Doctors On BOcare

Why Physicians Oppose The Health Care Reform Bill - Forbes.com

Worth a read. My view:

I'd say the real reasons that Doctors oppose BOcare are:
1). They are intelligent
2). Their profession forces them to be reality based. Let's face it, they deal with mankind as it really is, not as some might wish it to be.

Life, intellect and all goods and services are scarce resources. Intelligence is very scarce, one wonders if wisdom even exists any more. The task is to allocate scarce resources, and I think deep down we all know that BOcare is not that way. Since Doctors are the ones closest to that reality on a day to day basis, they are faced with the cruel facts the soonest. Healthy people love government care. Sick people -- and doctors, hate it.

We learned in the '80s that there wasn't any "shortage" of gas in the '70's, only government controls on prices that prevented the market from allocating resources efficiently. The story is old -- the USSR was rife with it. The wrong products at the wrong places and "allocation" done by waiting in line (lowering productivity yet further). A cursory study of rent control shows the facts clearly -- it is often said that the only way to destroy housing faster is by bombing. Sadly, the N Vietnamese admitted that rent control in Hanoi was actually MORE effective at destroying housing than bombing, so liberals will take that as "economists wrong again".

Much like Democracy being really bad, but better than any other form of government (Churchill), we are already finding that while the market may be "bad", it has the saving grace of being better than anything else. One of the saddest aspects that we already see is that since everyone really knows in their gut that scarce resources must be allocated somehow, the knives are already being sharpened. We see that not only will they be allocated politically, but they will be allocated ruthlessly, by "51 votes", or whatever underhanded overbearing trick in the book can be used by the power mad left.

Markets are actually not "heartless" -- they are just a function of the hearts and minds of millions of people. While politicians may seem to be very friendly, they are certainly HEAVILY motivated by votes -- not to mention money, favors, power, greed, and all the other problems of being human. Since we have now decided to allocate one of the dearest scarce resources politically, the logical result is to decrease unity and increase political rancor.

As our government has continued to swell since the '30s, so has nastiness and division. The reason why is very simple. While the market is imperfect, at least we are all in that together. Once we move into political competition, the game becomes zero sum and the "rules" become less and less clear as the constitution, practices like the filibuster in the senate, the role of the supreme court, personal property, freedom of speech, and anything else that seems to stand in the way of the left is plowed down. BO indicated today that he supports congress acting to stop corporate freedom of speech. The issue of the court having the right to override congress was established when John Marshall was chief justice, it is called "Marbury vs Madison".

Being static isn't an option for a nation. I'd argue that we were in a "virtuous cycle" since '80, and in '06 we switched to a "death spiral". We've turned on the most productive among us. We've thrown the idea that we are a country of laws not of men away. The 20% that is driven by what they believe "ought to be" is firmly in control and they are blindly driving on the basis of their perceived ends rather on the basis of the known facts of man, the economy, law, morality, government nor anything else. They firmly believe that their ends justify any means -- but they lack understanding of what the known ends of their headlong rush for some ill defined dream of "equality, plenty, bliss" really are.

We may not survive until November.

A Conservative View of Deficits

Europe in Crisis - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest

Here is a nice bookend to yesterdays HuffPo post. Just give it a read and then decide if you are a liberal or a conservative thinker.

The Greek meltdown is on the surface just another financial crisis: yet another delusional country pursuing the path of least resistance has made promises it can’t keep to public and private sector workers.  Now the bill must be paid and the IMF called in to reorganize the national finances.

It is as if the rest of the world has failed to read HuffPo. Why would Greece not follow one of their many worthy "myth-busters" of why massive government deficit spending is never a problem? Could it be that it is actually the "economists" quoted by HuffPo that have no clue about reality?

The euro was a glorious fudge.  The Latin countries plus Greece could enjoy the benefits of German discipline and virtue while carrying on with traditionally unsustainable public and private sector policies.  In the old, pre-euro days, the southern economies had to pay high interest rates on their debt; wary investors knew that inflation and devaluation were likely and so demanded interest rates that would compensate them for the risk.  The lira, the drachma: everyone knew they would lose value over time against the Deutsche mark and even the dollar, and interest rates reflected this understanding.  But as the southern countries moved into the euro, calculations changed.  For the last twenty years, countries like Greece and Italy were able to borrow money at essentially the same rate that Germany could.

Think of sub-prime mortgages getting stirred into the credit markets of the world by freddie and fannie and all the crooked lenders of sub-primes in the same role as the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) and you get a good picture of how fallacy works. It doesn't take much rat feces to spoil a whole pot of soup -- especially once the clientele sees a video of the rat crapping in the pot.

Lousy leaders gave greedy civil servants fat raises; promises were cheap and the government scattered them far and wide.  In Italy as well, once the national debt was less painful to carry, there was less pressure to reduce the national debt.

Has anything ever sounded like current politics in America more? I actually think it does a disservice to lousy leaders to compare them with BO, but if the Gucci fits ...

Thinking Like a Liberal on Deficit

Lynn Parramore: The Deficit: Nine Myths We Can't Afford

I know this is from the HuffPo, so rational people don't even read it, BUT there are plenty of irrational people in the world, and I'll bet at least most of the 20% of folks that self-identify as liberal will buy SOME of this myth-busting.

I'm not going to bother to waste the time to refute of each of these on their own. If you even have any tendency to buy any of this, just consider that if it is really this rosy, every nation on earth as been a fool forever. Just spend spend spend with no constraint, cut taxes to zero, interest to zero, and the whole country can go on a lifetime bender and buy all they want on the proceeds -- at least if the "busting" hypothesis are true.

OTOH, if there IS such a thing as "fiscal gravity", we are still in grave peril, and even graver when you suspect that some of the idiots at the controls of our ship probably buy into this!

I Don't Skydive With Blacks

RealClearPolitics - Filtering History

Short, wise and entertaining. Just read it. One tease:

If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.

Learn it, live it, protect the 2nd amendment at ALL costs!!!

Tom Friedman's house

Next time you read something about how everything ought to be green by Tom, just remember where he lives. I assume that he just writes about the green stuff to make money -- I guess that is OK. The thing I never get about liberals is how once you say what they want to hear, they really could care less if you follow any of what the preach. As long as you are liberal, you can pollute all you want, own all you want, be as rich as you want, and treat "the little people" with complete disdain.

In this world, liberalism provides forgiveness of all that they might see as "sin", past, present and future, save the unforgivable sin. Turning conservative.

Something New in Jersey

George Will : The Thunder Roars in Trenton - Townhall.com

New Jersey has a Republican governor and he is already making a big difference.

Christie is using his power to remind New Jersey that wealth goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well-treated. Prosperous states are practicing, at the expense of slow learners like New Jersey, "entrepreneurial federalism" -- competing to have the most enticing business climate.

Imagine that. Wealthy people are liable to move away from states that tax them heavily to states that don't. How could they do such a thing?

In the state that has the nation's fourth-highest percentage (66) of public employees who are unionized, he has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation's domestic policymaking in this decade -- the struggle to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers' money.

Government workers now have the highest combination of wages and benefits in the nation. It is no longer "public service". The unholy alliance of unionized workers passing campaign money to Democrats in government so the Democrats can send more money back to unionized government workers has borne it's evil fruit.

Want to bet what BO would have to say about this? States ought not have any freedom to complete for business or wealth. All the money ought to just go into the feds so that the "wealthy" have no place to hide. "Freedom" to a Democrat is merely the ability to thumb your nose at any religious sorts of moral restrictions. The "right" to be bad. Free speech? Only if it agrees with them -- they constantly want Fox and Talk Radio muzzled. Right to bear arms? Guns are dangerous (to totalitarian politicians). Property? Maybe, as long as it is in exactly the quantity and quality that Democrats find to be "equal". Religion? Maybe -- if it is non-Christian, pretty much anything goes, but for Christians, only if you remain very very quiet.

Loss of Trust

RealClearPolitics - The Eradication of Trust

I like the honesty of this column, it provides a lot of insight into the liberal mind. 

Trust might as well be a four-letter word. American public opinion seems to have become an unguided Weapon of Mass Suspicion, and it's not hard to understand why. But those who would exploit distrust, dissatisfaction and anger for political gain had better worry about collateral damage.

I'm quite certain that Robinson looks back on Bush being "unelected", "blood for oil", "politics of Mass Deception", the HORRIBLE deficits of the early '00s, "Cheney and Haliburton", the supposed failure of the Bush admin at New Orleans, etc, etc as simply "factual" -- in his mind all those elements were NEEDED to give people the "TRUTH" about "the worst administration ever" ... loaded with incompetence, corruption, lies, cronyism, gross partisanship, and all manner of evil. I imagine he sees no irony whatsoever that now that the shoe is on the other foot, he finds "distrust of government" to be a very bad thing.

The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A "movement" that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, "constitutionalists" who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy "birthers" who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let's be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be "outsiders" is not a coherent intellectual or political force.

Had there ever been a war protest that even accounted to 1/10th of the Tea Party movement, we would have never seen anything else on TV. When poor deranged Cindy Sheehan was pretty much sitting alone outside Bush's ranch in Aug '05, she was one person national news! Millions of common working Americans with lots better things to to spend their time on getting out and protesting deficits in the $1.5 Trillion range for as far as we have estimates are of course "racists" -- there is simply no other reason one could be against those numbers. $400 Billion under Bush though?? HORRIBLE -- I'm sure I could go find Robinson screeching "Armageddon" back then as I've done pointed out forKrugman. What a difference a change of party makes to a true partisan.

The liberals always want us to note how "uncivil" anyone that disagrees with them is -- I'm sure all the depictions in Robinson's paragraph above are just 100% facts ... like the Michael Moore movies and the "Truthers" during the Bush admin.

Another story that won't go away is the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. On Sunday, during a visit to Malta, Pope Benedict XVI prayed with eight adult victims of childhood sexual abuse by priests and reportedly expressed his "shame and sorrow." But practically every day, there are new revelations of pedophile priests having been transferred to other parishes rather than being defrocked and reported to authorities.

It seems just a little disjoint to bring in the old Priests and boys story. This is a problem that pretty much goes back to the Greeks, and I'm sure before. There have been plenty of REPORTED "page scandals" in our own hallowed congress. The usual situation is as per normal "If Democrat, then "boys will be boys" --- or in this case, "some types of men like boys". If Republican, then horror, hypocrisy, out of office, maybe we ought to prosecute". Catholics generally vote Democrat, apparently them being a religious organization means that they have to be treated like Republicans by Robinson.

Republicans have been actively encouraging this groundswell of distrust on the theory that it's bad for incumbents, meaning Democrats. Indeed, the approval rating for the Democratic Party has plunged to 38 percent. The problem is that approval of the Republican Party has also fallen -- to 37 percent.

The moral here, for giddy GOP strategists, is the one about people who live in glass houses.

Now, when it was Democrats encouraging the "groundswell of distrust", did they not live in a glass house? or is Robinson's assertion that Fox and a few Tea Partiers are more mighty than the Democrats, MoveOn, the whole MSM and the code pink sort of movements put together?  More likely, like many in the culturally dominant liberal 20%, he simply believes he is completely right and the 80% is completely wrong. Like a fish, he can't define "all wet".

The Dying RINO

Who Killed the Responsible Republican? Bill Kristol, of course. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

From the left, a "Republican In Name Only" RINO is of course a "Responsible Republican. An RR to them is "almost as good as a Democrat".

Now when it comes to a DINO "Democrat in Name Only" -- Say Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, how is their attitude? Actually, both Joe and Zell are pretty much "Dems" on a lot of things -- taxing the rich, supporting unions, lots of public works, etc. It is just that they "left the reservation" on what they thought of as "American" vs "Partisan" issues -- Winning the War on Terror, killing the unborn.

Yet again, we see that a "Responsible Republican" is a Republican that essentially always votes with the Democrats. For the Democrats however, there is no leeway -- you either tow their line all the way, or you are no Democrat at all.

If one followed the logic of this column, would that mean that there are no "responsible Democrats"? Seems right to me.

NYT and CBS Services

RealClearPolitics - The Populism of the Privileged

The New York Times and CBS News thus performed a public service last week with a careful study of just who is in the tea party movement.

The media that EJ finds to be "moderate" are somehow always providing a "service". They do such "careful studies".

This must be the first "populist" movement driven by a television network: Sixty-three percent of the tea party folks say they most watch Fox News "for information about politics and current events," compared with 23 percent of the country as a whole.

As I had to explain to one liberal at length, "correlation is not causality". Ice cream sales and drownings are correlated, but there is no causality relationship. If 100% of Tea Party folks watch Fox News, that doesn't say Fox is driving the Tea Party. It is quite easy for there to be MANY factors -- as in conservatives tend to watch Fox, maybe all the Tea Party folks are conservatives?

Is there any interest in what percentage of the MSM or other groups would be "the privileged"? Somehow I really doubt that EJ is very close to "middle  class", and there seems to be no problem that organizations like say "MoveOn.org" are funded by multi-billionaire George Soros. Soros made billions by betting against the US economy and the US dollar, but since he funds left wing activity, he is a hero. Somehow, if you aren't completely dirt poor and have graduated from High School, once you have any conservative ideas, you are "privileged". If you support conservative ideals and you ARE dirt poor with less than a HS education, then you are a racist. According to the MSM though, conservatism is a "big tent" -- we may be a motley crew of the privileged and the racist, but we are all a bunch of idiots, so at least we have THAT in common!

A Pew Research Center study released Sunday is thus a better guide than the tea parties' rants to the real nature of this nation's discontent. It found that only 22 percent of Americans say they can trust the government almost always or most of the time, "among the lowest measures in more than half a century." This mistrust extends beyond government to banks, financial institutions and large corporations.

So while the Tea Party is a bunch of privileged angry white men, somehow nearly 80% of Americans aren't trusting the shining BO, Harry&Nancy government -- shocking. I assume that EJ and his other 20% that self-identify as liberal still trust the government. Sounds like the Tea Party (according to EJ) accounts for 20%, so now we only have 60% of the country that aren't trusting government or institutions and aren't in the Tea Party.

Suppose EJ can get them to be Democrats if he calls them some names as well?

Reporting On Concerned Americans

Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing - CNN.com

Remember when anyone that wanted to protest anything about our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq was a "courageous voice standing up for what they believed in"? Remember when we got to hear over and over how "Bush's Wars were unfunded"? Remember "Code Pink" demonstrators being dragged out of the Republican National Convention on live TV during McCain's acceptance speech screaming hateful things about him being a "killer" at the top of their lungs?

The  MSM never reminded us that these things were "protected", because nobody in the MSM found them to be "disturbing" in the least. Last night I went to a Tea Party with around a thousand local men, women and children. The speeches often focused on how radically the deficits have skyrocketed in the last year -- 4-5x as high as in any previous administration. If you are speeding by 15MPH, that is fast, speeding by 60-80MPH, going 120-140MPH is completely different. 15MPH over is being in a big hurry, 70MPH over is a felony.

No doubt millions of folks nationwide did what I did. Went out because we now know for certain what we have really known for a long time. The entitlement society that has been created is unaffordable and we have just added a huge new entitlement that we can't afford. In a free country, people taking enough interest to stand up and  be noticed, extremely peacefully, is positive. What is actually quite dangerous and disturbing is to see the MSM treating that negatively as they possibly can without recognizing what really can't be denied as very legitimate concerns financially, independent of if you are in agreement of the direction or not. Caring so much we write bad checks isn't really helping anyone.

Best Tax Day of Our Life

April 15, 2010: The Best Tax Day of Your Life - Newsweek.com

Well, our future life. Some of us got to live through the good old days under Reagan. For the young today, this is probably as good as it gets. Well, at least they got to have the joy of voting in BO, now, much like that AM hangover, they get to pay the piper for the rest of their lives.

Why Times Change

RealClearPolitics - No (Political) Experience Required

Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times notes that when Stevens was nominated in 1975 to fill the first vacancy since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, he was asked no question about abortion during his confirmation hearing. He was confirmed 98-0, as was Antonin Scalia in 1986. Things changed the next year, when Ted Kennedy used a demagogic Senate speech to launch a successful liberal crusade against Robert Bork.

Liberals have very short memories on a lot of reasons for today's "incivility". Not doubt their memories will be every bit as short the first time a Republican Senate passes a major piece of legislation with 51 votes.

Some Frogs Starting to Notice?

Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit

Note folks, this is DANA MILBANK -- who has traditionally been a highly reliable liberal shill.

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.
They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.
In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

47 73

RealClearPolitics - The Debate America Needs to Have

47% pay no income tax, the top 10% pay 73% of the income tax. Remember, if something can't go on forever, it won't.

Honest Appraisal of Stevens

RealClearPolitics - Good Riddance!

The right to own property is 2nd only to the right to bear arms on the list of critical freedoms. Kelo essentially revoked it. Sowell recognizes with great clarity that our founding fathers knew that it was the government "Leviathan" that the individual needs constitutional protection from. Stevens and the left seek to remove the rights of the individual and transfer them to the government.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.

Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?