice Rogers Brown and of course,
Robert Bork
Quote:
To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil, it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci case.
My Views: I had forgotten how the Democrats have treated minority nominees by Republicans until she reminded me in this column. My response to the hypocracy of this is emotional but sometimes emotionalism is a good thing. It is important that the only reason that this Hispanic nominee is so significant is because past men and women of Hispanic and other backgrounds were blocked by these very Senators - and blocked because of their ethnic origins, too. Shame!
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
Big Labor: This Special Interest's Hold on the Democrats Never Changes
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: This starts with giving Big Auto to Big Labor but most of the column concerns regulating Federal Express for the benefit of UPS because of union concerns.
Quote:
How does the Obama administration love organized labor? Let us count the ways it uses power to repay unions for helping to put it in power.
My Views: Everyone should know that whenever Democrats get into power, there's going to be a tilt towards labor unions. While the last few months have been as a big a tilt as at anytime before, the hope that is getting squashed is the hope that Obama would be a different kind of Democrat. Sadly, when it comes to Democrats servicing their party's special interest groups, there is no change in their past behavior and hopes that they will do so get continually squashed.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: The government's intervention in the economy is costly and hurtful which means that those who think that economic improvement is based upon government intervention will want more and to pay for it government will have to raise taxes.
Quote:
Economic policy, which became startling when Washington began buying automobile companies, has become surreal now that disappointment with the results of the second stimulus is stirring talk about the need for a . . . second stimulus.
My Views: This column is a short history of the stimulus policy. That this policy started with George Bush - with the support of John McCain - makes it a bi-partisan mistake. It hasn't worked. To really fix things will require a kind of thinking that the present government is unlikely to experience.
Taxes are going to go up. The tax code is going to get more complicated. And the IRS will have to emphasize enforcement as more Americans stop filing and go to non-traceable bartering. This is great news for us CPA's as it will mean more work for us. Yippee!
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on Ann Coulter's latest. Her column was published on Townhall.com.
Summary: If the Left is so against her, then why do they keep talking her up?
Quote:
She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.
My Views: I think that the left perceives SP as weak and think they can exploit her as much as possible. Let's not forget animus. She's attractive and articulate.
The same as that girl who was Miss California. Why did she excite such animus? She wasn't running for anything. Yet the denunciations were out of all proportions to the incident.
This explanation for the anti-SP behavior may seem to be improbable at first brush but coupled with the behavior towards other beautiful, attractive, Conservative women seems to establish a pattern.
Anybody who is as hated as Ann Coulter is must be doing something right. She is very right-wing but every left-wing blogger would love to write like her. I hate rants; opinion pieces must argue from the facts. Pay attention to how she uses facts and draws politically incorrect connections among them. People would do well to think and not just be outraged.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Obama signed a treaty this week that appeared to bring back the glory days of the Kissinger years. Sadly, all this accomplished was to make Obama look good. All style, no substance.
Quote:
Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo.
My Views: CK rests his case on the premise that defensive missles are critical. This is dubious. They didn't work very well against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. CK vastly over-rates their importance. The real trouble with Obama's diplomacy is that like much else we are seeing, it is reflexive left-wing ideology rather than any thing broadminded or creative. The problem with Russia today is it's agression against it's neighbors (eg. Georgia).
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Robert McNamara was Chairman of Ford Motors in the 1950's and then Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. He championed the idea that elites in Washington could use principles of social sciences to manipulate populations and control events.
His failures in Vietnam was blamed on the failures of conservative ideas on military intervention rather than on the failures liberal ideas on government control.
Quote:
Today, something unsettlingly similar to McNamara's eerie assuredness pervades the Washington in which he died. The spirit is: Have confidence, everybody, because we have, or soon will have, everything -- really everything -- under control.
My Views: His and his administration's failures did not just pertain to ideas but to arrogance - the arrogance of the elites towards the rest of the human race. In his later life, he denounced the Vietnam War but blamed LBJ, blamed conservatives, did everything but seriously address the very real problems with the liberal establishment's concensus of that war. He was just as much a follower of leftwing ideology in old age as when he was in power and in his prime.
That's the problem with the mentality that McNamara represented then and Obama represents today.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: In New Haven, Connecticutt, no blacks scored high enough on the firemen's promotion test to qualify, so the test was thrown out and no promotions were made. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white firemen.
Quote:
The defenders of the old racial order, led by Ginsburg, objected sternly, declaring that the white firefighters "had no vested right to promotion." Of course they didn't, but they did have a vested right to fairness, to not being denied promotion because of their skin color.
My Views: Note that the policy of reserving jobs for blacks does in fact give a vested right to promotion based on skin color.
It is this kind of stuff that causes Americans to not give the Civil Rights issue the respect that it is due. Left wingers need to moderate their stridency of rhetoric and their extremist policies. This kind of stuff ought to be labeled with that word "extremist" and then disgarded by the Civil Rights leadership. Then concentrate on common-sense battles to fight. Goodness knows, there's plenty of them to fight on the Civil Rights front!
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: If the federal government is prohibited from racial discrimination, then isn't it prohibited from enacting laws requiring third parties to racially discriminate, too? While it may be constitutional to do so, it is surely not logical.
Quote:
The nation shall slog on, litigating through a fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., "race-conscious" actions that somehow are not racial discrimination because they "remedy" discrimination that no one has intended).
My Views: I note that not all the firemen were white. Wasn't one of them hispanic? Anyway, it does not matter because they all did belong to the most important racial category there is: the human race. The most important aspect of this case and stories like this one is that the Civil Rights leadership is undermining the movement's most important asset: their moral imperative. Since the 1970's, their policies have become increasingly lacking in both logic and morality.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: He argues that the rise in health care costs is alright because the quality of health has gone up. He seems to be saying, without coming right out and saying it, that health care is okay and we should leave it alone.
Quote:
As market enthusiasts, conservatives should stop warning that the president's reforms will result in health-care "rationing." Every product, from a jelly doughnut to a jumbo jet, is rationed -- by price or by politics. The conservative's task is to explain why price is preferable. The answer is that prices produce a rational allocation of scarce resources.
My Views: What was significant to me was what Will did not put in: the components of health care costs. How much of the price increase is due to quality increase and how much is due to other factors? Factors like government regulations. Factors like legal liability - I'm looking at you, trial lawyers.
I read that almost of a third of health care costs are due to legal liability concerns. - The costs of malpractice insurance, for one. - The costs of defensive medicine, for another.
And this is my developing concern. With the Democrats in control, the lawyers get a pass, while the insurance agents take the hit.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
My take on Charles Krauthammer's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Like Boris Yeltzin, for example. The protesters won't be able to maintain themselves without one.
Quote:
Revolutions are dynamic, fluid. It is true that two months ago there was little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But that day is long gone. Revolutions outrun their origins. And they transform their leaders.
My Views: I doubt that there's anything the outside world can do. We can give the opposition verbal support, however.
Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here's his Wiki bio.
He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.
My take on George Will's latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.
Summary: Green jobs may save the planet but do they improve the economy? Environmentalists can forgo the latter belief in favor of the former, especially since the evidence supports this.
Quote:
It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.
My Views: There does seem to be a lot of political prejudice precluding rational discussion of the cost/benefit of global warming issues. The left's insistance that green jobs initiatives won't cost the economy just does not make sense. Just like the right's insistence that carbon emmissions are not effectivg the atmosphere. Carbon emmissions must be costing us environmentally; green measures to neutralize them must cost us economically. That only makes sense.
George Will almost didn't make it as a syndicated columnist. His style was considered too erudite for a general audience.
Whatever one thinks of his views, read his work for use of language and for how he marshals facts and uses logic.
The End
-
I’m suspending further publication of this blog due to lack of time. This
notice formalizes what has been evident for some time. I intend to
concentrate on...
The Hartford Convention
-
1814: Anti-war Federalists hold convention proposed amendments to the US
Constitution but squelched move to secede from the United States. When
Convention...
Joan of Arc Captured
-
on May 24, 1430. She was 19 years old. After being transferred to the
English in November, trial began on February 21, 1431. For part of that
she was ke...
Posts
