Not So Scary Swine Flu

This is a cross posting from a blog I wrote for the Republican Jewish Coalition.

For months now we have been hearing, reading, and watching sensationalized reports in the news about the emerging pandemic that is “Swine Flu”. Early projections from the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology estimated between 30,000 and 90,000 deaths this year! When stories began to emerge during the summer that the deaths hadn’t reached the catastrophic proportions originally projected, the response from authorities was that dark and dismal days were ahead of us once the dreaded flu season descended upon us. (Cue scary music.)

We were scared. MSNBC made a map. And Johnson & Johnson, makers of Purell hand sanitizer, made a fortune.

But reports surfaced this week that the H1N1 virus might not be as deadly as originally thought. Doctors are now estimating somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 deaths this year can be expected from the virus, and most of them will be amongst those who already had some underlying condition. As chilling as that may sound, though, it is absolutely no different from situation we face every winter with the regular old seasonal flu.

On average, about 36,000 people die after catching the seasonal flu virus. And, as with the H1N1 deaths, they usually happen in people with already weakened immune systems. To be clear, though, tens of thousands of people dying from a viral infection each year is nothing to be taken lightly. But when the average number of seasonal flu deaths is roughly smack dab in the middle of the projected H1N1 mortality projection, it sounds like the extent of our Swine Flu paranoia should end where it usually does during every other flu season.

So, what do we do? Well, aside from viewing the President’s science advisors as melodramatic doom-mongers, I’m going to take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy my winter just as I have done every previous year.

40 Weeks

Today is Election Day in Virginia and New Jersey. New York is having a special election as well. News commentators both right- and left-of-center agree that the results today could set a precedent that resonates into the 2010 election.

And I couldn't agree with them more.

The November 3, 2009 elections fall exactly 40 weeks after the inauguration of President Barack Obama; exactly 40 weeks after Nancy Pelosi's Congress established a strong Democrat majority; exactly 40 weeks after the beginning of what was promised to be a "new direction" for the United States. That being said, a baby conceived on January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day) would be born right around today.

In a very profound way, this is the baby of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi's policies, and delivery day is today. Being the happy parents, our chief executive and head legislator have a lot riding on these results. And tonight we all get to see whether their progeny leans red or blue.

And You Thought 1000 Pages Was Bad

This past summer, Congress unveiled HR 3200, a health care reform bill introducing the "public option". That bill, which encountered incredible scruitiny and backlash from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, was more than 1000 pages long.

But recently, majority leaders in Congress topped their previous feat, introducing an edited version of HR 3200.
Was it reduced in size for efficiency? No.
Were the concerns of those opposed to a government takeover of health care taken into consideration? No.
Is it still 1,000 pages long? No.

The current version, fully amended on October 14, is now more than 1,900 pages long (that's almost double the original version!).

According to David Harsanyi's column in Real Clear Politics,

In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration."

...

...as you flip through the pages of the House bill, you will notice the word "regulation" appears 181 times. "Tax" is there 214 times. "Fees," 103 times. As we all know, nothing says "affordability" like higher taxes and fees.

The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.

There's a saying that goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If I was going to take that saying to the next level, it would go "And if it is broke, make sure you're actually fixing it, not making things worse."

With a price tag of almost a trillion dollars, I'm hard pressed to see how a government run insurance corporation will be any better than a privately run insurance corporation. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, health care is broken, and does need fixing. But before going ahead with anything, let's make sure the solution being presented will actually cure our woes, not put a Bandaid over one wound and tear open others.

When Moderates Do Well

It seems recently that the voices congressional moderates on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle have been largely disregarded as meek and wishy washy. But today, moderate Democrats took a stand for which I must give them applause.

Politico reports...

'A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.

“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”'

While the extreme left "progressive" wing of the party is applauding the White House's divisiveness, I'm glad to see the moderates taking a stand in favor of civil dialogue and debate. Even members of the "mainstream" press corps are taking a stand against the White House's media war.

It's interesting that in their criticism of Fox News and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel use Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as examples. While no one will dispute their overtly displayed political leanings, it's important to distinguish between their shows and the news. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. on the radio) are news opinion shows. To parallel, it would be like criticizing a newspaper editorial for being biased. It's supposed to be!

In comparison, say what you will about the Bush Administration's policies and press accessibility, they never overty demonized left-leaning news stations for their biased news opinion shows. Despite venomous rhetoric continuously being streamed by commentators like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, not only did Bush Administration officials not attack them, they repeatedly met their attacks head on, participating in televized debates.

My respect goes to the moderate Democrats in Congress who stood up to the divisive, partisan politics of the Obama Administration.

Of the People, By the People, For Countrywide Insurance

Congress has reached a new level of immaturity. This week, congressional Democrats, let by Congressman Edolphus Towns (NY) decided to lock the minority Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room.

The most logical question would be why the majority in the committee made all that effort to change the locks on the committee room door so that the minority couldn't meet.

It was retaliation.

According to The Hill...

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

The story continues (bold font added)...

A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.

So, let me see if I can summarize this.

• There's a committee in Congress that was formed specifically to investigate corruption and misuse of government funds.
• Countrywide Insurance allegedly misused government funds to create sweatheart deals for VIP clients.
• Republicans in the aforementioned committee wanted to investigate.
• Democrats in the aforementioned committee said "no".
• Republicans videotaped Democrats ditching the aforementioned committee's hearing that would have required Countrywide to submit their financial records for investigation.
• Democrats were embarrassed.
• Democrats ordered the locks to be changed on the aforementioned committee room's doors, so that Republicans couldn't get in.

There are two things I gather from this: (1) Congressman Towns has the maturity level of a 5th grader. (2) This reeks of elected officials playing the lobbyist game.

When the Road Less Traveled is Paved Better

This afternoon I went to a luncheon with a scholar named Ilan Berman, the Vice President for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council. His new book, Winning the Long War, delves into how we can best solve the crisis in the Middle East.

Compared to the policies of this and the preceding administrations, his ideas without a doubt fall into the road-less-traveled category. In this case, though, the road(s) being traveled by the government's foreign policy experts is long, windy, and full of potholes. From my vantage point, Berman's road is much better paved.

Berman's long-term solution to the U.S.'s political problems in the Middle East was framed like an issue advocacy campaign. He used terms like "constituency", "strategy" (it has a very specific meaning in campaign jargon), "branding", and "voter education". He even considered who was the best spokesperson to carry that message.

By no means is the Berman plan as politically sexy as being able to say on the House floor that $2 million was allocated to build a new school in Rwanda. But ensuring that the generation of individuals currently coming of age in the Arab World are given an education that encourages free thought, self growth, and tolerance toward all people (including the West) will build a world where terrorism is frowned upon, and where development is more than a buzzword used amongst U.N. bureaucrats.

Why I Am Against the Congressional Health Care Plan

It's the middle of autumn, and the debate on health care reform is going on its sixth month as a top tier issue around the country.

Liberals, progressives, and Democrats have put forth their reasons justifying public, government-run health coverage. Republicans have put forth reasons against it, and submitted alternatives.

Both have it wrong.

People in the United States have been brought to hysterics by special interest campaigns, and now think that the only way the health care crisis can possibly be solved is by forcing a few hundred people in Washington DC to pass overarching legislation more rapidly than ever before. Essentially, it's a policy that blasts shot-gun pellets of health care "solutions" to the entire country.

Unfortunately, the problems individuals face are different depending on where one lives. Income relative to expenses are different between urban centers and rural areas; hospital availability between rural and urban areas vary widely; and lifestyle differences between the east coast, west coast, and central U.S. make for different health care needs.

Instead of spraying health care like a shotgun, this needs to be approached with rifle accuracy.

Instead of shooting for extreme, rapid overhaul, forced by one government entity (the federal government), why not allow the states to take care of themselves? They know what their residents want. A state assemblyman in Los Angeles, CA or a state senator from Winchester, VA will each know how to better serve residents in Los Angeles and Winchester than a U.S. senator from some other state nowhere near them. And governors are far more aware of what their respective states need than the President, who needs to oversee 50 drastically different states.

What's more, if each state passed unique health care reform bills, the country as a whole would be able to see which option works better. If reforms passed in Arkansas don't work as well as the reforms passed in Georgia, other states with plans similar to the former can go back to the drawing table and rethink their plans. Unfortunately, if Congress and the federal government pass a flawed plan, fixing it will be a must more difficult task.

What are your thoughts? I am interested to hear your comments.

This Needs to Be Said...

...the Nobel Peace Prize is officially a sham.
That's not to say the other Nobel prizes are illegitimate. Quite the contrary, the people who received the prizes in academic areas were quite deserving. But the Peace Prize? While it was once a legitimate award for well-deserved actions, it has officially lost its prestige.

When they gave out the award to Yasser Arafat, it lost prestige.
When they gave out the award to Al Gore, instead of someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, who actually did something meaningful, it lost prestige.
Now, the people who carry on the legacy of Alfred Nobel have decided to award the Peace Prize, what should be one of the most coveted awards in the world, to President Barack Obama. And for what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded for ones accomplishments. It's the same prize handed out to Nelson Mandella for ending an apartheid government, desegregating an entire country, and bringing peace to South Africa. President Obama's biggest accomplishment is not accomplishing anything.

• He promised "change" for health care...Nothing.
• He promised "change" for Iraq and Afghanistan...Nothing--as a matter of fact, things have gotten worse.
• He promised "change" for the economy...That's gotten worse too.
• He promised a new era of bipartisanship in Washington DC...If the tensions have changed at all, things have become more divisive, not less.

What's more, it has come to my attention that the people who vote on the Nobel recipients cast their votes only 10 days after Obama was inaugurated!!!

It's a shame that what could be such a prestigeous award has been reduced to a club of ego-stroking extremists with a political agenda.

ACORN: Not Your Wholesome Family-Friendly Neighborhood Organization

Remember when you were in grade school, and there was some kid who would do anything to win, even if it meant cheating, pissing everyone off, or losing friends?

In the political activism world, that kid is ACORN.

After voter registration fraud scandals all over the country rocked the organization in 2006 and 2008, you'd think they would have taken a step back and realized that illegal (or marginally legal) political tactics simply don't have a worthwhile payoff. But, no.

Now, the tax and loan departments of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in (at the very least) Baltimore, Washington DC, New York, and San Diego are have proven they are more than willing to dish out advice on how to illegally traffic underage women from Latin American countries for a prostitution ring.

Those being helped by ACORN in their races for Congress and the White House shrugged off the voter registration fraud allegations. Apparently that wasn't enough to distance themselves from what was already proving to be a corrupt organization. Rather, it was the undeniable, unspinnable video-based proof of an attempt to start up a prostitution ring that forced former supporters start backing away. That is, except for Nancy Pelosi, who apparently has her head shoved so far up her asshole she doesn't know what's going on outside her own little world.

What's most astounding to me is that, despite this obviously juicy news, the only agency to even touch these stories as they were breaking was Fox News. In the words of The Daily Show's John Stewart (taken from Newsbusters):

"I'd love to know the intrepid journalists who broke this story. "60 Minutes"? The AP? That guy who gets the predators?
(Shows video of O'Keefe appearing on Fox News)
Are you f**king kidding me? First of all, you don't have to tell us you're a white guy. Your pimp costume appears to be a fur coat on top of your Andover uniform. Second of all, where were the real reporters on this story? You know what investigative media, see me on camera three: Where the hell were you? You know who broke this story? These two.
(Shows picture of O'Keefe and Giles.)
You're telling me that two kids from the cast of "High School Musical III" can break this story with a video camera and their grandmother's chinchilla coat? And you got nothing? They did it for $3,000, and that's Blitzer's monthly beard Wetvac budget. It probably cost CNN that much to turn on their hologram machine.
I'm a fake journalist, and I'm embarrassed these guys scooped me. Let's get to work people."

It really is depressing that an organization like ACORN is so rife with corruption. As an organization that reaches out to under-represented communities, it has so much potential. Unfortunately, like many unions today, the good they have the ability to cause is trampled by the selfishness, politicization, and greed of its leaders.

It's Official: Jimmy Carter is F@*king Crazy

Yesterday, an interview of former President Jimmy Carter was shown on NBC Nightly News. In it, he makes the grand assertion that "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."

This, coming from the same guy who, in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, accuses the big bad Israelis of holding down the innocent, peaceful Palestinians.

So, it's official, folks: either Jimmy Carter has absolutely no shame in spewing politically charged, extreme B.S., or he's off his rocker.

The fact is the vast majority of those opposing President Obama are not motivated by the color of his skin. Rather, they are driven to protest extreme policies and divisive, partisan behaviors coming from both him and the Democratic leadership in the legislature. With unemployment at 9.7% (expected to increase), and worry growing over government monopolizing the health care system, individuals across the country are feeling compelled to speak out.

Instead of calling the protesters un-American, Astroturf, or racists, leaders in our government should stop and consider that perhaps these people simply want nothing more than to be heard, and their concerns taken into consideration.

No One Likes Double-Dipping

The Financial Times reported yesterday that an influential economist who predicted the economic crash of 2007/8 is warning people that we are in for a double-dip recession. That is, a recession with a slight leveling out (even followed by moderate economic growth), but ending with yet another crash.

The economist, William White, former chief economist for the Bank for International Settlements, credits the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan's mantra of "persistent cheap money" for the crash. He further observes that the central banks pumping trillions of dollars into the world economy will create an artificial bubble that will inevitably collapse.

So, basically, because governments are so worried about creating quick-fixes they are creating a system that will inevitably leave everyone worse off than they were before. The message here: if the government left the economy alone and let regular old supply and demand stabilize everything we'd be out of this mess quicker, and for a longer period of time.

William White isn't alone. The number of economists warning about a double-dip recession isn't small. Here's another article making the same warning. And another. And another. And another.

Neglecting the Powder Keg

The Wall Street Journal today published a very interesting editorial by Bret Stephens, suggesting that U.S. policy toward the Middle East is actually pushing Israel to strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Stephens' argument is quite compelling.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

The article concludes with an old Latin adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum--if you want peace, prepare for war.

President Obama is going to chair the United Nations Security Council on September 24. For a president who emphasizes our image abroad, letting this powder keg continue to build pressure is a bit discomforting.

A Personal Account of the DC Tea Party

As I was leaving the District via metro rail Saturday after kayaking with some friends, I ran into a group of Tea Partiers (Well, more than a group--they filled the metro car like a sardine can!) who were reveling in the success of their protest.
One person asked how many they thought showed up.
Another replied, "The mall cops estimated it at 1.2 million."
I was shocked. And pleased.

But today, American newspapers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Washington Post belittled the protest by diminishing the numbers to the "tens of thousands".

It was actually a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, that gave true credence to the number of people who showed up.

I find this very interesting because, the following day, the Pew Research Center released the results of a poll stating a whopping 63% of Americans no longer trust the mainstream media. Perhaps this should be a wake-up call to reporters to put aside their partisan leanings, and start focusing on facts.

When Snowe Says No

The National Journal, a non-partisan political journal, ranks U.S. legislators yearly on a liberal-to-conservative scale. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is usually ranked the #1 most liberal Republican in the Senate. In fact, the Journal rated 3 Democrat senators--Bayh, Nelson, and Landrieu--as more conservative than the senior senator from Maine.

Nevertheless, on Sunday, Snowe took a stand against a "public option" to solve the health care problem.

“I’ve urged the president to take the public option off the table,” Snowe said on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “It’s universally opposed by Republicans,” Snowe said.

When Snowe says no, consider that option dead.

Strike Two for Obama Administration

First, the Obama Administration approves Air Force One for a low-altitude flyover over New York City without giving notice.

The resultant mass crapping-in-pants should have been a message to the current federal government that it should be a tad more sensitive to the concerns of its citizens.

But, no.

Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security, in a moment of obvious lucidity, decided it would be a good idea for the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct a training exercise with live ammunition on the Potomac River near the Pentagon, on the 8th anniversary of 9/11!

Smart, guys. Real smart.


***UPDATE: New reports are surfacing that the training exercise was, in fact, reported to the Associated Press, and that no actual shots were fired. If true, the stupid award now goes to CNN and Fox News. (updated 4:15pm on 9/11/09)

Selective Memory Much?

Shouting "You lie!" at President Obama in the middle of his speech to a joint session of Congress was disrespectful.

So was this.

Either everyone should be allowed to heckle and jeer, or no one should. Making the kind of scene that was made about one guy's two-word interjection seems a tad hypocritical.

Two-faced Politicking

Today, President Obama will be giving a speech before a joint session of Congress on health care reform. There seems to be adamance on his end that health care reform must happen sooner than later. I don't disagree.

Unfortunately, it seems only one proposed solution is being debated: HR 3200. This, despite the message coming from President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, "If you have a better idea, put it on the table."

The funny thing is there are other, potentially better ideas. Like this one, or this one, or this one.

What's more, despite the rhetoric about welcoming alternative suggestions with open arms, The Hill magazine reported that the president "has not invited House GOP leaders to the White House for meetings on healthcare reform since the end of April."

Earlier this year, GOP leaders sent a letter to the president in May stating that they would like to work with the administration to find "common ground" on healthcare reform.

But the administration responded with a tersely worded letter indicating that they had healthcare reform under control.

This all seems a bit two-faced to me.

It's disappointing that after promising a new political era during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the current leaders in Congress and the White House really haven't changed the partisanship and attitudes in Washington much.

Half a Solution...

...doesn't solve a problem.
That's the saying I'm going with to describe this current event.

With Senate coming back into session, and health care reform at the top of the docket, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed a solution for which he hopes to gain bipartisan support.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage. It would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

But those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. The maximum penalty on individuals would be $950.

Baucus's plan has merits in simply giving incentives for families to purchase quality health insurance in the form of tax credits. Unfortunately, it doesn't attack the root cause of the health care issue, ignoring possible predatory business methods from some (but not all) insurance providers. It's half a solution that leaves the core half of the problem flopping around on the table.

The fact is both Republicans and Democrats want to make quality health insurance affordable to everyone. The divide between the parties is whether the best option is one controlled by a government bureaucracy. When a constructive health care solution that doesn't involve expanding bureaucracy is put forth I am confident Republicans and Democrats will work together, if only for this one bill.

Senator Baucus's proposal is a step in the right direction, but it's only one step up a long, winding staircase.

A Revelation of Character

Today, President Obama is making a televised speech to grade schools across the United States. The reactions (or lack thereof) of people around the country reveal quite a bit about their motives and biases. And fault is spread like jam on toast.

The President
President Obama broke a cardinal rule: don't exclude parents in decision-making. Although it shouldn't be, politics today is incredibly partisan. The Obama Administration should have been cognizant of this reality, and allowed the parents the option to view the speech before being shown to their children. By ignoring the fact that parents tend to be incredibly defensive about what information is given to their kids, the massive backlash has resulted in many schools refusing to show the speech.

Congress
In 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush also organized a televized speech to school children. At the time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, as they do today. However, Congress reacted by holding hearings and invstigations, casting a negative light on what was most likely a benign outreach effort. Today, though, Congress has issued no response, further revealing a bias that only builds barriers to bipartisanship.

The Public
Unfortunately, the narrative coming from political parties--and now the media--has caused some individuals on to political fringe to take extreme, defensive stances against those with whom they disagree. The not-so-fruitful "birther" and "Obama's-a-Muslim-and-that's-bad" movements are cases in point. Now, there is a knee jerk reaction among similar crowds to shelter their children from anything Obama says. It's a shame that the gap between Republican and Democrat has widened so substantially that people in the United States can't even trust their own president's speeches.


Perhaps more needs to be done to mend fences among those of voting age before the federal government reaches out to their kids.

Don't Dis the Dead

Remember that sad, sad time when Ronald Reagan passed away? I do. I also remember members of the ultra-left bashing the deceased President as others were mourning. It was a heartless, disrespectful, arrogant showing of political bullshit (pardon the French).

Today marked the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Some absolutely loved his views; others shuddered in disgust at them. Nevertheless, he was the epitome of a public servant, working across the isle, treating his fellow legislators with common courtesy and decency, regardless of party.

But there are those who consider themselves "conservatives" who decided that the death of a 47-year U.S. Senator was an appropriate time to bash his policies. I even read passages on Facebook predicting his presence in Hell.

This message is directed at the aforementioned individuals...

STOP.
NOW.
YOUR ACTIONS ARE DISRESPECTFUL, DISGUSTING, ARROGANT, AND BLATANTLY UN-AMERICAN.
YOU ARE MAKING ALL REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD.

Today is a day for mourning, not for politicking.

Admit It - You're Wrong

The latest numbers submitted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) indicate some depressing news:
1) We're not out of the recession,
2) The spending spree of the last 7 months is going to double the national debt, and
3) Expect unemployment to hit 10% by the end of the year.

This would be a good time for President Obama to call another press conference and admit he was wrong.

He won't, but it would be a good move on his part to cut his losses now and move to a more conservative fiscal strategy.

At this point, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is issuing statements about the President's fiscal policy. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is warning of record-breaking hyperinflation, the likes of which haven't been seen since Carter's policies took effect.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid might be claiming their policies are an attempt to "clean up the mess" from the Bush Administration, but at this point they've only added more dirt to the pile--a lot more dirt.

Giuliani & the Thompson Playbook

Is Rudy Giuliani running for Governor of New York? Is Rudy Giuliani not running for Governor of New York? That is the question.

Close friends of the former New York City Mayor are indicating that he is leaning towards a 2010 run, saying things like "it's 'better than 50-50'".

If Giuliani does decide to run, he'll most likely make his announcement somewhere between 30, 60...or 150 days from now.

All this sounds a lot like good ol' Fred Thompson's non-campaign campaign for President in 2007/8. We know where that got him.

Nevertheless, I hope Rudy runs. The sooner the better. He did a great job fixing New York City, and times like these call for similar leadership in the Governor's seat.

The Shoe is on the Other Foot

The First Family is on vacation right now in Martha's Vineyard, and the message they have for the press is to leave their daughters alone.

I agree.

The press should leave the children of politicians alone. The stalking and Paparazzi-esque gossip reporting doesn't serve to enlighten the population, nor does it provide any useful information whatsoever. After all, Sasha and Malia had very little choice in becoming the First Daughters.

I'd be interested to see if the press respects the Obamas' wishes. If they don't, it wouldn't be a surprise. After all, the press has a nasty reputation when dealing with public officials' children, Bristol Palin and the Bush daughters being just the tip of the ice berg.

If they do, though, I'd like to hear reporters' justifications for exempting the children of Barack and Michelle Obama from public scrutiny, similar to how reporters handled Chelsea Clinton.

Jews Killing Nazis

I went to see Quentin Tarantino's new movie, Ingourious Basterds, last night. I had heard mixed reactions, but half expected that with a Terantino film.

This movie is by far more graphic than anything the director of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 has ever created. Nevertheless, I loved it!

The premise behind the movie hooked me immediately, and justified every blood-spewing scene: Jews killing Nazis.

If you can hold your lunch, don't get traumatized easily, and hate Nazis you are sure to enjoy Inglourious Basterds.

This poster best exemplifies the movie.

Scots Release a Murderer

Remember when you were a kid and the schoolyard bully just wouldn't stop bugging you?
(If you were the schoolyard bully, remember when you were a kid and just wouldn't stop bugging those smaller than you?)
You'd get that one moment of victory when a teacher would catch the bully in the act and pull him aside, giving him a stern "talking to". The bully's head hung in shame, the teacher then says, "Are you going to do this again?"
The bully replies, "No, ma'am."
So the teacher concludes, "Okay, buddy. Go sit for time out for the rest of recess. But if I catch you bullying people again we're going to have big problems."

How often did that strategy work? Remember all those reformed bullies who change their ways after getting a word lashing from Ms. What's-her-face? I don't.

But Scotland took a page out of the lazy teachers' handbook when they decided to release Lockerbie Bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, on grounds of "compassion". The mass-murdering terrorist was diagnosed with prostate cancer, so the Scottish government took the soft-handed route and him go to die in his home country, Libya. After serving only eight years of a minimum 27-year sentence, al-Megrahi spent only around 11 days in jail for each of the 270 people he slaughtered.

My complements go to President Obama et. al. for issuing a decisive, strong response.

Another "Vast Right Wing Conpiracy" Accusation

As if President Obama's handling of the healthcare debate couldn't be any more careless, he adds insult to injury. Revamping the "vast right wing conspiracy" claims that propelled Hillary Clinton's image straight to the Presidency getting the veritable door-prize of Secretary of State, President Obama is really socking it to the Republicans making an ass of himself.

After all, there's absolutely no way the American people could be against healthcare reform the way the President Reps. Dingell, Rangel, Waxman, Miller, Stark, Pallone, and Andrews envision it.

Oy.

Afghanistan's Founding Fathers

Today, the citizens of Afghanistan went to the polls and experienced a relatively new sensation of voting for who they wanted representing them as President.
A couple centuries ago, Americans had the same experience. And, strangely, the four candidates running for President of Afghanistan in 2009 share some striking parallels to our own Founding Fathers.

• Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai served in the fledgling Karzai Administration, shortly after new government took charge, as Finance Minister, similar to Alexander Hamilton, who served under George Washington as Treasury Secretary. Ghani also shared the traits of being headstrong and stubborn with Hamilton, who strained relationships with colleagues John Adams and Aaron Burr. Currently, Ghani is poised to take a distant third, or even fourth, in the election, making the chances he'll actually be President similar to his political doppleganger.
  
• Abdullah Abdullah--yes, that's his name--has an eerily similar resume to Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. Beginning his career on the diplomatic front, Abdullah served in the Karzai Administration as the first Foreign Minister. Thomas Jefferson, being the great spokesman and diplomat the he was, served as the first Secretary of State under the Washington Administration. He, also like Jefferson, advocates a more federalist-style government, promising to change the government of Afganistan into a parliamentary system, rather than a tri-cameral one.
• Ramazan Bashardost was a little more difficult to parallel, but sure enough I found someone. Bashardost, the little known but well respected outsider advocating human rights, shares some striking similarities with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was the Founding Fathers' closest thing to a human rights activist, dedicating a significant portion of his money to philanthropic causes. Additionally, until now, Bashardost, like Franklin, worked behind the scenes to fight corruption and help build a fledgling country.
• And last, but not least, we have Hamid Karzai. As nice as it would be if he was, Karzai is no George Washington. Instead, his demeanor and action more closely resemble John Adams. Make no mistake, Adams played an integral part in the formation of the United States. But while Washington was in the field commanding the troops, Adams was behind a desk doing the brain work. Similarly, Karzai spent the 1980's and 1990's fighting Soviets and the Taliban behind a desk in Peshawar, Pakistan. Both Karzai and Adams are smart people, and both had the pleasure of serving as Chief Executive of a start-up country.

Which now leaves the United States. During the American Revolution, the colonists received integral help from another country--the French. So, basically, George Bush could be likened to Louis XVI, and Gen. Tommy Franks (leader of the coalition troops) is most similar to French Gen. Lafayette.
And with that analysis, I surrender.

New President, Same Practices

Take yourself back to a time when companies like Enron and Halliburton were circulating the news wires. Accusations of corruption and collusion abounded; some of them might have been true.

But in 2007 a new face emerged--a face of "hope", "change", and an honest, transparent government. This new face became President of the United States on January 20, 2009. He assumed office with a Congress full of like-minded people ready to follow him to the ends of the Earth. Every door was wide open.

But yesterday this story came out from the Associated Press. Some very interesting information is coming to light about a newly proposed healthcare overhaul from an administration that said, "We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs."

The AP story is titled "Firms with Obama ties profit from health push", and includes some interesting facts.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

it continues...

A larger issue is a network of relationships and overlapping interests that resembles some seen in past administrations and could prove a problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group.

"Even if these are obvious bedfellows and kind of standard PR maneuvers, it still stands to undercut Obama's credibility," Krumholz said. "The potential takeaway from the public is 'friends in cahoots to engineer a grass roots result.'"

So the Democrats went after Bush for his colluding with firms like Enron and Halliburton a few years ago. As a result, the Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Now, only a few years later, parallelable political dealings from the Obama White House are surfacing. What does this say about 2010?

US Socialized Programs Near Bankruptcy -- Obama/Pelosi/Reid Solution: Spend More Money!

Imagine you're eight years old. You're playing a game of tag with your friends in a vacant lot. Unfortunately, the ground is very gravely, and the loose rocks make for a slippery surface. You get a little too enthralled with the game, stop concentrating on balance, lose your footing, and fall, skidding on the gravel.
Your elbows and knees are cut up. The dirt and rocks sticking to the open wounds make make your arms and legs pulse with stinging pain. Thankfully, nothing is broken. But when you stand up, you reevaluate whether such a slippery, gravely surface is the best surface on which to run around.
Ultimately, even though you would have loved to keep running around care free with your buddies, you make the smart decision, cut your losses, and leave the gravel lot to clean up your new scratches and cuts.


U.S. Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) on Tuesday remarked that Social Security will run out of money within two years.

This would have been a good opportunity for proponents of government-run welfare programs to take a step back and reevaluate how much sense similar programs make. After all, Medicare and Medicaid will be following suit with projected deficits soon, and the post office is a consistent losing venture. On the other hand, privately owned healthcare providers turn profits and create jobs every year, and FedEx and UPS are rapidly growing, multi-billion dollar companies.

But did the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team stop to consider whether these programs--as well as proposed new ones--are as prone to failure as an eight year old is to falling while playing tag?
Nope.
They not only disregarded the ominous numbers public programs project, they decided to push healthcare alone, irrespective of Republicans' and private citizens' objections!

There's no doubt that changes need to be made to the healthcare system. But given the track record of bureaucratized programs it makes a lot more sense to ditch the "public option", and figure out a sustainable system that won't bankrupt the country.

They Say It's a Myth

Members of the Congressional "Progressive Caucus", pro-government-run healthcare non-profits, and news reporters from many of the country's biggest agencies are force-feeding the notion that, when it comes to HR 3200, some of the concerns raised by anti-government-run healthcare activists, concerned citizens, and lawmakers are "myths".
They go on national television or radio programs and shout to the heavens that there is absolutely no truth to much of what these rabble rousers are saying. However, they never bring up the language of the bill. They never go to a contested page of the bill and explain to the public what it actually means.
Fortunately, I've seen the publicly available HR 3200. And it's pretty important that every concerned person reads--at the very least--some of the more volatile language. So here is a piece of text from the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009":

Section 1233, Subsection 5:
(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
(i) is singed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scop of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professional and providers across the contiuum of care;
(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if execurted by the individual.
(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
(i) the insensity of medial intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

So, essentially, the public option that is supposed to save everyone and provide better health insurance than any private company has sold previously has embedded in it a clause that gives both doctors and the government carte blanche to deny a patient medical care because he or she is "too sick".

This isn't "Change", nor does this fix the healthcare industry. This is just one more health insurance company, except this one is run by the government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Save the 1st Amendment!

Here's a project for those with too much time on their hands...

SUPPLIES:
1 Roll of Duct Tape (preferably the super adhesive kind--none of that cheap stuff)
1 Staple Gun
1 Box of Staples for Staple Gun
20' Chain Link Fence
4 Metal poles
1 Taser

INSTRUCTIONS:
- Take the roll of duct tape and tape over your mouth. Keep taping around your head, making multiple loops so that mouth is covered by more than one layer of duct tape.
- Take staple gun and load in staples. Staple lips together. This might hurt.
- Drive the 4 metal poles into the ground in a square, each pole approx. 5 feet away from each other.
- Wrap chain link fence around the metal poles. Make sure you are inside the square. You want to be caged inside.
- Last, taser yourself multiple times for being stupid enough to follow these instructions.


Folks, allowing members of Congress to pass the 'Fairness Doctrine' reaches the same level of ignorance as the instructions above. It's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Free speech isn't designed to protect the things with which we agree, it protects those with which we don't. So long as it doesn't insight violence, Americans have the right to say what they want, be critical of who they want, and inspire others to believe the same. It's the reason why Rush Limbaugh can say he wants Obama to fail, even though it's crass; it's the reason why Janeane Garofalo can spout word vomit about Republicans' limbic brains being genetically programed to be racist, even though it's ignorant, arrogant, and insulting; and it's the reason why bloggers can get on their computers and rant about the things they believe are wrong in this world.

So join Save the First Amendment, and make sure your voice will always be heard and protected!

WOOF! WOOF! Republicans want to kill the President! WOOF! WOOF!

Howard Dean made a comment on a liberal am talk radio show that was a bit disturbing. First, he insinuated that Republicans are against the healthcare bill solely to defeat Barack Obama. Then, after correcting a slip-up that Republicans want to "...kill the President", he seemingly retracted, alluding that those "angry" Republicans might actually inflict violence on our Commander in Chief.



I think people are starting to see Howard Dean as they see a large barking dog behind a tall fence.
At first, the bark startles you. When you look over and see a gigantic, wolfish animal staring at you, its teeth glaring, your fight-or-flight reflex starts to kick in. But then you realize that there's an eight foot fence keeping it a safe distance from you.

In the end, it's nothing more than a loud, annoying nuisance.

Continuing with Dr. Rep & Dr. Dem

All this talking about Dr. Rep and Dr. Dem got me thinking about how it could apply to healthcare. And since healthcare is a hot-button issue right now, it wouldn't hurt to touch on it a bit.

Recapping, our little, accident-prone friend, Economy, slipped, fell and "crashed her stock market" (broke her ribs) while at the park. Her parents, who invested time and money to her well-being, rush her to the hospital...

Dr. Rep, Post Surgery on Economy
Dr. Rep has just completed the surgery, and Economy is on her way to a quick recovery. He approaches Economy's parents with the bill. It's quite hefty. Economy's parents aren't starving, but they're not exactly the wealthiest people on the block, and even with the insurance they have there's a HUGE deductible.

To put it bluntly, it sucks.

Economy's parents noticed about a month earlier that there is an insurance provider in a neighboring state that offers better care with a lower deductible for less money. But because of government regulations, they can't buy coverage across state lines. Had they been allowed, the burden Economy's parents had to bear wouldn't have been nearly as great. And with some regulations to prevent insurance companies from suddenly dropping coverage or short-changing clients, the system would've run much smoother too.


Dr. Dem, Post Surgery on Economy
Dr. Dem, in the midst of having Bureaucratina put more tubes and artificial chemicals into Economy, presents the parents with two options. They can (1) pay the medical bill with their own insurance and suffer the huge deductible, or (2) they can follow a special plan Dr. Dem claims will cost them far less.

In this plan, a significant portion of the bill will be footed by the hospital (Strangely enough, the hospital insisted on being called the government). (Behind the scenes, though, the "government" was footing the bill by taking money from people affiliated with the hospital, against their will.) Because the "government" was paying such a large part of the bill, it's going to cost Economy's parents a lot less. What a relief, right?

Wrong.

Unfortunately, Economy's parents didn't read the small print in the plan they signed with the hospital. I can't blame them, though--the contract was 1,018 pages long! In the agreement, though, the "government" gained control over which treatments they deemed appropriate for little Economy. And since the "government" is made up of a bunch of money-grubbing, back-door deal-making, irresponsible, corrupt misers they soon decided that Economy was simply too sick to justify any more medical treatment. Therefore, they decided to stop paying for her medical care (see pg. 430).

Economy's parents looked for someone to turn to that could fix this problem. Unfortunately, since they dropped their previous coverage, no insurance company would agree to cover them. In fact, most of the insurance companies were going out of business, having lost clients to the "government" option. And, when they tried looking for another hospital to which they could transfer little Economy, they found all of the other "governments" functioned the same way.

My Introduction to You

Hello, blogosphere!
Welcome to Metaphorical Politics, the blog that takes politics of the day and adds a twist of abstract, comical, sometimes cynical metaphorical comparison.

Let me begin with my comparison of the Republican and Democrat Parties (this will definitely give you can idea of my bias)...
Let's imagine that the American economy is a little girl--a very accident-prone little girl. As a matter of fact, let's give this little, accident-prone girl a name-- How about Economy?
Now imagine that the Republicans and the Democrats are pediatric emergency room surgeons (I know, I know, this is going to take a lot of effort).

Economy is playing in the park one day, and while waiting for her turn to go down the slide, she slips, falls and cracks a rib (Ouch!). For the sake of metaphor, let's call Economy's ribs the "stock market".

So, basically, you could say Economy slipped up, fell, and her stock market crashed. (See where I'm going with this?)

Economy's parents, having invested vast amounts of time and money to her growth and well-being, rush her to the hospital, where she is greeted by the two doctors, Dr. Dem and Dr. Rep.

This is where the story separates into two very distinct scenarios...

Scenario 1: Dr. Rep gets the case...
Dr. Rep takes Economy into the operating room (strangely named the Halls of Congress) and examines her cracked "stock market". It's pretty severe, and it looks like surgery is necessary. He opens her up, removes all the broken tissue, and replaces it with a material that helps speed up bone growth. Then, he stitches her back up and wraps her in a brace, to be removed once her ribs heal on their own, so she can run and play again without dealing with more doctors.
And they lived happily ever after...

Scenario 2: Dr. Dem gets the case...
Dr. Dem sees Economy in pain, but he already has a full plate of other patients he has to see. So he has Economy take a number and wait in the lobby until its her turn. Four hours later he calls her back to the examination room. First, he has a nurse (let's call her "Bureaucratina") examine the broken, accident-prone little girl. Bureaucratina somehow misses her cracked "stock market" and focuses on the bump she got on her head (let's call her head "real estate", and the bump a "foreclosure"). So the nurse gives Economy some anti-inflammatory medication to make the real estate foreclosure not look at bad as it really is, puts a band-aid over the wound to cover it up, sends her home, and completely dismisses the little girl's complaints about her chest as "growing pains".

Two weeks later, Economy's "stock market" is still cracked, but this time it's infected, and the infection is spreading to the rest of her body. Her parents, noticing that their pride--their joy--their investment--is steadily declining, take Economy back to Dr. Dem, this time going straight to his office. Dr. Dem can clearly see how damaged Economy is, and is afraid that his handing off of the problem to the grossly unqualified Bureaucratina might have exacerbated things.

(Btw, Dr. Dem refuses to fire Bureaucratina for her incompetence. As a matter of fact, he gives her tenure.)

Dr. Dem rushes Economy into the operating room and opens her up, exposing the festering "stock market". Dr. Dem remembers that the Swedes and Canadians had done a similar surgery on their little Economies a few years prior, and fixed her by screwing in a bunch of titanium rods, and pumping their patients with steroids (we'll call these steroids "stimulus packages"). So, Dr. Dem does the same. Unfortunately, Dr. Dem didn't read the follow up report, stating that in both cases, the steroids caused long term damage to the little Economies, and the titanium rods came unscrewed because of how they were hastily inserted.

The same thing happens to our little American Economy, and she develops sepsis (a severe infection, for those who don't know medical jargon). Economy slips into a coma, and Dr. Dem is forced to put her on life support. Bureaucratina is assigned to watch over her daily progress. Needless to say, Bureaucratina makes a lot of mistakes with her health care, and Economy worsens.

In the end, Economy spends the rest of her life hooked up to tubes, constantly being surveyed by Dr. Dem and Bureaucratina. Every few years her prognosis gets worse, and Dr. Dem is forced to open Economy up again and perform emergency surgery, replacing her natural bone and tissue with more and more artificial, manufactured, temporary supports.

Tomorrow, I'll bring up how Dr. Rep and Dr. Dem each handle health insurance...



***This is a very depressing first post. I promise future posts will both be lighter, both in the evoked emotions as well as in brevity.