Learning To Multitask

So, with the election now some two weeks in the rear-view mirror, we've all had time to listen to the various pundits, politicians, and activists running around on TV screaming about the coming era of doom for the GOP. Apparently, the apocalypse has already happened - only it came in the form of a political party losing an election, and there was no mark of the beast. Indeed, if you've gotten so tired of hearing, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' that you momentarily thought that you were either experiencing Deja Vu or a glitch in the Matrix and being flashed back a few years to when Al Gore first came out with An Inconvenient Truth, well, you can be forgiven.

Yes, we lost the election - badly.

No, it's not the end of the world as we know it (cue R.E.M...)

Strangely, some people on the right have been so badly shaken by a mere five point swing in the electorate that they have gone so far as to wonder whether the United States is even a centre-right country anymore! Don't worry, it is. But even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be the end of times; afterall, the GOP is the Party of free markets, so if the market for political ideology has changed, the GOP will adapt to meet the demand. Markets always have a funny way of working things like that out.

And the electoral crisis was not as bad as some people seem to think it was. The youth vote was not any higher than it has historically been (it only flipped Indiana and North Carolina for Obama), and even its complete absence would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The turnout was not any higher than it was in 2004, when the GOP was the big winner; and the margin of defeat, given the political climate, was not at all as devastating as the media would have you believe.

More absurd - nay, most absurd - is this idea that the GOP lost the election because it has become something along the lines of 'too Christian;' with the suggestion being that the GOP needs to get rid of its Evangelical, social conservatives before it can move on to bigger and better things. Well, pardon me, but this sounds like a suggestion that we're supposed to extend our life span by cutting off our own head. The only reason the GOP had any semblance of power to lose in this election in the first place is because of the Evangelical movement. It's no coincidence, folks, that both Reagan and the Evangelical movement rose to prominence in the 1980s - the two were intimately connected. Social conservatives make up the most reliable, and possibly largest, voting block the GOP has, and putting them out to pasture would be nothing more than a sure-fire route to an even smaller minority.

Nevertheless, the GOP's problems can be traced, in some ways, to the Evangelical movement - although not necessarily through any fault of theirs. You see, for the last several years, in part thanks to President Bush - although I think he's become more a scapegoat than anything else - the GOP has become maniacally single-minded. Either we were talking about and fighting for the War in Iraq, and only Iraq, or we were talking about gay marriage and only gay marriage. In other words, the GOP has spent recent years focusing mainly on a few issues, at the great expense of others.

Thanks to President Bush's self-designation as a 'compassionate' conservative, the primary focus of the last 8 years has been social issues, and the results have been superb. Two excellent Judges, the partial-birth abortion ban, as well as several other, smaller steps towards the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And ditto on gay marriage; heck, even in this election, a gay marriage ban passed in California. The GOP has devoted great efforts to these issues and, largely, won the battles. This fact is particularly true for Iraq as, thanks to Republicans in the Senate and the President, the retreat was never sounded with the result being an emerging victory.

There is no great shame, as some in the GOP seem to think, in having succeeded, ironically enough, to the very point that those issues became irrelevant to voters in the '08 elections.

Of course, in working so hard on these issues, the GOP managed to neglect, uh, well, most everything else; particularly fiscal conservatism. And while I'm on the subject, let me echo the sentiments of P.J O'Rourke in advising the collective Party that fiscal responsibility is not just cutting taxes - any old fool can do that. It's a combination of cutting taxes, reducing spending, eliminating waste, decreasing corruption and balancing budgets.

And on those counts, just 1/5 ain't o.k.

The same could be said of healthcare, Social security, and a whole host of other issues which the Republican Party has basically forgotten about in recent years.

So what's it all mean? Well, the Republican Party has a multitasking problem. That's right, for all our supposed business acumen, we Republicans seem to have forgotten how to do something as basic as managing all the items on our own daily planners. You can't govern on just one or two important issues; indeed, single-issue parties have a history of becoming, well, history. Consequently, this is what Republicans must change between now and November 2010 (to say nothing of November 2012). They must learn to deal with all of the issues that voters are concerned about. And yes, you annoying-ass, beltway-bred, cocktail Republicans that includes continuing to stand up for socially conservative values on behalf of us crazy-ass-backwards Southerners (who, by the way, excluding the apostates in North Carolina and Virginia, are the only people you can really count on right now...).

So there you have it, my quick GOP-recovery plan. It doesn't involve performing CPR, or some kind of Buddhist retreat, just a little bit of common sense. Learn to multitask, and show the American people that you can simultaneously govern like adults and care about all of their various issues.

And one last thing - stop blaming Sarah Palin. She was the best damn thing that happened to this ticket. How some of these idiots keep going around talking about how the GOP has to totally change its image while simultaneously cursing our use of a female, from Alaska (who actually balanced her budget...), with a track record of battling corruption and getting things done as the VP candidate is beyond me. I mean, seriously, do these people not realize what the exact problems with the GOP, that they're complaining about, are? All of the things that we need changed in Washington are the exact things she's managed to do as Governor in Alaska. Open your eyes people!

Hell, come to think of it, maybe, before trying to bring back the Grand Old Party, we ought to boot out the idiots first.

Whose Money Is It?

The money phrase from the Congressman is right up front:



Hear that? It's not your money - its Congress'. And they're going to do what they damn well please with it.

Incidentally, the Congressman claiming that the bailout money is the copyrighted property of Congress caucuses with the, ahem, Republican Party.

And these people wonder why they keep getting smashed in elections....

Post-Mortem

Well, let's be honest, we all kind of knew that this could turn out to be a really....bad day - and so it has. First off, congrats Barack, you won and have now probably inspired a whole new generation of African-Americans (among others) to actually give a damn about politics and their country. That's no small feat.

Second off, the good news (what little of it there is): Namely, that Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate were not as severe as forecasted. The minimum number of House seats the GOP was supposed to lose was 24; at this point it looks like we'll lose either 19 or 20. Not good, for sure, but not catastrophic either.

In the Senate, the Democrats are going to fail to get their 60 seat supermajority. We already have 40 seats, with four results still pending. In Georgia, assuming he stays above 50% when the last 1% of precincts report in, Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat. Norm Coleman has already eked out a narrow victory in Minnesota, but law requires it go to a recount before being made official due to the razor-thin margin. In Oregon, Gordon Smith, surprisingly, has a chance to hold onto his seat, for (as I write this) 76% of the vote is in and he is virtually tied with his Democratic opponent at 47%. And finally, in what has to be the most interesting result of the evening, it appears GOP Senator Ted Stevens, he of the 7 felony convictions, will win his re-election bid. In all likelihood the Senate will kick him out when it reconvenes, and then Gov. Palin will pick a replacement to serve for 2 months until a special election is held. With the right pick (Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell!!), this seat should stay in the GOP column.

Nevertheless folks, start battening down the hatches - for the countdown to Jimmy Carter Deux is on!

On a more personal note, let me now thank Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their campaign; as it was an honor and a pleasure to volunteer on their behalf, even if it was, ultimately, a losing effort. Theirs was probably the most uphill campaign any Presidential candidate has ever had to run - and that includes when Gerald Ford ran with Nixon's resignation hanging around his neck. As I said back before the South Carolina GOP primary, there was no Republican candidate who could have done better, win or lose, in this election than John McCain. If McCain couldn't win this election, no Republican could have. The fact that he ever even had a chance is a testament to the man and his determination. It hasn't always been the best-run or most effective of campaigns; but, in my mind, it will forever be associated with the masterstroke of Sarah Palin.

Don't forget her, folks. As Ahnuld would say, she'll be back; and I really believe that she will one day be my President. And Governor, whenever you do decide to run again, you've got my (S.C Primary) vote - and, rest assured, I'll be ready and willing to work my ass off for you.

But now let's get back to good ol' Johnny Mac. As you may know, I haven't always agreed with the man, on both style and substance, but I have come to respect him immensely over the last few months. As I watched him giving his concession speech last night, and listened to him talk for one last time about his country, I realized something; and that's simply that they just don't make many Men like that anymore - and it's a damn shame.

His has been a life of hard knocks, one of ups and downs, and yet one with the kind of rugged character that we have come to expect from those in his generation. Above all, however, his has been a life about self-sacrifice for greater and more important causes.

Country First. I hope one day I understand that as well as he does.

His Name Is Ahhnuld....

...and he is here to pump you up:



If you want any more reason to shut off the TV and ignore the media, read this post by a former Hillary (now, McCain) supporter on how the Obama campaign is able to use the media to its advantage. Bottom line, go out and vote.

P.S. Just across the wires (as they say), the daily Zogby Poll: McCain 48 - Obama 47

On Healthcare in '08

So far in this election, John McCain has not been particularly good at deflecting the Obama campaign's attacks and, in some cases, outright lies about his proposed policies, to the detriment of McCain's campaign. Perhaps the single best example of this phenomenon is the issue of healthcare; on which Obama, who has what amounts to Socialized Medicine as his plan, has somehow managed to gain the upper ground. So, in the interest of clearing the air, lets take a new look at these 2 Candidates Healthcare proposals.

First up is Senator McCain, whose healthcare plan, despite what Senator Obama may say, is actually an excellent plan that will help to reduce the cost of healthcare both to you and the government that your tax dollars finance. However, given that I am somewhat lazy, and also rather busy these days, I will, in the interest of time, direct you to an excellent article which effectively analyzes McCain's plan: here's the link. Also, if you want to do some more reading, you should certainly check out the McCain/Palin (emphasis on the Palin) website, where they dig in and disprove all of the various smears that the Obama camp has directed towards their plan (link here).

However, lazy and time-pressed though I may be, I do want to go through a few crucial aspects of the Obama healthcare plan myself; if only because, for some strange reason, I sadly neglected to mock the Obamarama plan for healthcare catastrophe during the Democratic primaries, paying attention only to the Hillary and Edwards versions. So let's get to it.

In the very first bullet point of his helathcare plan (straight from the campagin website), Obama states his intention to mandate that insurance companies give "all Americans, regardless of their health status or history [] comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums." Lovely. Who doesn't want to help out sick people, right? Unfortunately, what this idea reveals is that, apparently, Obama does't understand what, exactly, health insurance, well, is.

Allow me to explain: Health Insurance consists of an insurance company, essentially, making a bet with you that you won't get sick. Thus, the more likely you are to get sick, the higher your health insurance will likely be. This is not because the insurance companies are mean, evil bastards, but rather because the likelihood of a sickly person getting sick (and thus the insurance company losing the bet and having to shell out dough for hospital bills) is fairly high. Consequently, mandating, as Obama wishes to do, that insurance companies must make what will, essentially, amount to sure-loss bets, will only drive up the cost of everyone else's health insurance, since the insurers will be looking for ways to cover the losses they are almost certain to incur on these high-risk patients.

The second scary part of the Obama healthcare plan comes from his desire to "[require] large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care." In other words, more government mandates on private companies. This time, however, he wants to force companies to offer their employees a type of benefit.

Think about that for a second; he's going to force people to give their employees benefits. Never mind that benefits are not a necessary part of any job, but rather one of many things that employers can offer, if they so choose, to entice people to work for them. In other words, as I've said time and again here, if an employee wants benefits, like healthcare, he should become employed by a company that offers them - not have the government step in an mandate such a thing. Moreover, this aspect of the Obama plan assumes that the choice of the employees themselves on the matter of their own health insurance is irrelevant. After all, what if the employee doesn't want to get his health insurance through his employer, since he or she changes jobs often, and would rather have a larger paycheck with which to purchase a private insurance policy? Or, better yet, what if an employee of one of these large companies doesn't want health insurance at all? I suppose the answer to such queries, in terms of the Obama plan, is something akin to that of the aforementioned John Edwards healthcare plan: "you don't get that choice."

In any case, the final major area of concern in the health care plan of our Lord, The Messiah, Barack Obama the Holy One, is the area where his roots and true colors as a believer in socialized medicine shine through. It is the creation of what he dubs "a National Health Insurance Exchange." In this proposal, after making all the appropriate political nods to private insurance, the Obama plan includes the creation of "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." In other words, while he's driving up the cost of private insurance and employment-based coverage with all these government mandates, he's going to be offering you a really, really cheap program that the government will pay for.

Perhaps, you see where this is going, huh?

Basically, since the government can keep its health insurance prices artificially low (thanks to the Treasury backing they will receive), people are going to naturally drift towards the government-run healthcare since it's going to be the cheapest option around. It is, admittedly, a rather well-laid trap; but still, it is one which ultimately will lead to more and more people relying on the government dole for their health insurance - but hey, no worries, Obama's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and refuse to cut any of your other taxes, so there should hopefully be enough money for it, right? So hey, when Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security all go broke, at least you'll still have your French-style healthcare around!

What it all adds up to is this: the Obama healthcare plan is nothing more than a massive government interference in the private market, and one which will cost our flat-out-broke government to incur large and increasing additional costs every year. Furthermore, it is also one which will hand the government an increasing degree of control over your healthcare.

I know Obama is too slick to ever use the term himself, but that sounds an awful lot like Socialized Medicine to me.

Of course, on the other hand, you have John McCain's healthcare plan; which will place an emphasis on giving you, as an individual (independent, even, of your employer), a greater degree of choice, not cost the government increasingly large sums of money, and potentially help to reduce the long-term costs of both Medicare and Medicaid. The choice shouldn't be that hard.

So vote for 'Medical Capitalism.' Vote McCain/Palin.

Vote For Your Self-Esteem

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about the Presidential race, among other political topics; and during this conversation I finally realized what the true essence of the Barack Obama Presidential campaign is, and why it's so inherently offensive to me. In the past, both on this site and off, I have relished the all-too-frequent opportunity to chastise America's Airport Security policies post-9/11. After terrorists took advantage of our airports and airlines to successfully execute the worst terrorist attack in American History, our response was to make people feel safer without making them, in any real way, actually safer. Instead of doing security checks into people with suspect backgrounds or questionable behaviors, we take away your toothpaste and make sure the name on your ID (which surely couldn't be faked....) matches the one on your ticket. In other words, if ever a moron tries to execute a terror attack on the United States of America - we will catch his dumbass!!

But I digress.

Besides, as noted above, I'm not here to bitch about how, as a general rule, over 60% of the test runs conducted by the FBI manage to successfully smuggle various illegal items past the TSA; no, I want to talk about the great Lord Messiah Obamarama. You see, I realized that I so viscerally dislike his campaign because it is, essentially, operating along the exact same lines as all of those faux security measures we enacted after 9/11. In other words, the great godsend of Hope n' Change is, like its airport security counterpart, designed, not with an eye towards common sense or logical policy, but with the acknowledged goal of making you feel better about yourself (and, in the case of Obama, politics). The analogy further holds when we consider that, in both cases, the long-term effects are most definitely bad for your country.

I mean, just look at his major campaign slogans; 'Hope' and 'Change'. Both of them promote the idea that Obama is a good candidate primarily because his Presidency will, well, make you happier and more proud of yourself. Basically, he wants you to vote for him because it will improve your self-esteem.

Awesome. That means that, with a President Barack Obama, we're going to get the chance to take the biggest educational problem of the last thirty years, the emphasis on children's self-esteem over their actual academic progress, and see if it can fail catastrophically as a governing strategy too!

Damn. I'm just.... so. frickin. excited.

Alas, folks, that's exactly what the Obama campaign has become to people across this country, a means of emotional expression that they have never quite had before. It's a campaign where the young and idealistic can encounter someone as naive and idealistic about the real world as their own sheltered selves. It's where the ageing hippies of the 60s can finally see a candidate who seems to believe that peace, love, and a few trips on LSD can change the world for the better. It's where....well, you get the idea

This is not to say that Obama doesn't have policy proposals; its just that, unfortunately, such things take a distant backseat to the emotional crap we mentioned above when it comes to the Obama campaign. Indeed, if you need more proof, just ask an Obama supporter why you should vote for him; you'll probably get an answer along the lines of how Obama is going to usher in a new era of 'Post-racial' politics, or 'Post-partisanship,' or 'a renewed faith in ourselves,' or, above all, a 'New Era of Politics.'

Now, even if we are to put aside for a moment the fact that there is nothing at all in Obama's record that would indicate to us that he is capable of such things, and assume that all of these things should be the ultimate goal of the next President of the United States; one is compelled to point out that, while sounding nice, such things are nearly impossible to translate into genuine strategies of governance - which is what Obama would have to do should he, in fact, become President.

But hey, who am I kidding? All of those things sound good, right? And I'll bet they make you feel good too, huh?

Gingrich Compares Media To Pravda

Newt goes Hydrogen-Bomb level nuclear on the News Media:



That, folks, is about 500 layers of pure awesomeness (Pravda!!!) - not to mention honesty. Indeed, aside from FOX News, every single one of the major media outlets and newspapers has been so blatantly biased towards Senator Obama that it goes beyond simple dishonesty and shame. As Newt points out, these people want Obama to win so badly that they are willing to go to any length to try and make that happen.

To quote Mark Twain:

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

Vote McCain/Palin.

The Wonderful World of Barack Obama Supporters

You may or may not care for Howard Stern, but this is just brilliant - and sad, I suppose.

And no worries, there's (surprisingly) no vulgarity:



Ain't Identity Politics grand!

What's really sad is that they didn't ask these idiots about some complex aspect of Barack Obama's healthcare or tax plan; they asked them about something as f-ing obvious as his running mate or his support for the Iraq War. Say what you will about redneck bible-thumpers, but at least they're able to recognize whether their candidate is pro-life or pro-choice...

On Socialized Medicine

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

Doing Stalin Proud

Well, it seems more or less official at this point, the Federal Government of the United States has decided to dip into the treasury fund your tax dollars and offer up $1 Trillion to help bail out all of these companies that have been floundering over the last few weeks. That's right, $1 Trillion - the same amount we've spent over the last 5 years fighting the War in Iraq - all in just a few weeks.

I know, not what you voted for either, huh?

Well, I was going to write a little blurb on why I don't like this massive bailout plan, but then I came across this audio of Judge Andrew Napolitano, of FOX News, ranting on this very topic. So I'll just have you listen to his rant instead - it's brilliant:



Indeed. However, before I go, let me just put in one quick word of my own. It should be noted that part of the reason all of these companies have been failing in the first place is because of the idiotic policy of what amounts to corporate welfare. In recent years, big American companies have gotten used to government bailouts - whenever they go just a little bit to far, the government is there to help them out, and make sure they don't totally collapse - what we're seeing this week is new only in the sheer scale on which it's being done. The problem is that by continually bailing out companies, big or small, the government creates a welfare net that these companies can (and have) come to rely on.

As a result, these companies have become fairly certain that, if they screw up, the government will be there to offer a helping hand. Consequently, they can continue to take bigger and bigger risks, risks that they probably wouldn't take if they had to operate entirely on their own, which result in them getting into massive financial messes like the ones taking center stage this week.

It is, if you will, Corporate America's replica of the catastrophe of the European welfare state.

Just as increasing social services to the point of absurdity (a.k.a Europe) causes one to lose a sense of responsibility about one's own life, this kind of corporate bailout program causes companies to forget what it's like to have to be responsible for one's own decisions and to have to deal with the consequences of poor ones. Bailing out people who make stupid choices, be it the crack addict on welfare or AIG, is not a solid foundation for economic prosperity; it is socialism, pure and simple.

In fact, come to think of it, AIG et. al. are a lot more like that welfare crack addict than you might think - the only difference is that AIG's drugs are legal.

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.

Quite Frankly My World, I Don't Give...

The rest of the world just loves Barack Obama, did you know? Yes, folks, just like in 2004 when the rest of the world begged us to elect good ol' Waffles Kerry, the pre-US Presidential election poll of world opinion shocks, awes, and thoroughly astounds us all with the revelation that the rest of the world is in favor of electing the Obamarama. Indeed, to quote the survey's chairman, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents."

How they managed to figure out what, exactly, he represents, based on the meaningless political BS he spouts 24/7, is still unknown.

(Maybe there was some kind of secret code in that speech to the 4th Reich 200,000 adoring Germans, that us Americans couldn't understand, that told them what his real plans are.)

Thankfully, of course, not a single one of these people gets to actually vote in the November Elections. Nope, they have to sit back and watch while this mysterious "Republican voter" class of Americans does its best, over the next 7 weeks, to get another one of these Cowboy-ish types in the White House. (Ok, so John McCain doesn't exactly qualify as cowboy; I know, but we must play along with the International stereotypes).

Indeed, it must be frustrating for these people, especially the Europeans, to sit around, knowing they've got it all figured out, and see America vote, time and again, against their best judgment. No matter who/what/when/where, it seems, we're always voting and doing it wrong. Which, in my mind, brings up an interesting question: why is it that the rest of the world seems so intent on criticizing us for our, supposed, flaws? Afterall, we're the ones who have the strongest economy, the strongest military, the richest populace and the freest society that the world has ever seen. We've been, and still are, beating them - so why on earth would we want their advice? Better yet, put in terms the rest of the world might understand, would the Italian National soccer team, be soliciting the advice and imitating the in-game strategies of the American National soccer team? The 5-0 difference in number of World Cups won would seem to indicate, um, "no".

You see, this disconnect is the thing I'll never understand about the America-bashers, both here and abroad. They always seem to criticize America for how we do things differently from the rest of the world; however, the possibility that all the things we do differently directly correlate to why we're better, never. crosses. their. minds. Never mind the possibility that it's precisely because America has avoided European-esque politicians, like Barack Obama, that she has been able to become the greatest and most powerful Nation in world history. No, that just couldn't possibly be it; at least, not in the minds of Obama-loving foreigners.

Ultimately, of course, the rest of the world wants Obama to be President, not because they think he's the best choice for the citizens of the United States; but rather, because he's the best choice for them. Indeed, in the survey, an even greater majority of respondents believed that relations with the United States would improve under an Obama Presidency (as opposed to a McCain one). Now, the international, pro-Obama crowd would have you believe that this fact is due to the greater degree of 'soft power' (and friendlier diplomatic personality!) expertise that Obama would bring to the Oval Office. They're wrong. And they're wrong because 'soft power' simply does not exist independent of 'hard power' - the latter at which Obama both stinks and knows little of. The world wants Obama because they know getting concessions from the U.S.A will be easier under President Obama. They know he'll work in support of their agendas - and he'll do it all under the foolish guise of "making America a leader of the international community."

Because, apparently, winning both World Wars and the Cold War, being the only remaining superpower and having the most money and most powerful military didn't already earn us that position by default. Oh, no that's right, we have to be a moral leader in the international community - you know, like Germany - which is really rich coming from people who not only are moral relativists, but refuse to label Islamic Jihad as a violent evil.

Somehow, of course, lost in all this feel-good bullshit is the reality that, since the US is the world's one and only superpower, the rest of the international community's natural self-interest will inherently be served by reductions in American power. Any concession we make is their gain. Obama will make more of those concessions; therefore, they want Obama.

Moreover, in my experience there are only 3 reasons that countries deal with other countries; they either 1) want another country's money, 2) want the protection of their army, or 3) are scared of that army. This is why the world likes Obama, even if they don't/can't/won't admit it. Obama will make that army a lot less scary.

Overall, that's why American opinion usually diverges so sharply from the rest of the world on issues like these: we have different interests. (Hell, a lot of the people who vote for Obama in this country will be doing so for reasons that run counter to the brilliance of the International Intelligentsia.) We American voters, as a general rule, look out for and vote in the best interests of our country. We choose candidates who, we feel, will be better at making America continue to stand out from the rest of the international pack.

We like being different. And hey, it's worked out pretty darn well for us so far - don't ya' think?

You Gotta Love These SC Dems

Earlier today, the Chair of the SC Democratic Party joined the long line of Democrats who are so freaked out by Sarah Palin that they just start tossing personal smears around like Santa would candy at Christmas. Quoth some idiotic woman who probably has far too much power over my own goddamn State Legislature:

[Palin's] primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.

Note to SC Democratic Party: We realize you're freaked out, shocked, surprised, concerned, yada, yada, yackity about Sarah Palin - but seriously, get over yourselves. McCain could have picked an f'in sweet potato as his running mate and he still would have won South Carolina.

That's what happens when ya'll nominate a hard left Euro-socialist who thinks we "cling" to guns and religion as your Presidential candidate. Afterall, we South Carolinians happen to like our guns and Bibles, thank you very much.

Moreover, in these remarks, which I guess must be Ms. Fowler's desperate attempt to remain relevant on the national Democratic scene, the lovely chairwoman also recycles the tired line about how Senator McCain made a mistake in picking Palin because she's not going to win him the female vote.

Sheesh, for the last time, Palin was not picked to win over disaffected Hillary voters still trying to rock the sisterhood! She was picked for people like me; Bible Thumpin', gun-totin', abortion hatin', uneducated, patriarch lovin', rednecks (hey, that's the way the international press has characterized us the last 2 weeks!) - in other words, Conservatives. Any disaffected Hillary voters Palin brings in are just a welcomed bonus.

Anyways, with that little rant out of the way, Ms. Fowler, you can go back to controlling my faux-Republican State Legislature now.

And Reagan Smiled...

With Governor Sarah Palin's acceptance speech now behind us, I think we can all have full confidence in the fact that John McCain made the right pick for VP. Indeed, with one hell of a speech, her arrival on the National political scene has truly been announced, much to the (very apparent) chagrin of the liberal media.

Now this grocer's daughter and devoted mother who is despised by the press, has risen to become, more-or-less, the standard bearer for her Party.....er, no, wait, sorry. That grocer's daughter part belongs in Margaret Thatcher's life story, not Sarah Palin's; although I suppose you can probably understand why I might have gotten a little bit confused, eh? Yes folks, with what could only be described as an 'iron' resolve and assured sense of self that must have surely made the Iron Lady, herself, proud, Mrs. Palin not only stood up to her detractors in the media and in the Obama campaign in her speech last night; but coolly mocked them - and practically dared them to pick more fights with her.

They had derided her experience as a small-town Mayor, so she gave them a quick lesson in what Mrs. Thatcher must have meant when she commented on how interesting it was "that the things that [she] learned in a small town, in a very modest home, [were] just the things that," in her mind, "[had] won the election" for her Conservative Party.

They have harpooned her family, and the perfectly normal ups and downs it has been through recently, so she stood up for them, proudly; perhaps with a little bit better understanding of what Maggie meant by stating that a "woman who understands the problems of running a home [would] be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country."

Furthermore, and to get away from the Margaret Thatcher quote references for a second, she got in several great shots at Barack Obama, laying into his inexperience, a man who, having already been pulverized by Palin warm-up act Rudy Gulliani, must have been feeling pretty beat up after last night.

But let's get back to those Thatcher comparisons for a second, shall we? The comparisons work for several reasons. First, Palin's got a willingness to take on the establishment for the sake of reform that resembles the one Prime Minister Thatcher had when she brought down Great Britain's crippling Union beauracracy. She also has this unique ability to frighten her opponents in much the same way Margaret Thatcher scared the living daylights out of people like (former French President) Francois Mitterrand. Moreover, Governor Palin also seems to posses the confidence that comes from knowing ones political actions are rooted firmly in sound political principle. Finally, and most importantly, she's got a toughness that perhaps even Ronald Reagan lacked - that being, I suppose, the toughness that comes from being a woman playing what has, historically, been very much a man's game.

Put simply, Mrs. Palin has served notice that she is here to stay, that she will not be done away with easily, and the she will be a force for conservatism in American politics. However, to be fair, much as I love Mrs. Palin, she has a long way to go before she actually becomes the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. That, as the Iron Lady would certainly point out, can only come when she has consistently delivered, on a national level, the results that she has so far managed to produce on both the local and State levels. Nevertheless, as we saw last night and have seen throughout the last week, the tools, drive and stubborn will necessary to accomplish the, undoubtedly difficult, tasks she has set herself are all there. The conservative movement in America may have just found what it has been looking for in recent years - although we will have to find a new metal to start her nickname with, since Iron is already taken.

Maybe gold will do; afterall, that's what Americans went to Alaska to find in the first place, right? And her speech last night certainly stood out, much they way gold always has, to the 30 million-some-odd 37.2 million (!) people who watched it. But then, the 'Golden Lady' just doesn't seem to me like it will strike fear in the hearts of media-idiots all across America quite the way it should. And given their collective level of intellectual prowess, perhaps it really is only fair that they receive an appropriate warning for someone like Governor Palin.

Although, you know, come to think of it, even those in the media should have been able to pick up on the signs that came out of her speech last night. Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, after last night, Sarah Palin's critics in the Media, and those on both the Left and even on the Right, have been sufficiently warned: this Lady, is definitely not for turning.

Obamination - The Song

Both hilarious and spot on:



Co-written and performed by a friend of mine - and worth putting out there.

And, yes, it really is available on iTunes...

An Outstanding Choice

It's official; I no longer have to vote for John McCain - I want to!! Earlier today, Senator McCain made the decision of a lifetime by selecting Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Aside from shrewdly knocking Senator Obama's acceptance speech right out of the headlines, Senator McCain, I think, has accomplished more than he could have ever hoped for with this excellent VP pick.

In selecting his VP, there were 2 main things that McCain needed to do; first, he had to reassure his Conservative base that he wasn't deserting them for the General Election, and, second, he had to maintain the image he has as a reformer, and thus, as an appealing candidate to moderates. Palin accomplishes both of these tasks for him, plus a little more. (Indeed, perhaps the only pick that could have been better was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a man who made clear from the get-go that he was in no way interested in the #2 spot.)

Insofar as the first is concerned, look no further than my opening sentence, above. Conservatives everywhere are excited about this pick; McCain didn't just reassure them, he energized them. The Evangelical/Social Con community - which was the base of the Bush/Cheney '04 victory - has been buzzing all day about the selection of Palin. This is huge for McCain because it adds an important element to his campaign in which he has, thus far, been sorely trailing the Obamessiah in: Grassroots networks. Afterall, the root of the Karl Rove strategy was always to simply turn out as many Republican voters as was humanly possible and hope it was enough. That massive 'ground game'/grassroots machinery is still around; the problem, up until now, for McCain has been that it was run by the SocialCons, and thus, didn't really want to go to work for him. Now it will happily do so. Consequently, that huge advantage Mr. HopeChangeandSunshine has had from "energizing" new, young voters is now gone; as the SocialCons not only begin to make up that gap, but bring the operational experience and knowledge that they gained in the successful 2004 campaign. This grassroots participation could be essential in a swing state like Ohio, where McCain will need all the help he can get, come November.

While I'm on the subject of Mr. HopeChange, let me note that the Palin pick also provides an interesting area of contrast to him on the second area I mentioned: furthering the message of reform. In his speech last night, Obama kept constantly referring to the change he wants to bring to Washington by repeatedly used phrases like, "I will..", "I am going to..", and "I promise that..."; on the other hand, in her introduction speech today, Mrs. Palin kept using phrases like "I have..", "I did..", and "I am..." - note the difference in tense there. Mrs. Palin reinforces the message of reform because she, like Senator McCain, has an actual record of fighting corruption and waste. She's already been doing it, and is continuing to do that, right now, in Alaska. In fact, fighting corruption and waste, within her own Party, is how she made a name for herself and rose to the Governor's Office in the first place. Contrast that with Senator Obama who rose to prominence thanks to the Daley's Chicago Political Machine and has spent his time in elected office, uh, making speeches and running for President.

The contrast couldn't be more obvious.

Finally, there is one other thing that the selection of Palin does that will have a lasting impact on the American political scene; whether intending to or not, McCain has changed the future of the Republican Party and set it back on track. Indeed, the choice of Palin indicates the rise of a new generation of Republicans - a generation which comes with an entirely new direction from the big-spending, big-government 'Pubs we've come to know the last few years. This is because, at her core, Palin is, like Bobby Jindal, a reformer; she's interested in fighting corruption, reducing spending (and not just taxes), eliminating waste, and empowering individuals. In other words, and take note here Obamarama, real and useful change. She believes in limited Government not just because she thinks saying so will get her re-elected, but because she's seen the terrible excesses and awful consequenses of what happens when it's not limited and wants to prevent them from happening.

Bobby Jindal now has some welcomed help in the role of Party savior that has been thrust upon him, for Mrs. Palin is a game-changer, in the very best sense of the words.

Kudos to John McCain for making one hell of a pick.

The Obamessiah

Hilarious:



Although, in reality, it's a bit scary given that, well, that's the way all of his supportersfollowers really do look at him. Kindda creepy, too.

On Political Islam & Globalization

When thinking of political Islam, the first think that comes to my mind is the fallacy that many people believe when they assume that it is in some way a new phenomenon. Since it began back in the 600’s Islam has always been inherently political, as it spread across the Arab world not through grassroots action but rather by top-down conquest. This type of spread can be deemed political because the primary definition of ‘the State’ is, simply, 'legalized force;' and thus, we can say that Islam came to today’s Muslim world via the enterprises of the State.

Now, in the time since the original Islamic conquests, Islam has remained, more-or-less, within the Muslim world (although not for lack of trying) and thus, the only part of the world that Muslims were familiar with was Islamic. And, naturally, the governments there were Islamic and the society was Islamic. In other words, without the interconnections of today's world, the 'world' as nearly all Muslims knew it was as perfectly Islamic as it, perhaps, could have been. However, with the arrival of the information age and the immediateness brought by globalization, the Islamic world began to shrink and come in much closer contact with the rest of the world. With this increased awareness of the non-Islamic world around it, Islam had to take on a new international, or even supra-national, form in order to maintain its political dominance over Islamic peoples.

Part of the reason it became necessary for political Islam to evolve in the face of globalization was the need to combat the new ideas that flowed in over satellite television sets (etc., etc.) from liberal democracies like the United States. Ideas like freedom of the press and human rights and equality before law presented a challenge to the old Islamic political order because this order is very much illiberal in the Western/Enlightenment sense of the word. Indeed, Islam, as historically constructed, is not only political but, within that political (and societal) structure, directly contradictory to nearly all the basic tenants of 'Western' society as it has been constructed post-Enlightenment; and this is primarily because there is no clear distinction between the secular and the sacred within Islamic society.

Thus, what many in the West, and seemingly some within the Islamic world as well, want is for Islam to have a ‘Reformation,’ of sorts, which will enable Islamic-majority countries to become more compatible with liberal democracy; and thus, by extension, come to possess a great number of human rights and freedoms not found under old-style Islamic regimes. What the goal of this reformation ought to be is the introduction of a genuine division between the secular and the sacred within Islamic society. Only with the creation of a separate, secular, public sector of life can true liberal democratic principles be allowed to flourish and Islam become adapted to the modern world around it.

In my mind, this seems to be the ultimate question that is being answered right now in Iraq: whether or not an Islamic society is, in fact, capable of such a transformation. Indeed, right now there seems to be nothing against the proposition that, 'if Iraq is incapable of stabilizing into some kind of a democratic society, even if it is in a somewhat bastardized form, then Islam itself might be incapable of doing so.' Put more simply, Iraq will tell us whether or not Islam is capable of a 'Reformation.' The question cuts even deeper than this for Islam, as without these changes political Islam, and thus Islamic countries, will remain handicapped within the International community, unable to efficiently tap into the economic benefits of modern society.

The modern political Islamic movement, what's been called Radical Islam, is a response against all of these things. It is a movement which hopes to preserve the traditional role of Islam as the authoritative voice of politics within Islamic nations. Without this divide into secular and sacred Islam retains a great degree of control over politics and thus over the Islamic subjects under said Islamic governments. Put another way, modern governments open people up to other ideas and other faiths; and a large part of Islam is insecure enough in the power of its own message to feel the need to react by trying desperately to prop up and maintain the old power structure.

Consequently, if the Radical Islamists we face in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed, as I have claimed, reactionaries hoping to protect the traditional place of Islam within politics and society, then the key to defeating them lies, as I have often claimed, in the support of things like Democracy in Islamic countries. These things, if successful, will shatter the traditional role of Islam within politics; and if liberal, Western, and Modern principles and ideas become accepted within the political system, then they can slowly become accepted within Islamic society as well.

The Unique Strengths Of John McCain

I'll be honest, the thought of John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee doesn't excite me near as much as I suppose it should. I disagree with him on several issues, including such things as immigration and global warming. However, all those political differences aside, the more I think about it, the more I've come to realize that McCain is the perfect candidate for the Republicans in 2008. No matter how hard they searched, the GOP would not have been able to find a candidate better suited or more likely to give them a victory in November. This is not to say that he will, in fact, win this November, but rather to say that no one would have been able to do better, as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008, than John McCain will, win or lose, do. In my mind, this is the largely the case due to the following 3 reasons.

1. He's a very media savvy politician. Much as it may disgruntle staunch conservatives, McCain's past status as a media darling with the traditional mainstream media outlets has given him a better knowledge of the media's modus operandi than almost any other Republican out there. Witness his response to the New York Times' attempt, earlier this year, to smear him with rumors of an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist, where he got out front of the story and managed to make the Times look even more foolish than it normally does and gain some brownie points with that oft-estranged conservative base. In an election where he will likely face Barack Obama, a true media-darling, McCain's skill at managing and manipulating the media will be a huge campaign asset.

2. His Reputation. Like it or not, one of the unique things about the United States, in comparison to most other countries, is that we tend to have very few political radicals. Much to the chagrin of many hard-core conservatives (and liberals), most Americans do, in fact, tend to be 'in the middle' or at least have strong centrist tendencies - and John McCain fits the bill of what many of these folks are looking for almost to a T. He is an independent/moderate Republican with a reputation for getting things done; and voters know this, and like it. Indeed, it's quite ironic that, in an election cycle where so much attention has been focused on "change," one of McCain's biggest strengths will undoubtedly the lengthy résumé of his political career. To put it another way, Americans seems to, for whatever reason, view John McCain as an 'Experienced Agent of Change,' if you will; and so, all of the reservations that they may have otherwise had about a guy with as long and detailed of a résumé as his, they simply will not have about McCain.

3. The constant criticism He receives from fellow Republicans. Yes, my good conservative friends, the more you keep criticising McCain, the more likely you make it that he will win in November. Indeed, this November, as the House GOP leaders seem to have just figured out earlier today, Republicans are going to have a good-ol'-fashion-can of whoop ass opened up on them in the Congressional elections. They're going to lose a few more seats in the Senate and take big losses in the House; moreover, it's a trend that's likely to continue right on down the line to local elections as well. The reason for this is that the GOP 'brand,' as we refer to it in politics, had been badly damaged. Lots of folks are going to be going to the polls this November saying to themselves "I just can't take more of the Republicans" and thus pulling the lever for the Democrats. Therefore, the more John McCain is seen as being different from or, in some cases, downright hostile to, that brand, the more likely he is to win. As McCain continues to receive criticism from other Republicans for not being conservative enough, he not only continues to pad his aforementioned reputation as an Independent, but, more importantly, he is also able to further distance himself from all of the brand-issues the GOP is going to be having in November.

In my opinion, these three factors, taken in combination, make John McCain a very formidable General Election candidate for the 2008 Presidential race - in spite of the many things he will have going against him. Indeed, I actually believe that McCain has a fairly decent chance to win the Presidency, particularly when one couples his characteristics as a person and candidate with the ugly mess that the Democratic Primary has become. Moreover, I think that, contrary to what I would have assumed just a few weeks ago, Obama (who, for all intents and purposes, will eventually be the Dem nominee) actually makes an easier General Election opponent. Crazy, I know, given Hillary's Everest-sized negatives, but between his recent gaffes and Hillary's continuing, remind-the-Reagan-Democrats-why-they-once-voted-Republican campaign, Obama seems much more vulnerable to me now than he once did.

I know, I know, Obamarama still has his magically-invincible HopeChangeLoveandPuppies thing going on, but John McCain has ready all the tools to give him one hell of a fight.

A Unique Commencement

Man, I hope that when I graduate, we have a commencement speaker that is as good as P.J O'Rourke. Writing in the LA Times today, he offered his own version of a commencement address. Instead of encouraging young graduates to go out and 'follow their dreams' and try to 'change the world' he offers more practical advice; telling them to go out and get rich, forget about 'fairness,' and learn the true meaning of the 10th Commandment.

Indeed. To quote his introduction:

"Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.

We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything -- which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.

My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes -- we wore them. Weird beards -- we grew them. Weird words and phrases -- we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize."

Heh. Make sure to read the whole thing here, it's both dead-on and hilarious.

On The Deification Of French Healthcare

Great. Just when we're at the point in our Nation's history when, thanks to the two Democratic Presidential candidates, we might actually be unfortunate enough to get saddled with Socialized Medicine in the next few years, ABC has decided its time to try and re-introduce another round of deifying the French Healthcare system into the American media. Afterall, us idiots in the American proletariat might not be smart enough to, you know, buy into all this socialized bullshit, so we need to be shown just how amazingly-wonderful-awesome the French system is so that we'll be more willing to take that last step over the edge and into the abyss.

I chose the word abyss in that last sentence because, in fact, that's exactly where adopting a French-style Healthcare system would lead us to: the bottom of a very dark and scary abyss. But alas, Ms. Mary Cline, a freelance writer living in Paris, doesn't see it that way at all; which means it's time to examine her short article on French healthcare and dispel her of such bullshit notions. (Yes, we like to pretend that the people at ABC News might, actually, read this pithy blog. Just keep quite, and don't shatter our illusions of grandeur.)

The first and most obvious problem with Ms. Cline's assessment is her admiration of just how cheap, in many cases "free," visits to French hospitals and Doctors are. Sadly, this is, to an extent, true; at least for Ms. Cline. You see, Ms. Cline is not a French citizen; she's an American who just happens to be staying in Paris; which means that she doesn't really pay taxes to the French government, because she files her taxes with the IRS. Thus, while the system is "free" to her, it's really not. She is, in actuality, a leech on the backs of French taxpayers, who are financing all of her healthcare for her. If any of this sounds familiar, it should, as this is one of the biggest problems we have in the United States from illegal immigration - namely, that the illegals become leeches on all of our social services, which costs us more and more money, all while they, as undocumented workers, don't actually contribute anything to the financing of such programs.

But hey, considering we're running up deficits and that all of our big time programs are going to be going bankrupt in like 20 years, what better way to improve the American Healthcare system than to adopt a system which not only doesn't solve that problem but in fact exaggerates it?! Of course, herein lies one of the fundamental lies underlying the myth of the French system, that its money supply is somehow endless - it's not. The rising costs of this "free" and "cheap" system, are one of the reasons why France has a national debt which is some 65% of its GDP. In other words, it only seems cheap to idiots and fools like Ms. Cline, who have no understanding of how exactly it is that governments raise money to pay for such fantabulous programs.

(As a side note, its kind of funny that when talking about how wonderfully cheap French care is, she's giving the example of when she took her son in to get stitches; which, as we all know, is just a horribly expensive, outrageously difficult, and monumentally impossible procedure to do in our meek, stupid American Healthcare system.)

Then, after amusing us with anecdotes about her son's stitches experience, she regales us with some statistics which are, apparently supposed to make us bow down before the almighty behemoth of Socialized Medicine. First, she tells us that the French system is ranked number one, 36 spots ahead of the damn U.S, on the World Health Organization's list of best health care systems.

Ah, yes, because, as we all surely know by now, there is nothing on this planet as infallible as a rankings system devised by an organization that is a subdivision of the United Nations. They would never have an agenda. Nope, not the UN.

On a more serious note, it should be pointed out that the study Ms. Cline cites came out in June of 2000 (link here), so it's kind of outdated. But, more importantly, one of the primary means that it uses to measure the quality of the overall health system is how fairly the financial burden of medical care is distributed. In other words, this rankings system is inherently biased towards more socialized systems because these will, naturally, be more likely to have "progressive" (read: Marxist) mechanisms in place for income redistribution.

Next up, Ms. Cline attempts to throw around one of Socialized Healthcare supporters' favorite statistics: life expectancy. Because life expectancy is higher in France than it is in the United States, they argue, France has better healthcare. The argument, however, is false; and that is simply because other factors go into life expectancy besides just the quality of the healthcare one receives. Americans are much more likely than Frenchmen to be fat and overweight, a fact which significantly affects life expectancy, but is a result of lifestyle choices made by the individual citizens, and not their national healthcare systems. Americans have lower life expectancies because they make poorer lifestyle choices, not because they have worse healthcare.

Ms. Cline then goes on to discuss her experiences with receiving Breast Cancer treatment in both California and Paris and decides that her French experience was better. She makes this decision based on the how much more lax the French system is, mainly because they'll let her stay longer in the hospital. This conclusion presents two problems; the first is, obviously, financial (there's a $$ reason American hospitals don't like to keep patients longer than is necessary) and thus, was discussed at the top of this, now rather long, essay. However, the second problem with this conclusion is that it's based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and, thus in need of an important correction. You see, if Ms. Cline had bothered to do any real research on Breast Cancer treatment, she would have likely arrived at a different conclusion. She would have discovered that most all of the technologies and medicines that are used to treat Breast cancer were developed in none other than the American healthcare system. She would have also discovered that, despite the fact that American women are more likely to get Breast cancer than French women, they are also less likely to die from it. Meaning that, shockingly, the American system not only is able to take care of more breast cancer patients than the French system, but also more likely to cure the ones it gets.

Based on this data, the survival rate for breast cancer is 81.2% in the United States vs. 76.6% in France. (As an aside, even the raw numbers here indicate that American women are less likely to die from breast cancer (19 vs. 21.5); again, despite the fact that they are 9% more likely (101.1 vs. 91.9) to contract it - a phenomenal statistic.) Moreover, these statistics showing survival rates are even more impressive (at least for the United States) when applied across the board to all forms of cancer. Basically, the bottom line is that, while the Doctors in France may be friendlier and more accommodating, they're also less likely to keep you alive - which, in my book at least, is a hell of a lot more important than being 'happy' with the nursing staff.

Finally, Ms. Cline really gets me shaking my head when she pines about how her husband once had to wait "several hours" to be seen in a Manhattan Hospital because they couldn't track down his insurance company. This causes her to go on and assert that such a travesty would never befall one in Medical-Heaven-on-Earth, France. Indeed, she claims that

"There's no question you'll be treated in France. Everyone is."

Right, sure. Although, something tells me that the over 14,000 people who died in August 2003 in France during that fantastic heat wave would beg to differ. I mean seriously, you're bragging about this healthcare systems' ability to treat all of its potential patients when 14,000 people died on its watch, mostly from simple dehydration? Is it really that difficult to inject people with fluids and monitor them afterwards? Hell, I know how to do that, and all I have is basic training in First Aid - and I probably won't ask for you tax dollars if you come up to me and ask for help either.

Of course, there are other issues that Ms. Cline doesn't even mention in her article that I could bring up. I could talk about waiting lists, and how the elderly usually don't get seen (most of those heat wave victims were old folks), how under-skilled their Doctors are compared to ours, how our medical technology and equipment is superior to theirs, and, of course, I could go into even greater detail about the financial burdens of "free" French healthcare; but, at the end of the day, Ms. Cline makes perhaps the most eloquent argument against the French Healthcare system when, towards the end of her article, she comments on how it is "an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave system."

Indeed.

It is, ultimately, another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs, designed to remove a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). But by removing people from responsibility for themselves, you remove them from personal choice in matters of everyday life - afterall, how can you be trusted to make choices for yourself if you can't be held responsible for those choices? - and when those two things come together, the diminishing of both responsibility and choice, your personal rights and liberties are not far behind them on the path away from freedom.

Any system that's "all-encompassing" is simultaneously both all-knowing and, most importantly, all-controlling - and when your very health is being controlled (by a government agency, no less), you don't have near as much freedom.

Because It Works

It's been a while since we've done an article on tort reform and the need for it, insofar as the Medical Industry is concerned - but, now, we get to fix that particular mishap. Five years ago, in 2003, the Great State of Texas passed Proposition 12, which capped damages in Medical Malpractice lawsuits; and so, with 5 years now in our rearview mirrors, the Texas Medical Association has done a nice little piece on the many benefits that reform has provided to Texan Healthcare. Here's some of the highlights:

- "Charity care rendered by Texas hospitals rose 24 percent in the three years following the passage of Prop. 12."
- The number of Doctors in the state has been rising at higher-than-normal rates
- This Doctor growth is especially true for specialists, particularly those most affected by malpractice abuse, such as obstetricians and orthopedic surgeons.
- "Hospitals are upgrading equipment, expanding their emergency rooms, launching patient safety programs and expanding their level of charity care"
- "All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms, most by double-digits. Texas physicians have seen their liability rates cut, on average, 24.3 percent"
- "Claims and lawsuits in most Texas counties have been cut in half"

So as you can see, this system has worked out well for everyone except, well, the trial lawyers who used to make millions on these lawsuits. On the other hand though:

- Hospitals are better able to care for the uninsured, and are able to afford better medical equipment to do it with.
- Doctors don't have to pay as much for malpractice insurance (and thus, can make more money).
- Patients now have an increasing number of Doctors from whom to seek treatment, and they don't have to have the financial burden of rising malpractice insurance costs passed on to them (since they are the consumers in this business).
- And, finally, taxpayers don't have to finance near as many of these bullshit lawsuits with their hard-earned cash.

In other words, everyone who matters, wins.

Seriously, how long will it take the rest of the country to figure this stuff out? If you want to make the American Healthcare system better, the way to do it is not Socialized Medicine (a.k.a Universal Healthcare); and there are 2 primary reasons for this. Number 1, it doesn't do anything to address the real problem, which is rising health insurance costs; and, number 2, it does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the actual healthcare services being offered.

As demonstrated by Proposition 12 in Texas, Malpractice reform does, in fact, address both of these problems. By reducing the cost of Malpractice insurance and increasing the number of Doctors competing for patients, it reduces the fees Doctors will charge their patients for care; and by increasing the number of Doctors and freeing up hospital funds from fighting frivolous lawsuits, it increases the quality of the care being given to patients.

This is what Capitalism does people, and this is why it works! Competition breeds increases in quality and decreases in price; and, furthermore, when Doctors and Hospitals don't have to be looking over their shoulders every 2 seconds, worrying about potential lawsuits, they're more likely to give charity care - and this is why tort reform is crucial, because it so obviously has these positive effects on Health Care in the United States.

God, I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over again - hell, if you already understand the basic principles of market economics you're probably screaming at me to finish this damn post already. But I think I'm going to say it one more time, just for emphasis: tort reform enables Capitalist forces to better enter the healthcare market, which is good, because Capitalism works!

Ok, there, I'm done now - kind of like some of Texas' healthcare industry's problems...

Barack Obama - Elitist Snob

The best part about following politics is when one of these idiots running for public office slips up and actually tells you what they really think about the voters they're trying to woo, and you get to sit back and watch them try to deal with the fallout. And now, much to the pleasure of this blogger, Mr. AudacityOfChangeHopeSunshinePuppiesAndUnity, Barack Obama, has done us the courtesy of providing such a viewing opportunity.

To quote Obamarama himself from a fundraiser he recently held among his true kindred, San Francisco multi-millionaires:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yes, small-town America, you heard that right - Barack Obama thinks not only that you're bitter xenophobes, but that your beliefs in God and your 2nd Amendment Rights are merely a crutch that you hold onto because, well, you're just too stupid to see how enlightened and wonderful the US of A would be if we were all just anti-gun, open-borders, atheists.

To be fair, you honestly can't blame him for thinking that religion is a crutch for bitter people; afterall, he did spend 20 years listening to that preacher of his who thinks that 9/11 was a government conspiracy to keep black people oppressed (or something like that). If I went to that Church, I'd probably associate religion with bitterness too. Which is really too bad, because, at its core, the true message of Christianity is one of the least bitter and most genuinely hopeful messages the world has ever heard. But hey, what would I know, I'm just one of those immigrant-hating, gun-loving rednecks who has to use the Christian faith as a crutch to help me overcome my bitterness. So I probably can't provide any real perspective....

As a side note, for your own enjoyment, it's absolutely hysterical that Obama included "anti-trade sentiment" as one of the things that us bitter rural people cling to, given that one of the major parts of his platform has been his stringent denouncement of things like NAFTA and the Colombian Free-trade deal. In other words, he's upset that they're holding the exact same positions as his campaign.

However, the real key, in my opinion, to Barack's remarks though is the part where he mentions guns; because this is, far and away, the most revealing and disturbing part of his comment. To Obama, guns are just a crutch that people lean on when they are bitter about losing their job - or, to turn that around and put it a different way, if everybody was happy, and the world wasn't so screwed up, rural folks wouldn't need or want guns. And herein lies the ultimate problem with Obama and the rest of the anti-gun lobby; to them, guns are not enjoyable or respectable or useful in any way. As far as they're concerned, guns are just things purchased by stupid rednecks with inferiority complexes because they either don't know any better or just have an innate desire to kill people. It never occurs to them that guns might actually be useful in deterring/preventing crime, or that some folks might actually enjoy hunting or taking a trip down to the local shooting range without having it give them the desire to shoot up their local high school the next morning.

No, in their minds, guns are bad; and if we just banned guns, we'd reduce crime to nothing. In other words, to Obama, guns are yet another example of something that, were you to just let him and all the other bureaucrats in Washington take care of, could be taken care of. It's very European, if you think about it; for, deep down, Obama believes he knows what's best for these rural voters. But why, you ask, does Obama think he knows this? Simple. In his mind, these voters are too blinded by their own damn bitterness to understand the 'reality' surrounding gun ownership, and thus unable to know what's best for them.

How very telling a glimpse into the deepest, darkest parts of Barack Obama's political soul.

Not only is it a revealing glimpse of the real Barack Obama, but it is indeed a reminder of why the man is truly unfit to be President, and just how far outside the mainstream of American political thought he is. It reminds of this because it highlights that Barack Obama is not an average American left-winger, but a European, Social Democratic one. The Barack Obama's of the world think that you and me are just a bunch of sheep who have gone astray and need to be led back to the correct path by a well-trained government elite who know what's best for us and will surely make things work the way they ought to. They are, more or less, Socialists.

Some of us, however (and in America, I think it's actually 'most of us'), still believe in what the Founding Fathers taught us all those years ago. We know that government is not best administered from the top down, but rather, from the bottom up; and furthermore, we know that, ultimately, people are better suited to make decisions for themselves, not their governments (especially one run by a one-term Senator and his favorite bureaucrats).

Indeed, in America, Constitutional and Natural Rights matter - too bad Obama hasn't figured that out.

Michael Monsoor - American Hero

Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL, has become the 4th American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in the War on Terror; when, earlier today, President Bush presented our Nation's highest Military Decoration to his parents at the White House. Monsoor received the Medal for action he took on Spetember 29, 2006 which ultimately cost him his life. To quote:

"...Monsoor was part of a sniper security team in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers....an insurgent fighter threw [a] grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him. Monsoor then threw himself on the grenade....'He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,' said a 28-year-old lieutenant, who suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. 'He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him.' "

I should note that, after the grenade was thrown, Petty Officer 2nd Class Monsoor could have escaped and saved his own life; but instead chose to remain, and sacrifice himself for his comrades-in-arms.

The only thing I can think of to say is; 'Thank you, Good Sir, and may God bless your family and friends.' Aside from that, words simply fail me.

(The video of the entire ceremony is linked here, if you would like to watch it.)

Reality Punches Hillary In The Face - She Fails To Notice

You just gotta love listening to Democrats talk about the economy; I mean, even someone like me, who's economic knowledge is pretty basic, can find these huge gaping wholes in the very premises of their arguments. Exhibit A, today, is none other than everyone's favorite sniper-fire dodging, former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Last night, in an appearance on Leno, she was talking about why she continues to keep on truckin' with this campaign of hers, and she told some sob story about a little boy who's mother makes minimum wage; and how she keeps on going on because she knows she can "really help" people like this mom.

(Here's the actual video. If you really feel like watching, the story starts at about 3:23 in; otherwise, I've summarized it below.)



Basically, this little boy told the Hildabeast that even though the Democratic Congress recently raised the minimum wage, his mother still wasn't making anymore money because - get this - they cut her hours after the minimum wage increased! After saying this, in almost those exact words, Hillary goes on, unfazed, to some new point - completely unaware of the fact that she just got smacked in the face by a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage doesn't work; and why it doesn't actually increase people's overall earnings.

You see, an employer already has a specific budget for employee salaries that is calculated into his overall budget; and he's not just going to increase that budget in direct proportion to every single increase in the minimum wage; afterall, he's trying to make money and turn a profit in his own right. Thus, a minimum wage increase leads to one of two outcomes in a typical workplace: either A) the employer will have their employees work less time, for the same amount of pay; or B) they will fire some employees and give those that remain higher pay, but with longer hours.

Most employers choose Option B) because it makes things easier for them, which is why increasing the minimum wage will generally cause increases in the unemployment rate. In the case of the young Hillary supporter's mom, it seems the employer didn't want to fire anyone, so he chose Option A); which, if you think about it, could be beneficial to this woman - if she were to use the extra time she now has to, say, get a second job. Working more! Now there's a sure-fire way to make more money! Of course, that's not how Hillary (or any welfare liberal, for that matter) sees things. Heck, she's probably already formulating some new 'free' handout, 'free' training program, or other ill-conceived piece of Legislation to 'solve' the problem.

Reagan once said the 9 scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - but, personally, I think "Don't you worry, Hillary Clinton is here to help" sounds infinitely more frightening.

Hey, At Least 15 Of Them Are Responsible

Just recently, Citizens Against Government Waste came out with its annual report detailing the cost and exact number of pork-barrel projects each member of the House of Representatives and the Senate received (You can see the info yourself here); and I am proud to report that one of my Senators, Jim DeMint, was one of only 5 Senators to waste $0 of your tax money on pork-barrel projects.

(Unfortunately, the other two members of my Congressional delegation didn't do quite as well: my other Senator, Lindsey Graham, was 67th in terms of dollar amounts, and had his 59 projects total $99.2 million; and my Congressman, Henry Brown, had only 17 projects for $31.5 million, and managed to be in the top third of the House's porkers.)

However, you'll also be happy to know that another one of those 5 Senators who didn't request pork money was the Republican nominee for President, John McCain (who has never requested a pork-barrel project during his entire Congressional career); a fact which should indicate to you that the man does have a pretty decent sense of fiscal responsibility about him - something which we could use in the Oval Office come next January.

On the other hand, you'll be disappointed to know that, well, only 5 out of 100 U.S Senators didn't request pork projects. Oh, and you'll be further disappointed by the fact that this 5% success rate is actually the higher of the two houses of Congress; as only 10 out of the 435 members (a measly 2.3%) of the House of Representatives were able to refrain from wasting your tax dollars.

But hey, a few million here, a few million there, what's the difference, right?