Eighty years ago, this past week, there was no Israel. Israel is constantly the excuse we hear for Islamic violence against Jews, America, and the rest of the West. But what happened 80 years ago is yet more evidence that this specious argument is absolute bunk. Islam has always been violent and intolerant of others, and it will always be as such. Whether or not there is an Israel is of no consequence to that fact.
And the 1929 Hebron Massacre, which occurred August 23-24, 1929, is yet another example throughout the history of the Islamic religion.
Read the whole thing, and the next time some idiot Israel-basher claims that Hamas or Fatah are "the resistance", or go on about "the occupation", or try to blame Zionists and Zionism, or attempt any other lame excuse for Islamic violence against Jews, direct them to Debbie's article.
Due to all of the tutoring and other summer activities, I haven't taken care of my lawn in a proper suburban manner. It wasn't so lovely before. Now it's embarrassing. But I was out today, cleaning the poop in the yard and cutting the grass.
The poop is provided by our two dogs. One is a chow mix. We don't know what she's mixed with, but she is a beautiful dog. She's also a hunter. She's caught and killed a few animals in the yard, but her favorite prey are wabbits - or for the non Loony Toons amongst you - rabbits. She once went after a rabbit statue while we were out on a walk. Since she's been raised by humans, until recently she's never known what to do with the critters that she catches. She would carry around the dead animal for a long time and run away from us when we would try to approach her to take it away. One day we found a long-dead oppossum in the grass. She must have carried it around until she got bored with it. Had we left it a few more days, I would have had a nice clean skeleton to bring to school, curtesy of nature. Somehow, she did figure out what to do with the animals she bagged. The last rabbit she caught ended up in bite-sized parts which she shared with our other mutt, the dumb one. Maybe she was hungry. They've both been on diets.
As I was going out to cut the grass, the dumb one came with me. She spotted something in the far corner of the yard and took off after it. She's always chased things, mostly squirrels and chipmunks, but she's learned a bit of hunting from watching the other dog. The first time our hunter tried to stalk something in the yard, the dumb one ran out barking and scared away what ever was being stalked. Boy, did she get a look for that one.
Now I think it's just funny when the dumb one tries to hunt because she barks. It's hard to stalk prey when you're as loud as our dumb one. I started laughing, when she shoved her face into the corner of the yard, but then I heard the rabbit squeal - and squeal again - and then continue squealing.
I ran back and discovered that the dumb one had not learned all there is to learn about hunting. The unfortunate rabbit was stuck, as it had tried to squeeze through one of the holes of our chain link fence. It had almost gotten through, minus some fur and a bit of skin, except for its hindquarters. And the dumb one was there biting at the hind legs, but not really doing any damage except for forcing the rabbit to try and squeeze the rest of its body through the fence. She had no idea that she was supposed to kill it and eat this poor rabbit. The hunter was in the house unaware of the potential meal that was being wasted outside. I told her about it later.
I brought the dumb one into the house. I thought that I could pull the rabbit back out of the fence and then send it on its way, a bit wiser in that (I hope) it would avoid our yard in the future. I grabbed a pair of gloves out of the closet and I ran back out, but the rabbit had already freed itself. It was sitting watching me. I didn't walk straight toward it because I didn't want to scare it away. I was hoping to get close enough to see how badly it had skinned itself. It was healthy enough to hop off when I got too close, and it disappeared out of the yard. I think it's going to hurt for a while.
Later, as I was starting the lawn mower, I noticed a woodpecker, pecking away on our yucca plant. I find any bird that isn't a sparrow, dove, pigeon, or crow fascinating. So I moved in closer to watch. And it let me. Then my daughter came out to ask me a question. She watched the woodpecker for a while, then went back in to get her camera. She was able to get within 10 feet or so. We're not sure if she got any good photos, as the bird wouldn't stop moving. And it moved quickly. Birds are not very cooperative.
Finally I did get the grass cut. The woodpecker returned as I was cutting, but I freaked it out when I passed too close with the lawnmower. It surprised me too. I didn't think it would return. We get woodpeckers in the yard a lot, but they usually stick to the trees, and they have to be viewed from a distance. Now I know that they like the yucca plant too. The yard still looks like crap.
The Humorous, the Not so Humorous, and the Downright Stupid
This is one of those things that I found humorous, but many white liberals would go to great lengths to try and explain why the writer of the piece is self-loathing and doesn't really get it. My question to them would be, who doesn't get it?
Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks (oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, "African Americans"), and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
I first met you guys in the 70s when I attended the prestigious Maryland Institute College of Art on a scholarship. A black kid from the ghetto, I found myself amongst white kids from well to do families. I worked a part-time job to cover my books and art supplies. You guys did not have to work.
And yet, I remember many conversations about how you would never bring a child into this "freaking world" and how "freaking screwed up" this "freaking country is". You told me how "freaking selfish" your "freaking parents" were and how they only cared about "freaking money". Then, you drove off in your convertible given to you be your "freaking parents" as I stood at the bus stop.
Yeah, you know you want to read the rest.
This, not as humorous article, is from the Detroit News. It explores the effects of the Obama-like health care reforms in Massachusetts. I believe that's a state or something like that, in the United States, so it should give a pretty good picture of what would happen to our nation should we be foolish enough to believe that a government medical bureaucracy would truly be in our best interest.
If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts. In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
Those reforms reveal that the Obama plan would mean higher health insurance premiums for millions, would reduce choice by eliminating both low-cost and comprehensive health plans, would encourage insurers to avoid the sick and would reduce the quality of care.
Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds -- yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it.
Government lying about costs? Why that could never happen under the absolutely honest and totally transparent Obama administration!
Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.
As we all know, due to the unprecedented costs of Obamacare, there would have to be rationing. Not now, but down the road a week or two, after all good citizens have forgotten past promises of free medical care for all, a new crisis would be claimed due to - must I really say it? - rising health care costs. This crisis, as all crises, would only be solvable by more government and rationing health care - and it would be blamed on George Bush's failed policies.
The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms -- and the legislation before Congress -- is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.
The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan -- a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.
In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.
The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.
Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more. Officials further increased premiums by imposing new limits on cost-sharing.
"The effect," writes the Boston Globe, "has been to provide more comprehensive insurance than in most other states but also to raise costs." Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average, in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans.
Massachusetts long ago adopted another feature of the Obama plan: price controls that prohibit insurers from varying premiums based on a purchaser's health status. Those price controls further increase premiums for the young and healthy.
They also eliminate comprehensive health plans. Obama adviser David Cutler found that in Harvard University's price-controlled health insurance exchange, "adverse selection" or the attraction of the sickest patients caused premiums for the most comprehensive plan to rise until insurers eventually canceled it. Those price controls also encourage insurers to avoid the sick. And who can blame them, considering that the government is forcing them to sell a $50,000 policy for just $10,000?
And after all that, please tell me again how Capitalism and the free market are immoral and don't work. Oh, and there's more to the article. It's very informative, and probably something the Obama White House would want you to report as "fishy" information.
If the writer of this piece were a tiny bit smarter, she would understand the stupidity of what she wrote and posted on the Internet for all to see.
But in all the florid or scalpel-sharp prose, there's one constant: Peeking out from the center of the story is the matter of his playing a major part in the death of a 28-year-old woman.
Mary Jo wasn't a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan. She was a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future -- granted, whenever someone dies young, people sermonize about how he had a "bright future" ahead of him -- but she actually did. She wasn't afraid to defy convention (28 and unmarried, oh the horror!) or create her own career path based on her talents. She lived in Georgetown (where I grew up) and loved the Red Sox (we'll forgive her for that). Then she got in a car driven by a 36-year-old senator with an alcohol problem and a cauldron full of demons, and wound up a controversial footnote in a dynasty.
We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.
Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.
Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.
Yeah, I know. I had the same reaction. Did she really write that? I'm not going to try and delve into her twisted psyche. I'm sure plenty of others are hard at work doing that. I know everything I need to know about her, not only because of that quote, but because in the days since, she hasn't found it necessary to retract, apologize, or explain in any way her plumbing the depths of stupidity - all while inserting the obligatory slamming of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. She did forget to slam Bush. That must have been in a previous column.
Oh, and speaking of the dearly departed Big Eddy Kennedy, in an effort to humanize that larger-than-life senator, we were helpfully informed that he enjoyed Chappaquiddick jokes. How about that?
Strolling along the route of the Woodward Dream Cruise last weekend, my friend Aaron noticed a trio of well-fed spectators wedged into identical lawn chairs on the public right-of-way. None of the middle-aged men in this comical triptych wore a shirt. Each held a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and all three sported pendulous bellies that spilled over their beltlines and glistened in the midday sun.
"There," Aaron observed ruefully, "are the guys whose health care we're about to be on the hook for."
But then, in the name of "equal health care for all" he goes on to shill for Obamacare. But under his thinking, he has to be concerned for the three hefty gentlemen. He has to worry that they're going to take more of their "fair share" of health care. But then again, if health care is a right, don't certain responsibilities go along with it? Like maintaining healthy habits?
Since not everyone will exercise and eat all of their vegetables, won't there have to be some sort of monitoring system in place? Will we be required to report any fishy slovenly health habits we see amongst our neighbors? As he states at the end,
My own conviction is that everyone ought to enjoy access to some minimum level of preventive and acute care, but that reimbursement for the cost of treating many chronic health problems should depend, at least to some extent, on what steps the patient has taken to avoid them. Just as people who commit felonies forfeit their right to vote, those who make no effort to limit their own risk factors diminish their moral claim on medical treatment.
So long as we continue to ration health care -- as any service whose supply is limited is forever destined to be rationed by someone's criteria, whether that someone draws a paycheck from the federal government or Aetna -- what we've done to keep ourselves healthy ought to be at least one of the factors considered.
After all, those three guys watching the Dream Cruise had to get up early to secure their curbside seats. Shouldn't they have to display at least that much self-discipline to secure the world's most expensive health care?
Rationing is OK with him. The good and moral people who go to the gym and eschew desert are entitled what will become increasingly scarce medical care. Those who want to take advantage of the system by smoking, drinking, and gorging themselves on pizza, ice cream, and greasy burgers can pay for their own angioplasties and heart valve replacements, their adult onset diabetes, lung cancer, and cirrhosis of the liver. They won't deserve hip and knee replacements due to their morbid obesity, which caused those joints to wear out before their time.
Surely this calls for an entirely new bureaucracy.
Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border.
Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.
The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.
So if we get Obamacare shoved down our throats, where do we go when health care gets rationed to the point that it is in Canada? I'm in pretty good shape, but will I be denied certain care, or shoved to the end of the line if my neighbor reports that I took my family to Dairy Queen and I ended up enjoying a hot fudge sundae?
For more to think about, this link, which I found at Debbie Schlussel, shows the wait time for various procedures in the Canadian province of Ontario. It's at the website of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Check out some of those wait times. It's pretty sobering. That could come to the USA under Obamacare. And to add insult to injury, we'll go broke as a country to pay for it.
For real reform, how about forcing the government to stay out of health care and insurance altogether and letting the market take its course? I believe that you have a right to what you earn. And you can spend what you earn in what ever legal way you wish. You also have the responsibility to use your resources wisely because I might not have enough to share with you if you squander what you have and then need cash for medical expenses that would have been covered by insurance, had you bought insurance instead of the flat screen TV, surround sound, video games, and a new room to put it all in.
The federal budget picture will look slightly better next week. Relatively speaking.
The White House plans to announce the federal deficit will still be a record breaker, at $1.58 trillion, for the current 2009 fiscal year. But the amount is about $262 billion less than officials predicted earlier this year.
That's mostly because the administration erased a $250 billion contingency fund it had penciled into the budget in case Wall Street needed more government help in getting out of the financial crisis.
While the numbers still represent a tremendous amount of red ink, they would give the administration the opportunity to say its policies have prevented a more extreme financial crisis and eliminated the need for further bank infusions.
That's quite a spin, but this administration needs all the spin it can get. However,
Even at $1.58 trillion, the deficit this year would be three times larger than last year. A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its release Tuesday, said the report for the budget year that ends Sept. 30 also will predict Washington will spend $3.653 trillion this year. Revenue, however, would reach only $2.074 trillion.
So according to my calculations, based on the previously quoted numbers 56.7% of government spending will be from tax revenue. The other 43.3% will be borrowed. That's pretty close to half. That's insane. And we're supposed to add to that by making health care a right for all Americans? That's even more insane. But there's more.
The nation's debt now stands at $11.7 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and ignores previous debt that is still outstanding.
How high can the debt go before it becomes unsustainable? I'm just asking, because I don't know. Maybe I'm not seeing things correctly, but a steadily and faster climbing debt load is always bad news.
In a final note, it's all Bush's fault.
Stan Collender, a former congressional budget official, said the White House's new deficit numbers can't be blamed on Obama. Collender, now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm, said that when President George W. Bush left office the deficit estimate for this fiscal year was $1.2 trillion, and that didn't include a tax adjustment and additional spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, approved this year, that Bush also would have sought.
As long as Obama is in office, everything that can't be pinned on the Jews, will be Bush's fault.
After I finished reading it the first time a few years ago, I didn't think I'd ever want to read it again. But over the years, I've read about it from writers whom I respect. They talked not only about what a great history it is, and how it relates to today's world, but about what a great read it is. I didn't think it was so great upon first reading. But this time, I took it slowly. The first time, I just wanted to get through it. It was tedious. This time I paid attention, and I discovered that all of those people talking about what a great writer Gibbon was, are right. I read the first volume, all 956 dense, footnoted pages over the past month. I really enjoyed the journey this time. The Latin and Greek footnotes did slow things down, but most of the footnotes in English were worth reading. And of course, Gibbon doesn't just tell the story, he tries to teach us lessons in morality and proper living. He tries to show the difference between excellent governance and poor governance. He gives us portraits of the great, the not so great, and the truly awful. Gibbon has this to say about the sons of Constantine and the conflict among them.
After the partition of the empire three years had scarcely elapsed before the sons of Constantine seemed impatient to convince mankind they were incapable of contenting themselves with the dominions which they were unqualified to govern.
He charts the rises and falls of emperors, generals, great men and scoundrels. And he does so with intelligence and wit that is rarely found in any of today's histories.
People don't write like that any more. The big histories of today are full of minutiae. They include everything but the kitchen sink. Gibbon covers too much ground for that, but he still tells a great and marvelously entertaining story and gives enough detail to make the reader ponder and feel the tragedy that the fall of the Roman Empire wrought through Europe, N. Africa, and E. Asia. The Romans were the superpower of their day. They kept order throughout their lands and the surrounding lands. When they began to self-destruct, order was reduced. Brigands, barbarians, and other opportunists were able to make life miserable for everyone. The suffering caused by this collapse lasted for a thousand years.
As with other great histories, this one is not only about one people during one time. It is the story of ancient and modern empires and superpowers. And it's the story of people and how they act and react. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, people haven't changed much over the past few thousand years. Corruption of morals is universal.
Tiberius, and those emperors who adopted his maxims, attempted to disguise their murders by the formalities of justice, and perhaps enjoyed a secret pleasure in rendering the senate their accomplice as well as their victim. By this assembly the last of the Romans were condemned for imaginary crimes and real virtues. Their infamous accusers assumed the language of independent patriots, who arraigned a dangerous citizen before the tribunal of his country; and the public service was rewarded by riches and honours. (55) The servile judges professed to assert the majesty of the commonwealth, violated in the person of its first magistrate; (56) whose clemency they most applauded when they trembled the most at his inexorable and impending cruelty (57) The tyrant beheld their baseness with just contempt, and encountered their secret sentiments of detestation with sincere and avowed hatred for the whole body of the senate.
Today, it is reputations that are murdered, but in Judaism, that is believed to be as great crime as stealing from or cheating another.
The minds of despots throughout history work the same.
In the administration of justice, the judgments of the emperor were characterised by attention, discernment, and impartiality; and whenever he deviated from the strict line of equity, it was generally in favour of the poor and oppressed; not so much indeed from any sense of humanity, as from the natural propensity of a despot, to humble the pride of greatness, and to sink all his subjects. to the same common level of absolute dependence.
Along with using the iron fist to earn the fear of the subject people, pander to the lowest among them and gain their gratitude. Wealthy scapegoats are the best.
I could go on quoting Gibbon as there are so many passages worth quoting, but I won't. Other points Gibbon makes though, are that as the empire declined, pomp and glorious titles increased. Emperors had greater retinues, more slaves, bigger entourages as their power and prestige declined. Superficial aspects became more pronounced as the insides rotted. While the army and praetorian guard named then assassinated emperor after emperor, the Roman people were given their bread and circuses in an effort to keep them mollified. There were good emperors and bad ones, but for a lengthy period, none of them died a natural death.
There were attempts to rebuild, but after a steady decline, and the slaughter of so many Romans in civil wars, the momentum was impossible to reverse.
If, like me, you're tired of listening to and arguing with know-nothing-know-it-alls who insist that the current economic downturn is the fault of deregulation, the failure or excesses of capitalism, you might be interested in Thomas Sowell's latest, The Housing Boom and Bust. As always, Dr. Sowell writes for the layman, who may not know much about economics, you know, like the know-it-alls. It's a short book, 148 pages of text, and another 30 pages of notes. And if you've been following Sowell's regular columns, you will have already read some of what he says in the book.
You should still read the book. He explains the entire problem beginning at the beginning. And it doesn't even take the entire book to explain how we got into this fix. He also explains some of the failed government interventions of the past, some of which led to, and extended the Great Depression, and Obama's failure to learn from the past as he attempts to lead us into a greater depression.
While the problem began with government intervention and good intentions, to help more people afford to own their own homes, others helped along the way. And yes, some of them were Wall Street investors. Some of them were Republicans. George Bush has his share of blame in this, and so do the people who knowingly bought more house than they knew they could afford.
The simple, yet biggest lesson Dr. Sowell tries to teach, and one that he tries to teach in many of his columns is that government intervention, no matter how well meaning, almost always ends up causing more harm than good, which leads to the government rushing in to fix the problem, which, because of the universal and unbreakable Law of Unintended Consequences, and the fact that government officials have little or no knowledge or experience in the businesses they intend on "fixing", they only make things worse, which leads to still more government, etc. It's a lot like the debate on Obamacare. We've had government intervention that has led to changes in our health care and in the insurance industry since World War II. Nobody remembers that far back. Very few people look back and track the government policies and mandates that, over the years and decades, have forced the price of health care to the level it's at today. We only know what's happening now and we're not happy with it. So, here comes Obama and the Democrats with their multi-trillion dollar solution.
As Dr. Sowell demonstrates in book after book and in column after column, the free market is still the best path toward economic growth and freedom.
I get my share of political emails. Some I subscribe to, others are sent to me by friends who subscribe to other political sites. Yesterday I received one with a link to Patriots and Liberty. The subject is, of all things, Obamacare.
I read it and studied the claims. And when you get down to it, Obama and Congress are telling us one thing, while people that are probably more trustworthy are telling us something else. One of the points made at the link is that Section 102 (beginning of page 16) of this bill forbids people from buying private insurance if they don't already have it.
Section 102 has the Orwellian title, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.” What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.
When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance.
He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” Mr. Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”
Even more troubling,
Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to “Advanced Care Planning.” After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.
Those are some pretty incendiary claims. Since there is a link to the bill, I decided to go and read the sections in question. Well, let me tell you, reading a bill is no easy task. It is not written to be read. I'm not even sure it's read to be understood. But reading section 102, after a lengthy search, it seems like the only way to have private insurance is if you already have it.
More troubling is the afore mentioned section 1233. On pages 432 and 433, we have the following legalese gobbldygook,
(1) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIA- TIVE.—Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act 2 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at 3 the end the following new paragraphs: 4 ‘‘(3) PHYSICIAN’SQUALITYREPORTINGINITIA- 5 TIVE.— 6 ‘‘(A) INGENERAL.—For purposes of re- 7 porting data on quality measures for covered 8 professional services furnished during 2011 and 9 any subsequent year, to the extent that meas- 10 ures are available, the Secretary shall include 11 quality measures on end of life care and ad- 12 vanced care planning that have been adopted or 13 endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if 14 appropriate. Such measures shall measure both 15 the creation of and adherence to orders for life- 16
sustaining treatment. ‘‘(B) PROPOSEDSETOFMEASURES.— The 18 Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register 19 proposed quality measures on end of life care 20 and advanced care planning that the Secretary 21 determines are described in subparagraph (A) 22 and would be appropriate for eligible profes- 23 sionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. 24 The Secretary shall provide for a period of pub- 25 nalizing such proposed measures.’’.
Yes, it's extremely awkward reading, but in this cold, non-emotional bureaucratic language, it sure sounds like there will have to be some kind of consensus as to what kind of care, if any, we are to receive at the end of our lives.
I may or may not try to read more. I am grateful to the people who are wading through this mess to warn the rest of us of what Obama and his Democrat lackeys have in store for us.
UPDATE - 8/8/09: I forgot the link to the bill. That's getting to be a bad habit. Read it here.
It seems I've become a thought criminal. Among my thought crimes is being against Obamacare. And as we know, The Obama does not tolerate dissension. Dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in control. In the interest of advancing his agenda, Obama has thoughtfully created a mechanism whereby you can report your neighbor for thought crimes. Some thought criminals, including Michelle Malkin, are already coming clean and turning themselves in. Perhaps they will have an easier time of it in reeducation camp.
If you too, are a thought criminal, and you dare to question the policies, honesty, moral stance, or any other aspect of our dear Obama, you may - in fact - you'd better, go to the White House website (no, I'm not kidding) and learn if you need to snitch on your friends, family, neighbors, or yourself.
Don't feel like following any of the links. You can still turn in folks by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org . It's the patriotic thing to do, isn't it? UPDATE: More here. And it looks like I'm part of the mob. Who woulda thunk it?
NEW YORK — The city has discriminated against minorities in its hiring of firefighters, causing blacks and Hispanics to comprise only 10 percent of the fire department's work force even though most city residents are minorities, a judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice and a fraternal order of black firefighters in finding disparities among those taking firefighter recruitment exams in 1999 and 2002 were so wide that no trial was needed to rule against the city.
There you have it. No trial was needed. New York City is not even guilty until proven innocent, they are simply guilty - no show trial needed. Even Hamas gives accused "collaborators" trials before they murder - uh - I mean execute them.
He said the city used the exams to appoint more than 5,300 entry-level firefighters between 1999 and 2007, cheating at least 1,000 minority firefighters of chances to join a force of roughly 11,000 at the Fire Department of New York.
He said 3,100 exam candidates were black and 4,200 were Hispanic but the city appointed only 184 black firefighters and 461 Hispanic firefighters.
The judge said black and Hispanic applicants had disproportionately failed the written examinations and those who passed were placed disproportionately lower down the hiring lists than whites. He said he must now consider remedies.
Of course, we are not told anything about the scores of any of the applicants, only that there were disproportionate failure rates. Were their also disproportionate study rates before the test? Were there disproportionate intelligence rates? reading skill rates? comprehension rates? ability rates? What about Jewish firefighters? Is there the proper representation of my people in the NYC fire department? How about fire fighters of Chinese, Japanese, Carribean, and other racial/ethnic/minority groups? Gay fire fighters? Or are they all in San Francisco? I demand to know. There must be more accusations. No trials though. Things run much smoother and faster without them.
As always, there's more. And if you are interested in diversity over competency, there will always be discrepencies in representation. And the weight of guilt will always fall on the municipality for not "doing more to recruit minorities" whether they want the job or not. Will blacks and hispanics be shanghied and forced to study for the fireman's exam?
Forgive me for being an insensitive bigot, but I'd rather have a fire department that was proficient at rescuing people from fires. I'm not really interested in their ethnicity. And I'm not convinced that anyone will refuse being rescued because their rescuer is not of the approved minority. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody will correct me. UPDATE: I added the link to the article.
Here is a news video from Oregon. It seems the Oregon state government health program is willing to pay for this woman's suicide, but not for her chemo drugs. Drugs are expensive you know. And she is old. Is she now a burden on society?
And here is Michelle Malkin, discussing her new book, Culture of Corruption with the ladies on The View. Watch and notice, that there are no refutations of any of Malkin's charges. Of course, the liberal ladies haven't read that book as they would never lower themselves to read anything by anyone conservative. It might soil their progressive minds. Their two arguments against Malkin's book are, 1. Well, wasn't Bush corrupt too? and 2. Yeah, so what are we supposed to do about it?
Malkin takes them on with cold hard facts, but as usual, Whoopi and Joy treat their conservative "guest" with undisguised contempt. They're pretentious and condescending, as they are with all who come on to their show without the proper progressive, politically correct thoughts and feelings. How do I know that they're always like this? My wife watches sometimes, and if I'm in the room, I end up yelling at the TV.
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises