Modern Mythology

myth: - noun, an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I remember learning Greek and Roman mythology in school. I was fascinated by the stories of heroic acts, divine intervention and dark powers. The Greek and Roman Gods seemed so...human. Flawed, imperfect and governed by their passions, they warred with each other and mankind. I secretly wished for them to be true and not just a collective belief. One could argue that there are no more great myths being written today.

That is...unless you count Washington D.C. and the storytellers we elect to run the country. They seem to be writing new myths every day with the ease and fluidity of Homer. I shall endeavor to relate to you their latest yarn entitled, "Cash For Clunkers".
It's a tale of greed, lust for power and a deceptive, God-like hero whose deeds rival those of Hercules and Achilles combined.

It all started on bright and sunny summers day on Olympus. Our hero, Obamacles, lay on his cloud wondering what he might do as a gift to the lesser humans on whom he had already bestowed his love and care.

"I know!", he said loudly to his scurrying minions, "I'll give them some money to buy new cars. When my children are happy, then I am happy!", he exclaimed gleefully and set about magically making 1 billion dollars appear. "This will do nicely I think." he said triumphantly.
He gave instructions to his servants, Barneyopholus, Doddocles and Reedera to spread the wealth around.
"Give this to my children, that I might shower them with my love!"
Away they ran, as fast as their little legs could carry them to trumpet the gifts of Obamacles to the poor, unwashed masses. Sadly, Obamacles did not know that his servants would run out of money before all his children could receive their gift. This made Obamacles very cross and in a loud and thundering voice he spake, saying, "WE NEED MORE MONEY!" ...and it was so.

Told like that, the "Cash for Clunkers" program (C4C) sounds almost peaceful and heraldic doesn't it? Told the way it's really happening just sounds sad and stupid though.

What can one say about the unqualified success of the C4C program that hasn't already been said? Quite a bit actually, considering the Pollyanna like coverage by the press and the lack of foresight in the original funding cap for this bill. As of this post, the House has approved an additional 2 billion dollars and it's fate is still pending in the Senate.

This begs an obvious question, allocated from where? From an already bloated Federal deficit? From the "automobile fairy"? If I lift up my pillow will I find 2 billion dollars under there? Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on that one. No, this will ultimately be paid for by you and I my friends in the form of higher taxes. That is, after all, the only way any government gets money since they produce nothing but layers of bureaucracy.

On it's face, the program seems to have nothing but the best of intentions but a closer look at the periphery reveals what we all know to be true about "feel good" legislation, that it is rife with unintended, negative and costly consequences. Let's break down the major points of this "feel good hit of the summer!"

Myth #1 "This program will spur new care sales which is good for the economy."

Edmunds.com's CEO Jeremy Anwyl had this to say about the program's inception and application,

As we noted earlier in July, over 100,000 buyers had put their purchase on hold waiting for the Cash for Clunkers to launch. Is it any wonder that showrooms filled and the government servers crashed when this backlog of buyers rushed to finalize their purchase?

Secondly, last week we published an analysis showing that in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 "clunkerlike" deals happen with no government program in place. In other words, the 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund were barely above the "natural" clunker trade-in rate.

There's myth #1 exploded by a man with no political ax to grind at all. He works, in a roundabout way, for the auto industry so sales figures have no real meaning to him. He's simply watching the numbers and reporting them to the auto industry. They in turn use this information to help them determine car buying trends for the future. Whether this program succeeds or fails is irrelevant to him.

Myth #2 "We're taking low mileage cars off the road and replacing them with more fuel efficient models."

Let's go back to Mr. Anwyl again to reveal the simple truth of economics that the President and members of Congress don't seem to understand,

"Clearly, the sales frenzy of last week was inevitable. In fact, students of economic theory will quickly recognize the dynamics of a classic shortage. We have taken three to four months of normal activity and caused them to occur over a few days, as consumers rushed to not miss out.

What everyone fails to realize is that once this backlog is met, interest in the program will quickly fade.

As is the case, there is also an ironic unintended consequence. Car companies have reduced production levels as one response to this downturn. Shortages are developing -- particularly around clunker-favored fuel-efficient models. As these prices rise, non-clunker buyers will inevitably shift to less-efficient models, crushing one of the touted environmental benefits of C4C."

What he seems to be saying is a simple supply-side economic realty that most Liberals have no clue about. Even if this program has spurred sales which I seriously doubt, it has unwittingly removed most of the supply of the cars they were targeting to put on the roads from the available stock. The response dictates the outcome. Overload the system and then when automobile industry runs out of fuel efficient cars in stock, consumers will inevitably buy less fuel efficient cars to grab up all the "free money". I actually heard someone on a radio show refer to this plan as a "tax cut". I was mystified at the stupidity of this statement. Where, in heavens name, does he think that money is coming from? Obamacles magic wand?

Myth #3 "This program is good for the economy because it will spur job growth."

That myth is a throw away line used about everything the government says about why they need to take us deeper into debt. The stimulus bill hasn't done it yet. Most of that money is still sitting in a room somewhere unused so far. The ugly truth about the C4C program is that just below the surface are a host of thousands of after-market repair shops, small business owners, who have already seen a sharp drop off in the amount of work they would normally do. That's because the cars they would normally be repairing and the money gained is quickly drying up. Some have already started to lay off employees as a result and just below that level is the used parts business that will also ultimately be hurt by this boondoggle.

The most disturbing part of this fiasco is that the government, by offering this money to consumers, is essentially giving money back to car companies...IT ALREADY OWNS! We gave them money when we bailed them out. That failed and they went bankrupt anyway so we gave them MORE money when we bought them...and NOW we're giving another little perk for reasons only the President and his friends in the labor unions know for certain.

Do you seriously want me to give you MORE of my tax dollars now? What this reminds me of is Barney Frank saying that "All Americans deserve a house." and then setting about to destroy not only the housing industry but the economy as well. This is the housing bubble for cars simply put. It's another in a long line of promised "changes" to our country that bear no resemblance to the way the world really works.

If this level of rampant stupidity is allowed to continue, there will be no future for our children and grand children. There will be only government and slavery to a debt that we will never see the end of in our lifetimes.

An inconvenient speech...

"My commitment is to make sure that we have universal health care for every American by the end of my first term as President...but I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..."

This was taken from a 2007 speech. Obama made those remarks during an SEIU health care forum when he was making his bid for President. He spells out quite clearly that it may take a decade or more to be implemented but that is his ultimate goal. A single payer, socialized system akin to Canada, Great Britain and France. For you naysayers and disbelievers, I will provide a link at the bottom of this post to dispel any disbelief you may have.

I have believed from the outset of the debate on health care reform that something just didn't smell right about the way it was reported on, the speed with which is was being implemented and the lack of clear definition of what was being proposed. Something just didn't sit right with me and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps I had seen the video during the campaign and it played on my subconscious or perhaps my natural skepticism made the little hairs on the back of my neck go up. Either way, the truth is undeniable and irrefutable. The "public option" as it is adoringly referred to in the press is actually the first step towards single payer, socialized medicine after all. I made mention of Sen. Barney Frank's comments on reaching single payer through a public option in a previous post and knew the truth then. Seeing these videos has now brought it all into sharp focus at last.

Breaking campaign promises is nothing new really. You grow immune to it after so many years of watching the political machine go through it's gyrations. One expects to be lied to during a national political campaign. It's so common place these days that we rarely ever notice anymore. Not only have we learned to accept it, we've come to expect it quite frankly, so jaded have we become on matters of politics of late. In fact, when a politician says they will do something and then actually does it, we are suspicious of them instantly. How dare you let us down by keeping your word!

I fear that is not the case with Obama-care though. I fear that he is actually putting lipstick on a pig and asking me to kiss it... deeply. "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts." comes to mind in this instance. Those of you skeptical of the end goal need not be skeptical anymore. It's laid out in black and white and with little chance of being mistaken as to the truth of a public option. It's only goal is to stamp out private health insurance as it's primary focus and to leave us all with no option at all really. Government run, funded (with our tax dollars) and administered and with no where else to turn when the system breaks down, and it will.

This change from free market to public option will stifle competition, put thousands more Americans out of work and spell the final doom for an economy already teetering on the precipice of total disaster. Out of control deficit spending, pie in the sky promises of free money from the government and now this. What's next...an Ipod in every home filled with Obama's speeches? Meant to comfort us when we lose our jobs?

Act, react and make your voices heard. Say no to socialism of any kind. This country was founded on freedom and the pursuit of liberty not on promises of "spreading the wealth around".

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance

The Week In Review

Well, it certainly has been an interesting week in these United States hasn't it? It's been a week of racial tension, subterfuge and double talk about health care and having a beer at the "picnic table of peace" with the pres and the cop who loves the Red Sox and the prof who loves being arrested.

We've seen furious debate over health care reform...from Liberal Democrats versus the "Blue Dogs", a group of candidates hand picked by now Chief Of Staff Rahm Immanuel for their conservative tendencies. It seems he wanted to court the moderate and conservative Dems so badly that he wound up getting a group elected that may ultimately spell doom for his boss' health care " overhaul" plans. How about that bill too? It seems that it's length of more than 1,000 pages made it impossible for anyone in Congress to actually read it. Said Senator John Conyers (D) MI, of the behemoth bill this week,

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill!' What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

What good is reading the bill? Because that's your job you idiot. That's what we elect you to do and what we ultimately have taxes taken out of our paychecks to pay you for. The arrogance here is breathtaking. The utter lack of respect for his constituents and the rest of us is mind boggling. He may as well have said, "Do I have to do my entire job or can I just do the parts that enrich my financial portfolio?" Why read the bill? Because you are supposed to be safeguarding those of us who can't read or even understand this gargantuan piece of socialism. Think about it...it was written by lawyers after all. No one without a law degree could even get close to comprehending it and I suspect that more than a few lawyers would have hard time with it. On Monday, Barney Frank explained what most Americans already understand: the public plan will lead to single-payer, socialized medicine. In response to questions about the current House health care proposals, Frank said,

“I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that’s the best way to reach single payer.”

Frank is right. A public plan would “demonstrate its power” and drown private competitors with rates subsidized by the taxpayers. The Lewin Group estimates that a subsidized public option could quickly drive over 119 million people out of the private insurance market. As the Wall Street Journal explains, it has never been a secret that the public plan connects naturally into a single-payer health care system:

Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."

As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out so many times before, "You don't boil a frog all at once. If you throw him into hot water, he'll simply jump right back out. If, however, you drop him into cold water and then slowly raise the temperature, he'll be dead before he knows what's happening."

In other news, radio talk show host and Fox News rising star Glenn Beck called the president a "...racist with a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture." He was instantly set upon by the left leaning press, called a hate monger with race issues of his own. That's right out of the Democrat play book though. When someone accuses them of lying, they simply point out what liars we all are. As if that non-admittal admittal means they're any better. Beck's case for his accusation was made on his radio program in a compelling and often heart stopping way. I won't say that I followed his line of reasoning except to say that if any case can be made against the president it is that he is a bigot at minimum with a deep seated mistrust of white people. So much for the post-racial candidate he appeared to be. Beck leveled this accusation after the president inserted himself into the Gates kerfuffle which ended with what is laughingly referred to as the "Beer Summit" now. It became a huge distraction to the president during the critical time when his health care bill might have made it to the floor for a vote had it not been for his insertion of himself into the fray. We learned something important through this little scandal though, "Being Barrack means never having to say you're sorry".

Even when you're wrong.

Elsewhere, up in the frozen tundra, Sarah Palin, former Veep nominee and the subject of Liberal scorn and Conservative fantasy, bade farewell to the citizens of Alaska saying that she would stay engaged and continue to work on their behalf but in the wider scope of public service. Speculation swirled about her future, would it be radio, television, a continued career in politics or a centerfold spread in Playboy? No one knows for sure yet. She's been very hush hush on details and very scathing in her assessment of the "main stream media", calling them out and reminding them that their profession should be a noble one of service to the public, not service to a political party. She's right on that score. They shamelessly carry water for the president and hang on his every word as if he were the Christ child about to speak his first syllables. There have been some chinks in the armor of late with the AP reporting some very disturbing facts about the true economic state of the union and Obama's poll numbers, which coincidentally have been dropping faster than Oprah's ability to resist a Twinkie. While CNN is reporting that the recession is over, AP had some sobering statistics on the rising debt and continued shrinkage of the job market. Sarah has been almost a constant news story at a time when she should be fading from our political view. The media hasn't let her fade though. They keep finding reasons for us to mistrust and despise her and they keep her on the front burner as often as they can.

The "Cash For Clunkers" program, initially slated to be only 1 billion dollars ran out of money in just under 6 days. Oddly, that money was supposed to last until mid October but for reasons unknown to bureaucratic dunderheads it disappeared faster than ...well...money in Washington. As of this note, an additional 2 billion dollars is being gathered to continue the program. It seems that nothing ever costs as much as they say it will and it never works like it's intended. Seems lots of folks trying to get the subsidy are being denied because the rules keep changing so quickly that car dealers can't keep up with it all. Lots of applications, precious few of them accepted. Honestly, who didn't think that Americans, when presented with the idea of snatching some stimulus money, wouldn't respond this quickly? Apparently the rocket scientists on Capitol Hill didn't and their emergency supplemental funding is proof. Oh, and speaking of stimulus money, it seems that the National Endowment of the Arts is using some of it's stimulus money for shall we say...less than pure endeavors. The NEA may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco, as first reported Thursday by FOXNews.com.

Now why am I not surprised?

I love this country. No where on earth could you have this kind of fun and all of it made possible with taxpayer dollars. Perv reviews and dwindling money and socialized medicine...OH MY!
If Nancy Pelosi is Dorothy and Barney Frank is the scarecrow (no brain)...that would make Beck the cowardly lion, John Conyers the tin man (no heart) and of course...Obama as the great and powerful wizard of Oz.

Pay no attention to that man behind the screen. That's just Rahm tightening the thumb screws on some pesky blue dogs.

We are certainly NOT in Kansas anymore Toto.

The "Thought Police" have a warrant to search your mind

I am not one to parse words or soften my language to minimize any possible perceived offense to those who may be listening to me. It's not meant to be offensive it's simply how I am. I am also not able to ignore stupidity, ignorance or just plain silliness when they rear their ugly heads. There are times when moderating what I say is just not possible when confronted by the slings and arrows of outrageous thinking. Of all the things I find either distasteful or wrong with modern society, political correctness is the most insidious and dangerous element to gain a foothold. Gone are the days of rational thinking and civil discourse with someone with an opposing viewpoint.

My plain spoken approach has left me on many occasions, branded as a racist, a bigot or a sexist just to name a few. This very thing happened recently while attempting to have a thoughtful exchange of ideas on racial perceptions and it's current impact on society. I was branded a racist because I deigned to speak openly and somewhat bluntly about race relations in America. Since our new president is black, I assumed that this indicated that we as a nation had indeed made some great strides towards Martin Luther King Jr's dream of looking beyond skin color to the character of people. I assumed I could talk openly of Obama's character with little fear of reproach.

I was wrong.

By simply talking about race, I was instantly thrust into the "David Duke For President" crowd based solely on the few words I had uttered. It brought the point home to me in a clear and somewhat brutal way, that what I may think is infinitely more important than what I may I may do. Not really even what I was thinking but what someone perceived my thinking was. So many people these days have thinking that has narrowed so profoundly that to them, actions no longer speak louder than words. Words are all that matters and you'd better be saying the right ones if you want to escape the moniker of "unenlightened". This perception that words are more important completely nullifies one of my mother's most important and often reinforced lessons. Having said this, I must now question the very fabric of the "Don't run with scissors" thesis and the ever popular, "Watching TV in the dark is bad for your eyes" postulate.

I know how shocking this must seem. The faint ripping noise you may be hearing is the delicate fabric of reality being torn down the middle as the many pieces of our basic learning begin to crumble before our very eyes. Next thing you know, I'll be telling you that broccoli is bad for you.

How could my mother have been so wrong? How could she insist for so long that it would be my actions and not my words that would eventually determine the shape of my character and the quality of my ethical makeup? I had been focusing so much on my actions through the course of my life, that I had neglected to give a scant thought...to my thoughts. I suspect that the next conversation I have with my mother, the woman who raised me and tried to instill a sense of values and ethics in me and my siblings, will have some very pointed questions about swimming after I eat and whether or not there truly is a boogeyman.

Calling me a racist because I talk openly about race is tantamount to calling me a baker because I talk openly about my affection for cake. It's ridiculous at best and meant to silence independent thought at it's worst. That's the sad truth behind the rise and eventual rule of political correctness. It's meant to quell an opposing viewpoint and silence the speaker in order to bring them into line. The only thing left after that is re-education camps for the pathologically truthful. I've learned to accept the occasional mischaracterizations of what I say as the product of narrow minds. I can sometimes hear, if I listen very closely, the offended party's mind closing. Slamming shut against what they see as wrongheadedness and provincial thinking.

We live now in a society where political correctness has run amok. No longer are people blind, they are visually impaired. No one need worry about being short, fat, thin, poor or handicapped ever again. The language and thought police have rendered us all "societally neutral" now. Vanished like smoke are the differences that made our country such a rich and varied place to live. They have officially made us all the same now. Bland and devoid of individualism and independence. I expect to be served with a warrant for all the dangerous and unenlightened thoughts I may still have. I can just picture them exiting my home with file boxes filled with all those thoughts they find wrong.

I no longer have to live my life as a short, bald Italian man. Thanks to the thought police I am now a vertically and follically challenged person of color. Somehow, I don't feel particularly comforted by this change. I don't look or feel any differently than I did before which begs the question...

Is the change really necessary?

The 4th estate is in foreclosure

"I felt this thrill going up my leg."

That phrase, spoken by Chris Matthews about a speech that Barrack Obama had given while campaigning, sounded the death knell for objectivity in the media. He may not have spoken for the majority of media outlets but he simply said what they were all feeling as the election drew near. They had chosen their horse in this race and were going to set about seeing that it won, at the expense of their own credibility.

Media bias is nothing new and certainly does not rise to the level of a crisis in America but the steady decline of objectivity snowballed out of control in direct proportion to Obama's impending nomination and subsequent victory. He's more media creation than substantive personality. They cherry picked those facts that would help propel him to glory while ignoring things that would have brought Edward R. Murrow to his feet to demand a reckoning of the facts.

Granted, Matthews and some of his more outspoken colleagues like Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity are typically termed "opinion journalists" so they tend to infuse their "reporting" with a great deal of bias. What they do can no longer be called reporting though. By it's strictest definition, a reporter goes to places where the majority of us can't go and tells us about an event or news story. Ascertaining the who,what, how, where, when and occasionally, the why of a story.

I cite Edward R. Murrow here because he is the epitome of the dispassionate observer to world events. One never knew Murrow's political leanings because he found them of no value and injurious to basic reporting. He was fierce in his questioning at times but only insomuch as it served the dissemination of the facts. He wanted the whole story, not just the bits that conformed to his world view. I viewed Tom Brokaw in this same light for many years. He seemed fair and honest and willing to lend a critical eye to most of what he reported on the nightly news. Since his retirement he is more able to lean a little and rightly so. He is no longer charged with dispassionate observance. God speed to him in fact. It is his due after all. Brian Williams, on the other hand, has proven to be a less than credible replacement for Brokaw. Williams' recent "Day in the life" of the Obama presidency turned out to be a shameless plug for for the Democrat party. It looked less like news and more like a reality TV show. Williams breathlessly "reported" the events of Obama's day with all the objectivity of a pit bull talking about a raw steak. You knew he was loving every minute of this piece. I think the word "man crush" can be used here quite aptly.

The vast majority of what churns out of journalism schools today are eager, young minds who feel it is their duty to change the world by exposing the truth behind the curtain of politics and society. They seem disproportionately interested in bringing down only one side of the aisle though and that is where the line in the sand has been crossed. Journalism schools teach opinion and not reporting these days. They are more indoctrination camps for the rich and snotty than they are schools.

At one time, many years ago, I dreamed of walking the halls of the Columbia School of Journalism immersed in the ambiance of free and open debate and discussion with students of all kinds. I imagined this would be the the ultimate expression of ideas and ideals. I was a Liberal Democrat back then and had the same idea. I wanted to change the world. To set the world right as I saw it. I voted for Clinton...twice. I railed against Limbaugh and Gingrich as hacks who had no sense of decency or honesty between them. I had grown up with the mantra of "evil, rich white people" all my life and it narrowed my view and discolored my thinking.

Around the time Clinton bombed a tent to cover up or at least minimize the damage from the Lewinsky scandal, I began to see things differently. It was a slow, painful process for me as I began to see the media's complicity in the whole sordid affair. They weren't telling me the whole story. They were only telling me the parts that they thought I needed to know. I took this to mean that they did not trust my innate intelligence enough to let me make up my own mind. They had an agenda and it became more obvious as the days and weeks progressed. I began to question everything I heard or read in the news. It was then that I began listening to talk radio. It was the only place to go at the time to hear an opposing viewpoint as it was obvious that the big 3 and CNN had already made their minds up.

These days, I gather my facts from as many sources as I can. CNN, Fox, Slate, Drudge, The Huffington Post, the NY Times and the Washington Post. Yes I listen to Limbaugh as well. He is iconic and plain spoken and makes no bones about his own bias. At least he's honest about it. Brian Williams and Katie Couric aren't honest. They peddle an agenda and disguise it as "news". They have no faith in my own ability to ascertain the truth of a story. They simply boil it down in little bite size morsels and then attempt to tell me how to feel and think about it. So did Dan Rather for that matter. His insistence that a candidate's military service had no bearing on his character seemed like preaching when he began to investigate Bush' military service. Suddenly, it had all the bearing in the world and he chased a non-story, a lie essentially, to the gates of hell and it eventually proved to be his undoing. Good riddance to shoddy reporting. He deserves the pariah's cloak he wears now.

I will admit that the vast majority of media outlets don't lie outright when they give me the news. They simply omit those facts that clash with their own ideas and ideals. I can't watch Sean Hannity for the same reason I can't watch Chris Matthews. I have my own opinions and I don't need Matthews describing the thrill up his leg or to hear Hannity beating the drum of "radical friends" while wrapping himself in the flag at the same time. Neither has any credibility with me. I just want all the facts, even the uncomfortable ones. Don't wash the story clean of the parts you don't like.

I was raised Catholic. A sin of omission... is still a sin.

Reform we can all believe in...at last!

I have it on good authority that house Republicans have drafted a bill that will bring sweeping change to another segment of our economy that has seen prices for it's services skyrocket out of control in the last ten years. This service is every bit as critical as health care and has consequences just as far reaching as climate change. I applaud their attempt to bring this under government control to give all of us equal access to it's services. It's about time this group, with it's huge lobbying arm and enormous political influence is made affordable to everyone and not just the wealthy. I'm talking of course...

about lawyers.

This new bill, if passed, will finally make legal services affordable for every American, not just the OJ types who can buy the best defense that money can buy. Some of the parts of this new bill spell out clearly the ways legal services will be rationed out to the public. I'll cite a few examples here;

Sec. 2.1.34a - At no time, shall an attorney collect more than 2% of his client's base salary on any judgment, award or other monetary gain resulting from a claim of damages. All monetary rewards shall be under the supervision of the "Damages Czar" and subject to review by a panel appointed by the President.

Sec.4.31.1c - All attorneys shall be reviewed on a yearly basis by the "Attorney Czar" and/or his/her appointed panel to show cause why they should be allowed to continue to practice law in the United States. Those found deficient will subsequently have their licenses revoked and assigned to job retraining to find employment in some other vital area...like working for UPS or Blockbuster. Said attorney shall work outside the legal system for a period of no less than five (5) years before being allowed to reenter the legal field, subject to review by the "Reentry Czar".
(One of my personal favorites)

Sec. 3.2.45.1a - Any criminal defense attorney found to have knowingly worked for, and consequently won acquittal as the result of a "technicality", a guilty client, will subsequently be made to serve the same sentence as the offender, irrespective of crime, income level or education level.

Sec. 1.2.1d - The costs associated with legal services shall henceforth be subject to a qualifier denoting income level and those persons found to be earning less than $150,000 per year shall receive free legal care. This amount may change should Joe Biden wander near a microphone.

Sec. 14.4.56a - No attorney shall be allowed to hold public office until such time as he/she has spent a period of time no less than 3 years outside the legal system and has demonstrated an ability to live amongst the "common folk". Heretofore referred to as the "Mobile Home" clause.

Sec. 17.5.34f Henceforth, no attorney shall be allowed to advertise on radio, cable, television, any print media or any other media not yet invented. Be happy we're letting you stay in the phone book.

Sec.4.32.11 All citizens shall be provided, on a one time basis, free use of up to but not exceeding, three (3) "legal eagles", those attorneys rated highest on their review by the Attorney Czar to provide defense in severe, serious or catastrophic circumstances. This will hereafter be referred to as the "Dream Team " clause. Remember, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

I'm obviously making a joke here but it's important to demonstrate the absurdity in having the government run something so vital as health care. Are Medicaid and Medicare running so smoothly and flawlessly that we would knowingly allow the government to take over the health of the entire country?
The current system is flawed but still remains the best in the world, with more life saving and life changing research and treatments being made available every day. Any good that may come from the Medicare and Medicaid system must be granted to the thousands of health care professionals who dispense care, not the the Federal Government. All the government does is to provide an avenue for those services, not for the services themselves. Sadly, for those who need to travel down that avenue, they find it filled with obstacles, potholes and speed bumps that inevitably reduce it's overall effectiveness.

Having written this piece leaves me wondering what other areas the government would be more adept at handling over the private sector. How about Government Run Automotive mechanics...or plumbers? I'd thought maybe the government should have a hand in the news and information business but it seems these days...they already do.

Primary Colors

"I think the Cambridge police acted...stupidly"

The president paused ever so briefly on that last word as is to convey the impression of not knowing the right word to use or if he was trying to choose his words more carefully. If I've learned nothing about our new president in his short tenure thus far it is this, he is a measured man in his responses to questions from the press. I say that to mean he measures a great deal of flair and nuance mixed with very little substance.

Not this time however. This time his answer was direct and held no ambiguity as to how he felt about the situation involving his good friend professor Henry Louis Gates, esteemed professor of African and African-American studies at the hallowed Harvard University. The question asked of the president was how he felt about his friend being arrested by the Cambridge police last week. I'm sure most of you reading this already know the story but I'll recap to add the proper detail to what follows.

It seems the estimable professor Gates had returned from a trip to China, arrived at his home only to discover that his keys had gone missing. He and his driver attempted to gain entry by forcing the lock on the front door. A neighbor seeing this, immediately called police to report suspicious persons at the home attempting what looked like, to any reasonable person, a burglary in progress. Police arrived on scene after Mr. Gates had already entered his domicile and viewed him through a glass entry door on the front of his home. Sgt. James Crowley, lead officer at the scene knocked on the door and asked if he could see some identification and to learn why these people were in the residence. From the police report it was learned that Gates '"... flew into a verbal rage when officers asked him for identification"
Gates called Sgt. Crowley a "racist policeman" and asked him if he "knew who he was dealing with". Sgt. Crowley asked Gates to go outside with him to answer any other questions he might have to which Gates replied, "I'll meet your mother outside."
Can anyone say Zsa Zsa Gabor?
The verbal insults grew more rancorous as Gates followed Sgt. Crowley outside to the front of his home where he was warned that his behavior would lead to arrest if he didn't calm down and take a deep breath. Neither of which he did. He was promptly arrested as he was told he would be. Not for burglary but for disorderly conduct.

Professor Gates is a venerated member of the Harvard faculty, a frequent guest on the Oprah show and travels in all the right circles in polite liberal society. He is an elite amongst elites. How dare Sgt. Crowley not know who he was! The audacity is enough to make one drop ones chardonnay.
Sgt. Crowley, on the other hand, is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling and has taught a class on the subject for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.

“I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy,” Fleming told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Gates maintains he was singled out because of his ethnicity and Sgt. Crowley maintains he was just doing his job.

Who here thinks talking about a law enforcement officer's mother is ever a good idea? I mean, outside of wishing her a long life and continued success at bingo?

The president, however, peering through the prism of skin color, made a snap decision to add fuel to the fire of perceived racism by white police officers on a black man. It seems the paradigm will stay firmly in place on this matter. It never even occurred to the president that Gates might have been out of line that night. He even admitted that he wasn't there and didn't have all the facts. He hadn't even read the police report yet. He had one fact, the only fact that seemed to matter.

Gates is black and Crowley is white.

Let's not cloud the issue with facts when there's an opportunity to reinforce the stereotype of arrogant, racist white cops overstepping their authority to lay down a little "white justice" on an unsuspecting and undeserving black man. Gates was neither unsuspecting nor undeserving, he was belligerent and disrespectful to a man who was only making sure that no one was breaking the law and robbing Gates blind.

No, let's call the police racial profilers who think a black man jimmying the lock on a house is maybe something they should look into.

The president eschewed calls for an apology saying only that this was a "teachable moment" and maybe he could have "calibrated his words better". That's about as nuanced as I've heard him up to this point. It meant nothing except to say that he still believes that Gates was unfairly targeted by law enforcement simply because he is black. It is indeed a teachable moment for me. It taught me that Obama didn't just sit idly in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church pews every Sunday. He was paying attention to the hate filled rhetoric and inflammatory sermons about the inequities of society. He brought those teachings into his world view and carried them...

into the White house.

Lady Justice is peeking

What follows is the oath of office taken by each Supreme Court Justice:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

What follows is an excerpt of a speech give by Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In 2001, she gave the keynote speech at “a symposium commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal district court.” The text of the speech was later published in the La Raza Law Journal.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life...I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

I could just stop here and my point would be well made but that's not really my style. One has to ask how many times has Judge Sotomayor used her "Latina heritage" as a basis for dispensing justice. How often has the fact of her race played a role in her decisions? One would hope never but that doesn't seem to be the case for this particular judge. She is sensitive to issues of race in her decisions as is evident in a case just decided by the court she hopes to sit on. In fact, her earlier ruling was overturned by the SCOTUS oddly enough.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states:
"Title VII of the Act prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." In simple terms, an employer may not use race as a basis for hiring or promotion. This means either to the positive or to the negative.

The Ricci v DeStefano case is obvious proof of her sensitivity to matters of race. It seems that not enough black firefighters passed a test for promotion given by the New Haven CT Fire Dept. and she summarily dismissed the promotions of white and Latino candidates who had passed and were due promotion but in this day of racial quotas and reverse profiling the Second Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled this way,

"We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion
of the court below. Ricci v DeStefano. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does
not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to
validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted
with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected."

Put simply, the Civil Service Board's bogus claim of a violation of Title VII trumps Ricci's valid claim. Put another way, they seem to acknowledge that Mr. Ricci is the most qualified candidate but since no blacks passed then neither will he. It's also important to note here that the court never says the test itself had a "disproportionate racial impact"...just the outcome. There were no claims that the test wasn't fair.They said only that the outcome basically doesn't look right to them. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. While it's true that no black applicants passed, quite a few white applicants failed as well. Only the three highest scores could be accepted based on New Haven's promotion policy. The idea that a test can have a "disproportionate racial impact" for firefighters is ludicrous. How can race have any bearing on how a fireman does his job? What it really means is that the Second Circuit just didn't like the outcome. They thought more black applicants should have passed. So much for the content of Ricci's character, apparently only his skin color counts to Judge Sotomayor.

Here's the kicker though. It seems New Haven had already thought ahead on matters of discrimination and attempted to nip any possible future recriminations in the bud. It seems that New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.
IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions "did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors."

So who do we believe? A firefighter who worked hard and studied extensively to pass an exam he knew would have a huge impact on his future or a Judge who thinks that skin color is a perfectly acceptable measure for determining outcome so long as that skin color is not white?

It seems open and shut to me and probably to most of you as well but Judge Sotomayor finds no error in her thinking regarding this decision. While it might have been whispered in the past that our justice system is not exactly blind, it's obvious now that with Judge Sotomayor sitting on the court the statue of Lady Justice will have to have her blindfold altered slightly so she can peek out to see if there are any people of color in line for the court.

No, you can't have that Twinkie!

Socialized medicine...wow...where does one start when describing what an absolute boondoggle this will turn out to be? It's bad on so many fronts I can barely figure out where to start. Speaking for myself, I've boiled it down to three major areas of pending disaster if this abomination is allowed to be implemented:
1) Cost, not just in dollars but in lost jobs.
2) Quality of care.
3) The ever increasing level of government control over our lives.

COST
As it stands right now, the current legislation is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years. Trouble is, the CBO estimates that the plan will cost 284 billion dollars per year over ten years. Last time I checked, that's 2.84 trillion dollars at the end of the day. That cost will be passed onto the wealthy by way of raising their taxes to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter was president. That alone will have a crippling effect on job creation in the prvate sector but when you add the fact that many private sector jobs in healthcare will then be converted to the federal government, it gets even worse.

Even the Washington Post, bastion of liberal thinking agrees that simply taxing the wealthy to pay for the current plan won't work. There simply isn't enough money out there to pay for it. So who then will ultimately pay for it? We the people will by way of higher income taxes, gas taxes and our "sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and the like. Taxes on tobacco have already been hiked quite a bit over the last few months despite the anointed one's promise that he wouldn't dream of raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Or was that $150,000 a year? I get confused because Joe Biden, human gaffe machine, can't seem to get his facts straight. Just a side note, the vast majority of people who use tobacco, earn LESS than $150,000 a year. So much for not taxing the "poor".

The cost of this plan will enslave our children and grandchildren to the federal government through taxation that can't even be imagined at this point. The plan calls for taxing businesses who don't provide healthcare to their employees somewhere in the neighborhood of $750-$1000 per year, per employee. To put this in perspective, the company I work for pays $750 per month for my healthcare. What do you think would happen if this company were given the choice between paying $12,000 a year for my healthcare or $1,000 a year? They'd drop me like a bad habit and feel good about it because I still had coverage, just not with them. That little fact is the insidious truth that isn't talked about in this debate. Private coverage will simply dry up and cease to be when the government gets into the business of healthcare. That ultimately is the goal here. The complete destruction of private healthcare as we know it. Nationalizing one seventh of the nation's economy in a single pen stroke.

QUALITY OF CARE

Who hasn't heard the horror stories in the news about the level of care in countries where socialized medicine is the norm? The elderly being denied services simply because they've "lived a full life and aren't eligible for further treatment" or being diagnosed with cancer when it's treatable but waiting so long for that treament that by then it's terminal. The French now have to buy supplemental private insurance due in large part to the gaps in their government system. The Canadians have begun turning to private healthcare facilities to skirt the system for the very same reasons. Who wants to wait 6 months to a year for an MRI because the system is swamped? How would any of us like to be told that their elderly loved ones dialysis or cancer treatment has been declined simply because of their age?

What will most likely wind up happening will be that the wealthy who can still afford private insurance will still get better coverage than the masses that Obama claims he wants to help. The rest of us will be left with sub-standard coverage and no options when the system doesn't work. To think that the federal government will manage anything better than the private sector is ludicrous. The federal government can't manage to keep it's own roads in workable condition most of the time. Why would I want them in charge of something so vital as healthcare?

One bright spot in all this? Under government control of healthcare, there will be no one to sue for malpractice. You can't sue the government after all... can you?

GOVERNMENT CONTROL

It's a simple thing really, anytime the government provides money for anything, they assume a level of control over how that money is spent. In simple terms, if the govt. pays for my healthcare, they will then be able to, logically, tell me what is and is not "acceptable risk behavior".
For instance, my love of the occasional greasy cheeseburger and fries will come under the banner of "risky behavior" to my health. Sugary drinks are already one the list of soon to be high taxed items.

Let's say that I like to go skydiving. Who's to say that the govt. won't find a way to tax me or penalize me for that simply because of the risk? So many facets of our daily lives are linked to our health after all. The cars we drive, our commute, the foods we eat and the activities we engage in all play a part in our health and ultimately the govt. will be able to tell us what is risky and what is not. I might be told one day that sitting at my computer, writing my little rants is bad for my back and may cause carpal tunnel syndrome so that activity should be curtailed at all costs.

That's a stretch I'll admit but it illustrates the level of control we can eventually expect over our daily lives.

Socialized medicine is nothing more than the biggest power grab in history. For those of you who believe the govt. has no business telling you how to live your private lives, get ready to have that premise squashed into dust.

Who is Sarah Palin and why is she scaring the daylights out of the Liberals?

Another news item that had nothing to do with Michael Jackson played itself out before our eyes last week. It was the buzz about Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska.

At first, speculation swirled about the reasons behind this odd move. Was it the final toll of too many frivolous ethics probes, leaving her in debt upwards of half a million dollars? Was it the numerous attacks on her family and children?

The press was deliciously astute in saying how tragic a move this was for her. Of course she's dead politically now, she let the naysayers drive her out and that smacks of weakness in the face of adversity. A sure sign that she's not ready for the big time in the beltway. She's too simple and too scared to take the heat. Either that or she's got a book deal brewing the likes of which would bury the NY Times Bestseller list for months on end...if it were true that is.

Seems it's not entirely true after all. The latest whispers say that she's actually making moves to boldly start a fourth party. Co-opting both the conservative Republicans who can still spell Reagan's name and the disenfranchised and probably somewhat disgusted Libertarians who are tired of backing a loser. Not to mention the blue dog democrats that inevitably spring up when a strong conservative rises to prominence.

And oddly enough, Sarah can thank the establishment media for all that exposure. You see, they were obssessed with her every move since she lost the election. They've devoted hours and hours of coverage to a woman most claim to despise and all certainly feel they're smarter than. She's a political Madonna...she's like a virgin to the press. They adore her...insomuch as they can look down their provincial noses at her and sneer at her "folksiness". She's like a bad Reagan in cheap shoes. It's at this point I see Paul Krugman dressed as Hannibal Lecter leering at Sarah and saying, "You're a rube. You're one step away from poor white trash."

Why...she doesn't even have a degree as good as Paul's. How can she possibly be anything more...than what Paul Krugman or Katie Couric think of her? Maureen Dowd calls her "Caribou Barbie" for pity's sake. Where's the N.O.W. gang when a woman could really use them? I suppose if Sarah were decrying the Republican party and spilling her guts about how she was just a pawn of those evil, greedy white men, N.O.W. would snap to the rescue and bring the ACLU along just for the whole solidarity factor.

I think what might be happening is very similar to another time and place and I think lots of liberals remember it well. That would explain their almost irrational hatred for all things "Sarah". It was in the late 60's and early 70's that the Democrat party began to change. No longer were they the party of tax cuts and free enterprise, they were the party of the social program. Ronald Reagan saw this change and knew if it continued, the true party ideals would be lost forever. Turns out, old Ron was right.
"I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left me." was his eloquent answer as to his shift in political alliances.

I think maybe...just maybe...Sarah Palin is feeling the same thing. She's seen the seedy underbelly of American Politics outside the frozen tundra of Wassilla and I think she's disgusted and more than a bit sad to learn the whole truth about the ruling elite on both sides of the aisle. They're all in it up to their eyeballs and not a one left has a shred of courage to stand up and say...

STOP! We work for THEM and not for ourselves!

Personally, I like Sarah Palin's approach. Mainly because it's not an approach...it's just who she is. She is folksy and plain spoken. To a fault it would seem for the press. After hearing the nuanced stylings of the anointed one, Sarah must sound like nails on a chalkboard to the press. His dulcet tones and sly smile lend themselves well to TV after all and he is charismatic, you have to give him that. I'll bet he's more than a little perturbed that he's had to hear more about Sarah Palin than himself during last week. In the coming weeks I suspect as well. If she does indeed try to form an independent conservative party, then she has her work cut out for her. After the debacle of having John McCain as our nominee last election cycle, it would take a miracle to cobble our broken party back together again.

If it works, she's going to be rewarded in ways she can only dream of. If it fails, she going to be the goat that lost us the election in 2012. Sorry Sarah, but that's the truth. Do I think she's ready to be president? Not really, but I still don't think Obama is qualified for it either and there he is anyway.

I wish her luck if that's what she's going to attempt. It's a bold move to be sure but back in 1980 another bold move brought Ronald Reagan to prominence. I'm not quite sure that Sarah can really use the tag line that Reagan did, "It's morning in America" but I'm certain we can think of something that will stick.

(fade in)
Sarah Palin stands in a child's bedroom with her baby in her arms. We see a sleeping figure curled in blankets lying motionless. Sarah Leans over, pulls the blanket back to reveal the sleep tousled hair of a teenage boy. She leans over with a sweet motherly smile and says softly,

"C'mon, it's time to get up. We have work to do."

The last argument you'll ever have on global warming

I'm going to boil this down as succinctly and simply as I can. I'll ask only three questions and you, the reader, must answer honestly.

1) Do you believe that the earth went through a period where much of it was covered in ice?

2) Where is that ice now?

3) Were the dinosaurs mining coal and driving SUV's?

Those of you who answered honestly can see the line of reasoning I'm going for here. Those of you who believe that the debate is over on global warming stopped after the first question because it doesn't fit into your paradigm for how humans are destroying the planet. You think that the argument on global warming being based on "accepted science" negates the need for further discussion. So monolithic in your beliefs and so narrow in your view, you prefer instead to label anyone who questions that accepted science as "earth raping planet killers". If I question the logic of global warming, I must hate the environment and want dirty air and water all across the globe.

Actually...no.

The green movement, headed largely by Al Gore, has come to see an opposing viewpoint as a sacrilege not to be given any due consideration. That same group finds it just fine to shout that God does not exist but bristles uncomfortably at the denial of their own religion...global climate change. I call it that, as many others do, because the fever pitch at which the debate rages sometimes borders on the divine. It's almost a holy war on industry. A crusade against the progress of the last 100 years. Al Gore believes that the internal combustion engine is perhaps the most evil invention in mankind's history. The internal combustion engine for heavens sake. Not nukes...or other varied and sundry weapons of warfare but the engine. If we had to I suppose we could use FEDEX or UPS to deliver our nuclear payloads when the time comes. They would of course have to deliver said payload on horseback or drawn carriage to be "green" about it.

"When it absolutely, positively has to blow up over night!" or "What Can Brown Nuke For You?"

Terms like "carbon footprint" have crept into our language like fog rolling in slowly across the water. I suspect the only "carbon footprint I'll really have to fear is the one left by the government on my ass after my energy prices go through the roof. My only hesitation about drinking the global warming Kool-Aid is that Al Gore stands to make a fortune if the green movement finds it's way into our daily lives in the form of carbon credits and it's associated industry. He's poised right now to make millions upon millions of dollars through the application and trade of carbon credits. One should honestly question his motives on this. The reverse is that those of the ruling political class on the right side of the aisle want our energy to remain oil and coal based, with the occasional mention of nuclear power because they themselves have investments in those areas of energy.

So who's right and who's wrong? Neither actually. We have the reserves of natural resources in our own country to break our addiction to foreign energy sources and power the engine of our economy but we need smart people working on alternative fuel sources for cars as well as homes. Not the government...smart people. I'm beginning to think that the old maxim has been changed to "Obama is the mother of invention." The government can't change the way we acquire energy. The private sector, with it's years of innovation and genius, will do that. There is a process that isn't being allowed to complete itself though by constant babbling about greenhouse gases and how the mean temperature of the earth rose almost a whole degree in 100 years.

You poor folks in the northeast are in for a rude, cold awakening in future winters if Obama has his way and shuts down the coal industry and raises taxes on heating oil. Here in Georgia, I suppose I will feel the same pain at the proverbial "pump" but in the summer months instead. That's what Cap & Trade will effectively do. It will raise EVERYONE'S energy costs by some estimates of 40-60%. All because some ice melted.

I'll make the argument here the same way I make it to my friends.

If the earth was covered in ice thousands of years ago it follows that since that ice is no longer here, it must have melted. Logical.

If that ice melted thousands of years ago then either the earth or the sun caused that to happen. The earth may have created too much of it's own CO2 causing a greenhouse effect or the sun may have gone through a period of increased heat output. Either way, man was not around to cause, slow down, or halt that climate change.

The earth will continue to change long after humans have died out. It's temperature will rise and fall as it has for millions of year and all without our help. It's arrogance to believe that humans could have any lasting effect on this planet. Like the dinosaurs, when we grow too aggressive for our environment, the earth will simply select us for extinction. It's that simple. That's the odd conundrum about the "greenies" though. They believe in natural selection, to a degree, but won't allow for the brilliance and perfection of nature to actually do the selecting. They instead, inject themselves into the process to assuage their own guilt or to stop the inevitable and inexorable march of progress. A futile and self motivated act at best and the tramp of doom to our economy at worst.

The debate is not over. In fact, it hasn't really even started yet. When the green side stops shouting "PLANET KILLER" long enough, then the other side will have a chance to speak. The main green argument for me to accept global warming as a man-made phenomena is, "Because we said so! Now shut up!" Don't ask me to question the faith of religion or call me a sheep because of it and then expect me to accept your religious beliefs on even shakier faith.

The hypocrisy is so thick that you could cut it with a recycled knife forged at a green factory with environmentally friendly materials using rendered packaging by workers who drive electric cars and live in smart houses.

Whew...that was a mouthful eh?