Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:
Remember the "death panel" scare in last year's health care debate? Sarah Palin and others served up ominous warnings that a House health care overhaul bill would give federal bureaucrats life-and-death power over medical treatment for people approaching the end of their lives.
Those fears were overblown. But the political furor forced Democrats to scrap a provision that would have paid doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling once every five years.
Now comes word of new Medicare rules that some critics say resurrect the "death panels."
Relax. These new rules are more Marcus Welby than Jack Kevorkian.
Right now, Medicare will pay a doctor for one end-of-life planning session with a Medicare patient. That may include help on how to prepare an "advance directive," a patient's instructions to his doctors about what to do if the patient becomes too sick to make his own medical decisions.
Starting Jan. 1, Medicare will pay for an annual session, if needed, as part of a broader "wellness" visit.
That's it. The counseling sessions are voluntary. The government won't tell doctors what to discuss with their patients. It won't pressure physicians to push patients into living wills or advance directives.
It's a smart move.
Research shows that end-of-life planning is valuable: A recent British Medical Journal study concluded it "improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
The study also noted that "patients welcome advance care planning and expect health professionals to initiate discussions."
That doesn't always happen, of course. Many patients don't have these conversations with their doctors, says Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute.
Reason One: Some doctors avoid starting end-of-life talks because it makes them uncomfortable.
Reason Two: Doctors are paid to deliver more aggressive treatment, even if it's futile. Berenson tells us that many patients are not fully informed about treatment options and the prognosis for success. Even if they choose a less aggressive treatment plan, some doctors ignore or overrule those preferences. "In other words, doctors are often more heroic than patients are," he says.
In a 2009 Urban Institute study, Berenson and his co-authors suggested a raft of ways to pay for health care reform. They estimated that the government could save $90 billion over 10 years, not by denying care but by better managing end-of-life care. That means helping terminally ill patients avoid futile treatment and manage their pain once they choose to stop treatment. It also means focusing on comfort and emotional support, not on exhausting every option technology offers.
Families, patients and doctors reach excruciating decisions every day about whether to extend treatment in the face of steep odds or to choose a less aggressive course. What families and patients decide is often guided not just by financial concerns, but by religious principles and deeply held moral beliefs.
The new rule changes none of that. But it does encourage doctors to open those tough conversations about death. To let patients know that they can largely control what is and is not done in the final days of their lives. That their families won't be forced to make agonizing decisions. That's a tremendous relief for many patients, and the families they leave behind.
Let me know what you think!
Apparently the reason for the slowdown of the plowing was to protest the idea that New York's union gravy train was having to come to a stop due to lack of funds. Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, was trying to make budget cuts that would save the city from insolvency. How horrible, I know.
a highlight passage from the article is this:
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
May all her predictions come true quickly.
Continuing to fight the good fight.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Even in faith based documents I find left wing lunacy, it seems. My fiancé just gave me a book with an article inside it entitled Jesus did not Speak English. My Loony senses went off almost immediately, and I delved inside, giving the article a read. From a purely faith based perspective, the article makes a good deal of sense. Until it actually starts talking about it’s intended subject matter, that is. What is that subject matter, exactly? Well, it’s illegal immigration. Yep. That’s right. Illegal immigration. Somehow, some way, the person that wrote this article equates the teachings of Jesus Christ with an open borders philosophy. How, you ask? Well, like most misguided souls who try to use scripture to make their point, he cherry picks the scripture he needs while completely ignoring common sense, as well as other, equally valid scriptural arguments.
Item one: he puts the caption “Jesus did not speak English” on a marquee outside the church she goes to. Several comments that graced his mail after that included remarks about how obvious it was that the Savior of course didn’t speak English, given that English was not yet a language. Apparently he didn’t realize at the time that people might misconstrue his message’s intent, which was that Jesus didn’t speak English, and therefore he wouldn’t have persecuted illegal immigrants because of their own inability to speak it. What?
Item 2: The people who complained apparently did so because they wanted to perpetuate some myth about Jesus speaking English and agreeing with their way the world worked. That in and of itself is somewhat ludicrous, since the world didn’t work the same way in the first century that it now works in the 21st. Sure, the basics are the same, but all the complexities are different. Anyway, on with my point. He bases this assessment on absolutely nothing, implying, in my view, that people who believe in Jesus automatically believe that he was whatever ethnicity the individual complainer was, spoke English, and believed everything that that individual believed and nothing else. And of course, no evidence to support this crackpot theory, either. Oy.
Item 3: The cherry picked Scripture quotes. You knew they were coming. Second column of the first page of the article brings up the idea of persecuting the stranger, which is what appears to be the crux of the article. She makes reference to the Israelites, specifically:
Exodus 23:9: You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34: the alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 24:17: You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice.
Icing on the cake is Matthew 25:43: I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me.
For those who are unaware, Exodus and Leviticus both deal specifically with the Jews and their time in the desert after Moses led them out of Egypt. God is warning the Israelites in that verse that they were once strangers, and so had better not treat other strangers the way Pharaoh treated them. Good advice, but last time I checked it isn’t the same thing as dissolving a nation’s borders and allowing any Tomas, Ricardo and Enrique to come in without learning their motives.
The article goes on to state the obvious, telling readers that already believe in God that he is the God of Creation, and therefore everyone on the planet is a brother or sister in Christ. Of course they all are! In his assessment, though, the pastor neglects to mention yet another piece of Scripture, dealing specifically with the division of responsibilities and reverence concerning God and man. Namely, “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.” Last time I checked, nations had a responsibility to police their borders and keep an eye on who comes in here. At least, every other country in the world seems to be able to police their borders without getting flak for being racist. Having an official language does not mean you have an inherent dislike towards outsiders. Having an official language, in fact, would make things easier to communicate because EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE!!! Why is that so difficult for “open borders” types to understand?
The pastor even acknowledges in the article that “government runs more efficiently if our law, rules, and regulations are effectively communicated.” Great. I agree. Unfortunately he ruins it by saying in the same breath: “Why would we hamstring our elected leaders by requiring that they act as if a language barrier did not exist?” What? When did wanting an official language for the country equate to ignoring the fact that a language barrier existed? If we were doing that, why would we have implemented the Ellis Island program a hundred years ago? If we were truly ignoring a language barrier, we wouldn’t bother even letting these people in the country in the first place! We’d just seal off the borders and force people to cross illegally (which they already do anyway, btw).
Another question I have is this: Why, as the article implies in its attitude, is enforcing immigration law automatically lumped in with a lack of hospitality? People who are here illegally have shown us what they think of our country’s laws by BREAKING THEM! Why are we not allowed to be more like Joe Arpaio in Arizona and enforce our immigration laws? Mexico has downright draconian laws. Laws so fiercely enforced that the flow of South American illegals is significantly less than that of Mexico itself, largely because the SAs are afraid of being caught by the Federales!
Basing an argument entirely on faith is doomed to failure, as this one was. Not that I have anything against the priest, mind you, but come on! We can’t enforce our border laws because to do so would be un-Christian? What if a terrorist with a dirty bomb slipped in and blew up a school full of Catholic kids? Would that make the guy change his mind? I certainly hope so!
Well, this marks the first ever official Motivation Monday. And having the honor of gracing the first ever post for this is Gina Corano, in a photo from her Maxim spread from a while back. Enjoy.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.
Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.
Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?
The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.
God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.
Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:
- Think of end-of-life counseling from the Obama White House as carrots dangled in front of doctors, financial "incentives" for doctors to discuss “options” for end-of-life care. As stated in the NYT, that may "include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," or a continuance of Obama's "take this pill and go home" solution to medical costs.
- Under this new regulatory regime, doctors could ostensibly be the pawns of cost-curve-bending bureaucrats. To put this into perspective, ponder a Greece-like meltdown of our financial system/government in the future and the way then that these rules would be implemented. Better yet, think of this amount of power held in the wrong hands. How would the elderly be "counseled" during a time of national crisis? Moral hazard? Who determines that doctors have pure motives, instead of purely financial motives as they counsel in end-of-life situations?
- Team Obama (has again) done a complete 180 degree turn on the American people, going behind the back of both the American public and the Democrat-controlled Congress that took the death panel language out the legislation due to public outcry.
- Obama has been able to insert the death panel regulations due to the ambiguous "the Secretary shall determine" language that appears five times in the final 2000 page Senate version of Obamacare giving the "Secretary" (in this case, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius) the ability to implement (at their discretion) such a rule. The end-of-life regulation was finalized in November, brought to light the day after Christmas, and takes effect January 1, 2011. How's that for transparency, hope and change?
- The regulation is yet another example that Obamacare is simply the skeleton template of socialized, government-run health care. As Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection states, "Obamacare simply is the infrastructure. The details and the demons will be worked out in regulations." The end-of-life regulation is such a detail and demon.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Enter two friends of mine who attend the United Methodist Church here in Roseville, California. They invited my fiance and me to their Christmas Eve service, which we've just returned from, and I'm still aglow with the injection of faith I received by being around others who believed as I did, that Jesus Christ was born to save the world from its own sins, and that those who accepted Christ into their hearts would join him and his Father in Paradise.
Obviously, this proved to be just the prescription I needed to shed a good deal of the poison I'd been ingesting in the form of "all politics all the time." unfortunately this meat also hearing about the constant attacks on people of faith by those who don't believe, and even some who do. Needless to say, a steady stream of negative stories concerning your core beliefs can wear away at your resolve.
And yet, like the cavalry arriving at the last reel of an old "cowboys and Indians" flick, I was rescued not by soldiers on horses, but by songs of praise for the Son of God. Hearing "Angels we have Heard on High", "Oh Come all Ye Faithful", and other spiritual tunes filled me with the holiday cheer that, despite my efforts to spread it here in various other posts, I wasn't feeling very much of. Fortunately, that's changed, just in time for Jesus's birthday. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best Christmas gift of all: learning and relearning the real reason we celebrate this day and being able to fully appreciate it as a result.
That said, I will once again be delving into the poisonous realm of politics once the holiday season is over, as the bad doesn't go away just because you've been exposed to the good. However, I think I'll be able to go through it now with a more open perspective. I've always been a big picture guy, but I think for a while now I've been missing the REAL big picture: This life only matters for as long as it lasts. Eternity is forever.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
So here's a special thinks to the following:
Left Coast Rebel
The Other McCain
Little Miss Atilla (traffic just started coming in from her site)
And all those on my tin-foil-hat-wearer list.
Merry Christmas to all of you, and may you all be safe this Christmas season!
As a bonus, here's some Ashlie Hartman Cheesecake, pursuant of McCain's Rule Number Five:
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
So there I was, driving along to my weekly game of Pathfinder (I'm a tabletop role-player better known to normal folk as a "geek", and have been since high school) and I suddenly notice that the gauge on the dashboard that monitors radiator heat decided to tilt a little further to the right than I'm comfortable with. After a few minutes of praying that it would go back down, I realized soon that such a thing was not going to happen and had to pull over several times to let the stupid thing cool down. Having been through four other vehicles that had this problem, I realized that there was a big problem coming down the pike. So, after that little bit of drama, I decide to turn around and go home before something bad happens. Too little, too late it would seem.
I stalled on the road at the corner of Stanford Ranch and Sunset in Rocklin, fortunately right near a 7-11 where I could get to a phone right away. I called the better half and told her what happened, then the tow truck and at least managed to get home safely.
The major problem now is that I don't have a car that can reliably transport me to where I need to go. However, there are a few bright sides to this whole dust up.
1. I now am limited in how I can spend my money, thus allowing me to focus on paying down necessary credit card bills, since I no longer have to buy gas, oil, radiator coolant, or any such thing until such time as the car either gets fixed or is replaced. The latter option of those two is more likely, I think.
2. Work isn't a problem, since my co-workers have my back and are willing to transport me to and from.
3. Still don't have to miss the Pathfinder game, since those friends of mine are also willing to pick me up.
4. I made it home safe and sound and am fully capable of getting through this, as it's nothing I haven't been through before.
But just because I'm looking on the bright side doesn't mean I'm not going to need cheering up, so in an effort to cheer myself up, I'm posting this pic of Lucy Pinder.
Apparently though, fate conspires against me even as I attempt to make the most of a bad situation. Now I'm forced to use my fiance's laptop rather than my own, because now my ADAPTER has given up the ghost. Or rather, the connector attachment has. If I had a replacemet there would be no problem, but I don't. Alas.
This promises to be an excellent Holiday season...
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Well, I just got hit with a nice surprise. My page views have doubled since I started posting pics of such babe-i-licious figures as Autumn Reeser, Gemma Atkinson, and the extremely blessed Lucy Pinder. Since several dozen more of you seem to be interested, here's another screen shot of Autumn, Gemma, and Lucy. More babes to come in future, loyal readers.
Yeah, okay, so I lied about not posting any more rule 5 pics until next week. When you see Lucy Pinder, though, can you blame me? The other chick's not bad, either.
Monday, December 20, 2010
In fact, since I'm restricted as far as politics and don't really feel like cheapening this post with pictures of scantily clad women, maybe I should do something I don't normally do and get a little personal. After all, not many of you know a lot about me, since I haven't exactly been forthcoming, so here goes:
Being born in a small town in Nevada, I was one of those "small town" kids. Carson City, back then, was a "blink and you'll miss it" type of town, despite being the capitol of the Silver State. It still is, but it's fast becoming a "blink and you MIGHT miss it" type of town.
My childhood I won't get into too much, since it was pretty typical. I went to school, had friends, was made fun of for various stupid things, played outside, and such things. Nine years old saw me move to what I would later learn was the liberal bastion of idiocy known as California. Back at that age, however, I didn't care a whit for political parties, voting, or anything of the sort given that I couldn't vote. I've lived here ever since, now residing in Roseville and blogging about various subjects when outraged, incensed, or just plain bored.
And that's me in a nutshell. If you'd like to know more, the comment section is wide open for such questions.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Once again I make an attempt to abide by Stacy McCain's Rule #5. this time two photos for your viewing pleasure. One of the sizzling Gemma Atkinson (Above), and the other a wallpaper of the mouthwatering Autumn Reeser (Right).
Yeah, I know. Men are pigs, and I apparently am no exception. Then again, last I checked, looking at beautiful women isn't a crime.
I'm not usually a practitioner of Robert Stacy McCain's Rule Number Five, but I figure what the hell? It can't hurt the traffic at the site, and who knows? Maybe it'll do for me what it's done for McCain, as well as USA Admiral and his Friday pin ups. So here goes. First on my list of Rule Five candidates, the smoldering hot bit of loveliness known as Gemma Atkinson.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
That being said, my grandmother was diagnosed with late onset breast cancer a few months ago. She's going through Chemotherapy and radiation to stave it off, and it appears to be working. It helps that she's been something of a health nut all her life and regularly exercised and took care of herself, so the prognosis looks good. However, it also reminds me that she won't be around forever. As much as that pains me, I can't bring myself to look toward that bleak future where I won't have my grandmother to visit in December.
I was looking for a vid to post in conjunction with my new holiday theme when I remembered one of my favorite Christmas tunes, sung by Perry Como. I'll let the music speak for itself.
"Pooh-pooh to the Whos!" he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Christmas is coming!
"They're just waking up! I know just what they'll do!
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
"Then all the Whos down in Who-ville will all cry BOO-HOO!"
"That's a noise," grinned the Grinch,
"That I simply must hear!"
So he paused. And the Grinch put a hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow...
But the sound wasn't sad!
Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so!
But it WAS merry! VERY!
He stared down at Who-ville!
The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook!
What he saw was a shocking surprise!
Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any presents at all!
He HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
And what happened then...?
Well...in Who-ville they say
That the Grinch's small heart
Grew three sizes that day!
And the minute his heart didn't feel quite so tight,
He whizzed with his load through the bright morning light
And he brought back the toys! And the food for the feast!
The Grinch carved the roast beast!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
For information on the "holiday" called Kwanzaa, click here.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
I don't even know why I bother wasting a blog post on these degenerates. Protesting the funerals of our brave servicemen is bad enough. Now they're going to be shouting and screaming at the top of their lungs at the funeral of a woman who as far as I know never hurt a fly. Someone on high should really teach these hate-mongering idiots a lesson in manners. Lightning bolt style. Know what I mean?
Also, how in the hell do they know that God hates soldiers and America? What kind of God do they worship? The God I believe in never hated anyone in all his infinite existence.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
To her credit, at least Dowd isn't trying to sound fair while she does this. No, rather than try to come off as a model of journalistic integrity, she lets her rage against Palin show with little more shame than a flasher in Central Park, with a few anti-Palin jabs thrown in just for good measure. Not only that, but she tries to make another central figure in her column, a caribou, seem smarter than the person whom she hates so openly.
her central beef with Palin in this instance is the fact that, on her reality show, Palin said that her father taught her that if someone wants real organic food, they'd have to go out and hunt actual animals. Dowd somehow takes this and twists it as only a liberal demagogue can, saying that Palin was actually expecting Jane Everyman of Suburbia, USA to "load up on ammo, board two different planes, camp out for two nights with a film crew and shoot a caribou so she can feed her family organic food." Now, I could be wrong, but according to the column, Palin was, A: bringing to light a certain way of life for the people of Alaska, and B: saying that the so-called "organic" food you get at the supermarket isn't really as organic as they make it sound. Nowhere in that sentence was there any mention of an ordinary mom from California having to fly to the Arctic to shoot polar bears.
After this "stunning" display of analysis by Dowd, she launches then into her usual rhetoric insulting Dick Cheney's hunting ability and Palin's intelligence in general. Apparently Dowd thought that the fish Palin caught in the last episode of the show should have been sufficient enough to where she wouldn't have to go out and shoot the caribou at all. Does she not realize that people tend to eat three meals a day, seven days a week? The freezer was most likely running low on fish so she went out and shot some caribou to fill the space. Either that or she was just looking for a little variety in her meals.
Metaphor is clearly not Dowd's strong point either, as she goes from ranting about Palin to some sort of comparison between Palin, who represents republicans, taking shots at Obama the Caribou. What?! Could it be that Dowd has become yet more incoherent than she used to be? I believe that is indeed the case.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
This day was the day that America unified under the Stars and Stripes and swept forward like a cleansing tide and washed away the Nazi menace with nothing but American can-do optimism, a few rifles, tanks and planes, and a tenacity that is sorely lacking in today's wartime mentality. President Roosevelt, a man I disagree with on just about anything, was at least one thing that our current president is not: A leader. Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been a big government Progressive, but at least he didn't shy away when a threat shoved itself directly into his face.
Our current president is nothing more than a thin-skinned wannabe by comparison. Listen to some of his own speeches as compared to FDR. FDR did everything he could to make certain that the people were involved in the war effort as much as the soldiers on the front lines were. If you weren't fighting, you were growing a victory garden. If you weren't growing a victory garden, you were working in a factory. And if you weren't doing that, you were probably at least buying war bonds so that the troops could get the material they needed to fight back the Fascists.
We've been in Afghanistan for eight years now. Eight years. We beat the Nazis in half that time, but we can't seem to handle a few camel riders in caves who saber rattle more than they actually fight. Is this current strategy really the best America can do to combat the new menace that is Islamic terrorism? If our FDR wannabe would just acknowledge the real threat, it would go a long way toward finally stomping them out and bringing our boys home. But fat chance of that. That's like getting Hank Williams to admit that he was an alcoholic. Not likely to happen in the near future.
On this day, I would like to extend my thanks to the brave servicemen and women who hold the line against the invisible enemy. I would also like to apologize for the actions of those who wouldn't know gratitude if it bit them in the ass.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
That's not to say that I believe these families are necessarily corrupt in their dealings, but one cannot deny that their bank accounts carry a good deal of influence in certain circles. However, this idea that Meghan McCain is a blue blood because she's accomplished something is utterly ludicrous. Sure, she's had books released, and she writes for the Daily Beast (an aptly named paper for someone who writes nothing but snark), but let's be honest here: when did Meghan McCain last hold a REAL job? When did she last come home smelling like hamburger or, in the case of myself, complain about how many spiral bound notebooks she had to personally put together in an inordinately limited amount of time? Probably not for a while.
Put simply, Ms. McCain is the classic example of someone who should have a brain/mouth filter apparatus installed so that she can program her responses more carefully. For one thing, being insulted by the term blue blood without knowing what it meant (a fact she readily admits to in said column) isn't exactly something she would have advertised had she thought about what she was really saying. To my knowledge, the reason McCain has had her education and has the money she has is because of Daddy Mac, not any of her own accomplishments, which to my knowledge consist of attacking Sarah Palin and flashing her rack all over the internet via Twitter.
In fact, if I were to compare Ms. McCain to a movie character, it would have to be the character Regina George, played by Rachel McAdams in the movie Mean Girls. My fiance and I just finished watching it last night before bed, and I couldn't help but notice that between her columns, snarky comments on late night TV, and other such "intelligent" musings from the daughter of our would-be president, that she was acting very much the part of the Plastics, most obviously their queen bee, Regina George. All she needs now is some sort of Burn Book wherein she keeps all the made up secrets and lies about people who have either wronged her or been wronged by her over the years, whether the wrongs done be real or falsified.
And with that, I think I've run out of things to rant about concerning the Blond Bimbette. I apologize to any readers who feel their time was wasted by my ramblings. Guess this is what happens when you come across a slow news week.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
While I was cleaning up at work (that thing liberals hate so much) just before leaving, I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show for background noise and possible fuel for a post, when sure enough, inspiration came along. His topic, as it has been across the radio spectrum for the last few weeks, ever since the historic win by Republicans in November, was the Bush tax cuts, and whether or not they'd be allowed to sunset at the end of the year, as is the hope of damn near every Democrat in congress, and even a few outside the beltway. During his latest monologue on why they should be allowed to continue and/or be made permanent, I hit on what I now believe to be the real, or at least A real, motivation for those on the left: Revenge.
I believe that revenge is a principle motivator for the left for a variety of reasons. First, listen to all their talk about the so-called "rich". Just today, on the same radio show I mentioned above, a sound bite was played of Nancy Pelosi's vehement dislike of the idea of keeping the tax cuts in place for those making over 250,000 a year. After hearing that, I asked myself "why on Earth are the left so insanely jealous of those people with money? Why are they playing the class warfare card almost as much as they play the race card?" I came upon the answer after a few seconds of thinking about the ideals of one Karl Marx.
Marx, all throughout the Communist Manifesto, does one thing consistently: He vilifies the rich. The left, these days, and ever since the early days of Progressivism in the early 20th century, has been looking for someone to blame. They've been looking for someone, in short, to take REVENGE on for their own inability to rise above the problems that face each and every one of us. If it's not the rich, it's the insurance companies. If it's not the insurance companies, it's the banks. If it's not the banks, it's the American taxpayer.
Hillary Clinton can even be quoted saying that then-President George Bush was too concerned with his "tax cuts for the rich" than he was about getting enough swine flu vaccine to the American people. When Pelosi addressed the tax cuts a year ago, she couldn't blame Bush, since he was out of office, so she blamed the private sector instead.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the left always believes that everything is someone else's fault. doesn't sound like much of a headline for an epiphany, but hear me out. The question now becomes "WHY do these people always seek to blame someone else for problems that, often, they are the ones that they caused?"
On some level, these nimrods think they've been personally wronged. Real or imagined, it's not exactly rocket science once the pieces start to fit together. Every argument the left has is based on the fact that the rich somehow "stole" money from the poor, and are thus greedy bastards who deserve to "pay their fair share"in order to help the poor get a leg up and succeed. It's all about taking revenge on the rich for the crime of being successful.
Of course, with my luck, someone's already thought of this and I'll get no credit for coming to this incredibly intellectual conclusion.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
That's right, boys and girls, ladies and germs. The oh-so-touted food safety bill that would have given the FDA even more power over what we can and cannot eat has been sent back to chambers where it will, as most bills do when sent that way, most likely die a horrible, yet well-deserved death in the reconvened committee. I call this a definite win for the Limited Government team. Granted it is just one bill amidst a slew of others, but still, something about seeing such tyrannical measures defeated fills me with a bit of hope, and as we all know since the election of The Anointed One, that's been in a bit of short supply.
According to sources, the bill will likely be "blue slipped" by House Ways and Means Committee Dems, who seem to be now in the midst of a power struggle with their Senate counterparts. This is, I seriously doubt, the way that Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry Reid imagined the reception of the bill going down. If Reid is smart, he'll let the matter drop. If he's not, and I'm more and more sure by the day that he isn't, he'll bitch and moan and cry until either the bill is ramrodded through, dies, or the lame duck session ends, whichever comes first.
See the actual entry at Patriots for more on this rather uplifting outcome.
Let's teach our kids that second verse, shall we? At the very least it'll make liberal heads explode!