Public Health Care, Democrats, and Ted Kennedy

An article out of the United Kingdom showcases the horrors of that nation's health care system. So this begs the question: how do we create a public option that the nation can not only afford, but one in which the care Americans receive remains at the same level it is today and doesn't become like that of Europe?

I've spoken to some Europeans who rave about their health care systems and how they are so wonderful, how America's health system has its own problems, etc. Many claim that the horror stories told of in the article above don't happen. Really?

If a private insurer treated people like England's national system, then people would simply purchase insurance from another company that treats them with dignity. One cannot do this, however, if the government puts the private sector out of business.

No matter how often my liberal friends try and convince me otherwise, I just can't envision Nancy Pelosi as the compassionate, coddling type. Speaking of which, I can't see this Democratic member of the House as the compassionate, coddling type either -- especially since he thinks so highly of moderates in his party.

It takes a real smug A-class jerk to call his colleagues 'brain dead' in public just because they don't agree with him (and especially a day after his party's liberal standard bearer passed on due to cancer of the brain).

Classy.

Lastly, you know you must have done something right in life when the sitting president of the United States, all of the remaining living former presidents (4 in total), and half of the United States Congress plans on attending your funeral. It also says something when during your procession from your home to your brother's memorial library, where you are to lie in repose, people actually pull off the side of the highway, get out of their cars, and stand silently, crying, and waving as you ride by for the last time.



I'd be surprised if we ever see anything like this again in Massachsuetts for a long time. I may not have agreed with you on anything Ted, but God-speed.

Unassisted Triple Play

As if you had any doubts, yes, it was against the Mets.



An unassisted triple play has only occurred 15 times in MLB history, and has only happened twice to end a game. In other words, you're likely to never see it again in your lifetime.

Exercising Your Constitutional Rights "Crazy"

Apparently, exercising your constitutional rights (particularly, protesting while carrying a rifle near the president) is now "crazy" according to some people (ie, those who work at anti-gun rights organizations).

Says Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

"[...P]eople should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.

To me, this is craziness. When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone.

[...P]eople who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening."

Now I understand people's concerns. Political situations, especially protests, can get heated sometimes, and many times people lose their tempers. Obviously, the last thing anyone wants (especially gun-rights groups) is some lunatic shooting off his assault rifle like an Iraqi at a wedding parade, high school graduation, etc. If that were to happen, then we'd never hear the end of how we need to ban all guns forever, repeal the Second Amendment, etc. (Because in the infinite wisdom of gun-haters, if you ban people from having guns, then all gun crime will disappear.)

My opinion is counter-intuitive, though. I'd submit that perhaps political rallies would become less likely to produce hot tempers and violence if everyone were carrying loaded weapons. Think about it: we'd be less likely to insult, chide, berate, yell, or otherwise disparage those who disagree with us in an unprofessional way, lest we piss them off to the point where cooler-heads don't prevail. And considering everyone else will be carrying as well, it's likely that as soon as one person pulls out their weapon, that person is likely to have everyone elses' weapon pointed right at them. Thus, it would clearly be in the self-interest of everyone to appeal to reason, lest they find themselves on the business end of Smith & Wesson et al.

I believe the gentleman who brought a leg-worn pistol to protest outside of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire town hall meeting with Obama last week said it best when he said of his decision to carry the pistol that:

"It's a political statement [...] If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

Well stated.

UPDATE: The man who brought an AR-15 to the Arizona town hall where President Obama met with the folks doesn't fit the ordinary description of your gun-toting, militia organizing, crazy right winger. Usually those types are confined to white dudes with Confederate Battle Flags in the back of their pick-up trucks.

This man happens to be a very well dressed, educated black man. How long until the left wing turns on him? Who knows? But when they do, I'm sure he'll be pleased he has the means to defend himself if need be.

Congressman 'Will Vote Against My District"

The Washington Times is reporting that New York Congressman Eric Massa will 'vote against' the interests of his district, no matter what his constituents believe, if he thinks his vote is in their best interests:



First, I'm wiling to bet Rep. Massa may have just cost himself re-election. Second, I can't help but think that this is more of the same paternal "We know better what's good for you than you do" attitude Congress has toward its constituents. It's infuriating because both parties not only do it, but because the current majority simply can not get it through their thick skulls that the majority of Americans, while voting for the Democrats as a reaction to the 8 years of George Bush's presidency, do not want such a momumental shift in the dynamic of American health care. Americans do not feel the president or the Democrats have made their case of the benefits outweighing the costs, and thus are willing to stick with the status quo for the time being.

The outright contempt that the Democrats are showing for this wholly American outpouring of opinion is the true disappointment of this entire story, and quite frankly is a true failure of leadership on the part of the president and his party.

Ah, It's That Time Of Year Again...

Rick Santorum Running For President?

Former George W. Bush advisor Mark McKinnon doesn't think much of a possible run for president by former Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum:

A Rick Santorum presidency would be very, very dangerous for America...

Santorum once grouped gay sex with incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and he believes consenting adults have no constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sexual behavior. He is a strong supporter of teaching intelligent design. He is anti-gay, anti-immigrant—supporting the most extreme anti-immigrant legislative proposals though he is the son of an Italian immigrant father—antiabortion, and anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican Party.

Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against Robert Gates to be secretary of Defense because Gates advocated talking to Iran and Syria, which Santorum said would be talking to “radical Islam” and would be a grievous error.

Santorum represents, in my view, much of what is wrong the in the Republican Party. While I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, I am much more concerned with his lack of character.

Alright, so McKinnon doesn't think much of Santorum's extreme views or his character (as he goes on to describe how Santorum publicly dissed McCain throughout the 2008 campaign, while years before, he had been using McCain to help fundraise for his own reelection. (Your typical political schenannigans.)

What struck me next was the story McKinnon relates (without a source) as to Santorum's personal, family life:

I’m a pretty tolerant guy, but beyond his ideology, some of Santorum’s behavior is just a little bizarre. For example, Santorum has six children. In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours. He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as “your brother Gabriel” and slept with the body overnight.

Say whaaat?!

I don't know if that is true or not. And I am not going to suggest that I know what it is like to be a parent who has just lost a child only several hours after its birth. But even still, if that story is factual, I'd have to say it's not normal -- even for grief stricken parents.

Furthermore, would a hospital even let the parents take the dead baby out of the hospital to home? That strikes me as odd, but here again, I am not an expert on hospital administration, so I don't know.

Odd dead-baby story aside, I too fear the thought of Rick Santorum as president, and if he runs, I will not vote for him and hope he is defeated.

Your Congressperson & You

Ever wonder what your Congressperson thinks about your concerns regarding the health care reform packages moving through Congress currently? Well, wonder no more:



Bottom line: They don't care what you think. Period. A picture is worth a thousand words right? This should say it all.


UPDATE: If a single-payer or public option health care system is sooo fantastic, why don't liberal members of Congress want it for themselves?

It should go without saying that it should give everyone (including supporters of single-payer/public option) a moment of pause as to whether or not they should support public health care if the people who are literally creating the program don't want it for themselves, and will ensure that they have a different plan for themselves and their families.

My questions is that if it is good enough for ordinary Americans, then why isn't it good enough for the Peoples' Represenatives in Congress?

Paglia on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats & Republicans

And to think, a liberal columnist for Salon Magazine is writing this:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

Oh how I will forever pay tribute on the day this becomes a reality!

But Camille Paglia is not done. Oh no, she is not. She also has this to say about Obama (whom she admits she voted for and supports still) and his health care plan:

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

Then she goes on to admonish each political party for essentially being incompetent groups of morons hopelessly out of touch and incapable of running the country:

With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

I think I may be in-love with Camille Paglia. Thank God for her honesty. At least someone with a megaphone is calling it the way it is these days. What I can't figure out is why both political parties are so hell-bent on destroying this country in their own, special, fucked up little ways. Is it possible that they know not what they do? Maybe that's the best possible way to look at it. The other option is to simply accept that they are doing it on purpose (for some reason) and that there is no way to stop them, short of complete all-out armed rebellion (and I don't know about you all, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen).

Hiring Tricks the Man Uses to Screw You

I came across this article on Yahoo! today, which discusses certain techniques potential employers may use in assessing candidates for employment. Apparently, a firm handshake, eye contact, proper dress, and no-gum-chewing are no longer the most important rules of the game.

Among the new, hip ways would-be-employers assess candidates at the top jobs are:

They inspect your car.

Tina Hamilton, of HireVision Group, knows a corporate president who would find out which car belonged to the candidate he was interviewing. "The receptionist ... would then go outside and look in the candidate's car to see how neat and clean the car was, if there were food wrappers ... how well maintained the car was," says Hamilton. "The owner considered this a definition of the candidate's character."

They mind your manners.

Many recruiters use meals as a screening tool. "I know a recruiter who passed over a candidate because of the way they cut their meat during a lunch interview," says Varelas. (The candidate cut his meat all at once, not one piece at a time.) Juliet Boghossian, a behavioral food expert and columnist for Food-ology.com, teaches execs what they can learn by the way someone eats.

"By observing an individual's eating style or food habits, you can quickly reveal their character or judgment capacity, among many other behavioral facets," she says.

Just when you thought corporate America couldn't get more anal...

Why is 10:10 the Default Setting for Clocks and Watches?

Have you ever wondered the above question? Neither have I. But, I saw this article and thought it was somewhat interesting and mildly odd that anyone would ask such a question, so I thought I would read the article and find out.

Apparently, many people believe that the reason for this has something to do with assassinated American leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, etc, or significant events in American and world history, such as the atomic bombings of Japan that ended the Second World War in 1945.

Turns out, however, that the only reason for this is good ol'fashioned marketing:

The 10:10 position gives the clock or watch a number of benefits:

• The hands not overlapping, so they’re fully and clearly visible and their styling can be admired.

• The arrangement of the hands is symmetrical, which people generally find more pleasant than asymmetry, making the product more appealing to customers.

• The manufacturer’s logo, usually in the center of the face under the 12, is not only visible, but nicely framed by the hands.

• Additional elements on the face (like date windows and secondary dials), usually placed near the 3, 6, or 9, won’t be obscured.

Conspiracy theory disproved.