Tuesday, September 29, 2009

A real source of hope

The political situation in the USA right now -- a marxist in the bully pulpit -- gets very depressing sometimes. Being a native-born American, I understand the pressures of being free, like having to get my own living, budget my funds, develop my own social support network. No matter what happens, what kind of disaster, as long as I'm free to make my own decisions based on my personal situation, I know I'll get by somehow. Death and starvation are pretty strong incentives.

I have no idea how to survive under marxist totalitarianism. I suppose a bunch of government-funded busybodies would descend upon me like ducks on a junebug, full of gentle prodding "suggestions" -- at first -- about how I should be running my life, and then bringing out the thumbscrews if I'm not "in compliance."

To me, the very threat of this constitutes terrorism. I'd rather be dead. Seriously.

Anyway, I've been writing a couple of articles for business. And I love these guys! Go to these corporate websites looking for background, and they're all working so hard to develop ways to survive and get rich. They may grouse about "Where's my stimulus?" but then they just turn their attention to how to get more shoppers in the store, what kind of loyalty program they can devise to retain existing customers, how they can cut costs without losing any quality in their products and services. And what new things can they come up with to sell? How can they serve you better?

They're so confident and engaged, so optimistic and assured that they can create a better future. Such a positive scenario. So different from politics.

Same with TV. The networks pretty much suck in terms of programming. Not just news, but their so-called "entertainment." So after watching the same batch of "Law & Order" reruns until I can recite the dialog, channel surfing turned up things like "Ice Road Truckers." I love that show. Its season is over now, but I wouldn't miss an episode and often watched the reruns in anticipation of seeing the moose running alongside the road again. Or clutching the remote with white knuckles, hoping the truck can make it across that iced-up bridge without spinning out and going over the side.

What's to love? The last season featured truckers on the Dalton Highway in Alaska. The highway is frozen tundra and most of it, I think, is within the Arctic Circle. You might think going through the mountains on an ice road would be the greatest challenge, but sometimes driving across the flats, with 60 mph winds blowing a blizzard and creating white-out conditions can be worse. The highway had one section that always tied my stomach in knots -- where the road crests a hill then plunges what looks like straight down. Try doing that hauling 30 tons of pipe or four SUVs. Or a tank car of liquid explosives.

And the truckers? The show documents how people get these kinds of jobs. You have the veteran drivers who ride along with the newbies for a couple trips. When the newbies get their own trucks, they still have to drive behind a trainer for most of the season.

So in one episode, both the lead (veteran) driver and his newbie got stuck in the mountains. I don't recall if it was a breakdown of one of their trucks, or just some kind of blockage on the road due to the weather, breakdown of another truck, or whatever. Anyway, so these guys are stuck in about -50 degrees, and about 150 miles from any human habitation, and they take out salmon steaks and barbecue them on the truck engine while they wait to get back on the road again.

Gotta love it! I mean, who would you rather hang with? These folks, or punks who don black hoods and smash windows in Pittsburgh?

And regarding the so-called anarchists... One question: How do you have both anarchy and socialism simultaneously? If you have socialism, you need a really, really powerful central government authority to divvy up the spoils and to crack the whip to make sure people keep on working, even when they're not rewarded for it.

You've got to think these things all the way through, dummies, or else you just look like stupid adolescents, rebelling against the human condition -- the inescapable need to take care of your own damn self.

Monday, September 28, 2009

A pig in a poke

This is from Answers.com, which cites Wikimedia, so I assume it's not copyrighted:

Pig-in-a-poke is an idiom that refers to a confidence trick originating in the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce but apparently rats and cats were not.

The scheme entailed the sale of a "suckling pig" in a "poke" (bag). The wriggling bag would actually contain a cat — not particularly prized as a source of meat — that was sold to the victim in an unopened bag....

A common colloquial expression in the English language, to "buy a pig in a poke," is to make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis....


Sound like the socialized medicine bill?

Has anyone else noticed, too, the latest buzzword from the radical left is "misinformation"? As in, "If you don't like our plans for wrecking the health care industry in the USA, you're the victim of misinformation."

Glenn Beck among others has broadcast "misinformation" about how Acorn operates, even though the evidence is documented on tape and is so straightforward it doesn't leave a lot of room for "misinformation" or even for "misinterpretation."

And, adding insult to injury, to liberals, apparently the opposite of "misinformation" isn't "information," but it's no information at all.

Like, the Comrade offers a litany of magical health care benefits that are in "his" socialized medicine bill -- and yet he has no bill, or the very least, refuses to specify exactly which bill he's referring to.

Baucus actually invites hundreds of amendments to his health care bill in the Senate, and once again, there is no bill, only a 250-page "conceptualization" of heaven-only-knows-what.

I think all this stuff is dead in the water, anyway. Apparently the Comrade has moved into the realm of foreign affairs to save face from the deadlock over socialized medicine. But this is even scarier.

So the Comrade reveals long-known evidence of a secret new facility in Iran for producing material for atomic weapons, then joins hands with England and France in a show of solidarity against it. And then what?

Apparently Abracadabrajab toned down his rhetoric. The AP reported him as civil and polite in one interview.

And then the next day, Iran launched a bunch of medium-range missiles in a test. A bit less civil and polite?

The Comrade now has to walk in George Bush's shoes for a while. When the USA was attacked on 9/11, the nation had the support and sympathy of all of our allies and most civilized nations. Then Bush tried to actually do something about terrorism, and all he got was "Gee, sounds like fun, but we already made other plans."

We'll see if the world will do any better for the Comrade, since he's gone so far out of his way to assure them the USA is sorry for going off on its own to defend itself. Of course, the other option is to sit and do nothing -- with the rest of the world -- while Iran and other loony-bin countries continue to develop atomic weapons.

You know what? I don't care if my neighbors like me, as long as I'm sure that they can't destroy me. I mean, can anyone really trust Iran, Libya, or even Russia, based on past experience? France usually flees from a military challenge. England is still recovering from its participation in Iraq. And the Comrade seems to be working very hard to alienate Eastern Europe.

And of course, Iran is not as big an immediate threat to the USA as it is to Israel. I would have liked to see Netanyahu on that podium with France, England, and the USA. Did anyone invited him? Does this warm and fuzzy new partnership include Israel? I mean, after all, wasn't France selling stuff to Saddam Hussein when the rest of the world had agreed to sanctions? Like, how committed is France to protecting Israel?

The USA may have to go it alone again -- if the USA continues to stand with Israel.... but deep in my heart, I think the Comrade would gladly throw Israel -- the USA for that matter -- under a bus before he'd risk making himself personally unpopular.

And does anyone else find it rather bizarre that the Comrade doesn't seem to give a damn if American citizens like him or not?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Didn't think it could get any worse?

I honestly didn't think legislation could get much worse than HR3200, the House socialized medicine bill. But that was before anything slipped out about Baucus's Senate socialized medicine "concept."

Congress has hit a new low. I didn't think it was possible. They just keep getting more and more despicable. It boggles the mind.

From www.Politico.com, the NewsPulse section for Sept. 25:

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty,
Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.
Excuse me, but what country is this? If I don't buy a government-approved insurance policy, I go to jail?

Kinda makes you wonder what the hell else they're writing into this piece of shit legislation. 'Course, if the Comrade has his way, we'll never know until after they vote on it. And now we know why all the secrecy and intrigue: they don't dare tell us.

Let's see... Probably those who fail to give up flavored water in plastic bottles will be stood up against the wall and shot at dawn. Smokers will be kneecapped with an automatic weapon. Failing to disclose income... good grief! I don't even want to think about it. Castration? Drawing and quartering? Keel-hauling? The Rack?

Here's a promising business opportunity for the forward-looking entrepreneur: computer-aided-design of cats-o-nine-tails. The manufacture of black hoods and jack boots already is likely behind the economic recovery, such as it is.

No wonder the rotten bastards went home early this weekend. They didn't want to be around when this news got out. They don't even have the balls to defend their own tyranny.

But, hey, this is their very best shot to destroy the USA. "Jeez, we can anihilate all their freedom with this one vote! And we don't even have to try to explain it to them!"

For those with a certain psychopathology, it's an irresistible temptation. We've already heard the White House crowing about the miracle of the crisis. (And apparently if the White House can't find a crisis, they will manufacture one.)

On the bright side, maybe Abracadabrajab will nuke Washington.

To paraphrase Netanyahu, who is one of very few to emerge from the U.N. this week looking like a respectable person, "Doesn't anyone in this chamber have any sense of decency and humanity?"

Hey, Maxhole Baucus, what did the Comrade promise you for selling out the nation? Is he gonna give you a tingle up your leg? Maybe with a cattle prod? Hope you enjoy it. It'll cost the human race an awful lot when the light goes out of the world.

These pathetic bastards should be tried for treason. But it would be too much like whipping an animal that has no capacity whatsoever to understand what it did wrong. The congresscritters are apparently just too damn stupid to understand the value of political freedom. And if they can't grasp that, they'll never figure out that they're supposed to be defending it, not putting us in jail for refusing to fund their "good" intentions.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Presidential rap

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Inspires such blind idolatry
His faithful show signs of lunacy.

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Embraces America's enemies
To promote marxist one-world ideology.

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Invites brutal tyrants and dictators
To loot the globe's wealth generators.

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Doesn't like the US Constitution
'Cause it doesn't support redistribution.

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Demands congress loot our corporations
To fund his marxist obamanation.

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Hates the US, that's for sure
Though freedom-loving people will endure.

Shame, shame, shame
Barack Hussein Obama.

Capitol under seige by the flu

Looks like the flu has hit DC in a big way, and it's emanating from the White House.

At one time, Max(imumspend) Baucus (D-Montana) gave every indication of being a reasonable person. One afternoon at the White House, however, and while his motor functions appear unimpaired, his integrity has deteriorated in an alarming way. Baucus seems to have picked up this condition from Comrade Osama. The symptoms:
  • Keep talking about a non-existent bill
  • Debate and vote on amendments to the non-existent bill
  • Require that your senate committeemen go along with the charade (like when Baucus points at an imaginary sheaf of papers, go, "Yeah, I see it. The socialized medicine bill.")
  • Insult and ignore anyone who asks you any questions about "the bill."
  • Threaten to pass "the bill" on a simple majority if you can't get enough votes for any kind of reasonable support.
  • Refuse to write any kind of legislation that the CBO can score.
  • Refuse to subject the bill to public review, or even the review of the Senate, before the vote.
  • In sum, toss out the Constitution and betray the nation in hopes that Comrade Osama will invite you over for hot dogs and beer, and maybe another dose of this rather bizarre type of contagious sociopathy.
Katherine Sibelius, Secretary of Something, or Assistant Deputy of Such-and-Such, or The-Only-American-Politician-Who-Paid-Her-Taxes, also has been infected. Humana recently sent their Medicare policy-holiders a letter giving them a heads-up that they will probably be losing many of their benefits under socialized medicine, so they probably should make some other plans. Sibelius issued a gag order to Humana and other insurers in the Medicare market, warning them not to say things like that to the insured.

This is an outright violation of Free Speech, not to mention, what the hell is Sibelius going to do? Send SEIU over to Humana to wave signs and shake their fists? Perhaps Humana should tell her to roll it up real tight and stick it where the sun don't shine. I would.

But see, Sibelius apparently was bitten by the same bug as Baucus. The way Baucus explains it, when his bill cuts $500 billion out of Medicare, that money won't be coming out of Medicare. I mean, hah!, would he do something like that to senior citizens? No-o-o-o it's going to be coming out of the profits that Humana and others make on Medicare.

Apparently one of the most notable symptoms of this flu is dementia.

So the Senate plan is just another sneaky, deceptive, LYING and really remarkably cowardly way to destroy private insurance in the USA and usher in socialized medicine. How stupid do they think we are? It's actually insulting. But perhaps this what they mean by "transparency."

Like, my cat used to jump up on the edge of the bathtub and hide behind the shower curtain to jump out and surprise me. Only his butt was always visible beyond the end of the shower curtain. He couldn't see me, so he assumed I couldn't see him. Kinda like the Senate, huh?

Exactly what the hell is wrong with these people? No one wants this crap. Why do they continue to promote it? On the other hand, if they keep themselves tied up with this, they can't be robbing us in other ways.

To change subject a bit, Hugo Chavez insulted the Fox correspondent at the U.N. when the reporter was trying to do an interview. Chavez is such a blockheaded brute. He puts on a suit and everyone pretends he's civilized. The one consolation is that he probably won't be around for too long. He hangs with the wrong kinds of people.

He who lives by the sword, loud mouth, head-bashing and all that.....

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Gettin' stranger and stranger....

Good grief. I saw Muammar Kadaffy-duck giving his speech at the U.N. today. What the heck was he wearing? It looked like something recycled from Janis Joplin.

Probably only people in my age group will get that one. (Velvet, ostrich feathers, fringe, the odd gold bauble.... you get the picture.)

Anyway, he didn't seem very lucid. 'Course neither did the Comrade. Apparently the Comrade doesn't care about nations like England, France, Germany, Israel... the US's traditional (since 1946) allies. He seems more like obsessed with getting kudos from piggish louts like Hugo Chavez and other marxists.

Doesn't that figure?

The Canadians walked out on Abracadabrajab before he even started speaking. Smart people. I understand the US delegation also walked out. Perhaps Canada shamed them.

Abracadabrajab really looks just scruffy, you know? Like, does he have a change of clothes, or what? He just loves that one jacket, doesn't he?

When I was a kid, I had little blanket my mom made with a rabbit embroidered on it. I still have it. But I don't wear it every day.

I'm not sure what's going on in Honduras, but I'm reasonably certain the US is taking the wrong side on that one. More pandering to Chavez? What the heck is that all about? Chavez is a fool. He's selling gasoline to Iran, enabling them to extend their atom bomb project. We can only hope Iran does their weapons testing in Venezuela.

A while back I noted that conspiracies usually don't work because they involve criminal types. They're not trustworthy, you know? Like, don't turn your back. They don't like you; they're just using you. When you're no longer useful, you're dead meat.

The Comrade seems to be willing to throw Israel under a bus. Or maybe he just doesn't have the guts to tell Iran where to stick it. Read a book a long time ago in school that was all about how the West in general was wobbling on its commitment to individual rights and human freedom. The author -- whose name I don't have in front of me -- called it "A failure of nerve."

That's true.

Also a long time ago, read a book called "The American Mind" by Commager or Steele or one of those guys, and in the frontispiece, he had a quote from someone that went like: "To be an American is frame of mind more than a geographic situation."

True. But the Comrade and his band of Central American marxist thugs seem determined to deny and denigrate what's called "American Exceptionalism." That is, America is an extraordinary nation. And it is, in many ways. That's not to say that the US has always come down on the right side of every issue; just means that we have an awful lot to live up to.

The Comrade seems to think American Exceptionalism is arrogance.... but somehow sucking up to brutal petty dictators, glorying in their praise.... somehow that's commendable in his book.

I don't know if the nation can survive three more years of this.

By the way, police in Kentucky found a census-taker hanging from a tree. I mean, the man was lynched, and he had "FED" written across his forehead or something.

Not a good idea to threaten to take away freedom from Americans. Just not a good idea, no matter how sanctimonious you are, how bitter your rage, how dead-set against prosperity and personal individual development and achievement.

Just don't mess with people who've always been free. We're possibly more committed to remaining free than we are to remaining civil.

That's not a threat. However, it's come to my attention over a rather checkered lifetime, that even those idiot kids transfixed by video games and obsessed with texting... even they get testy when you try to limit their options.

I could even provide a little history of Kentucky. A remarkably affable state, willing to trade and compromise, and often the peacemaker. Until they get riled.

If the Town Halls don't work -- and Baucus now is talking about jamming his piece-of-crap senate bill on socialized medicine through with a simple majority -- and the Senate is trying to put gag order on insurance companies that try to explain the inevitable consequences of socialized medicine -- if the Comrade continues to prance around like God's gift, "showing his ass" to the dregs of the world and embarrassing the nation...

Well, you end up with a dead census-taker in Kentucky. I don't really condone it. But I'm not a bit surprised.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Fire or ice?

If I recall, T.S. Eliot once wrote a poem about the earth ending in fire or ice, but he didn't actually settle on one or the other. I suggest that T.S. (who also broadcast Lord HawHaw-type radio messages for the fascists during WWII) pick one. And today's environmentalists would do well to do so, too.

Apparently it's the time of year when all kinds of lunatic dictators from 3rd World nations descend upon New York City like a plague of locusts and advise the USA on exactly what we're doing wrong. My mom would say, "Consider the source."

Be that as it may, a Mr. Eva Morales of Bolivia, who has a really interesting face, but I have no idea what his position is, told reporters that the US isn't doing anything to help his nation "save humanity." Furthermore, he's not blaming US citizens for this, rather, it's because we we labor under the misdirection of capitalism.

Should we remind him that for decades, the USA somehow managed to soak up all the coca his nation could produce? And illegally. US citizens are actually quite innovative in this respect. And since it's an illegal trade, it's totally capitalist and not even taxed. Bolivia got pretty rich off of this via several really murderous cartels which, nonetheless, built schools and hospitals and won public support for a time. Kinda like Hammas in the Middle East. Mr. Morales may be too young to remember the days before Bolivia went green for the good of all humankind.

Oh well. His reference to "saving humanity" was about environmentalism. The new "black" in terms of global social justice projects.

Almost simultaneously, I heard news that some hotshot U.N. scientist, who's apparently a committed believer in climate change, has announced that the earth is no longer heating, but cooling again. It may be cooling for another few years, and then will go back to warming. I guess he finally got finished double-checking the data real scientists have been collecting for the last 10 years and decided he couldn't make up excuses about it anymore. Yup. It's cooling.

(We had maybe five days above 80 degrees in Chicago this summer; and it snowed in Colorado today, Sept. 22. Kinda hard to keep harping on the warming thing, huh?)

Or maybe he's been checking out the sun spots. There have been remarkably few sun spots over the last 18 months or so. And there is some correlation between sun spots and heating on earth, with a delay of some time -- a couple months or so -- while the solar flare or whatever it is travels through space.

But anyway, what could this possibly mean in terms of actual policy? Shall we prepare for global warming or global cooling? I mean, do we all go out and buy parkas or bathing suits, anticipating the future of the planet? Move toward the equator to avoid turning into popsicles, or to the Rockies to escape the boiling seas? Do we reduce carbon emissions or increase them? And what if we get it wrong and send the whole world spinning out of kilter with the miniscule results we might produce?

Muammar Kadaffy may have the right idea: simply bring a tent with you wherever you go: New Jersey, Central Park, etc. Where has he been? Haven't seen or heard from him since Reagan blew an earlier tent of his all to hell about 30 years ago. I guess Kadaffy's heard about the Comrade and reckons it's safe to travel again.

Anyway, about climate change, make up your minds, dudes.

People actually have been tracking temperature in various locations on the earth for a long, long time. Like, for centuries. World temperatures fluctuate over time. It's rather cyclical and no one entirely understands it. The shifts seem to result from a variety of different influences, including things like volcanoes, meteor strikes maybe. Cold breeds cold because when the ground is white with snow and ice, it repels heat. Isn't that why that silly czar has suggested we paint our roofs white? That man has never lived through winter on the northern plains, I guarantee.

We can't control the climate. There's not a damn thing we can do about it, not even with monumentally expensive legislation that will ruin US industry and propel us all back to the use of whale oil and candles. Well, maybe not whale oil, unless you want to get into a big bruhaha with GreenPeace.

In Chicago, we have saying that goes, "If you don't like the weather, stick around. It'll change."

Apparently this applies to most of the rest of the world as well.

It's really kinda sad to abandon a mission like "saving humanity," though. One alternative might be encouraging international capitalist trade in a legal way. That would help save humanity. It's worked better than anything else so far.

Iran's Abracadabrajab takes the podium tomorrow. That should be fun. He can provide us with estimates about the impact of nuclear radiation leaks and/or of exploded atom bombs on the environment -- a subject he embraces with wild-eyed fanaticism.

And yet another segment of the population is just running up their credit cards and staying stoned, waiting for the world to end in 2012. The Mayans promised.

'Course, I remember when everything was supposed to vaporize when the clocks turned over -- or didn't -- at the stroke of midnight, year 2000.

Increasingly, life on earth is taking on the dimensions of a never-ending horror film. But, hey, don't worry. It's only fiction.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

ObamaFest

Anybody watch the TV show "Madmen"? They had a scene a couple weeks ago where this rich guy comes in and he wants to promote that strange sport where you toss a hardball around with small, handlheld hammocks. Can't think what it's called, and I'm sure I couldn't spell it anyway. I think it's supposed to be a sport adapted from the Aztecs. And they're pretty much extinct.

At any rate, the promoter told the agency account execs that he wanted to put a show on TV that would run simultaneously on all the networks. He would pay any amount. The ad execs mentioned that that type of show would not be likely, but they were willing to take his money anyway.

Well, guess what?, the same show ran on all the networks today almost simultaneously. Yes, our dear Comrade pitching heaven-knows-which version of socialized medicine.

I didn't watch any of them. I doubt he revealed "his" bill, and I get sick of reruns.

Much more interesting, a friend sent me a batch of photos from the DC Tea Parties on 9/12. I don't know who took these photos, and I'll be happy to take them down if the owner contacts me. I just thought they were good photos.

Apparently the DC Fire Dept. said there were 75,000 people at the Tea Party... but also, that count was early on and busloads of folks were still arriving. I think that 75,000 figure was the count when the staging area was becoming over-run and the Fire Dept. told the marchers to start marching now -- an hour early -- to accommodate the overflow. WorldNetDaily had a photo from the London Daily Mail that showed more people than I've ever seen in one place at one time, but I'm sure that photo's copyrighted, so won't run it here.

Another DC officer -- a cop, I believe -- told one of the protesters that he thought as many people showed up for the Tea Party as for the Inauguration last January. Gong by the photos I've seen, I'd agree.

So again, it all comes down: Who do you believe? The administration, the liberal media, or "your lyin' eyes," as Karl Rove would say?

Maybe that's really what had Pazzo Pelosi near tears.

Do you placeholders in DC really want to ignore this? It's tough right now trying to find another job.

Enough for now.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

"The Moral Crisis"

Anyone who's seriously interested in history might want to take a look at the "Making of America" library feature at Cornell University's website. They offer a collection of magazines published from the early 1800s through the end of the century, and possibly into the 20th century.

I read most of an article called "The Moral Crisis," detailing how a centralized, government-run banking system destroyed not only the economy, but the moral fiber of the nation by making all business dependent upon it, fostering greed, and over-extending credit. I wanted to quote it here, but you know how those Victorians are -- why say something in a dozen words when you can expand it to 10 or 16 paragraphs?

Anyway, the article was written in 1837. The more things change.... Or maybe that should be, "When will they ever learn?", in deference to the recent death of Mary, of the singing group, Peter, Paul & Mary.

History is extremely important. I find it keeps me from tearing out my hair because it provides a true and dependable perspective. The nation has been through all this before, you know. Capitalism operates on a boom-to-bust cycle. Need/demand promotes the boom; everyone rushes in and over-produces; you end up with lots of inventory on the shelves, employment lay-offs, and a contraction of credit and optimism. Then everyone runs out of what they've got, and the whole thing starts all over again.

People have always looked for a "cure" for the boom-bust cycles. Maybe putting some money in the bank and laying in canned goods. That's about the only thing that works. Various experiments in government control of the banks, credit, etc. etc., have never worked here or anywhere else. These schemes only make things worse, and they also tend to add exponentially to the moral corruption. Very few politicians can keep their hands off the money; neither can they resist doling it out to their friends and to potential voters. Like giving unemployed people mortgages that they have no hope of paying.

Which brings us to Acorn, a "social organizing" group. A couple young people went around to several Acorn offices on the east and west coasts. They identified themselves as a pimp and a hooker, and they were looking for advice on how to get money for a mortgage to set up a whorehouse. By the way, they were going to import a dozen or so girls, ages 13 through 15, from El Salvador to work at the house as prostitutes. And they taped all these meetings.

Acorn advised them about how to lie on the mortgage application and how to evade taxes. One Acorn person even offered to contact some friends of his in Mexico to help smuggle the girls across the border. Another Acorn worker admitted she'd been a "madame" at one time, and also that she killed her abusive husband, after going around the neighborhood advertising his abuse so she'd be able to make a reasonable case for self-defense later.

Nice people. Very accommodating. Extremely non-judgmental, if that's supposed to be a positive attribute. I guess they just love everybody.... In every possible way.

The Acorn organization has received something like $52 million from the federal government to fund these and other activities. The "Stimulus" bill is supposed to give them something like $8.5 billion more -- though I suspect that amount is supposed to be divided up between Acorn and other, similar organizations.

So both the House and Senate introduced legislation to "de-fund" Acorn. Interesting to note that both senators from my state, Dick(head) Durbin and Roland Burris, voted against these bills. That is, they apparently want the federal government to continue to fund Acorn for all the good work it does. I suppose Chicago could use a few more whorehouses. After all, it's all about creating jobs, isn't it?

Dear lord.

I guess now Acorn will have to fall back on its private donors of long standing, like George Soros, that champion of whatever bizarre concept he calls "democracy." It amazes me that someone who devises complicated schemes to amass a fortune could be so incredibly blind and stupid on social policy. Maybe it's time to retire, George, while any nation in the world has managed to escape the cold dead hand of your financial manipulation and insane notions of social justice.

And that goes for Washington, too. It's just better to not let politicians have access to large amounts of cash, except their own. They can toss around as much of their own money as they want, but they should be compelled to allow private citizens the same right.

Or better still, maybe your average congressman should be forced to live on $55,000 or $60,000 per year (not too stingy, above the national average), with the other $100,000+ of his salary held in escrow until the second session adjourns right before Christmas. Then his contituents can vote on whether or not he gets this as a bonus. They wouldn't get any insurance, no Gulf Streams, no fresh flowers everyday, free lunches or haircuts. They'd have to take the subway, mow their own lawns, and pay their own staffs. They'd probably be reading a lot more of the bills themselves, not a bad thing.

In terms of educating them about the concerns of voters, one year of this would probably be more effective than ten years of Town Hall meetings. They certainly wouldn't even be considering saddling the public with socialized medicine, crap-and-tax, and all their other silly little programs.

They'd probably just leave us alone. Salutary neglect, anyone?

Oh, by the way, something else you won't hear on NBC -- something like 45% of medical doctors promise to quit the profession if congress passes socialized medicine. And I don't blame them.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Let them eat Delta smelt?

You know, "Pazzo" means "crazy" in Italian.

So Pazzo Pelosi pretended to cry over sad recollections of all that horrible stuff that went down in S.F. in 1970s, and she's making a heartfelt appeal to prevent current political conflicts from turning violent.

She made all the right faces for the camera, but I don't think she managed to squeeze out any real tears. I doubt she's capable of it.

Hey, here's a thought. You don't like the push-back, don't push.

'Course, that might be a little over her head.

The people she should be crying for are the people in the San Joaquin Valley who are without water to work their farms.

See, here's the difference between capitalism and socialism:

  • In a capitalist system, you work the farm and make money. You hire people, and they make money. You produce a valuable product that other people will pay for. Everyone's happy.


  • In a socialist system, the government drums up some bullshit farce about minnows, cuts off your water supply, and makes you stand in line for hours to collect "free" food from them -- only veggies, of course. Protein leaves too large a carbon footprint. And they've got you by the short-hairs, right where they want ya.

See, Pazzo, it would be a lot easier to believe you had a heart if you gave it to anything but tiny fishes at the expense of driving thousands into poverty.

What a damn fool. Who does she think she's kidding? Tears... If you don't vote yes on socialized medicine, I'll be heartbroken. What is this, "Queen for a Day"? That ploy hasn't worked since MS. Magazine was launched. Try to keep up, Pazzo.

And maybe take a little drive beyond your gated community in Pacific Heights. You might be surprised -- and probably intoxicated -- at all the damage you do.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Something like bankruptcy?

What the heck is going on with liberals? Wrote before about Maureen Dowd's attack on Congressman Joe Wilson in particular, calling him a racist. But Dowd isn't the only one. Former President Jimmy Carter now claims that the "vast majority" or "great mass" or something like that, of people who criticize the Comrade are racists.

I'm sure this silly drivel is about to erupt from the lips of many others, too, who have no idea that it's entirely possible to disagree with their views and remain a thoughtful and fair-minded person.

The subject of race is so tangled up in the USA. For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.


He also said:
Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears. You can't hold it forever, and dare not let it go.

He was talking about slavery. At the time, he owned slaves, and -- in the same book, if I recall correctly -- concluded that blacks were probably inferior to whites intellectually. But I'm pretty sure he was in love with Sally Hemmings, a slave and his deceased wife's half-sister, actually. Sally was supposed to be very beautiful; she was said to resemble Martha, TJ's wife.

So how mixed-up and self-contradictory do you want to get?

Blacks landed in North America with the first boatloads of white settlers, about 1619. About 120 years later, the Virginia Slave Code was developed -- Virginia still a colony, mind you -- that linked slavery to being black. That is, black slaves were defined as being different from white slaves or indentures. This latter group could be free someday, while if your mother was black, you would always be a slave.

Actually, this wasn't done out of hatred or anything. It was because nobody wanted to work in the Virginia colony. Perhaps the landowners and estate managers held out the promise of freedom to the white indentures in hopes of keeping them in North America as possible settlers when their period of indenture expired.

White indentures were kinda like "rented." Many of them sold seven years of their labor for the fare to the New World. Others were working off debt -- and their debtors sold the debt to someone else. By contrast, blacks were abducted from Africa and were sold outright to planters and others.

And slavery didn't begin with the colonization of North America. The slave trade already had gone on for centuries. It was just that North America represented a good market of buyers. I mean, who in their right mind would volunteer to come to a complete wilderness and slop around growing indigo, hemp, and tobacco for some rich guy in England?

Less than 10% of the slaves taken from Africa were sold in North America. Many more were sold to landowners and other interests in Brazil and other places in South America. They were used largely as miners and had a life expectancy of seven years. At least in the US, black slaves lived longer and were even encouraged to thrive -- if they had kids, their owners had more people to work for them, or to sell.

Slavery is a terrible thing, no matter who suffers it or where. Jefferson, again, noted that he believed the worst evil that came of slavery was its impact on white masters and not what it did to the slaves. 'Course this is very arguable.

At any rate, being in full command of quite a few of the gory details about slavery in the USA, I still don't see a case for reparations for slavery. For one thing, more than half the white population of the USA now is descended from people who didn't come to America until after slavery was abolished. Not really fair to stick them with the debt. Second. a total of 620,000 people died in the Civil War. About 375,000 of them -- more than half -- were Yankees. The net result of their actions was emancipation.

I don't know how much more you can pay in reparations than 375,000 lives.

Third, lots of people will argue that impoverished blacks have received tons of aid already, based upon the condition they were left in as former slaves, and due to the Jim Crow laws, etc. I don't know how that can be paid back.

It's kind of like the USA or the UK suing Germany for reparations after WWI. That was one element that caused WWII.

And I have no idea why disagreeing with the Comrade is at all related to racism, except in the minds of people whom I suspect of being nutcases, anyway.

I mean, do Dowd and Carter assume that all black people hold political opinions and principles that are identical to the Comrade's? That would incredibly racist, wouldn't it? I know some black conservatives personally, and many more by their reputations.

However, blacks do vote probably more than 90% Democrat, which I must admit, I find rather bizarre. At the time of the Civil War, the Democrat Party split into northern and southern organizations that each ran their own candidates. They weren't really on speaking terms. The Republicans ran Abe Lincoln.... and the very fact that a Republican was elected touched off secession. The Republicans, you see, had founded their political party on anti-slavery. Not necessarily abolition, and not always on moral grounds, but still, the Republicans' commitment to at least limiting slavery drove all those nervous slave states into rebellion.

A solid Democrat South following the Civil War and into the early decades of the 20th Century kept blacks pretty much as second-class citizens. But the Republicans didn't do much to correct this situation, either. Tired of fighting, afraid of setting off another civil war, etc., and just plain old indifference.

Right now in northern cities with large black populations, like Chicago, for instance, blacks are often still kept as "dependents" via aid programs like housing projects, welfare, patronage, etc. It's a screwed-up system. It doesn't make people free; it keeps them dependent.

This is why I hate socialism -- it creates a perennial dependent class of slaves. And not necessarily black, either.

So, who's the racist, Mr. Carter? And who's the oppressor? And why?

Actually, I don't think Dowd or Carter or any of the others have really thought things through. I think they're just burdened with a sense of guilt that white people could ever be so nasty as to keep slaves, and they think if they throw other peoples' money at the descendents of slaves, somehow they'll sleep easier. In short, they're intellectually bankrupt and probably morally bankrupt, too. And they're supporting dependency, which is closely akin to slavery. Believe it.

Dowd and Carter might do better to hire a psychiatrist rather than to try to re-make the USA into their own twisted images. I mean, do they really require a class of victims to assure themselves of their moral worth?

That's just sick.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

A problem with credibility

Well, apparently people on the left, namely Maureen Dowd and Janine Garafalo, to name only two, are convinced that the Comrade generates rage from many citizens because we just can't handle having a black president.

Actually, I think they're the racists. They're the ones who keep playing the race card. I don't care what color the Comrade is, he's a socialist. That's more important. I'd happily vote for Clarence Thomas, even Juan Williams, who is at least reasonable, even if he's more leftish than me. But an out-and-out socialist, and a marxist at that, no, I don't think so. I wouldn't vote for Pazzo Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barney Fudd, either, and I do believe they're all caucasians.

I mean, wasn't that what Martin Luther King advised? Judge a man not by his skin color, but by the content of his character.

Perhaps liberals just can't conceive of anyone honestly disagreeing with their views, so with their general inability to even consider that other valid opinions exist, they have to assign other irrelevant motives to their critics. Like, "Since the Comrade is absolutely perfect, there must be something organically wrong with the people who disagree with him." No closed minds there.

This is something we've also heard from David Axelrod. According to a "space count" done by the University of Illinois or someone, about 1.7 million people show up in downtown Washington, DC, expressing their displeasure with socialized medicine, giveaways to scumbag groups like Acorn, the nationalizing of various industries in the USA, etc., and Axelrod's contemplative and insightful assessment of the situation: "They're wrong."

Just heard on the radio that the Comrade is going to Ohio tomorrow -- where they have unemployment of something like 11.5% -- to try to convince them that he's done wonders with the economy. What?? Does he really think he's fooling anyone?

Really, it's actually funny. It reminds me of Tom Hanks in "Castaway" talking to a soccer ball. I didn't realize liberals were such blockheads. Honestly, though I don't agree with them, I would have given them credit for being capable of rational thought. But they're proving that it's simply beyond them. When confronted with logic, they're just totally mystified.

Anyway, I think I finally figured out what the Comrade is going for: a mandate. He just wants the whole country to say, "Sure, go ahead, do whatever you want. We're 100% behind you, no matter what. Just try to leave me bus fare in my paycheck."

That hardly ever happens in real life.

And why on earth would you ask for such abject submission from another person? I find that vaguely creepy.

With that speech he delivered to congress -- as I said before -- I kept expecting him to introduce "his bill." Because clearly he wasn't referring to anything currently on the floor in either house of congress.

So he lies or makes things up -- and possibly he himself believes all this crap -- and then he expects people to believe in him. He has no credibility, and doesn't even seem willing to earn it. He just requires that you hand your life over and trust him. Try to explain your reluctance to do this, and that you really mean it, and he gets on a plane and flies to Minneapolis.

I really don't understand where any of these people on the left grew up. The America where I was raised was always all about freedom, about respecting boundaries, about giving others as much space as you want for yourself. Even though my dad was a Roosevelt Democrat, and used to run for local office as a Democrat just so the Republicans would face some opposition.

It was so frustratng. I'd ask my mom, "What's the government?"

All she ever said was, "The people. The people are the government."

All of these things, dissent, disagreement, even diversity, seem to be completely alien concepts to the left. You've got to be just like them or they can't tolerate it. I came across a blog from some "progressive" last night that was all about "How can we get Glenn Beck off the air?"

Here's one way -- get him to start spouting the nonsense Keith Olberman and Maureen Dowd do. That's a sure way to lose your audience.

Anyway, that's it for now. Mainly I just wanted to post the new picture. I think this is what the Comrade sees when he looks in the mirror. And that's being very kind to him.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Nowhere to hide

Watched Fox News and Glenn Beck on the big Tea Party in Washington today, and also at places all over the country. I would have loved to go to DC, but figured if I drove all night to get there, I wouldn't be able to find a hotel/motel or any place to park. I also have to work.

Actually, I had a plan -- leave here Thursday, attend the tribute in Shanksville, PA, for Flight 93 on Friday, and arrive in DC today for the march. But I have to work (or will have no roof, that simple) and got a lot of work in for this weekend.

Would have loved to go to Quincy, IL, where a local rally is taking place, but same problem, though Quincy's a lot closer. Oh well, Will Rogers said something like, "We can't all be heroes. Someone has to sit on the curb and applaud."

So I also went just now and googled "News," and the mainstream media is actually reporting the Tea Parties. One Atlanta paper seems to be claiming credit for the whole thing, saying Atlanta was the site of the first Tea Party in February and that Georgians dressed in Revolutionary costumes led the march down the street in DC.

I'm just happy to see that the newspaper appears to want to put itself and its readership at the head of the column. Hmmmm, think Tea Parties might catch on?

Even the New York Times filed a report. I believe it was the Times that noted that the Comrade's helicopter flew over the crowds as it carried the Comrade to Air Force One en route to Minnesota, where he spoke to an audience who mostly agrees with him. And I'm sure all attendees were screened before they were admitted to venue. Don't want anyone shouting "You lie!"

Well, that's one tactic: in the face of criticism, run away and hide amongst friends.

As long as his helicopter actually flew over the citizens marching in DC, the Comrade can't pretend he didn't see them, can't pretend he doesn't know anything about any kind of disagreement with his views. But what do you want to bet he will anyway: "Protesters? What protesters?" If they aren't wearing purple, they just don't count?

After all, he's fabricating all kinds of health care reform things, too. For him, reality seems to be defined by his personal whims and fancies. However, if you don't look at reality, or refuse to accept it as is whether you like it or not, you're rarely very effective in dealing with it, no matter how much power you think you have.

It seems that quite a few politicians in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, confuse the trappings of power with power itself. If you have a Secret Service detail and a Gulfstream jet at your disposal, does that make you powerful? Leave us not forget that those are only perks, and the source of those perks is the voters -- still.

I suggest brooms as the symbol for the 2010 elections, as in "Clean Sweep."

Congressional civility

During the Comrade's speech to congress the other night, when the Comrade said something about how illegal immigrants won't qualify to benefit from socialized medicine here, a representative from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, hollered out, "You lie!"

I heard the shout at the time, but couldn't make out the words. Or I probably would have sent Rep. Wilson a dozen roses. Wilson's assessment of the Comrade's statements very closely matches my own. Although... has it been officially established yet exactly what bill the Comrade considers to be "his" bill? Not sure about that yet. Who knows, maybe that fantasy piece of perfect legislation that the Comrade has hidden under his pillow expressly forbids extending socialized medicine to illegal aliens. No one's seen that bill yet.

Anyway, the mainstream media, prefering to ignore larger and more damning scandals surrounding groups like Acorn, has been playing up the "You lie!" comment. Wilson apologized right away to the White House. Apparently he spoke to Rahm Emanuel, who accepted the apology. But some people, maybe Pazzo Pelosi among them, have suggested that Rep. Wilson apologize to the Comrade in front of the whole House.

Oh, these people just don't know history. Actually, a lot worse has happened in congress. If you want to read some really juicy speeches, I suggest you browse the old Congressional Globe, the forerunner to the Congressional Record. Congresscritters have habitually insulted each other -- not always in very polished language, either -- and many have taken shots at presidents. Including Harry Reid, in references to George Bush, but we all know the Democrats accept no obligation to treat Republicans with any respect. That street only goes one way.

At any rate, I thought Davy Crockett had gotten into a fist fight in congress once. He was well-known as a fighter, also for having considerable integrity. But the incident seems to be this:

Crockett disagreed with then-President Andrew Jackson on a few issues. Eventually, this mean Crockett losing elections and leaving congress. But during one campaign, Crockett's opponent, a guy named William Fitzgerald, who supported Jackson, called Crockett a liar. Crockett went after Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald took out a pistol and pointed it at Crockett's head. So that was the end of that. That was about 1830.

Things got more and more heated as the USA shuffled toward civil war. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner, a really staunch abolitionist, delivered a fiery speech about the situation in Kansas at the time. Kansas had petitioned to become a state, and by this time, the Mason-Dixon line had been been abandoned, so whether a state joined the union as free or slave depended on how that state's legislature voted. The election held in Kansas was a farce. Pro-slavery people came in from the slave state of Missouri to vote -- apparently over and over again. The election generated quite a few more votes than there were poeple in Kansas. And not coincidentally, a pro-slavery legislature and governor were elected. It was clearly a fraudulent election.

And the whole situation in Kansas was a bloody mess. You had "border ruffians" burning down the Republican town of Lawrence, and John Brown and his sons cutting off peoples' heads. The Jayhawkers and Redlegs were supposed to be policing things, but mostly they robbed and lynched people, like Quantrill would do a little later on. That was the general state of things.

So that was what Sumner was raling about. His speech likened slavery to a mistress that southern slaveowners were sleeping with, along with many other rather flowery and also pretty insulting references. And apparently Sumner's speech was in some way a response to a pro-slavery speech given earlier by Senator Andrew Butler from South Carolina. Senator Butler's nephew, Preston Brooks, who was then a Representative in the House, took it all very personally.

A few days after delivering the speech, Sumner was at his desk in the Senate one evening when Preston Brooks came over and starting beating him with a cane of gutta-percha with a gold handle. Gutta-percha is a very hard rubber; it's what golf balls used to be made of. But it was probably the gold handle that did the damage. Brooks beat Sumner nearly to death, claiming Sumner had insulted his uncle. Sumner was out of the Senate for many months following, and he never entirely recovered from that beating. Never changed his mind about the fraud in Kansas or about abolition, either. Brooks supposedly was cheered and celebrated all over the slave South.

Many years ago, I read this big, thick book from the local library, the autobiography of a man who'd worked in congress for about 40 years in the 1800s. Can't recall his name and can't find the book title, though I did check at Amazon and googled the topic six different ways. The author was like a secretary. When the congressmen submitted a bill or a resolution or anything that was to be "read into the record," they gave it to this guy. I believe he also took the roll. Don't know what his title would be, nor if his title then would be the same now.

It was an interesting book. The author had experienced so many famous events in congress, had known so many famous legislators -- John Quincy Adams, Davy Crockett, John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Daniel Webster. At any rate, the author noted at some point that at the time -- 1820 to 1860 or thereabouts -- "a gentleman would be a fool to enter the Congress unarmed."

So let's look at this in perspective. Joe Wilson isn't so bad. For Pete's sake, he even apologized. Many people, myself included, say a lot worse about the Comrade and have absolutely no intention of apologizing. We believe he is lying, or at the very least, making things up.

So, Pazzo, get over it.

Friday, September 11, 2009

...It tolls for thee

From Mark Twain:

Warm summer sun, shine kindly here.
Warm southern wind, blow softly here.
Green sod above, lie light, lie light.
Good night, dear heart,
Good night, good night.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The president: feeding conflict

Listened to the Comrade's speech to the joint houses of congress tonight. This was a waste of time. The only change from the two dozen other speeches this guy has delivered on socialized medicine was his slightly breathless tone tonight. Perhaps that's supposed to indicate his passionate support for "his bill." If that's all he can muster in terms of passion, Michelle doesn't have much of a private life, does she?

In the speech the Comrade reiterated everything he's ever said before: Your current insurance won't change; pre-existing conditions won't prohibit anyone from getting insurance; your coverage can't ever be dropped -- oh, and it won't ever be capped or limited, either, that might be new; no deductibles; coverage for things like annual physicals, mammograms, etc..... and on and on in his rather wearisome, clipped drone.

Nothing new here. He kept speaking about "his" bill. I kept waiting for him to introduce "his" bill. He never did.

Listening to Bruce Dumont on WLS radio at the end of speech, Dumont said the Comrade was referring to HR3200, which certainly doesn't guarantee half the stuff the Comrade wants, and even ensures it will never happen. So I found that rather confusing. I kept asking, "What bill? What bill?"

Apparently he still hasn't read it. Or he's telling blatant and undiluted lies. Or he's too damn lazy to try to construct a useful bill -- and with all those czars and comrades around him, you'd think they could come up with something. Or, he recognizes the serious conflict going on about this bill, in congress and all over the country, and he loves it.

Perhaps he's got his fingers crossed for a real crisis. Perhaps he's hoping someone starts shooting, or quite possibly, he's looking for a reason to start the shooting himself. (Think he could command any kind of loyalty from any military whatsoever?) At any rate, the more conflict, the better he likes it. Isn't that straight out of Saul Alinsky? Alinsky teaches how to create problems, not how to solve them.

The way you topple governments is to destablize them. Disrupt them. Make them incapable of managing government affairs. Make people afraid to trust them. Render them useless and impotent.

For example, in his speech, the Comrade never let an opportunity to pass without trying to slap the faces of Republicans and/or every other administration that came before him. Then he advises everyone to end the acrimony.

Hey, butthead, it's your acrimony. You're the one behind it, and the one who's fanning the flames. Like at that other socialized medicine speech, or press conference, or whatever, when he pulls out of thin air the incident with Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge cop... "Hey, let's see if we can't create some kind of conflict here where none really exists."

That's the way he does things.

He's setting the table for something. Don't know what, but let's all be very careful.

And the idiot stands there for, what? 40 minutes, lying, deceiving, blaming insurance companies and the notion of profit-making for all the problems with this bill, claiming there is no plan but Pazzo Pelosi's disaster (HR3200).... Primarily proving that he's either deaf, brain-dead, or just refusing to listen to anyone else. Pick as many as apply.

And I mean he's a "blockhead" in the most literal sense. Like cement between his doorknob ears.

Despite this rather weak and ineffectual pep-talk, I can't believe congress is going to pass HR3200. They may like the Comrade, but how many are willing to abandon their political careers for him? That's what it will cost them, and they know it. And then the more rabid liberals among them may go postal. (I'd love to see that myself.)

But you know, the Comrade has got to be doing this for a purpose.

Look for the purpose. That's the only unanswered question here. Perhaps the Comrade in all his omnipotent wisdom will proclaim that a hopelessly deadlocked congress has outlived its usefulness and he'll just shut it down. He won't be the first totalitarian dictator to do that. Matter of fact, the move is not even very imaginative.

Or maybe he'll get one of his thuggier czars to simply send out the National Guard or someone to seize control of the hospitals, doctors, and everyone else. Maybe the "Purple Ocean" from SEIU. (Again, the Comrade may have a problem commanding any branch of the military....) That might even be funny.

At any rate, it seems the Comrade simply has no ideas at all, except how to create chaos and spark hatred. That's about all he's accomplished so far in his career, as far as I can tell. Usually in the Illinois Assembly and as a US Senator, he voted "present." Not an indication of a genuine commitment to anything but his own ambition.

The one incident from all the Town Hall meetings that sticks in my mind -- and I hope sticks in others' minds -- is that guy in Iowa, clutching the microphone and, in truly impassioned tones, telling Senator Grassley, "You're supposed to be looking out for us!"

Yeah, congresscritters. Please remember that. You weren't elected to kiss ass. Legislation isn't a competitive sport. Please, think about preserving the nation and its ideals.

Monday, September 7, 2009

The True Believer - Eric Hoffer

I'm on the mailing list for David Horowitz's www.frontpagemag.com. It's really worth a look.

Anyway, I tend to have a couple hundred emails piled up in my mailbox at any given time, and tried to catch up on some of the reading today. Sorry, Mr. Nigerian Banker -- your stuff is all rerouted to the spam file.

In a brief email from the David Horowitz people, one article mentioned Eric Hoffer's book, The True Believer. I read this sometime in the 1970s and totally forgot about it. Well, I didn't actually forget... more like the message from it has been internalized.

The True Believer should be required reading before anyone gets a high school diploma, and it should probably be read again in more depth before anyone gets to graduate from college.

Eric Hoffer was a stevedore on the docks in San Francisco for many years. (Shades of "On the Waterfront.") I don't think he had a formal education, though I think he did "sit in" on a lot of classes where he could get inside. As I recall, he discusses this. And this doesn't mean he was at all stupid or incapable of useful thought and logic. In fact, it probably means that he was able to think about issues and apply theory directly to reality, without the convoluted baggage of fallacious interpretation from self-serving political radicals.

At any rate, you need to read this book. Everyone needs to read this book. If you don't read anything else, you need to read this book.

It's only about 100 pages, as I recall, and written in a forthright style that just makes sense -- no black-is-really-white nonsense or heart-rending tales of the downtrodden.

Eric Hoffer passed away a good many years ago, too, so I'm not promoting his product to make him rich. He's way past worrying about it.

But you need to read this book. Whoever "you" are. It's not about communism or capitalism. It's about getting sucked into large social movements -- the upside and the downside.

Again -- The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer. I'm sure it's available nearly everywhere. Probably even pirated copies you can download for free or nearly so on the internet.

Before you read another thing, and especially if you're under 20 yrs old, you need to read this book.

And perhaps The True Believer should be used as the lesson plan to guide the discussion after the Comrade's speech to schoolkids, or whenever schoolkids are subjected to political harangues from anyone -- including their teachers.

Matter of fact, their teachers should also read this book.

A finger on the trigger

Watched only Fox News Sunday today, especially the panel on what the Comrade may do about socialized medicine. Apparently one "solution" or a compromise he may be able to sell in the Senate is to build a so-called "trigger" into any reform bill. I believe Olympia Snow, one of the Silly Senate Sisters from Maine, came up with that one.

A trigger is some type of built-in objective or a limit -- more like a tripwire, actually -- that would set off another activity. Like, in regard to socialized medicine, agreed-upon legislation would say something like, "If health insurance premiums increase by more than 10% over 2010, a government-funded socialized medicine program will be established."

Or, "If more than 25% of the population is uninsured by the end of 2010, a government-funded socialized medicine program will be established."

The legislators can make the trigger anything they want. Like, "If the sun rises tomorrow, a government-funded socialized medicine program will be established."

The trouble with any sort of trigger is that it doesn't offer a solution for any of the real problems in health insurance at all. It just describes the conditions that need to be present for establishing a government-funded socialized medicine program. Without any real solutions, the triggers predictably will go off.

So if congress is going to set up a trigger, then to be fair, they should also change other of the existing regulations on the insurance industry to make reform possible. Like:

1.) Tort reform -- or changing the rules for people filing lawsuits against doctors and other health care service providers. What they have in some countries in Europe, as I understand it, is a "Loser Pays" policy. That is, right now in the USA, if you sue your doctor for negligence or something, you can include in the suit that the doctor will pay your legal fees -- even if you file a frivolous lawsuit. Under the European law, if you lose your case or it gets thrown out of court for being ridiculous, you pay both your fees and the doctor's fees and probably the court fees, as well, for wasting everyone's time. Loser Pays helps to reduce the number of frivolous claims are filed.

Another approach is to limit the "punitive damages." That is, while any genuine damages would be compensated -- like the costs incurred to have another doctor take the scissors out of your stomach, plus lost wages, etc. -- you'd be limited in how much you could punish the first doctor for leaving the scissors in there in the first place. Right now, you could sue for $10 million or whatever you think you could get with a sympathetic jury. These punitive damages might be capped at a $1 million or so -- still a pretty fair amount everywhere outside the Beltway.

2.) Something only the feds can do -- order the states to eliminate restrictions and/or limitations on the health insurance sold within each state. That is, allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state borders -- the same way we can now buy car insurance and even property and casualty. This would help enormously in fostering competition among insurance carriers and also in reducing the cost of policies, because people wouldn't have to buy any more insurance than they need or want.

Right now in Illinois and elsewhere, too, an employer has to provide insurance that covers a specified range of things, like emergency services, surgery, perhaps annual physical check-ups, mammograms, addiction counseling, fertility treatments, and on and on and on. It might be very helpful for a small business to offer some type of basic coverage without all the frills, and perhaps with the option that employees could purchase more insurance on their own, if they wish.

I'm not sure, but eliminating the state-based restrictions might also open up the possibility of offering more affordable care for people with chronic illnesses or the potential for them, because insurers could create different types of actuarial pools. I don't know this for sure. If true, this might go some distance to letting everyone buy insurance regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

The portability of insurance -- taking it with you when you leave a job -- would also be a greater possibility by eliminating the state regulations.

Without these and similar provisions that enable actual reform of the rules and regulations that now define and limit the insurance industry, a trigger would be only a delaying mechanism to postpone the advent of socialized medicine; without other reforms, the trigger is guaranteed to go off at some point.

In short, the big problem with health insurance is the way it's already being regulated. Take away or modify those regulations, and there would probably be any number of solutions and options available. I'm sure insurance companies would be happy to get somewhat creative if it means they can sell more policies.

'Course this doesn't do anything for Medicare/Medicaid, which are NOT insurance, but rather government-funded entitlement programs. Costs for those programs are driven by other factors than those that drive the insurance industry. Like, the more people enrolled in Medicare/Medicaid, the greater the cost. The more fraud is allowed and/or tolerated, the greater the cost. And things like that.

And I really believe that the people now running government-funded health care entitlement programs should clean their own house, prove their efficiencies, document a reduction in fraud, before they're entrusted to manage health care for the rest of the nation. Otherwise, any government-funded socialized medicine program will only magnify these problems across the whole population.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

All over but the whining?

I happened to twice catch Glenn Beck's show with the interview with David Horowitz and the revelations about Van Jones.

I love David Horowitz. I remember when he was a radical and an environmentalist, and I remember watching him change his mind... very happily. He's a very intelligent man. He also speaks very honestly about the radicalism of the 1960s, the basic uselessness of it all, and how useless it still is. During the interview with Glenn Beck, for example, one of them brought up the question: Don't these guys (Obama, Van Jones, et. al.) ever think about what kind of world they're creating? Horowitz said a definite "no." He also cited how the radicals exploit the minorities and assorted "downtrodden" they pretend to be rescuing from the jaws of capitalism.

Horowitz says he know how these radicals operate because he lived it along with them. He was one of them.

I was never as close to what might be considered the power centers of the 1960s radical movement -- if ever there was such a thing -- but I understand exactly what he means. Even did a blog about it a while back.

Anyway, Van Jones today announced that he's resigning. Well, earlier this year he called Republicans a**holes, and he's also claimed that white people are poisoning emigrant workers and other minorities. Glenn Beck showed Jones' endorsement on a "9/11 truther" document -- these are the people who claim the Bush administration was behind the terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

Just saw Van Jones' statement in a brief news story. He says the right is trying to "smear" him, and he has no intention of wasting time explaining his past. His past from, like 30 to 60 days ago? Or his whole, lifelong history of being a self-proclaimed communist and "community organizer" cut from the same pattern as our illustrious Comrade Osama? And "smear"? so far, most of the damning evidence against his character is stuff that's been discovered on YouTube videos. Where's the smear? No one put the words in his mouth -- only his foot in there.

I've asked before on this website: Why are the Comrade and his hoards trying to pull down the USA? I mean, what's the point, when the results of such activities have proven so disastrous in other nations? I just don't see the purpose. They're acting out of hatred, or brainlessly, just tearing down anything that exists with fingers crossed that something better will magically emerge to replace it. In short, they're knee-jerk nihilists of a sort, not half as interested in building as in destruction.

And I'm glad Van Jones is out. 'Course now there will be no end to the whining. I mean, he's black, a communist, etc. etc. Also a graduate of Yale Law School, but since that doesn't mark him as a wounded party, he probably won't be talking about that too much. Hopefully, he'll just go back to California or wherever he came from and organize another bunch of fruitcakes to snivel and complain about how hard life is. I don't care what he does, as long as he's no longer in a position to make federal policy.

I am so tired. Lots of work lately. That's a good thing, but when I go for more than three days with no more than four hours of sleep at a time, it starts to get to me.

More tomorrow, perhaps. All those Sunday morning shows to watch.... must keep up with the silly liberal commentary. They'll probably be passing out tissues....

Friday, September 4, 2009

I pledge allegiance to....

Boy, has education ever changed.

When I was in 7th grade, my Social Studies and homeroom teacher was Mrs. Roane. She was rather stern, or at least commanded respect, and I think she really loved ideas and trying to communicate them to bored and silly pre-adolescents, rather than just accepting a government job as a way to get short hours, a whole lot of holidays, and a pretty good pension. Anyway, she was my teacher when my dad died, and she sent a vase of yellow roses; I still have the vase. She was very kind.

She told us in class one day always to be suspicious of any type of leader -- particularly of the political variety -- who asked us to take any kind of personal loyalty oath. That is, to swear allegiance to a person rather than to the nation, the flag, the army, the church, etc. She offered Mussolini as an example of what could go wrong. I had no idea who Mussolini was at the time.

A few years later, the Manson Family slaughtered a whole bunch of innocent people in Los Angeles, however, and Mrs. Roane's words of wisdom came back to me. Oh, now I get it. "Charlie made me do it."

A few years later, the president is addressing grammar school kids, and the accompanying lesson plan wants students to elaborate on "What can I do for President Obama?" "How does President Obama inspire me?"

Not even like asking what you can do for your country rather than what your country can do for you, but what can you do for President Obama. Personally.

Wish I could believe anything good about this person. Every time I try, I get new evidence to the contrary.