The Life of Julia

While reading Best of the Web Today, it was difficult not to be surprised and disappointed by what seemed to be a poor attempt to poke fun at Obama's policies via a girl named Julia.

Her story is told in an interactive feature titled "The Life of Julia". Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs. As a toddler, she's in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she's enrolled at a Race to the Top high school. Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and pays off her student loans at a low interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37 and 42--and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she's on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time. 

The entire paragraph seemed like a horrible parody made by Republicans to poke fun at Obama's policies by showing that a woman could basically live her whole life off the backs of taxpayers, so it was at first surprising to see that Taranto quotes a David Harsanyi raises an obvious objection to the story: "What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have--outwardly, at least--shunned." Why is that an objection if that's exactly the point of the feature? Overall, it's not a great parody, anyway: The missing gaps, while still a minority of her life, don't fit into the cradle-to-grave government care narrative, and there's no discussion about the actual costs to taxpayers of all these policies, which would seem to be important to make the point cogent.

...and then I realized that I'd skimmed too quickly and missed a few key words:

on the Obama campaign website

I was so surprised by this that I had to double-check and click on the link to see. It would seem quite telling that an Obama campaign feature meant to praise his policies comes off as a caricature of his policies, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin (via CWY) even notes that Obama runs the risk that it will be mocked not just by the right, but by young men and women who won't be able to resist such an easy opportunity, undermining his campaign from within a core constituency of his. (Best line: "It’s like Portlandia earnestly offered up as a drama.")

Overall, it can't help but make a person wonder if this is as outlandish as it appears or simply a vote grab early on in the campaign among his base. It tries scaring women who aren't bright enough to understand both sides of the coin and who will believe the twisted misrepresentation of Romney's policies, it promotes the idea of government assistance at every stage of life, and the like. It is very difficult to believe that these ideas resonate with most Americans, who still believe government's role is to be a safety net, not a caregiver, even if they disagree on the size of the net. Then again, perhaps the President and his advisors are so completely out of touch with what Americans want (or don't care, and these are their views on what's right), as we've seen previously with ObamaCare [interestingly referred to as such on the feature] and many other policies.

Either way, it's an important feature to see: Obama's policies as presented by his campaign. If that's what you want, vote for Obama; if not, though, I would suggest voting against.

House Over Health = ...Hero?

(HT: Josh Yuter)

A lady named Spike Ward penned an op-ed yesterday in the LA Times discussing how she was formerly against ObamaCare, but now that she has cancer, she has changed her mind. In her words:

The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.

Now, she has discovered that ObamaCare has a provision which allows her to get insurance, and this may now help save her life.

From the comments on her op-ed and on Facebook, etc., it seems as if many people are hailing this as a proof that ObamaCare is wonderful. While certainly it is wonderful for Mrs. Ward that she can now be treated without going broke, isn't this absurd? Mr. and Mrs. Ward made a conscious decision to choose their house over their health insurance, and contrary to her statement that "We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost", they in fact won: They got to keep their house, and their health insurance tab is now being picked up by the rest of the country (somewhat indirectly, as she is paying premiums, but that is not the point).

Contrast that with the decisions made by millions of people each day who consciously choose to keep their health insurance intact and sacrifice in other ways: Nobody is picking up the tab for their foreclosed (or sold at a loss) homes or their cars. They don't get to keep everything they had and then have the rest of the country cover anything they can't afford anymore. It is a horrible testament to this country that someone's irresponsible and selfish "gamble" is being guaranteed by the federal government* and that that burden is being carried by people who made responsible decisions.

* Note that this is no different than the bank bailouts in that sense, except that at least the argument there was (however much I may disagree) that despite their irresponsibility, a bailout was necessary to avoid others being hurt as well. Here, the only beneficiary is Mrs. Ward and her family, who get to keep their house and have her healthcare paid for by everyone else.

Proposed List of Demands from Occupy Wall St.

From here:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

I Truly Hope No Part of This Story is True.

from here

Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers.
The shocking figures were disclosed after civil liberties group the Manifesto Club made a Freedom of Information Act request which betrayed the fact that kids who used petty jibes are now being treated as thought criminals by education authorities.
34,000 incidents of “racism” in total were reported for the year 2009-2010, with nursery school toddlers as young as three being put on a state database for using the words “gay” and “lesbian”. One child who called another “broccoli head” was also reported to authorities. Other cases included a child who used the word “gaylord,” while another who told a teacher “this work is gay,” was also added to the thought crime database.
The majority of the reported cases involved primary school children.
“The record can be passed from primaries to secondaries or when a pupil moves between schools,” reports the Daily Mail.


“And if schools are asked for a pupil reference by a future employer or a university, the record could be used as the basis for it, meaning the pettiest of incidents has the potential to blight a child for life.”
Schools are being pressured to report such incidents to authorities and face punishments for not doing so under anti-bullying policies.
This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.
Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.

On Shifting Views - Media Bias and Gay Marriage

(via CC) A study by a UCLA professor finds that journalists and the media are so biased that we perceive centrists as conservatives, and liberals as centrists:

Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias. Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players.

The simple reason:

Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter.

Helen Thomas is the perfect example of this. While a White House reporter, she was considered a great journalist... but now is exposed as not just having liberal opinions, but as being a far-left nutcase. How is it possible that someone with such extreme opinions was able to co-exist - and be heralded as great - in a supposedly neutral environment as the journalistic field, when people who express commentary that even agrees with mild right-leaning initiatives are blasted as being biased? It is when the journalistic center is skewed so far to the left, that extreme liberalism is viewed as mildly liberal while mild conservatism is viewed as extreme.

This is true beyond media, however. Whenever we shift conversations in a specific way, it redefines the center viewpoint, making one side or the other seem extreme. For example, even proponents of gay marriage who are liberal but not gay claimed that it would never impact or be forced upon religious people in any way; that it was the religious who were unfairly imposing their morality on homosexual couples. And yet, as gay marriage has become fait accompli, proprietors are being sued for being unwilling to cater to homosexual couples' wishes, such as hosting or catering or photographing their wedding. Proponents of the separation of church and state (not in the Constitution) felt that religious values should have no weight in determining what people can and cannot do. But one of the protections afforded by the Constitution was freedom of religion, which was supposed to mean that people would not be forced to perform acts that are against their beliefs. By suing proprietors for standing up for their beliefs, gay couples, through the Courts, are essentially reversing the Constitution by forcing people to perform services that they feel go against their religious beliefs. Moreover, in discussions on the subject, people who formerly claimed it does not have anything to do with religious people and that "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone", now have shifted their views even further, noting that to not service gays should be discrimination like any other, such as racism or sexism.

That all said, not all bias is extreme, nor does it shift completely to one end of the spectrum. In the rather extensive Wiki on media bias, it notes that Groseclose and his colleagues found that despite the heavy bias in media in the USA, all major news sources remained within the overall center - from the New York Times at the left edge of it to Fox News in the very middle, all were within the range of moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If news organizations were people, Fox would be somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John McCain, while the NY Times would be somewhere around Bill Clinton - which, upon a little thought, would likely make sense to most people.

EZ Reads 3/3/11

Just a few quick links today:

• R' Fink discusses the BYU Honor Code after a top basketball player was kicked off the (#3 ranked) team for having premarital sex. I'm incredibly impressed with this standing up for values and the support it has gotten from everyone involved. The team isn't upset at the rule, the player is apologetic. Good for them all.
• David Davis (a British MP, I believe) has a very interesting piece on the GOP's fractured status and how it needs to coalesce before the next election.
• Aryeh Rubin (via SIL) discusses how despite liberal views, liberalism can't be a religion for Jews.
• Jewish Ideas Daily discusses R' Soloveitchik.

Agenda Driven Data

About a year and a half ago, I was interviewed by a large Jewish organization regarding the Jewish Economics Survey I was conducting (and am looking to release a second version of shortly). Very quickly, the interview headed downward: The interviewer's questions were extremely leading, and he was clearly looking for me to answer in specific ways, primarily along the lines of "if someone would pump money into this, we'd be able to solve this problem" - or in other words, exactly the opposite of what I actually felt. When I would start to answer "well, not really...", I'd quickly get cut off and another question would be asked in its place. Unsurprisingly, the footage which included me was cut just before the video was aired at a large event the organization ran a few weeks later, which apparently championed the need for people to donate more money to help solve the Jewish world's economic problems.

Agenda driven data is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome - whether in the Orthodox world or the world as a whole. For all the obfuscation regarding the Iraq War, the most legitimate potential criticism is not whether the Bush administration had the data to justify invasion, but whether the gathering and weighing of that data was agenda driven in such a way that they were more prone to give it credence than they otherwise would or should have been. More recently, it was impressive to see three liberal publications discuss how liberal or other agenda driven bias is causing major issues in extremely important scientific fields by placing ideology over science.

In The New York Times about two weeks ago, an article about social psychologists' bias tells an eye-opening story:

[Dr. Jonathan Haidt] polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

Prior to that, The Atlantic noted that the structure of academia caused research to emphasize the sensational over fact, stating in Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science that

To get funding and tenured positions, and often merely to stay afloat, researchers have to get their work published in well-regarded journals, where rejection rates can climb above 90 percent. Not surprisingly, the studies that tend to make the grade are those with eye-catching findings. [...] Imagine, though, that five different research teams test an interesting theory that’s making the rounds, and four of the groups correctly prove the idea false, while the one less cautious group incorrectly “proves” it true through some combination of error, fluke, and clever selection of data. Guess whose findings your doctor ends up reading about in the journal, and you end up hearing about on the evening news?

And The New Yorker had a fascinating piece entitled The decline effect and the scientific method about the same time discussing how studies which were (and are) used to explain and create numerous theories and ideas are increasingly difficult to replicate, from the effectiveness of anti-depressants to memory to numerous other fields, causing huge questions to be raised about the efficacy and accuracy not only of the studies but of all that has been based on the findings of them. No matter the study, the more it is replicated, the less true it seems to be.

If we as a Jewish community wish to begin fixing our problems, examples such as these show we can't use agenda driven studies to come to conclusions. If we do, ultimately we'll rush in one direction that looks good, only to find over and over that it's just not working the way it's supposed to - and then it will be too late. When the JES began two years ago, the primary purpose was to put together a simple guide for young singles and couples to help them when they began living independently or started their marriage. As the data came in, however, its findings taught so much about what problems existed and how people viewed those problems and the community's economics as a whole - and pointed to, but didn't prove, what might be able to help.

It is high time we put in the effort to collect and truly understand as much data as possible about the Jewish community and its various underlying problems and their causes - and its strengths and what allows those to thrive. Perhaps (!) a data-driven approach will allow us to ultimately help the Jewish community, rather than simply push off what seems to be an increasingly close, inevitable collapse of the structure currently in place.

EZ Reads 2/8/11

Why you should be friends with a Cavs' fan:

5. Honest - Cleveland fans know the score. They realize the team is struggling, they don't deny the many mistakes made on the court, but they still fill the seats and flip on the TV. They can present an accurate picture of the situation because they pay attention. The only friend worth having is an honest friend who doesn't pretend or manipulate for their own gain. Cleveland fans have little to gain "standing by their man" except ridicule from the rest of the NBA fans, but the alternative isn't an option for a true fan.

Damn straight.

This piece on Freakonomics about political bias in certain fields is downright disturbing... and then there's the comments, which are worse.

Ruh-Roh. John Tierney in today’s Times:
… Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology … polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center [during the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology], starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

More Idiotic Rules in the Name of "Fairness"

From here

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.

The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.

He said if anything, the league’s new rule will coddle sore losers.

“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” said Kevin, 17, who has played in the league for five years. “People grow in adversity, they don’t really get worse…. I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”

Kevin’s father, Bruce Cappon, called the rule ludicrous.

“I couldn’t find anywhere in the world, even in a communist country, where that rule is enforced,” he said.

Mr. Cappon said the organization is trying to “reinvent the wheel” by fostering a non-competitive environment. The league has 3,000 children enrolled ranging in age from four to 18 years old.

“Everybody wants a close game, nobody wants blowouts, but we don’t want to go by those farcical rules that they come up with,” he said. “Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there.”

Paul Cholmsky, whose four- and six-year-old boys play in the league, said the intended goal of a default-lose rule might backfire in teaching life skills.

“If there’s one team that’s consistenly dominant and one team that’s not, well, that’s life,” he said.

Mr. Cholmsky said he would be in favour of temporarily handicapping a team, for example reducing the number of players on the field, over ensuring a team loss for a high score differential.

According to the league’s new rules, coaches of stronger teams are encouraged to deter runaway games by rotating players out of their usual positions, ensuring players pass the ball around, asking players to kick with the weaker foot, taking players off the field and encouraging players to score from farther away.

Club director Sean Cale said he is disappointed a few parents are making the new soccer rule overshadow the community involvement and organizing the Gloucester club does.

“The registration fee, rergardless of the sport, does not give a parent the right to insult or belittle the organization,” he said. “It gives you a uniform, it gives you a team.”

Mr. Cale said the league’s 12-person board of directors is not trying to take the fun out of the game, they are simply trying to make it fair. The new rule, suggested by “involved parents,” is a temporary measure that will be replaced by a pre-season skill assessment to make fair teams.

“The board is completely volunteer-run and we do the best that we can to provide a good, clean, fun soccer experience for everyone,” he said.

Although parents are fuming, he said the commotion is coming from “about 1% of the parents.”

Discussing Discussions vs. Disgusting Discussions

With thanks to Binny, who made the point so well.

There is an oft-used tactic in modern debate which is extremely effective, yet quite obfuscating were one to consider not just its methods, but what exactly it's about. Confused yet?

...Exactly.

While many public debates are debates over the substantive issues at hand, there are issues where this is not the case; rather, the issue at hand is itself whether a discussion should even be held. In other words, the debate is about what the discussion would be, not what the discussion would be about.

In cases like this, the oft-used tactic is to paint those on side A of the issue as "intolerant", and those on side B as very "tolerant", because side B is open to "discussion" and side A is not. However, this is incredibly twisted: It is not that side A is not open to the idea of discussion, but that in a particular subject, that the "discussion" itself is the issue and they are against it. Side B, itself unwilling to accept this as a legitimate point of view, then tries to paint this as an intolerant approach and tries to sway those who might otherwise agree with side A by claiming their "intolerance" shows them to be "extremists". After all, they argue, "What's wrong with just having a discussion?"

This happens with so many issues, but the recent panel at YU on homosexuality in the Orthodox world is a perfect example. A number of people mentioned to me that after the hubbub began, a group was started on Facebook for people who "Support a YU that Engages the Issues". What these people so obviously miss is that those in YU who were against the panel did engage the issue - and felt strongly that what YU did was wrong. As is clear from the group's introduction*, the group is one that strongly supported the panel that occurred and wishes for more such panels to take place. What they are not accepting of is discussion as to whether or not such panels are appropriate in the first place. (One person who tried to question as much on the group was quickly shot down, labeled as a "bad guy", his views as "bigoted", and was told that those who support the group were "good guys" and "open-minded" - and that was all in the first comment!)

It is important to recognize, particularly in issues regarding morality, that often the debate is over whether a topic is itself even up for discussion. Both sides of such a debate are well aware that even having such a discussion is itself a shift of the lines of debate and one which often is used to blur the discussion itself completely. Again, using the YU panel as an example, by taking halacha out of the discussion it shifted the debate from "how should we work with someone who is struggling with homosexuality but wishes to be Orthodox" or even "to what extent should homosexuality be a public subject" to "how should we react to someone who has homosexual relationships" (as two of the panelists openly acknowledged having or craving such relationships). Without many people even being cognizant of it, this shifts the debate into one of how to accept and make someone feel accepted despite their actions instead of whether they should be accepted because of those actions.

Just to switch the example to another subject briefly to show this approach is not confined to this situation, this is similar to how one can shift the discussion of abortion with ease {note: in conversation, not in historical political discourse}. Instead of allowing that abortion is a wrong, sad event, but that there may be exceptions where it should be allowed (if not encouraged), people will note that abortion is a necessity in some types of cases and therefore should always be legal - just in case. This then shifts the debate to whether abortion should be allowed only in specific cases, or even for anyone who wishes to abort her child early on in a pregnancy for any number of a variety of arguable reasons. That then sometimes shifts the debate even further as to whether partial-birth abortion** should be allowed to those who wish it as well. The shift of debate through the argument of "discussion" is a brilliant but immoral maneuver.

Switching back, it is clear why so many in, around, and outside of YU were upset with what occurred, and more importantly for the future, how some completely missed the primary focus of those who spoke out against it. What is especially important moving forward - not just in this situation, but in any - is that people such as the ones who joined that Facebook group understand that oftentimes, "engaging an issue" occurs by deciding that an issue is inappropriate for the venue, the crowd, or the university it represents. That many people feel an issue should not be publicly discussed does not mean it is not being engaged; nor does the fact that it is not being engaged in the manner that so many have come to or have been taught to expect as the norm translate into any other approach being incorrect or intolerant. Tolerance is not a free-for-all where anything goes; it is a respect that others have differing points of view, even ones we don't agree with or much like at all. Most importantly, tolerance is not acceptance, but balancing how one reacts with how one feels about a person or subject versus how they act upon the same.


* Quote from the group: This is a group for alumni, students and others who care about Yeshiva University to express their support for events that allow for open, nonjudgmental and safe dialogue and discourse on issues of importance to Orthodox Judaism in the twenty-first century. In light of YU’s noble decision to hold a panel last week on “Being Gay in the Orthodox World,” this group actively encourages such people to email President Joel and others in the University Board/Administration to express support for such events, and to ensure that the university administration is aware that, despite some voices to the contrary, such discussions are welcome and vital to a vibrant YU campus and community."

** Wikipedia: The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[8] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal.

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

I figure Ezzie is not around, so why not help him out a bit.

Interesting and important article here.

BTW, this woman actually read the ENTIRE bill. I wonder how many of our representatives actually did that.

From the mouth of a Liberal

She is no fan of the right, which makes this an interesting read.

Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do.

Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.

Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

The Truth Comes Out. We ARE a Bunch of Racists

Ok, so seriously, I think it's about time we peeps on the right of center came out of the closet for what we are. We ARE racists. I know, I know, we've been trying to hide it all these years, but you folks on the left always knew the truth about us. And how could we have POSSIBLY though of hiding it. It should have been obvious from the start that everything we say, was in fact cloaking in inward disdain for black people. God I hate those negros. If only we can get back to those good ol' days when use black folk served us white people. Maybe if we all got together, we can send that boy in the oval office some watermelon, he might get the hint and leave once and for all. And yes, I too realize that most of the people we demonstrate against aren't even black, but they are black enough. Especially that Pelosi. The way she talks, just like an angry black female.

Ooooooooh you liberals have been too smart for us. What can I say. You are just too damn good at what you always do by spotting out racism everywhere.

God, it feels so good to come out of the closet

Genders

Following up on Part I, Chana's second post on Gender is absolutely fantastic. Excerpt I enjoyed that notes the differences between correlation and causation perfectly:

The fact that the tribes in New Guinea were different in terms of hunter-gatherer/ coquettish roles is immaterial. All that demonstrates is that it is *possible* to change up one's role. That doesn't mean it is natural to do so. The assumption the researcher made is that because she saw the natives in those roles, that meant gender was societally constructed. How does that follow? People rebel against their nature all the time. Some of those tribes were cannabilistic! If I choose to be a cannibal, does that mean that eating food as opposed to people is a social construct? I think not. I believe that humans are born with some innate sense of right and wrong, morals, etc (just as I believe they are born with a gender that is the same as their sex characteristics.) That some choose to rebel against that innate sense of right and wrong and/or to rebel aginst their innate sense of self does not persuade me that the idea of gender as a whole (or right and wrong or morality) is all a societal construct. In the same way that I have no desire to adopt cannabilism, I have no desire to attempt to actively work to change my innate characteristics as a female over for learned supposedly male characteristics. One can learn anything, at that rate. I can crawl on the floor, bark like a dog, and eat raw meat. Does that mean humanity is a societal construct? No, I don't think so, and I will not have become a dog.

Dumbing Down of Democracy

From here.

The pivotal foreign policy event so far in the Obama presidency was not this week's summit with Russia. It was instead that rarest of all events: Barack Obama's silence.

When the people of Iran filled the streets of their country demanding a fair election, the U.S. clutched for a week. Uncertain of whether U.S. interests lay with the nuke-building ayatollahs or the democracy-seeking population, the Obama team essentially mumbled sweet nothings through the first days of the most extraordinary world event in this young presidency's term. That moment of hesitation, when a genuine and strategically useful democratic moment needed support, could prove costly.

When the Group of Eight nations tried to shape a response to the Iranian government's repression, Russia knew what to say about Iran."No one is willing to condemn the election process," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, "because it's an exercise in democracy."

Behold the official dumbing down of democracy.

Our purpose here is not to ridicule Foreign Minister Lavrov's absurd description of the Iranian elections. It is instead to show his statement the respect that anything dangerous deserves.

Two years ago in June, Vladimir Putin's main press spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, visited the offices of the Journal editorial page. It was a remarkable meeting. The editors asked about the widely discussed criticisms of the Putin government's actions against opposition political parties and individuals and its control of the media. With a calm and confident smile, Mr. Peskov replied: "Ours is a different system of democracy." That was it. He stopped talking but kept smiling. The message sank in.

Dmitry Peskov was defining democracy in a way that could hardly be more different than the system of political pluralism developed over the past 300 years in the West. He couldn't have been clearer: We are changing the rules. Get over it.

In this light, President Obama's performance in Moscow was disconcerting, to put it mildly. In Mr. Obama's worldview, political systems apparently don't compete. They simply . . . are. "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country," he said, "nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."

Mr. Obama's political equivalence, conventional wisdom now among many Western sophisticates, is wrong and dangerous. Unless the West, led by the U.S. under this president, offers active push-back against the Russian definition of democracy, their version inexorably will back out ours.

The design of Iran's election was a perfect mirror of Russia's. Foreign Minister Lavrov wasn't ratifying it for our benefit. Like Dmitry Peskov, he couldn't care less what the Americans or Europeans think of his astonishing statement. His audience is the world's other leaders and parties.

Where is it written that American-style democracy will last forever, much less spread to new nations? If the members of the U.N. General Assembly could choose between the democracy of the U.S., Britain and France or that of Russia, Venezuela and Bolivia, likely it would be the latter. Genuine democracy is hard work. Why should the likes of Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Taiwan or Brazil endure that stress if Potemkin Village democracy is acceptable?

What Putin, Khamenei, Chávez, Morales and Mubarak want is fait-accompli legitimacy. When resistance to their dumbed-down democracy stops, they'll have it. China's Orwellian filtering software is a nice metaphor for what's at stake. Vocal criticism, even as eloquent as Mr. Obama's in Moscow this week or in Cairo, is not resistance. Real resistance requires acts of political push-back that all the world's people can see and recognize.

A study released last month by Freedom House, "Democracy's Dark Year," reported democratic erosion in most of the new European Union member states and in the then-inspiring "color revolution" nations -- Georgia's Rose Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution and Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution.

Latin America is also tipping toward dissolved democracies. The 34 nations of the Organization of American States just voted to readmit the Cuban dictatorship. After the vote, the OAS foreign ministers broke into applause, and the meeting's host joyously announced, "The Cold War has ended." Those words of congratulations for unrepentant antidemocrat Fidel Castro came from Manuel Zelaya, then president of Honduras.

Elected in 2005, Mr. Zelaya has been using his muscle to import the Russian-Venezuelan-Iranian political model to Honduras. That means rigged future elections and the constitution changed by fiat to validate the rigging. After meeting with Mr. Zelaya in Washington Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton off-loaded Honduras's fate to former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias.

Letting genuine democratic aspirants in places like Iran and Honduras lose in front of a watching world will exact a price. The United States and the other John Locke democracies are in an active, long-term competition with fake democrats over whose politics governs the next century. And they will presume to choose which parties should run other counties.

There is the clear sense that anything the Bush administration did, the Obama sophisticates will not do. Does the fact that the Bushies pushed democracy mean it would be bad form to support even our own political system?

EZ Reads 6/26/09

A great quote to start, via Uncle Bruce:♫

Sports is man's joke on God, Max. You see, God says to man, 'I've created a universe where it seems like everything matters, where you'll have to grapple with life and death and in the end you'll die anyway, and it won't really matter.' So man says to God, 'Oh, yeah? Within your universe we're going to create a sub-universe called sports, one that absolutely doesn't matter, and we'll follow everything that happens in it as if it were life and death.'" Sportswriter Sam Kellerman

Some good reads:

• Pazit notes that women should make money, not excuses.
• R' Fink of the PJC is disturbed, and rightfully so.
  
• An elementary graduation from a Berkeley school that professes "no -isms." Guess which -isms it seemed to portray?
• Meanwhile, 700 NYC teachers get paid to do nothing. Literally. (But government is efficient!)
  
• An interesting piece on camera views in baseball and their impact.
  
• The 10 most beloved Cleveland athletes.
  

Finally, a great video via A Negative Benefit for all the Mac users... and those who like to make fun.

Obama is sort of........

"Your Views are not welcome in UK"

Sigh.

The UK is publicly announcing those that will no longer be welcome there due to speech that they are against.

Money quote:

Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.

Don't get me wrong. I understand entering a country is a privilege. I agree to that. I also believe any country has a RIGHT to keep anyone it wants out. The issue I have is not about rights, but about the moral slippery slope that this brings. Is the UK gov't going to start screening people on what their ideologies and values are before they can enter the country? Who gets to determine which speech and "values" will be allowed? There is a difference between letting terrorist in and people you disagree with their views. 

You GOTTA Love California

Evil black automobiles might get banned. Apparently since black cars don't relflect heat so well, people use more energy to cool themselves off in them. 

Prediction:

Climate alarmists will soon ban black t-shirts. Given that black t-shirts don't reflect sun light as well which cause a person to become hotter, the person is more likely to use their air conditioning causing more of a carbon footprint to be released on an already frail and dying planet.

Anymore predictions you can think of???

More Divisive Comments?

Anyone listening or reading the news knows there is a lot of stupid attention being paid to Rush Limbaughs comments about wanting Obama's policies to fail. His comments have been called divisive when have to be united. Flip it the other way around, and those on the left were well able to want Bush's policies to fail, but whatever. What I DON'T understand, is how come comments like this from a CNN host (just like Rush is a host) haven't been called divisive or wrong. Where is all the foot stomping outrage?