Friday, March 12, 2010

What If ObamaCare Were A Sick Patient in Canada?

Obama wants ObamaCare up on its feet and ready for signature by March 18th, a mere 6 days away. [Update: Obama has just extended his "deadline" by 3 days to March 21.] But what if ObamaCare were not subject to the tender mercies of Congress, but instead were a Canadian patient waiting for cardiac bypass surgery?

Let's see. In that case, the president could expect to see ObamaCare wheeled into the operating room on May 22, 65 days from now (if it were still alive).

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Nanny State bill had, well, breast cancer. Average expected surgery date in Toronto: August 27.

Perhaps ObamaCare, like Nancy Pelosi keeps telling us, is not as sick as all that: it's merely been limping along. In Ontario, it could expect that knee replacement on December 28th, just in time to watch crowds celebrate the arrival of 2011.


Tell Congress you don't want to be forced to wait for health care.

Data source: Canadian Ministry of Heath and Long Term Care. Via theblogprof.
__________

Related post:

Thursday, March 11, 2010

More NY Reps Wavering on ObamaCare: Numbers to Call

Yesterday I started listing the recent public positions (and phone numbers) of New York State's potential swing voters on the Senate ObamaCare bill.

Here are two more:

Dan Maffei (NY-25, Syracuse, Dewitt, most of Wayne County) was an enthusiastic supporter of the House bill, but now his intentions are not as clear. According to syracuse.com, Maffei, a first-term Congressman, "has publicly opposed the Senate bill because of the tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans."

The League of Women Voters is running a TV ad asking voters to encourage Maffei to Vote No. The League is running a similar ad for Mike Arcuri (NY-24).


Dan Maffei's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3701; Local (315) 423-5657



John Hall (NY-19, Peekskill, Stony Point, Mount Kisco, Port Jervis, Beacon, Arlington), another enthusiastic supporter of the House bill, is a word mincer. According to Hall: 
  • Basic Medicare will not be affected (Don't worry about those Medicare Advantage cuts, or cuts for hospitals and doctors). 
  • Only the richest Americans will pay (Not you)
  • Rationing of care is not explicitly in the bill (Socialized medicine? Never heard of it).
Hall's basic message on ObamaCare, as far as I can tell: Shut up, voters, and go back to sleep.

Despite Hall's strong support for ObamaCare, Dick Morris has pegged him as a possible No vote for the Senate ObamaCare bill.

Somebody must be calling. Why not you?


John Hall's Phone: Washington (202) 225-5441; Local (845) 225-3641 x49371

__________
Related posts:

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

NY Reps Sitting on Health Care Fence: Tell Them to Kill the Bill



In the competition for most "progressive" state, New York is definitely a contender. In terms of carrying heavy tax burdens, New York residents are nearly at the top in the world. ACORN (whatever its name is these days) has its own political party on the ballot, and a vote for a candidate of that party, the Working Families Party, automatically goes to the Democrat candidate. In significant sections of New York City, Obama won by over 99% of the vote. New York State's senior senator, Chuckie Schumer, is largely recognized as one of Obama's biggest hand puppets, and the junior senator, Kirstin Gillibrand, was appointed by the Democrat governor to fill the seat abandoned by Hillary Clinton when she became secretary of state.

Those are a few reasons why it is interesting to note that large swaths of the state are represented by Congressmen who are considered possible swing votes in the current battle for our nation's future health. Much of the state is rural and, in these areas, Obama is not exactly popular. Even in the state capitol, Albany, his name evokes considerable grumbling. On the state's liberal campuses, where Obama's election inspired dancing in the streets, Obama's name eerily goes unmentioned by most faculty and staff.

All this has not escaped the attention of the state's politicians, who are beating the ObamaCare drum slowly these days. Nevertheless, being politicians, they are by definition people who are good at getting what they want, and New York's ObamaCare potential swing voters are on record as having wanted ObamaCare very badly in the past.

I'll focus on three of them today, and I hope you'll find the time to give them a call or send them an email telling them to vote No on the Senate bill. If New York Congressmen can be convinced to abandon ObamaCare, the message will reverberate powerfully throughout Congress.

Congressman Mike Arcuri represents NY's 24th Congressional district, which includes Utica, Auburn, Rome, and most of the suburbs of Binghamton. A liberal's liberal, he's been backing Pelosi with his votes all the way, and he gave a big thumbs up to the House version of the ObamaCare bill. Now his staff says that he is opposed to the Senate bill.

Mike Arcuri's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3665; Local (315) 793-8146


Bill Owens (NY-23, near the Canadian border) is the guy who narrowly defeated Doug Hoffman in an attention-grabbing special election last fall when Hoffman seemingly appeared out of nowhere and rapidly gained popularity as an opponent to ObamaCare. Owens was seated just one day before the House vote, and he provided one of the five deciding yes votes that carried ObamaCare in the House. Hoffman has announced that he will run against Owens again. Owens reportedly is "undecided pending the final language of the bill":
My concerns at this point really go to issues related to making sure we cover as many people as possible, you know the Senate bill reduced the number that the House bill covered, there's some concern about taxing health care benefits, there's been some modifications made, but I haven't seen the final language of the bill.  
Bill Owens' Phone: Washington (202) 225-4611; local (315) 782-3150


Tim Bishop (NY-1, Long Island) actually went on record as opposing the Senate bill in a January letter to Nancy Pelosi in which he stated: "If the Senate bill does come to the floor for a vote, I will have no choice but to vote no." His reasons, back then:
The Senate bill is, in my judgment, flawed in several fundamental respects; I will cite two.

One, the excise tax on so-called “Cadillac plans” would subject a number of my constituents to this tax, including a great many who have foregone salary increases for stronger benefits. Further, the fact that it is not properly indexed will subject even more people to the tax in years to come.

Second, and as important, the Senate provision relating to FMAP[*] would represent for New York a $5 billion swing; the House provisions with respect to FMAP would save New York $4 billion a year, while the Senate provisions would add $1 billion annually to New York’s yearly Medicaid expenses.
*[The Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAPs) are used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures.]

Tim Bishop's Phone: Washington (202) 225-3826; Local (631) 696-6500


Take the time to call. Think of it as an investment in future time. If ObamaCare passes, you'll be spending a lot more time in your doctor's waiting room, that's if your doctor doesn't close up shop.

__________

Related post: Entertainment to Call By

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Entertainment to Call By: Rahm Emanuel's Machiavellian Ballet

There's still time to kill the bill. Below is a contact list of Congressional swing voters on health care, courtesy Dick Morris.

PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1145
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150
Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657
Earl Pomneroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954


If you get put on hold, you might be interested in watching the following video of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel's biggest fan, at a Rahm Roast (start around 55 seconds):

Destroying America's health care system, political system, and economy--it's all in good fun for the Democrat leadership. I wonder if the Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE) who hosted the event are still laughing. I think not. It's hard to imagine anything worse for medical research than ObamaCare.
__________

Recent Related:

Monday, March 8, 2010

Kill The Bill: A Call You Can Make Right Now (Updated)

I'm cancelling my scheduled post today to bring breaking news of a call you can make that could throw a monkey wrench into the Democrat's ObamaCare-at-Any-Cost machine.

Suspiciously, the Dems have been attacking some of their own in New York, not the least of which is Rep. Eric Massa, who has been accused of making inappropriate remarks to a male aide. Okay, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The Dems have not revealed exactly what those remarks were supposed to have been.

From Roll Call, via Legal Insurrection:
Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.... [emphasis, Legal Insurrection]
From Legal Insurrection:
Here is Massa's office contact information. Call or send an e-mail asking him not to resign:
Washington DC Office: 1208 Longworth House OfficeBuildingWashington, DC 20515, Phone: (202) 225-3161, Fax: (202) 226-6599, email here.
I tried getting through to the Washington number. No luck. Their phones are jammed. Massa's home page and contact page are down, too, with the message: "There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time."

I suggest trying one of Massa's local offices. The number at Massa's District Office in Corning, NY worked for me:
  • Phone: (607) 654-7566
  • Fax: (607) 654-7568
Mention Massa's health care vote.

Update: Hear some of the audio at Another Black Conservative.
Update: Nice Deb points out that Massa voted against ObamaCare in the House because the bill was not liberal enough.

More mud in the water is that Massa's district is fairly conservative (for New York).

Update: Massa is scheduled to be on Glenn Beck tomorrow. This is turning into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
__________

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Federal Judge Rules Against Hostility to U.S. Religious Heritage in Classroom

Via the Thomas More Law Center:

When Bradley Johnson, a math teacher at Westview High School in San Diego, California, was ordered to remove two patriotic banners from his classroom walls because they "overemphasized God," the Thomas More Law Center took up his case.

Johnson's banners displayed historical mentions of God from the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance, and well-known patriotic songs such as Irving Berlin's God Bless America, as well as the official motto of the United States.
 
Interestingly, the Poway Unified School District had no problem with other displays of religious, anti-religious, and political views in the school, including:
  • a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha,
  • a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, "Imagine there’s no Heaven,"
  • a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins,” 
  • a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and
  • a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.
In the eyes of various school and district officials, the slogans mentioning God "might make a Muslim student uncomfortable," but the Tibetan prayer flags were "purely decorative."

That happened early in 2007. Earlier this week, a California Federal District Court Judge ruled that the school district had violated Johnson's constitutional rights.
That school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.
In his opinion, Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote:
[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . .  That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls.  It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God. 
Judge Benitez had a few choice words on "fostering diversity":
Fostering diversity, however, does not mean bleaching out historical religious expression or mainstream morality.  By squelching only Johnson’s patriotic and religious classroom banners, while permitting other diverse religious and anti-religious classroom displays, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School and the federal and state constitutions do not permit this one-sided censorship.
About that Muslim student, the judge noted:
An imaginary Islamic student is not entitled to a heckler’s veto on a teacher’s passive, popular or unpopular expression about God’s place in the history of the United States. 
And about those Tibetan prayer flags:
[T]he judge flatly rejected the school district’s argument that Tibetan prayer flags were permissible because they were decorative, describing the argument as “a transparent pretext."
According to the Thomas More Legal Center:
Judge Benitez concluded that Johnson was entitled to a declaration that the school district violated his individual rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, §§ 2 and 4 of the California Constitution.  He ordered the school district to pay nominal damages and Johnson’s attorney’s fees and costs.  And he ordered the school district “to permit Johnson to immediately re-display, in his assigned classroom, the two banners at issue in this case.”  Johnson returned the displays to his classroom that same day. 

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “Judge Benitez’s strong opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation’s religious heritage is contrary to our constitution.  Indeed, it was refreshing to read an opinion that does justice to our Nation’s history, rather than rewrite it.”
Thank you, Judge Benitez.  Many Americans will sleep a lot better tonight knowing that you are serving on the Federal District Court.  And thank you to Attorney Robert Muise at the Law Center, for standing guard on our nation's Constitution.

(Read the entire article and the Judge's decision here.)
__________

Saturday, March 6, 2010

It's a Tough Life: "Mo" Hassan Weeps Again



Last year, in Orchard Park, New York, Muzzammil Hassan's wife, Aasiya, filed for divorce. A couple of days later, Hassan beheaded her.

Poor guy. It's just one thing after another. First his wife makes Muzzammil "the victim" by "humiliating" him. And now, according to one of his team of defense lawyers, Frank Bogulski, "Mo" Hassan is the victim of "Islamophobia."

Julie Atti Rogers, another of Hassan's lawyers, agrees: "The reality is that based on his name, based on the color of his skin, and based on the fear and the panic of all Americans of terrorists and Muslims, this man's got a difficult time as it is."

Cry me a river.


(cross-posted at Potluck)


__________
Related post: All He Did Was Chop Off Her Head

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Hurting? Wait Until ObamaCare Stops Paying for Anesthesia

That's right. Obama's got to cut health care costs somewhere, so why not cut back on all that anesthesia people get during surgery and childbirth. In the dentist's chair. Before painful medical tests (remember when the nurse gave you that remarkably effective injection?). Bet you never thought that Obama and his Democrat "colleagues" were going to ration that. But they are, big time. 

Come to think of it, if the Democrats make it hard to get pain relief, that will greatly reduce demand for surgery, which is not on most people's list of preferred activities to begin with. Not all consequences are unintended.

This cost savings is not just some amorphous, "Hey, we'll do it someday" promise, like Obama's about-face claim that medical malpractice tort reform is right around the corner, even though it's not in the Senate bill that he intends to sign no matter who doesn't like it (especially the American people). Cutbacks on payments for anesthesia are already in the Senate bill, cutbacks so severe that payments to anesthesiologists will not cover the cost of providing anesthesia. ObamaCare, as written, will pay only 33% of an anesthesia bill (see 1/14/10 link) as compared to the 80% now paid by private insurers.

It stands to reason that anesthesiologists are not too happy about that. Neither are OB/GYNs, because when women in labor need anesthesia, they need it NOW. I can't imagine that dentists are happy about those kinds of cutbacks either. And then there are surgeons. They cannot be happy campers.

I know I'm not. And I need no more convincing demonstration than rationing of anesthesia to show me that Obama doesn't care how much pain I feel. Or care about the pain of every American I know, and every American I don't know, with the exception of Barack and Michelle's entire entourage in the White House and in Congress and in various federal agencies--and their families.

Come to think of it, it's starting to look like the only rational choice for pain-avoiding humans is to get on Obama's good side--his really good side, the side that gets a protected health care system. That probably explains why so many Democrats are behind ObamaCare.


However, you've got to be eating pretty high on the hog to be in that health care system. Witness the  list of physicians' organizations who wrote to the U.S. Senate opposing the Senate bill "because it will threaten patient access and harm quality":
  • American College of Surgeons
  • American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 
  • American Academy of Ophthalmology 
  • American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 
  • American Association of Neurological Surgeons 
  • American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons 
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
  • American College of Osteopathic Surgeons 
  • American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics 
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists 
  • American Society of Breast Surgeons 
  • American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 
  • American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 
  • American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery 
  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons 
  • American Urological Association 
  • Congress of Neurological Surgeons 
  • Society for Vascular Surgery 
  • Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic 
  • Surgeons Society of Gynecologic Oncologists 
Time to hit the phone. Mail is good too. It litters up offices and results in visible piles on desks and tables, overflows recycle bins, and, in general, reminds both Congress Critters and staff about future attendance at "town hall" meetings and polling places.

No time like the present. And nudge your spouse, parent, siblings, and neighbors to do the same. 

Unless you really, really like pain. Then don't bother.
__________

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

About That Hearing Test, Mr. Obama . . .

Ho-hum news: Obama had a medical check-up and he’s okay. More interesting news, especially to anyone who has ever had a colonoscopy: Obama’s physical included a much more comfortable and safe “virtual” procedure than ordinary mortals get. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit quipped, “So can I assume that an average 49-year-old man will be able to get one of those under ObamaCare?”

Of course not. Medicare doesn’t cover this improved procedure, accomplished with a scan instead of an inserted camera. “So,” as one Instapundit reader noted, “you can bet your sweet bippy they won’t be covered under Obamacare.” Virtual colonoscopies are considered too “experimental” for use on average folk, but not for use on the President of the United States. Right.

It’s little experiences like getting the inserted-camera when Barack Obama, Chuckie Schumer, and Harry Reid are eligible for the comfortable little scan that makes the average Joe (or Glenn) a mite suspicious about their future under ObamaCare.

But what got my attention was Reynold’s observation that Obama is 49 going on 50. That’s when I remembered: In the “complete lives system” advocated by one of his chief health care advisors, Obama at the age of 49 is tottering on the brink of seriously reduced eligibility for medical treatment.

The health care advisor in question is Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel, who holds both an MD and a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from Harvard. Below, on one of Zeke’s charts, it’s pretty clear where Barack Obama would stand in the complete life system.



Lucky thing for Obama that he doesn’t have to worry about ObamaCare for himself. In fact, it’s a lucky thing for Obama that Chuckie and Harry and Nancy don’t have to worry about ObamaCare for themselves, or I suspect that right now he’d be standing in a cold hospital room in socks with holes in the toes and a drafty hospital gown staring at a bucket of used medical waste instead of thumping his chest over ObamaCare Jr.

Interestingly, in his 2009 article, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” Dr. Emanuel (perhaps unwittingly) had one or two things to say about ObamaCare:
As well as recognizing morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends.
It seems that President Obama is suffering from selective hearing. Giving Grandma a pill instead of surgery is okay, but insuring that health care systems are publicly understandable and resistant to corruption is not okay? Is there a medical treatment for listening deficiency, Dr. Zeke?

Cross-posted at Potluck. (Join the discussion.)
__________

Monday, March 1, 2010

The Inverse of Vote Buying

One well circulated worry of the more than 80% of non-Democrats who oppose ObamaCare is the likelihood--even certainty--that gov't care will be used as a political tool to buy the votes of powerful special interest groups who demand that health care dollars be directed toward politically correct treatments (such as for smoking cessation and contraception) and away from treatment of less fashionable injuries and disease (like severe head trauma, advanced cancers, and diseases of the elderly). This equivalent of the governmental "death panel" is horrifyingly well established in the UK and is getting entrenched in the state of Oregon, where lactose intolerance, obesity, drug abuse, pathological gambling, and sterilization have much high priority in the Oregon Health Care Plan than peritonitis, injuries to internal organs, appendicitis, ruptured spleens, tuberculosis, deep open wounds, and gangrene. (Could I make this up?)

But Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition has pointed out an inverse danger, one which has gotten much less attention: the eagerness of groups of followers (in this case, Democrats) to have their demands designed by the government.

It all started when the cartoon program, Family Guy, openly mocked and insulted Sarah Palin and her baby, Trig. After Frank Luntz wired up a group of Democrats and Republicans to discover their reactions (watch it here), he was shocked and visibly upset to find out that the Democrats, who self-identify as the nation's defenders of compassion, had no problem with finding humor in the Down syndrome of an innocent child.

Snaggletoothie observed:
The Democrats often talk about how much more compassionate they are than others. But if they gleefully enjoy an attack on a powerless toddler because it fits some political agenda they have shown that there are severe limits to their compassion. They are too ready to mold their feelings to agendas and quotas set from on high for their feelings to be seen as any more than a conditioned response to orders from their leaders. These do not qualify as actual human feelings originating in the heart. In the end they are not distinguished by having compassion but rather by a near nonhuman readiness to follow orders and mold themselves to some norm they have little or no part in creating.

I would be afraid to give such people any power in the run-from-Washington health care system they want to institute. Who and what they will find worthy of receiving support and resources will be in constant flux. They are too conditioned to take direction from above. Their leadership will rule by fiat and they see it as their duty to obey. The shallowness and inconstancy of their feelings indicts them as unworthy to run or design a humane healthcare system.
It is undeniably frightening to observe a group of Americans abandon even the pretense of compassion because the object of the attack is the child of a political adversary. What might the inconstant undertows of the politics imbedded in a gov't health care system have in store for tomorrow's crop of political adversaries? The very thought of it makes private enterprise and competition the only possible alternative.

Time to call Congress, again.
__________

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Doing the Right Thing No Matter What Has Tremendous Power

 Reposted from Redstate:

Grace Beyond Comprehension

I’m not taking the Lord’s name in vain in the title here - this is literally the only reaction you can have to reading Matt Labash’s Weekly Standard profile of Father Rick Frechette and his work in Haiti. Labash’s trademark humor and eye for detail are in evidence here, but the power of the story is all Father Rick. You should, must, read the whole thing. One anecdote will do:

One afternoon, he says, he was going to visit some nuns. On his way there, he saw a teenaged boy burning in the street. A group of thugs had set him on fire. He was already dead, and Frechette could do nothing for him, but he drove ahead and asked the nuns for five buckets of water. He went back to the scene, hauling eight of the sisters with him. They got out of the truck, took the buckets, and extinguished the flames consuming the boy’s body.
“I can still hear it. I can still smell it,” Frechette says. “The sizzle like frying steak.”
“Then we put him in the back of the truck, and do what we always do. Have a prayer right there. To make a counter-witness by our own behavior. The gang that set him on fire stood there and watched as we did these things.” His missions’ role, whether through doctoring or teaching, bringing food or burying the dead, Frechette has written, is to help “repair the damage done … to make grace present, concretely, in our world.
Later, the mother superior called Frechette telling him a trembling, crying woman came to the sisters and asked for her. When she came outside, the woman fell to her knees and kissed her hands. The mother superior didn’t understand. It was the mother of the boy who’d been burned. Someone had run to tell her, “They’re killing your son and setting him on fire.” She raced out of her shack, and when she was within view of her son, was so horrified, that her legs froze. She couldn’t move them, neither to run toward him, nor to run away. “She was frozen in hell,” Frechette puts it.
She told the mother superior that she saw a truck go by, and then slow down, and then keep going. Then she saw it come back. And the people in it got out, and “put out my son like I was wishing I could put out the fire on my son’s body.” Then they picked him up until he was clean. Then they prayed for him. “Everything she tried to do was done in front of her, by absolute strangers who didn’t know her or her kid.”
Of all the emotions the woman was entitled to, he wouldn’t guess gratitude would be high on the list. And yet there she was. “It made her able to live with it,” Frechette thinks. “It’s like God sent someone to help her, like it restored her faith in humanity again … I call it the countersign. The terrible thing that’s in front of you, you hurry, and offset it right away. Before what happens is too taxing and too poisonous … Sometimes with horrible things, you really feel there is nothing you can do. Nothing. You’re just useless. But over time, you start seeing that to do the right thing no matter what has tremendous power.”
If you happen to say a prayer tonight for this man and his ministry, well, I’m sure he can use it.
__________

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Going International: UK's First Tea Party at Brighton Today (Updated)

Hey, a great idea is a great idea.

Daniel Hannon has invited British opponents of excessive taxation to join him at Great Britain's very first Taxed Enough Already Party. The demonstration, UK style, will take place in Brighton, a city on the south coast of Great Britain, which Hannon represents as a Member of the European Parliament (Conservative Party), and will start at 5:30 p.m. GMT (12:30 p.m. EST).

Taxes are undeniably high in the UK, and British membership in the democratically unaccountable EU raises that historically thorny issue of "no taxation without representation."

A commenter to Hannon's UK Telegraph blog named Y Rhyfelwr Dewr asked his American wife what Americans would do if a state charged 17.5 percent sales tax at the till like they do in Cardiff, Wales, and she replied, "There'd be a revolution." Some British folk (I'm predicting a number that will surprise UK politicians as much as their US counterparts were surprised by the growth of the Tea Party turnouts here) are more than ready. A commenter who calls herself UK Debt Slave is rising to the challenge: "It's going to be an uphill struggle. There's no time to waste. You have 2 choices: 1. Do something. 2. Accept slavery."

But Hannon's also been having to defend his plan from criticisms that the first Boston Tea Party was directed against the British Crown. The comments of Torchlight are one particularly polite example:
How sad that you can’t find an authentically British way of expressing your political dissent. Instead you give us imported American theatrics inspired by what, historically, was an attack on a British ship, a prelude to an attack on the British state in a war that cost many British lives.
The fact is, of course, that most of the American Revolutionaries started out as loyal subjects of the British Crown. As Hannon pointed out:
In their own minds, all they were asking for was what they had always assumed to be their birthright as freeborn Englishman.
Part of that birthright was liberty from unjust, arbitrary or punitive taxation.

[snip]

The American Revolution, in other words, was inspired by British political philosophy and – more to the point – by British political practice. American patriots saw themselves as part of a continuing British tradition, stretching back through the Glorious Revolution, back through the agitations of Pym and Hampden, back even through the Great Charter to the folkright of Anglo-Saxon common law.
Naturally enough, once the fighting started, the rebel leaders began to use nationalist arguments, and subsequent historians in the US have tended to play these up. But the idea, in 1773, that Britain was a foreign country would have struck most Americans, patriot or loyalist, as ridiculous. A large majority of the British population sympathised with the arguments of the colonists. So, indeed, did the greatest British parliamentarians of the age.

“I rejoice that America has resisted,” proclaimed William Pitt the Elder setting out the case against the Stamp Act in 1766. “Three million people so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest [of us]”
Famously, Benjamin Franklin himself sought relief for the colonies from the Stamp Act when he appeared before  the British Parliament in 1766. A record of his testimony is available here. Below is an excerpt:

Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before the
year 1763? 

A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the government of
the Crown, and paid, in all their courts, obedience to acts of
Parliament. . . . 

Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same principle
with that of the Stamp Act? How would the Americans receive it? 

A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it. 
This is the kind of history that gets remembered when people get pushed too far. There is undoubtedly much encouragement for the British Tea Partiers coming from this side of the Pond, even if the chief organizer is a politician. As commenter Beloved wrote:
Whatever it takes, do it. I started out as a lone tea partier at town halls in Aug 2008, before we took up the name tea party. One Tea Partier becomes five, then 500, then 5,000 etc…The message resonates across party lines with thinking people. 
The Tea Partier writing this blog just wants to add (in American lingo): Go for it!

Update: Early reports: The place was packed. No visuals yet, though.

Update:  From Conservative Home via Autonomous Mind:
It was standing room only at the Boston Brighton Tea Party organised by the Freedom Association early this evening at which Dan Hannan was guest speaker. He said that it was time to "bring sanity and order back to the public finances" an that had to be done by reducing expenditure rather than increasing taxes.
He referred to the time when Ronald Reagan was asked how he could  justify cutting taxes when the deficit was so large, and he recalled the President's reply:
"I'm not worried about the deficit - the deficit is big enough to look after itself".
In other words, if you bring down taxes there will be economic growth, revenues will rise and the deficit will be reduced. Reagan took a massive gamble, he recalled, and it worked, with Margaret Thatcher doing much the same thing in Britain. "We have lost sight of that wisdom," he lamented.
Hat tip: Backyard Conservative
__________

Friday, February 26, 2010

Some things can't be improved on . . .

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) confronting Barack Obama at yesterday's Health Care Summit: 

"There really is a difference between us.... And it's basically this: We don't want the government to be in control of all this. We want people to be in control."

Watch the change in Obama's expression as he confronts the reality of Ryan. This is serious mano-a-mano.

__________

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Sometimes It's Tea Parties, Other Times, Potluck Suppers

One year ago today, as I was just starting this blog, I could not have predicted that today--joy of joys--I would be welcomed to a blog prepared by an incredible group of stand-up Conservative women. It's called Potluck.
 
Since I'm new to this neighborhood, I've been dropping in on my new neighbors to see what they're up to. 

Today's Health Care "Summit" was on most everybody's minds. I found Pat Austin of And So it Goes in Shreveport poring over the Summit roster, reading Charles Krauthammer, and otherwise preparing to take in the spectacle. While Fuzislippers at Fuzzy Logic was contemplating American solutions to health care, Jill of Pundit and Pundette was taking in news that the Democrat machine won't admit to: polling shows that nearly three-quarters of Americans want to throw out both ObamaCare and the bathwater (stinky stuff, that). Then Pundette started in on an analysis of the effectiveness of the GOP versus the DEMs: "substance versus anecdote" was the way she put it.

MarySue from Ruby Slippers observed that Independents distrust ObamaCare almost as much as Republicans, and that Republican Paul Ryan hit the nail smack on the head when he patiently explained to the Dems that "all the answers don't lie in Washington." Politicaljunkie Mom, fresh from an examination of Obama's cover-the-Earth obsession with the Big O graphic, unleashed her inner art critic with a review of today's Obamabuki Theater. One Ticked Chick, the Coffee Milk Conservative, took a peek at what they are thinking of the Health Care Summit on the other side of the Pond.

These women really know how to prepare for Congress watching! Over at Adrienne's Corner, Adrienne got in shape by pruning her dogwoods before putting out her Congress-watching gear, including a good supply of Pepto-Bismol. Obi's Sister spent a day practicing gratitude and then reviewed some of the happenings at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Jeb Bush fan Carol Tackett, at Carol's Closet, focused on not letting Florida Governor Charlie Crist get her down.

Shout First, Ask Questions Later relaxed with a few old hits by Maurice Chevalier before taking on the question of whether it's a good idea to be "the party of No." Ann Leary, the Backyard Conservative, got in shape for Summit viewing by watching Olympic ice hockey, then got down to brass tacks: "Look. Everyone has compassion. The question is, how can we afford to pay for this?"

Oh, and No Sheeples Here! reported on CPAC, demon sheep, and standing guard over liberty before setting up a live feed from the Summit.

This is one amazing neighborhood. Drop in and join the discussion.
__________

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Closet Conservative Meets Kindred Spirits

Conservatives living in Progressive enclaves all learn one lesson: you can have all the friends you want, as long as you don't tell them what you are really thinking. 

Keeping one's political thoughts under lock and key is an exhausting enterprise, to say the least, so, a little more than a year ago, I set about the task of changing my fate. I got online to search for Conservative groups somewhere in my area. No such luck. I easily located more than 100 local groups devoted to a wide variety of interests. But groups for Conservatives? Nada.

Finally I came across a blog posting about my very own little corner of Progressive Paradise. It was called, A Place Where Only Liberal Speech Is Protected, and it was written by William A. Jacobson. In it, he observed:
I often joke that the directions to my house in Ithaca  read as follows:  Take a right at the fifth Obama sign, a left at the third "Impeach Bush" placard, bear right at the "Support Our Troops, End the War" poster, and we are the house just after the "There's a Village in Texas Missing its Idiot" banner.
The joke was, of course, that every house in Ithaca could be reached by following similar directions. One visit to Jacobson's blog, and I was hooked. Legal Insurrection, filled with Jacobson's incisive observations, became my port in the Progressive storm, and that storm certainly was raging. In Ithaca, Conservatives became officially recognized as the city's only unprotected minority:
On October 1, 2008, the Ithaca, NY, Common Council declared Ithaca a "Community of Sanctuary" for protestors against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but denied sanctuary status to supporters of the wars. 
Gradually, it came to me that I no longer needed to keep my own observations prisoner: I could start a blog of my own. One day I published a post, in which I made my intentions clear:
Times being what they are, I am casting this small loaf upon the waters of the Internet, in the certain knowledge that there are many other conservatives like myself with few kindred spirits at hand with whom to have what Ben Franklin's sister Jenny referred to as "suitable conversation." 
Miracle of miracles, the next time I looked in on Legal Insurrection--one year ago today--I found that William Jacobson had written about my new little blog: "Another fed-up, closet conservative has started a blog, Bread Upon The Waters. Check it out."

That started it, and I have since benefitted enormously from "suitable conversation" with, and inspiring reading of, incredibly smart, kind, and good people. Grateful thanks to Yukio Ngaby at Critical Narrative, Mad Minerva, Constant Conservative, How's That Obama Vote Working Out for You???, Gathering of Eagles: NY, snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition, There's My Two Cents, Nickie Goomba and the rest of the Mob, Pat at And So it Goes in Shreveport, Wax Lips, Pundit and Pundette, Jo-Joe Politico, and AJ at The Strata-Sphere. More grateful thanks to a welcome from new friends, whom I'll introduce tomorrow.

No one could have better company than that!
__________

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

RyanCare: A Republican Fix for the Mess We're In

I found this over at There's My Two Cents and it's way too good not to pass along:
Imagine your family's finances if you spent and borrowed like Washington: you'd owe $60 in credit-card loans for every $100 of income. Every month you'd pay back a little but borrow even more. In 10 years, you'd owe $87 for every $100 you made. At some point you'd hand off the debt to your kids. If they worked until 2035, they'd owe more than $180 for every $100 they earned. In 2050, your grandkids would owe more than $320. By 2080 they'd owe seven times their earnings. Of course, lenders would cut them off well before then, and your family would be ruined. But this is the path your government is on right now.
The author of this remarkably clear picture of our country's catastrophic indebtedness is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Medicare, he pointed out, "is short $38 trillion of what it promises to provide your parents, you, and your kids. In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family's share: $458,000." Let's not even discuss Medicaid.
 
With Social Security's surplus "already gone" we're looking at 30% higher payroll taxes or 25% less in Social Security benefits.

Ryan has proposed a solution to our debt woes, which he calls "A Roadmap for America's Future." According to this plan, individuals (not the employer or government) would own their own health plans, helped by tax credits. People over 55 would remain in the current Medicare program, but those under 55 would join a health-care program "like the one enjoyed by members of Congress," in which they would buy into insurance programs that suit their needs. Folks with lower incomes and higher health costs would get government help. Those over 55 also would remain in the existing Social Security program, but those under 55 could either stay in the current program or "invest more than a third of their payroll taxes into savings accounts they will own." Under Ryan's plans, eligibility ages for both Medicare and Social Security would gradually increase.

Americans would also have the option to pay "a simple, low-rate, two-tier personal income tax"--no loopholes, no double taxation of savings and investment. Corporations would pay "a simple 8.5 percent business consumption tax."

Wow. As Ryan writes:
The plan unapologetically applies our nation's founding principles—individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise—to the challenges of today. And the Roadmap does this in a way that honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.
For what it's worth, Ryan actually worked in the private sector, for a short while at least, as an economic analyst. Toby Harndon, the US editor of the UK Telegraph, recently tagged him the 9th "most influential US conservative":
Paul Ryan has it all – including time on his side. He entered Congress at the tender age of 28 and doesn’t turn 40 until this year. A budget hawk, he is now the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee and is holding the Obama administration’s feet to the fire just as he challenged the Bush administration to return to fiscal conservatism. Undoubtedly a future presidential prospect, he hails from a swing state and won re-election in 2008 even though his district went for Obama – an illustration of his powerful crossover appeal. A Catholic and strong social conservative, Ryan is happily married with three children and is a keen bow hunter and fisherman. His website Americanroadmap.org outlines his plans to rewrite the entire federal tax, healthcare and Social Security system. 

Increasingly a national figure, he recently endorsed Marco Rubio in the Florida Senate primary, saying that “Marco’s record of conservative leadership offers convincing evidence that he will hold Washington accountable, prevent government from wasting our tax dollars and lead a new generation of Republicans”. Showed he is not afraid to go against his party’s hierarchy. A former Senate aide, he wrote speeches for Jack Kemp, Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1996. He is the fifth generation of his family to live in Janesville, Wisconsin. Used to hold constituency hours in an old truck that he would drive to remote towns and villages. Has a populist touch, recently penning an essay for Forbes entitled Down With Big Business, railing against lobbyists, “crony capitalism” and the “record profits” of rescued banks.
Get a closer look at Ryan's plan at americanroadmap.org.
__________

Monday, February 22, 2010

I'm So Glad the Gov't Knows How to Spend Our $$$ (Updated)

Two million fortune cookies are being stuffed with messages promoting the U.S. Census, courtesy your tax dollars.

From the Seattle Times via My Two Census:
“Put down your chopsticks and get involved in Census 2010,” reads one message. “Real Fortune is being heard,” reads another.

It’s all part of a broader effort by the Census Bureau to spread the word about the upcoming population count on April 1.
Bessie Fan, co-owner of the fortunate fortune-cookie factory that landed the government contract said that it is a “great thrill to partner with the census for such an important effort."

Meanwhile, back in New York State, officials are telling residents that they might delay sending out state tax returns, which will hurt many families, and are planning to close many state parks, which will hurt families and small businesses and destroy jobs that depend on tourism.

Update: And then there's that little matter of Obama's new iteration (released this morning) of his plan to increase health care costs beyond the country's ability to pay for it. Read William Jacobson's observation: Obama's Plan in Two Words.

I'm waiting to get the fortune cookie message that says: "The government will stop wasting your hard-earned money." No word on who is going to partner with the Obama administration on that effort.
__________

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Obama Debt Commissioner: If America Knew, We'd Have a "Total Cremation"


Last Thursday, President Obama created a commission to "study the growing U.S. deficit," in other words, buy more time for Congressional Big Spenders. The guys heading this group will be a former Clinton chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and a former Republican senator, Alan Simpson. Obama explained his action this way:
Federal debt has exploded, the trajectory is clear and it is disturbing, but the politics of dealing with chronic deficits is fraught with hard choices and therefore it is treacherous to office-holders here in Washington.
You can't say the man doesn't have a sense of humor. 

Here's the scenario: Washington politicians were just innocently sitting in their offices, minding their own business, when suddenly--KABOOM--the federal debt exploded, making the path "treacherous" for those guileless "office-holders."

The heroic 18 members of the federal debt clean-up squad, otherwise known as the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" will, in Obama's words, “attempt the impossible," that is, attempt to put America on the path to fiscal responsibility by 2015. The Great HopeMaster, try as he might, can't seem to summon up hope for coming to terms with debt. In my experience, that's a common problem for Big Spenders.

Maybe the messengers of fiscal responsibility aren't quite as valiant as President Obama is making them out to be. Even merely advisory proposals of ways to balance the budget (nothing the Commission advises will have to go to a vote) are still mighty touchy incendiary devices for those who have based their elections, year after year, on votes bought via big government programs paid for by mostly small-pocketed taxpayers. Bloomberg.com has reported that Commission head Alan Simpson told an interviewer:
[W]e don’t dare put out a report before Election Day or it’ll be total cremation and we’ll have to move to the top of Mount Somewhere -- Erskine and I -- somewhere living up there like hermits.
Let me see if I got that right. If a Democrat and a Republican submit their ideas for getting America on the track to fiscal responsibility between now and Election Day, Congressional incumbents--both Democrat and Republican--can kiss re-election goodbye?


I think that's what many Americans already have in mind. 


Hat tip: EconomicPolicyJournal.com.

__________


Saturday, February 20, 2010

MIT Profs Duke It Out Over Global Warming: Good Guy Wins

A few days ago, MIT prof and hurricane specialist Kerry Emanuel went out of his way to call the rascally shenanigans of the IPCC "alleged," as though IPCC officials have not already admitted to falsely threatening the world with imminent melting of the Himalayan glaciers and destruction of the rain forests due to rising temperatures, hiding the decline of global temperatures for more than a decade, and labeling the growth of Antarctic ice as "insignificant." 

More important, Emanuel claimed, are the "compelling strands of scientific evidence that have led almost all climate scientists to conclude that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways." 

Quick reality check:

"It is easy," said Emanuel,
"to be critical of the models that are used to make such predictions - and we are - but they represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation. That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse.
Emanuel is right that it "is easy to be critical of the models used to make such predictions." Far too easy. Garbage in, garbage out, as almost everybody knows, and it is no longer a secret that much of the data and computer coding that comprise the models were garbage. Where most of us non-"climate scientists" come from, putting "garbage in" does not represent "our best efforts." If this were not the case, there would be no such thing as ClimateGate. 

The real head-scratcher for me in Emanuel's statement is why we should accept a total (and totally painful) "remaking" of the world economy on the likelihood that the future might turn out either better or worse than a handful of self-proclaimed experts predict. If rapid global warming is a reality, and Siberia and Northern Canada blossom into breadbaskets for the world and Irish farmers start growing wine grapes, will that be "better" or "worse" for humankind?

Moreover, "everything else" not covered by the IPCC's model is not "mere opinion and speculation" as Emanuel claimed. IPCC officials already have admitted that a number of the tall tales they spun and then presented to world policymakers as "settled science" were, in fact, regurgetations of unproven opinions of global warming advocates (not scientists) based on speculation and hearsay, not data.

"We might begin," Emanuel concluded, "by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way."

"Open and honest." That would be a welcome change indeed.

Perhaps that's why I was mighty glad to read this response to Emanuel by another MIT prof, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen (via Watts Up With That):
KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.
The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.
Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description - at least for scientists supporting such alarm.
There exist paltry computer models that can be manipulated by a handful of fallible human beings, and there exist natural systems whose powers are beyond human comprehension, but, as Lindzen pointed out, which do exhibit processes that can be "observationally tested" to challenge predictions based on computer model results.

For example, in contradiction to years and decades of global warming projections based on what Emanuel called "compelling strands of evidence," snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere has been extending farther and farther south ever since the start of the decline in temperature that the IPCC and others worked so hard to hide. Almost everyone in the Northern Hemisphere has observed this phenomena, often with snow shovel in hand. Here's the graph:

That's what I call a "compelling strand of evidence."
__________

Friday, February 19, 2010

American Buddhists: Obama Doesn't Want Your Support!

In fact, he doesn't want your support if you are simply an American who believes in common courtesy.

How do I know? Here's photographic evidence of Obama putting the Dalai Lama out with the trash:


Classless. Clueless. Infuriating. Heartbreaking.

I've seen thousands of photos of the White House, but I don't recall ever seeing a photo of the White House trash. Have they always piled up trash at one of the doors of the nation's Executive Mansion?

Here's George Bush with the Dalai Lama:


Now that's more like it.

In Obama's mind, though, some people obviously are more equal than others:


Hat tip: Gateway Pundit via There's My Two Cents.

___________