Government Health Care: An Oxymoron, as Again Shwon By Government Administration of Military Health Care

"Military intelligence" is perhaps the most famous "example" used to "explain" what an oxymoron is. A little unfair, and I think (as a person who served in the army) that the more accurate cliche' is: "There is the right way. There is the wrong way. And then there is the army way."


It turns out that "military health care", ore "government health care", is the true oxymoron.


Yes, an item of news today was that the military health care system, run by the government, is FAiLING--failing in the sme sort of way you can expect a new government health care overhaul to fail.


Military personnel and their families are unable to get appointments without long delays. Further, 1/3 of all miliary health care is being provided by PRIVATE health care providers.


Actually, even when I was in the army, and afterward when I represented military personnel stationed at Ft. Bliss, the government has NEVER been confident in its ability to provide complete medical services to military personnel and their dependents. The government has ALWAYS used the private health care system as a backstop.


That is pretty much true of Medicare and Medicaid, in the sense that the government gets away with a certain amount of intolerable pressure on "costs", because the private providers of health care can try to make it up with highter fees for services NOT limited by Medicaid or Medicare rules. Notice that if the government pretty much takes over all health care, which IS the goal of Obama and leftist Democrats, the private outlet for mitigating problems with the government will not longer exist. We will ALL be at the mercy of the government, and we can ALL expect reduced care, higher costs, and intolerable delays.


Multiple items of news this week have again proven that this will be the case.

"Cash For Clunkers": "Clunker Federal Government Proves Again That It Is Incapable of Handling Health Care

You know the poem by Elizabeth Browning: "How do I love thee, let me count the ways". Well, let us COUNT the ways in thich this "cash for clunkers" Federal program proves the defects of central planning, and that the Federal Government is not capable of cnetrally planning this economy, or any major part of it (like health care):


1. Whatever you call it, you know the misbegotten program--that idea of distorting the car free market by "giving" $4500.00 credit to every person able to "trade in" a clunker. Well, after a mere four days, the program was such a complete mess that it has had to be suspended. First, the COST is already out of control, as--which everyone but the people who passed this absurdity knew would happpen--"clunkers" appeared out of the woodwork (or junkyards or whereever). Do you really believe that the Federal Government can really estimate the COST of the proposed health care bill when they can't even come close on the cost of something so apparently simple as this "clunker" of a progrram? Of course you don't believe that the government can accurately estimate the cost, and you are right. They will, 100% guaranteed, UNDERESTIMATE the costs.


2. The government could not even devise rational "regulations" for this supposedly "simple" program, and was CHANGING the "regulationis" on the fly. There were even reports of car dealers having to CANCEL deals already made, because of changing regulatons. Could you tow a car in? Did you have to have any "clunker" licensed and insured for the entire previous year? What kind of "clunker" did it have to be? Gas guzzler? Age? Did every single clunker really have to be DESTROYED within 48 hours? How? Think of the MCUH more complicated questions in any health care program, and you should feel like a shadow has passed over your grave. Once the Federal Government has dominant control of health insurance and health care, you are at the mercyof people who cannot even handle this clunker of a program.


3. Wehn Federal money is available, people are going to try to take advantage of it--some probably in violation of the intent of the program. Was this happening with the already suspended "clunker" program? Of course it was. And even if people are just trying to legitimately take advantage of what they war supposedly "entitled" to, theyWILL (rightly) feel that they should get what they are promised. Transfer this to health care. Will not everyone and his brother be trying to get in on the Federal health care money? Of course they will, and that is only the providers AND bureaucrats, "consultants", etc. The PEOPLE will suddenly want to get their money's worth--especailly if subsidized, by bringing their "clunker" of a body in for as much health care as they can get (before their rights are "suspended"). This is all as certain as death and taxes, and we can't afford it. Further, it is the MOST wasteful way to provide heealth care, and the most infuriating (in terms of having to deal with all of those--changing--Federal regulations).


4. Who says that some people (taxpayers) should pay for a good part of the price of a car for someone else? Yes, this IS a pretty effective, SHORT TERM, "stimulus". It is not much different that simply giving people $4500.00, beyond the annoyance of having to figure out a way to find a "clunker" to trade in (which also fits the "regulations"). WHY is it again that people are supposed to pay for the health care insurance of NON-POOR people? Remember, actual poor people have Medicaid and Medicare (which have their own problems).


5. Did Congress, and the Federal administrators of this "clunker" program, have any idea of the real effect of the program? It is obvious they did not, and yet they are now perhaps STUCK with continuing the program (or face ANGER). Once the government starts down the road of dominating all health care, and health care insurance, in this country, is there any (non-painful) way back? Of course there is not. That is why it should be done, if at all, on a STATE level, where there usually IS a way back. That is where the costs are also more obvious, and whre the people have more say and control when things start going wrong.


6. Did all of this mess really "save" energy, and "help" the environment? Was it ever MEANT to, or was it jsut one of those bribes for votes in which Congress has now become expert? I leave you to answer those questions on your own. You can't answer them wrong, unless you lie to yourself, or work for the Associated Press. Similarly, will furter Federal control of health care and health insurance really "improve" health care in this country? Not a chance.


7. Think of the poor dealers, and ultimately mabye even the car manufacturers. Firstt, they have to deal with Federal regulatioins they have no chance of understanding in advance, and then with ANGRY customers who don't understnad why they can't get simple answeres and consummate the transaction they thought was PROMISED to them. THEN, the program is SUSPENDED, as all of these customers try to take advantage of it. I actually pity the poor car dealers, and I was never overly fond of car dealers (one of the groups of people I used to sue fairly regularly in my former life as a lawyer). Then you have the ARTIFICIAL acceleration of demand. Yes, this actually "stimulates", in the short term (as did those checks last summer, which had no lasting benefit), but the sales are ROBBED FROM PETER TO PAY PAUL--robbed from later sales (except to the extent that many people may suffer predation from being pushed into vehicles they cannot really afford, even with the credit). Once the program ENDS, so do the car sales. What if car manufacturers have been misled as to demand because of this ARTIFICIAL, short term demand, or by the inevitable Wall Street/AP "news" that car sales are WAY UP (DUH!!!, but not real demand--purchased demand which cannot continue and itself short circuites any real recovery).


7. Dave Ramnsey advises people to CUT DEBT, starting with owing a "clunker" until you can really afford something better. Is not the government itself UNDERMINING all of the good Dave Ramsey is trying to do? Yes, this is that absurd conflict I have pointed out before between the government advice to SAVE, and live within your means while cutting debt, and the exact opposite advice to SPEND to help the economy. And NONE of it is REAL.. The government is distorting the market, ao that it is government action that is controlling everyone's lives. That will be true, in spades, with a health care takeover.


Enough. If you do't get the point by now, you never will. This "clunker" of a program (not well thought out or well administered) is a microsocosm of the FATAL defects of central planning. These defects are both from expereince, and in theory. Central planning not only does not work, but it CANNOT WORK.


You see wahy I am a pessimist. We really are the Titanic headed for an iceberg, and I am fairly certain we can no longer avoid the iceberg.

The Economy: Not Good and with NO Evidence Yet of a "Real" Recovery

"(Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed."


Did you think my angry reaction to the HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media (see previous entry) was over-the-top? Don't ever doubt me! Read the above, and then read again the first paragraph of that mainstream media story from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press". I don't think I was harsh enough. Yes, the above is the first paragraph of the Bloomberg (hardly a conservative outlet) presently linked on Drudge.


I ask you again: When the base is this LOW, is a CONTRACTION of 1%, WITH STIMULUS, "good" "news". Of course, it is nost. Messsage to AP and rest of mainstream media: Do you get an inkling of why I hold you in nothing but utter, complete CONTEMPT. Yes, if I did not have a policy, which everyone should adopt, of LYIIG to pollsters, I wuld tell any pollster that I hold you in MORE contempt than I hold Nancy Pelosi (who is mentally handicappted). I can so worse of no one.


Yes, I am perfectly aware that these statistics can all be "spun". It is ME that told YOU, in foresight rather than hindsight, that Rush Limbaugh was making a terrible mistake keying his criticism of President Obama on stock market performance--stating almost directly that the stock market is "expert" in "predicting" and "evaluating" future economic performance. Never has Rush Limbaugh been so wrong, and I would respect him more if he admitted so on this one. Instead, he has shown an Obama-l;ike ability to forget what he said two months ago. I was right then, and am right now, when I tell you the stock market computer gamers act on hype and spin, and that what happens in the stock market (at a HIGH October of 2007 right before the slow motion CRASH) has nothing at all to do with economic reality. That may always have been true, but it has now become a religion for the computer gamers of Wall Street (the Stupidest People on Earth, after excluding the mainstream media and similar thinking leftists).


That merely makes my point. The AP story (see again previous entry) was nothing but SPIN . "News" had nothing to do with it. It was propaganda, pure and simnple. The Bloomberg story may have some spin in it, but I would submit it is a more neutral analysis thatn that of the hypocritical propagandists in the AP. Drudge's choice to headline the Bloomberg story, while showing a completely correct knowledge of the uselessness of the despicable AP, surely represents a "political" type choice by Drudge. But it is the sanctimonous HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media who like to PRETEND--still, long after such dishonesty has become beyond contempt--that they do not "spin" their "news".


Key proble, and I have given you an accurate picture of it: A way out of the hole we have dug ouselves into is NOT "visible". We may have purchased an "easing" of the free fall, but the AP LIES when it implies that the recession is definitely behind us. It does not even matter if the recession is "over". What matters is whehter we can RECOVER.


My brother, the former owner of that trucking company, has many contacts in the financial and business community. He says there is universal agreement that we are NOT going to recover strongly if at all, and that the present "signals" are merely seasonal and the resutl of all of that government money being pumped into the economy (just like last summer). In fact, my brother said that a banker familiar with the present thinking of major financial people says that we will not "recover" from this recession for AT LEAST four years. That is NO typical of most recoveries, and the worry is that it won't happen at all--that we will sink into the type of long-term morass that occurred in the Great Depression. It is hard to say how we have not mortgaged any possible recovery by present policies--making INFLATION and HIGH INTEREST RATES inevitable the MOMENT a real "recovery" seems in propspect. The stock market is simultanesouly predictiing this AND a "good" economy . Did I tell you Wall Street people are STUPID?


Coud I do better in writing "neutral" "news"? Damn right I could That, however, is not my "job". Unlike leftists, and SOMETIMES Rush Limbuahgh, I am honest with you, and do my best not to be inconsistent. But I refuse to do the jopb of the AP for it by rewriting their propaganda. Now if they would pay me to do it............ Or if Yahoo would pay me to do it to keep from being associated with evil...............

The Economy: Media Sex, Lies and Videotape (Anti-American, Despicable AP Strikes Again--Through Yahoo, Fellow Traveller in Evil)

"WASHINGTON – The economy sank at a pace of just 1 percent in the second quarter of the year, a new government report shows. It was a better-than-expected showing that provided the strongest signal yet that the longest recession since World War II is finally winding down."


The above is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference to the "news" organization as to which there is no worse news organization in this, or any other, universe--because it is flatly impossible to be worse).


Do you realize that the above is a LIE--an out-and-out LIE. Yeds, the mainstream media has now gotten so bad that they are having orgasms over their own LIES!!!!! That is where the "sex" in the headline comes in. The "vidoetape" comes in by flashing back to LAST SUMMER, when the despicable, evil, hypocrites at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media--not to mention Democrats--were saying that we were "in a recession" even though the economy GREW at more than 1%. I tell you. These are the worst hypocrites--the most sanctimonious, evil people--to ever walk the Earth on two legs--putting Neanderthal Man in the comparison sampple, as usual, in order to be complete.


Yous say that last summer was an ILLUSIION created by last summer's STIMULUS? In a way, your are right. WHAT ABOUT THIS SUMMER? The government, in actions which will SHORT CIRCUIT any "recovery--has simply THROWN MONEY, inefficiently, into the economy. That was bound to stop the free fall (for awhile, while aborting any recovery). It did. AND IT WAS EXPECTED TO. Do you realize that that AP junk about "better than expected" is a LIE? There may have been some forecasts out there that the GDP would do worse, but in fact EVERYONE was expecting improvement in the gDP this quarter. The actual number is WORSE than "manYy" forecasters were expecting--both pubclicly and privately Drudge had a headline this morning: "Economy 2X Worse". Drudge, as usual, is more right than the despciable, hopeless AP (and rest of mainstream media.


With stimulus, the economy GREW last summer (GDP GREW), to AP headlines that 1% was not "real" growth. With stimulus, the economy has CONTRACTED in this second quarter. It GREW in TWO consecutive quarters last year, when the mainstream media was bad mouthing it--calling it a "recssion". HYOCRITES. ISHONEST. I can't tell you how much contempt I have for these people. If you work for the AP, and stay working for the AP, you are an EVIL person (okay, in a recassion that may be a LITTLE harsh.)


Do you realize that this time the economy CONTRACTED, WITH "STIMULUS"? The mainstream media, in total porpaganda mode, is spinning this as "good" "news". LOL. See the next entry as to how the government is BUYING a rise in GDP (notice that "cash for cliunkers" program), and was STILL unable to buy even a flat GDP. This is FAILURE--not success. Worse, the government has made it impossible for the economy to truly "recover". Yes, the recession is "easing", as it was bound to "ease" (whort term) with all of this money being pumped into the econmy, albeit in the worst and most inefficeint way possible. But this "easing" has been PURCHASED ON CREDIT, and that (as Dave Ramsey says fro personal finances) is DISASTER for the future. With all of the promises Obama has made, and the Democrats made for their "stimulus", this is BAD "news"--not "good" "news" in any sense.


What happens when we SOP "purchasing" (with printed money) this "improvement" in GDP? Right. COLLAPSE. Worse, what happens if we don NOT stop purchasing improvement in GDP? Right. COLLAPSE. we have put ourself in a hole from which there is no escape, without major pain, and The President and Congress are trying to dig that hole DEEPER (health care "overhaul", "cap and trade", etc.).


Nope. ONly the HYPOCRITES--stupid hypocrites--at the AP, and in the rest of the mainstream media, could react so differently based solely on who is in office, and their own agenda.


For any leftists out there who say that "optimism" is a GOOD thing, because it will help us "recover", I have only one message for you sanctimonious HYPOCRITES: WHERE WERE YOU IN THE FIRST NINE MONTHS OF LAST YEAR? Democrats and the mainsteam media were, in fact, a major contributing cause of the collapse last lyear by continuyally TALKIND DOWN an economy which was still growning (slowly). Then Bush and Paulson PANCIKED (Did I not say I AM NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN!).


It is too late now to worry about "talking down" the economy. What we need now is to try to stop TOTAL RUIN. No, I don't care if that is the same ratinale for the Democrats, and mainstrea m medai, "talking down" the economy last year, and helping put us i this recession. They believed it was in the highter cause of "saving" the country from Bush.


The difference is that Bush was only "ruining" this country to the extgent he ADOPTED Democratic central planning ideas--including that bailout PANIC in October. Demomorats, with the aid of their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, have put the economy on the path to PERMANENT RUIN. There is no recovering, even now, without major pain. The deeper we dig the hole, the worse the ultimate pain will be. It is no longer a matter of trying not to hurt the economy by "bad mouthing" it. It is notw damage control--a matter of SAVING OUR COUNTRY AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT. The fact that Democrats believe--the leftist ones--think that "saving" our country means turnig it into a government controlled "paradise" of economic fascism is irrelevant. That man explain why Democrats continue to pursue policies that have never succeeded in the history of the world, and cannot succeed even in theory, but it does not change that leftist Democrats are simply WRONG. This GDP report certainly does not indicate otherwise.


Do you realize that the Great Depression "ran down"? With all of that government action by Roosevelt, we did not RECOVER from the Great Depression until World War II. That means that we bumped along the bottom for approximately the entire first two terms of the Roosevelt Administration (932-1940).


Will hisotry repeat, or will something worse than history happen? I vote for the latter, because we are going way beyond Roosevelt in this government takeover of our entire economy That will leave little private economy left to recover, and few private resources to finance any recovery.


I admit I am a pessimist here. I will accept criticism for that from people who are consistent optimists. I will NOT accept criticim on that from those mainstream media HYPOCRITES, and leftist HYPOCRTIES, who "bad mouthed" the economy for the entire Bush Administration Their actions show just how HYPOCRITICAL those people were, and are. Before they accuse me of "bad mouthing", they should look to themselves. I am convinced that many of them WANTED to depress the econmy to gain POWER. Contrary to a wrong impression you might get from some entries in this blog, I do NOT want the economy to fail. Rather, I simply want us not to ruin it.


If any of you think leftists are really interested in YOU, or the econmy, consider what they are willing to do to you in the anme of "global warming". They are willling to destroy what is left of our economy, in the name of that fraud of "global warming", and merely promis to have the government "save" people whose lives are ruined!!!!! It is really the same with health care (which we cannot afford to finance by the Federal Government at this time, even if it were not a bad idea anyway). These people believe in POWER. They do not belive in YOU or ME. They believe in CONTROL. They want to run your lives, and they could care less about a vibrant PRIVATE economy. In fact, they do hot WANT a vibrant, private economy. They would prefer a Soviet Union style universal misery (except for those in charge) to an economy with opportunity for private people to become wealthy by private effort.


Nope. I stand by what I say. These (leftists, including mainstream media people) are dishonest HYPOCRITES bringing this country to ruin.

President Obama: Bartender in Chief

No, the above headline is nt mine. It is the present Drudge headline (drudgereport.com).


I could not come up with a better caustic comment on that ridiculous "peace conference" between a police officer (Crowley) and Harvard professor (Gates)--absurdly hosted by the President of the United States--than the Drudge headline.


The Prsident should be ashamed to turn this kind of routine police action into something requiring an Arab-Israeli type "peace" summit. However, I am afraid this President has no shame on this kind of thing. See other entries this week. The mainstream meia definitely have no shame. To even "report" this with a straight face--much less give the kind of "analysis" given by the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (see yesterday's entry), is the kind of prostitution way below that of ordinary prostitutes.


That is why you gotta love Drudge. Drudge did NOT report this with a straight face, as is true of many of these stories worthy only of ridicule.

"Global Warming" and the St. Louis Cardinals: The Connection Exists (as Cardinals retool team and play great game against Dodgers)

You may think that my interest in baseball could never provide me information on the fraud of "global warming". WRONG.


I was listening to the Dodger broadcast of the St. Louis Cardinal game--great 15 inning game last night where Joe Torre mistakenly let Jeff Weaver pitch to Albert Pujols WITH THIRD BASWE OPEN in the last of the 15th inning--or maybe it was said during the rainout broadcast the previous night. The Dodger announcers were talking about how this has been the COLDEST July in St. Louis in some 66 years, and that farmers are upset. I was just in Boston, and my older daughter tells me Boston has been COLD.


Ye, I know that the Pacific Northwest has been hot, and the Southwest has been pretty warm including El Paso where I live), although not unusually so. But the fact remains that, overall, the United States IS NOT WARMING. Of course, the WORLD is no longer warming. But there NEVER WAS a warming TREND in the United States, where the warmest year since 1880 is 1936 (or maybe 1934, I sometimes misremember the exact year, and the 1930's dust bowl years were generally WARM), in a virtual tie with 2006. Since 2006, the United States has COOLED. See Michael Crichton's SOURCED chart in his eco-thriller, "State of Fear", for the chart proving it is a FACT (not a matter of opinion) that there has been NO consistent warming TREND in the United States for the entire recorded history of United States temperatures. In other words, as with Seattle and Boston this year, temperatures have gone up and DOWN since the beginning of temperature data, in the United States, WITHOUT A DISCERNIBLE TREND. Whether the United States is "warming" or "cooling" depends totally ON WHERE YOU START. If you start in 1536 or 2006, the United States is COOLING. In fact, since the warm year of 2006, there have been no significant warm years in the United States. Greenhouse gases, of course, have kept incrasing, even as the WORLD has stopped warming.


So much for the fraud of "global warming".


The St. Louis Cardinals NOW "look" like a playoff team, provided their pitching holds up. They have added Matt Holliday, and Mark DeRosa has started hitting home runs. Further, Ludwick has gotten hot. The Cardinals now probably have the best hitting team in the National League (the Phillies and Colorado might argue). The Cardinals have to now be regarded as a favorite to win the Central Divison, although the Cubs are showing signs of life. You will note that I have already been proven right (for now) about the Brewers. I wrote them off when they were still AHEAD of the Cubs and the Astros. As usual, I was right. The Brewers, unless they have added pitching, simply do not have the pitcing to make it to the playoffs (being in the position of the Cardinals of last year).


P.S. The addition of Matt Holliday, who has been hitting .500 in his brief time with the Cardinals, is the only excue for Joe Toree not walking Pujols last night. Yes, it was THIRD BASE that was open, with runners on first and second. But only ONE run matters, and third base truly represetned an open base. It is hard for me to believe that Torre would have let Weaver pitch to Pujols before the Cardinals acquired Holliday, even with Ludwick being hot and Pujols having been in soomewhat of a slump. Yes, things can happen with a runner at third bawe: walk, wild pitch, hit batter, infield hit, etc.). However, this is ALBERT PUJOLS we are talking about. The only way those risks of lputting a runner at third base come into play is if you think you are going to face a hitter fairly close to being as good as a Pujols trying to cmoe out of a slump. In my view, still a MISTAKE by Torre. However, I agree it is a close thing, and there is a case to be made that Toree knows more about baseball than I do (which does not change that managers and coaches make many inexplicable decisions that even they hafe trouble justifying--often to avoid the embarrassment of explaining why they put a player in a position to score on a wild pitch, etc., or whatever other embarrassment they are worried about explaining more than they are worried about texplaining something like pitching to Pujols).


P.S. 2: It may come down to the Cardinals and Cubs in the Central Division now. The Cardinals now appear to have enough to be there in the end, so long as Carpenter stays healthy and effective (a caveat that obviously applies to every team, in terms of what injury or fatigue can do to you). The Cardinals have an advantage of a number of off days from here on, limiting their exposure to current lack of an effective fourth OR fifth starter. I keep up with the Cubs less consistentlly, but they have obviously done well since the All Star break. Since it is something like 1908 since the Cubs have won it all, I would not BET on them being in the World Series--much less winning it. With the improvement in the Cardinal personnel, however, it may be only the Cubs that have a chance of staying with the Cardinals. Yet, the fact remains that no Central Division team has yet shown the ability to break decisively away from being a .500 level team. The Cardinals have been pretty much a .400 team since the break, losing even after adding significant hitting. The Cardinals lost 2 out of 3 to the Phillies, even after adding Holliday, and DeRosa home runs and the Ludwick hot streak have not kept the Cardinals from playig merely .500 ball since the break, despite winning three in a row over the Dodgers. Still, they now should at least be there in the end. We will see if the present success against the Dodgers means a jelling team about to reach its new potential as Pujols returns to being Pujols (while now being "protected" by hitters after him).

Race and the Despicable Associated Press (Through Yahoo): Mainstream Media Obsession with Race in America

"You can't solve a problem if you don't discuss it.
That's why some say that despite all the accusations and emotions hindering the resolution of the Henry Louis Gates Jr. imbroglio, there is opportunity for racial progress in President Barack Obama's "teachable moment" sitdown with Gates and Sgt. James Crowley.
"If nothing else, it's an important national symbol of a discussion that needs to be held," said Clarence B. Jones, once a confidant of Martin Luther King Jr. and author of "What Would Martin Say?"
"If it's just regarded as the president bringing two guys together to clear the air, then it's meaningless," said Jones. "But if it's really intended to say in effect to the country, 'Look, the difficulties that occurred here are really emblematic of deeper issues,' it can work."


The above is from the "Anti-American, Despibcable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference). It represents a "teachable moment" (the leftist "cover" term used by the mainstream media to try to "cover" for Obama for his incredible error in trying to make a national incident out of the minor, normal police incident in Boston--as used in the AP "analysis" and the headine on my Yahoo.com "welcome" screen, with Yahoo.com being another part of the mainstream media mentality reflected by AOL News in its capacity as my previous "welcome" screen). No, the "teachable moment" is NOT what the mainstream media wants to spin it to be. The "teachable moment" here is why the mainstream media is losing all contact with the American people, as reflected by their collapsing readership and viewership. For five years, this blog has done more to expose the day-to-day evil hypocrisy of the mainstream media than any other source I know. I have done so by often using the truly despicable leftists of the Associated Press as an example, citing chapter and verse of each story and "analysis".


If you want the true "analysis" of the Boston incident, and Obama's disproportionate reaction, see Monday's entry in this blog. This "teachable moment" is NOT about that directly, but about the leftist and media REACTION to that otherwise insignificant overreaction of a Harvard professor to police apparently trying to do their job.


For the despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media--not to mention President Obama--it is all about RACE. What kind of "discussion" do they want about this? Right. They don't want a real "discussion" at all. They want to label the United States as still a "racist" country that needs to face its "racism". They don't want to talk about the fact that the primary--the only systematic--racism in this country today is from LEFTISTS--including the mainstream media, President Obama, this Harvard professor, New Haven, and all of the rest. Those are the people who want to pigeonhole/identify people on the basis of the color of their skin.


Did you know that the original House Democratic draft of the famous/infamous health care bill containted a provision REQUIRING every medical school in this country to give a PREFERENCE to minority apllicants in order to receive government funds (which includes funds given to students in government aid, meaning that almost no school--outside of Hillsdale College and a few Christian schools--can afford to reuse to comply with this kind of government edict; and think about this when you consider whether the Federal Government should be allowed to take over health care in this country). Did the mainstream media, Obama, or the Democrats treat the New Haven firefighter case as a "teachable moment" about whether we should go to a color blind society? Not on your life (although Sotomayor at least PRETENDED to have learned something--often sounding like Scalia). Yes, the mainstream media is giving MUCH more attention to this minor Boston incident than it gave to the MUCH more significant case of the New Haven firefighters discriminated against because of the color of their skin> No call for "discussion" there!!!! As I have repeatedly said, no greater, and more sanctimonious, hypocrites have ever walked the Earth than today's mainstream medai.


As I said on Mnday, there main interest here is in covering Obama. Yes, their agenda is the same as Obama. For them, it is all about race, and the irredeemable stain of racial guilt that they believe has descended to every white American because of the previous treatment by OTHER white Americans of African-Americans in this country. For the, people ARE identified by their race, and it does not occur to these people to treat people as INDIVIDUALS deserving not to have the color of their skin determine their rights and repsonsibilities. Is THIS the "discussion" that the despicable AP is calling for? LOL. Hell will freeze over first.


Dirty little secret: The American people have gone BEYOND RACE (except as leftists refuse to let them). The election of President Obama goes a long way to prove this, but unfortunately goes a long way toward proving that the mainstream media and other leftists sill remain stuck in an obasession about race. That is how they viewed the election: ABOUT RACE. The rest of us, including MANY (most?) who voted for Obama, did not consider it about race at all. The mainstream media dimly recognizes that Obama made a bad mistake as to the Boston incident, but are incapable of recognizing that the American people have left them behind in terms of getting BEYOND RACE.


That is the "teachable moment" here. The mainstream media looked upon the election of Obama as not only a general mandate for extreme leftist policies, but as an indication that tje cpimtru wpi;d ise tje Age of Obama to wallow in its guilt about race. That is the problem. The American people generally are beyond race, or ready o go beyond race, but the left is keeping Afican-Americans mired in a racial spoils game (as they want to keep Hispanics and everyone else mired in the same game, as a matter of political power). Thus, African-Americans DID vote on the basis of race, to a large degree, in the last electioin, while white Americans did not. They, of course, had more excuse than white leftists and the mainstream media, but this idea that racial politics/obsesson HELPS African-Americans--at least at this point--is an EVIL idea.


This blog has shwon before that leftists have done more than any other group to DESTROY black Americans. Their policies have destroyed the black faminly. Some 72% (statistics like this are unreliable, but this is surely not far from the number) of African-Americans are born illegitimate. This disintegration of the black family is the direct result of leftist polcies and attitudes. Leftists seem to WANT black Americans to stay in poverty and despair. Their policies and propaganda would certainly be no different if that were there goal. It is MORE importtant for African-Americnas to get BEYOND RACE than it is for them to "expose" remaining white American "racism"--especially African-Americans need to get beyond nursing grievances against white America as the defining aspect of their lives. The mainstream media, and the left, will not LET African-Americans get beyond this, and the result is devastating to African-Americans--expeciallly poor African-Americans.


Nope. The mainstream media is totally out of ouch with Americans in general. This is not just true of race, but race is an illuminating exaple. Too bad Republicans (politician, establishment kind) are unwilling/unable to get in any better touch with the American people. We truly do need a "discussion" on geetting beyond race in this country.


We know the mainstream media has lost its soul, if it ever had one. If only the Repubican Party had not lost its soul too.

President Obama Adopts Michael Moore Approach to Health Care "Debate": President "Sicko"?

Yesterday, the mainstream media (carrying the water, as usual, for Obama) breathlessly reported that President Obama now had a "new message" on health care "refrom": This message is that people need the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to "protect" them from INSURERS.


Problem for Obama: The people realize that there is NO ONE to prtect them from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and that the Federal Government is much more powerful and dangerous than any mere insurer.


See my previious entry on the 10 minutes I saw out of Michael Moore's bitter, anti-American (as usual for Moore) movie, "Sicko" What Michael Moore did was describe the pressure MANAGED CARE put on doctors and patients to control costs. Yes, Moore was talking about private HMOs, because to Michael Moore "profit" is a dirty word. Moore despises his country, and he despises capitalism. The question is whether President Obama is any different, or is he just another "sicko" like Moore? The evidence certainly is that Obama does not believe in capitalism, and that he hates his own country. If you dobut the latter assertion, consider how often President Obama has felt it necessary to APOLOGIZE for the United States of America.


Mamcy Pelosi today took up the new, media coordinated, "message" that it is the EVIL INSURERS that are lying to people to sabotage the virtuous (hypocritical, lying, devious) Democrats merely tryig to give everyone cheap health care. The problem is that it is NOT the "insurers" who are "sabotaging" the public view of a Federal takeover of health care "insurance". The people KNOW that the Federal Government is going to INCREASE costs, and that the people are going to have to pay for it. They are going to have to pay for it with both MONEY (eventually), and with LESS CARE. And how can you argue that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats are not proposing a Federal takeover of health care MANAGEMENT, when they are TELLING YOU that they want to get rid of private insurers (those EVIL people, you know).


As I said with regard to MIchael Moore, what leftists are in fact proposing is the MOST MASSIVE, POWERFUL HMO THAT EVER EXISTED--an HMO which will eventually be your only choice. By this "new message, President Obama, Pelosi, and leftist Democrats are admitting that is exactly their goal. If you think it is bad dealing with an HMO trying to control costs for mere profit (where the "well care" to prevent disease FAILED to help HMOs control costs), then you ain't seen nothing yet. A massive Federal HMO, from which there will be no escape, will be the ultimate evil controlling your health care. And NO ONE will be able to protect lyou from those politicians and bureaucrats not interested in your health care, but only in advancing government power while controlling costs OVER THE DEAD BODIES OF PATIENTS. That is why it is so absurd for Obama, and Moore, to talk about "protecting" you from insurers, when they are proposing a takeover by people over whom you will have LESS control--people (the Federal Government) who will even be LESS interested in the problems of individual patients.


Let me make it perfectly clear (to quote one of Richard Nixon's favorite beginnings to a sentence): I HATE insurance companies (and banks). I was a plaintiff's attorney for 30 years, and one of my favorite things was SUING an insurance company (matched only by suing a bank). I did this many times, as well as dealing with insurance companies providing liablity coverage for other people and businesses I sued. I have found insurance company people and bank people (a generalization with obvious exceptions) to be DUMB AND HOPELESSLY BUREAUCRATIC.


You know who I found to be MORE dumb and hopelessly bureaucratic than insurance companies and banks? Right. GOVERNMENT. And it was not even close. Dealing with insurace companies was a picnic compared to dealing with government. That was true even of state and local government. However, it was especailly true of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is simply impossible to deal with the Federal Government. Even Federal laws and regulatiions are impossible to understand. That was my experience as a practicing attorney, and I believe it is the experience of most people (whatever job they are in).


This is the problem Obama, Moore, and leftist Democrats have: The people generally KNOW that it will be a BAD thing for the Federal Government to take over management of their health care. They KNOW that it will be the most massive, bureaucratic, controlling HMO of all time. They KNOW that they will not like it. Even Thomason General Hospital, the local COUNTY HOSPITAL, has come out in opposition to the proposed health care plan (at least elements of it) as being a DISASTER for this country hospital (which already is forced to provide much free care to illegals, among others. The STATES will be forced to share in the cost. The people KNOW that they are on the Titanic, heading for an iceberg, with this proposed Federal "overhaul" of our health care "system" (one of the big pluses of which is that it is NOT a central planning "system", but a collection of many options and alternatives).


The people are just uncertain whether this juggernaut can be stopped. As stated, they KNOW it will be bad. But they elected all of these people unwilling to see reality--including Repubicans (most of them) who seem to accept the idea that the FEderal Government MUST do a massive "reform" of healthcare (damn the deficit, which Repubicans apparently do not really oppose). Health care in this country is NOT "broken". It is working pretty well. The idea that it is not working perfectly merely states what will always be true. There is no such thing as a perfect system. What we need to do is avoid RUINING the very good "system" that we have, in the quest for an illusory perfection.


Thus, and you will not hear this from ANY Repubicans, and few conservatives, the FIRST three options here are to: DO NOTHING, DO NOTHING, and DO NOTHING. The next option is to make clear that the states need to come up wth their own "solutioins", including insurance regulations, etc. The states are perfectly capable of doing this, except that on a state level ("pay as you go"), it quickly becomes apparent that government control/takeover is a BAD, costly thing. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and you leftists out there, I accuse you of trying to DECEIVE on costs by using the Federal Government as a massive vehicle to do what has FAILED on a state level--even though it will be a BIGGER ultimate failure on a national level.


Are Republicans really saying this should be left to states to appproach in different ways (where you can move to another state if you dislike Kal-ee--foornia)? Not a chance. Are Republicans saying that we should at least DO NOTHING until the deficit is under control, and the recession history? Not a chance. In fact, Repubilcans want to ADD Federal control to a health care bill with NATIONAL TORT REORM. Is thaere any reason states cannot do their own tort reform? Nope. Texas has dones so, and I have supported most of the legislation (even when it was against my economic interest, as a former plaintiff's attorney). There is NO reason for CENTRAL PLANNING on medical malpractice. Medicine is really one of our MOST LOCAL industries. Insurance compnaies have long been regulated by the states. There is really just as much "reason" for national worker's compensation laws, or national murder laws, as there is for a natiional takeover of either health care OR health care tort law. The states are better equipped to avoid being a massive HMO out of all control--both as to "management" and cost.


Now I may have succeeded in annoyin both lefitsts (who I do my best to annoy daily) and conservatives (who I do not deliberately try to annoy), with the above last few paragraphs. This does not change that I am right.


But you do not have to accept that I am fully right to KNOW that a Federal takeover of health care is a TERRIBLE idea. The American people are with me on this one, even if they do not buy everything I say above. They instinctively KNOW that we will be lucky to avoid the iceberg, because we have been steaming too fast in icy waters toward the massive danger of a Federal HMO controllig our health care (try to sort out the metaphors in THAT sentence, I dare you). I am convinced that the American people, at this point and this time, would rather DO NOTHING than get ANY bill that Congress is likely to pass in the next two years. They understand that our health care is pretty good, and that the main Hippocratic goal here is to "first do no harm".


Will we hit the iceberg and sink? I am more optimistic than I was, but NOT because of Repubicans. The people appear to be almost IN REVOLT. And that is all that can save us. No politican now out there is going to do it.


P.S. Obviously, "sicko" is a takeoff on the MIchael Moore movie name. But I consider Michael Moore a bitter, hating, SICK man. Is President Obama similarly "sick"? I believe he is. Look at this incredible Boston incident, blown out of proportion by the President of the United States attacking a local Cambridge police officer (Cambridge, of course, being the Harvard containing suburb of Boston). I truly believe President Obama is a race obsessed, bitter man who hates his own country in the way his mentor, Reverend Writght, hates his own country. I KNOW President Obama does not believe in free markets, or capitalism. He TOLD Joe the Plumber that, and has said the same thing, in many different ways, on many other occasions/. This "new message" is one of those occasions, as was his previous "message" that private insurers "need" to "compete" with tovernment insurance. President Obama does not believe in this country, as founded. He is, in fact, a sick man in the same way that Michael Moore is a sick man. Moore is just much more unattractive, while arrogant Obama (the Cambridge incident again showing his incredible arrogance, as did his statement to some Democrats that they were "ruining" his Presidency by failing to make the August "deadline" for a health care bill) is able to come across as attactive and intelligent. It is all form. In substance, I don't see any difference between Michael Moore and BArack Obama. Obama is just a more attactive Michael Moore. Obama, as this blog has shown, is also more of a COMIC GENIUS than Michael Moore, even though Moore USED to be able to be funny (hiding the extreme bitterness and hatred in his soul that way).

NASDAQ: Conclusive Proof of the Stupidest People on Earth

Yes, the NASDAQ Index (in a BUBBLE of "irrational exuberance") has been trading essentially at 2000. Pause and marvel at that number.


In January of 2004, the Nasdaq pushed through 2000, but was not aable to sustain itself above 2200, and was soon back below 2000. Or I may even be remembering the year wrong, since there was a time that 1673 was a mediuim term high for the NASDAQ.


Do you realize that the NASDAQ is almost at the MIDPOINT between its decade high and decade low. Does that make any sense at all? Of course not. It means that the computer gamers have created a clear BUBBLE in fad NASDAQ stocks. There are MANY Nasdaq stocks selling at 20% of their decade high, or less. I am talking about the time after the dot.com BUBBLE burst, to the present. Are we REALLY at a MIDWAY point, economically, for the decade? Nope. I don't accept that the stock market is looking FORWARD. In the first place, it is a LIE that the computer gamers on Wall Street "look forward", except in considering current HYPE as to the "future". But if you really think that economic prospects for the next year or two are AVERAGE for the decade, you belong on Wall Street. You, too, could qualify as one of the Stupidest People on Earth.


Q.E.D. Wall Street contains the Stupidest People on Earth. Nope. The idea that tech is "different" is a dot.com illusion--a symptom of the insanity of the dot.com bubble rather than of rationality. The overall economy affects NASDAQ compnaies just like it affects the rest. I am perfectly aware that some big, fad NASDAQ tech companies (like APPLE) have done RELATIVELY well--sometimes well even on an absolute basis. But they are NOT "immune" from the economy, and it is RIDICULOUS for the NASDAQ to be yet again in a BUBBLE, almost at the midpoint of its range since the bursting of the dot.com bubble.


As I have repeatedly said, Wall Street people lack one of the fundamental characteristics of being human: They do not LEARN.

Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth Take Advantage of My Vacation to Get Stupider

Yes, while I was away in New York City and Boston (amazingly surviving those cities, my daughters, AND what we laughingly call our air travel "system"), Wall Street was unchecked by my restraining sanity. That resulted in expanding the BUBBLE in stock prices, and re-inflating the BUBBLE in oil prices.


Stock prices reached essentially their HIGH level since October, although they had previously reached essentially that BUBBLE (momentum driven, casino gaming) level THREE times since October. This was as we approached the end of July.


Now stock prices have often risen in JULY. However, August and September are notoriously the WORST months for the stock market. Some Octobers have been bad, but many have been "recovery" months. As I have said, Wall Street people are so very stupid that they never LEARN. They never actually anticipate. Therefore, the fact that there has been a MAJOR market decline EVERY year for the previous FIFTEEN YEARS (at least), during the period from the end of July to October, does not cause the truly stupid people on Wall Street to be cautious. In this trait, they are MUCH more stupid than sports gamblers, who destroy trnds by ANTICIPATING their continuance.


Thus, Wall Street computer gamers drove the stock market back into this computer gaming BUBBLE, in the face of both all logic and all recent history. Then the "smart guys" will BAIL at the first sign of a recurrence of that August and/or September SWOON, accelerating any drop and leaving the slow to hold the bag.


As usual, I am not telling you that there were no reasons for the stock market to go up. I am just telling you that there have been no reasons for the stock market to go THIS HIGH, in these burtsts of IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE. I will go further on oil. There have been NO reasons for oil to go up at all.


Has not the "news" been "good"? Not that good. Yes, we are no longer in "free fall" on the economy. But there is no indication we are really recovering. We are merely bumpting along the bottom. In fact, we have done everything possible to short circtuit any recovery as soon as it starts, and the stupid computer gamers on Wall Street are doing their best to make sure thant happens (driving up commodity prices with every little indication of a "recovery"). Interest rates, inflation, and commodity prices are set to EXPLODE upward with any real--or even not so real--sign of a "recovery". Yet, the computer gamers on Wall Street keep hyping that every bump up is just the beginning of a BOOM (instead of the excuse for a BUBBLE in stock and oil prices).


Of course housing and auto sales are not doing as badly "as expected", and of course some corporate sales/profits are not doing as badly "as expected". Not GOOD, mind you, but not as badly "as expected". The economy shut down for awhile. Theat reduced inventories. At some point, some of those inventories have to be replaced, so long as the economy did not remain totally shut down. This is the SEASONAL time that usually happens--the SEASONAL time trucking usually does well (my brother owned that trucking company). Remember last summer? There was an uptick then, as well, as the first "stimulus" kicked in, and as we had a seasonal rise. Did not last.


We are doing the same thing again. $4500.00 for every "clunker" you bring in as a trade in on a new car. Think of what a boon this is to JUNKYARDS, and SLEAZY USED CAR DEALERS, as people make sure they have a junk car to "trade in". Then there is that $8,000 subsidy for peole to buy a house (first time house buyers). Don't you taxpayers fell "good" to know that you are giving people money to buy cars and houses!!!! I knew you did.


Wait a minute!!!! No, I am not even going to make the point that we are really printing the money, rather than using government revenues, as we mortgage the future of generations with unrestrained spending. Rather, I am asking the question as to what happens when these subsidies END. What happens when people can no longer get $4500 for their junk car, and can no longer get $80000 to buy a house? Is not EVERYONE who can possibly afford a new car or house going to buy one NOW (or before the subsidies expire)? Wehn the sububsidies end, is not the market (for cars, houses, etc.) going to COLLAPSE? Of course it is.


That is why this blog says that the present government has made an economic recovery impossible. The real "free market" has been DISTORTED by the Federal Government, and there is no cure for that distortion, except pain. It is like heroin. The withdrawal results in TERRIBLE PAIN. Or else you simply keep increasing the dose until you drift off into a constant fantasy world of oblivion.


Will we even be able to stop spending short of the final collapse--a collapse that WILL come? I don't think so. We are now addicts. The politicians are even more addicted than the "hick" people, who instinctively understand that there is something WRONG here (as exhibited by polls--meaningless as pollls are--on Obama's health care plan).


The "establishment" has become much more stupid than the people at large. Nowhere is that more true than with the Stupidest People on Earth on Wall Street, including the economic fascists featured in financial media outlets like CNBC. These people have bought into central planning, and this idea of a "partnership" between government, Wall Street, and Big Business. These are the people, of course, arrogant enough to believe that they could use computer gaming to turn our entire fiancial system into a computer planned casino. Loo9k how well that woked with derivatives, and all of the rest. Yes, I specifically include the evil people at Goldman Sachs in this--even as they head for RECORD bounues. Those bonuses are coming from US, as mot of the government actions since October have been specifically aimed at BAILING OUT GOLDMAN SACHS (a compnay that FAILED, and povided us with FAILURE Henry Paulson as Secretary of the Treausry). Where did the AIG bailout money go? It went, in substantial part, to GOLDMAN SAHS. Otherwise, Goldman Sachs was INSOLVENT. So if nayone tells you that the people at Goldman Sachs are the "smartest people in the room", they LIE. That is , they lie unless you regard that talent at getting the government to bail you out is "smart".


Yes, Wall Street is in yet another BUBBLE. You would thinkg they would learn. But these are not sports bettors, who are at least capable of learning from experience (in terms of specific bets affecting odds). These are truly the Stupidest People on Earth (always excepting the mainstream media, and similar thinking leftists, who have retired the original trophy).

President Obama and Boston: Immature, Race Obsessed President Gets It Wrong--Or Should I have Yelled At Police?

I am willing to state it bluntly: President Obama does not have the broadness of vision to be President of the United States. No surprise, since he did not have the necessary experience to be President of the United States. I have agreed in this blog that this is the greatest challenge Sarah Palin faces for 2012, if she were planning to run for President then. She had virtually no choice but to resign as governor of Alaska--see blog entry--but people tired of the petty, immature parochialism of Obama are unlikely to want to look to a similarly inexperienced candidate in 2012 to correct the mistake. The industrial grade hypocrites of the left, of course, would argue that this blog ignored Palin's inexperience (except in relation to Obama) in connection with the Presidential race. Not true. Sarah Palin was running for VICE PRESIDENT--meaning that she would have been "seasoned" by one of the most experienced men ever to run for President (John McCain) before she would ever have had to (even speculatively) take over the top job. Notice how little you have heard from the "expereinced" Joe Biden (where I would prefer Sarah Palin to Joe Biden as President any day, expecially with the "team" put together by McCain in foreign policy). Palin, of course, was already better than McCain (or Obama) in domestic polilcy. It is one of those astounding hypocrises of the left that the tradition of the USA is to have a VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate IMMMEDIATELY "qualified" to be President of the United States. But it would be nice to have a PRESIDENT qualified to be President of the United States, IMMEDIATELY, and we do not have one. What we have is a petulant, race obsessed, power hungry Chicago/Harvard/leftist neophytes who is NOT "growing" in office because he believes he has nothing to learn.


Yes, I am talking--among many other things, including those 30 or so unelected "czars" subject to no supervision--about that incident in Boston last week. Amazingly enough, I was in Boston at the time visiting my older daughter (sandwiched between weekends in New York City visiting my younger daughter). My older daughter has pretty much bought into the leftism of Boston--to which she is exposed on a dailty basis. Her reaction to Obama's disgraceful performance regarding the Boston police--the President of the United States trashing local police, without facts or a recognition that he is President of all of the people--my daughter's reaction was pretty much the same as mine. I think it basically reflected the reaction of most of Boston (those who cared). Obama's reaction was "shooting from the lip", as badly as that "cowboy", President Bush, ever did. The hypocritical (worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth on two legs) have done their best to cover, but Drudge (gottta love Drudge) pretty much got it right in his headlines today: I supported Obama. I voted for Obama. I will never vote for Obama again." That was a quote from a lady cop in Boston, where a black cop also evidently said that the racism here was on Obama's side, and not the other side.


Let us segue to ME, circa 1969, in Arlington, Texas (visiting relatives either before going into the army or right after my honarable discharge in 1971). I was standing outside the house in which I was staying listening to a Cardinal baseball game on a trnasistor radio (reception only outside). Periodically, I would go back into the house. (Hey, I never said I was NORMAL). Guess what? Right. I was suddenly confronted by officers from TWO police cars, wanting to know what I wqas doing. I compounded the problem by saying that I was visiting family HERE IN DALLAS. Would you believe Arlington police officers are touchyt about people who consider Arlington merely part of Dallas? No, I was not arrested. However, neither did I YELL at the police officers (something which ticks them off even more than not knowing what city you are in--something I knew at age 22, but Obama hand this Harvard professor have obviously never learned). No, I do not think my race was a factor (just as I see no reason to believe that this Harvard professor's race was a real factor, except for HIM and the race obsesssed left). I was bluie eyed, with light brown hair, although I DO have that reputed 1/8 Indian (Native American) "blood" (the blood of us all is RED, in air). I guess the Arlington police may have had it in for INDIANS (Dallas COWBOYS and all, although that was still another city in that metroplex: Irving, Texas).


That was not my only brush with police in strange towns/cities. At about the time I was in law school, a bus left me off in Littlefield, Texas (I think, although it may have been some other Texas city/town--my family living ni LIttlefield for several years, outside of Lubbock). Digresson: I took the NYC-Boston BOLT bus, which was a bargain at $15, although avoiding rush hour is a good idea). No one met me, and I was looking for a phone, retuning to my suitcase as I did sort of a circular "search". Guess what? Yep. Only one police car this time, asking me to identify myself.


Then there was recently, when I ferried my younger daughter's car (don't ask why me) from El Paso to Cornell less than a decade ago. Guess what? Yep. I was stopped, for no apparent reason (alleged "eaving") in North Carolina. Racial profiling, or TEXAS PROFILING. Didn't yell that time either, although I was a little annoyed. My brother indicates that cars with out-of-state plates are routinely stopped in Memphiis.


Police are not, of course, perfect. They overreact. They are not "educated" to the extent of Harvard professsors, or Obama (usually, anyway). But who acted more maturely here? Yes, police may even sometimes react to race, although often logically (if two black men just stuck up a convenince store, should you really stop WHITE men?).


It is still true what this blog has been saying. The PRIMARY emphasis on race--the primary racism--in this country today is by people like Obama, Sotomaryor, the government of New haven, leftists, and the mainstream media (redundancies thoughout that list). MOST (I mean here ALMOST ALL) of the country in beyond race. Obama WON (albeit with a black bloc vote indicating that the left is keeping them from getting beyond race). It is the left, and the mainstream media (that familiar redundancy) that simply cannot get beyond race.


The immature, inexperienced President Obama is one of those leftists who just can't get beyond race (not to mention cronyism and an immature arrogance). Too bad--for all of us, including "minorities" the left is TEACHING to regard police as their enemy (instead of as the occasional annoyance I describe above from my own experiences).


P.S. It is still absolutely without question that we SHOULD "profile" in security checks at places like airports. For that matter, police SHOULD "profile" in terms of police resources. If there is more violence in Harlem, then PROTECTION of the people of Harlem requires a more significant police presence. None of this has anything to do with the Boston "incident", which strikes me as the kind of insignnificant thing that occasionally happens, like the "incidents" I describe above in which I was "involved

Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth

Yes, before I went on vacation, I thought I should again warn you that the people on Wall Street truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.


As I told you last time, when the stock market had (again) DROPPED (although not as far as it is capable of dropping), IF you were going to trade stocks this summer you should do so during such a pullback. Otherwise, you are simply labeling yourself as one of those Stupidest People on Earth.


Yep. We are back in a stock market BUBBLE, after excessive gains over the past few days. Oh, the "news" was mildly favorable, but not nearly THAT favorable. It is not, as usual, that the stock market went up that is the problem It is HOW MUCH the stock market went up, as the Stupidest People on Earth went into action again.


I remind you again taht the period from the END of July to the beginning of October has produced a MAJOR decline in the stock market for at least FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS. The stock market has often gone up in July during that period, as Wall Street--8nlike sports bettors--simply REFUSES to learn from experience. However, once you head into August, the stock market has been a DANGEROUS place to be--especially if it is HIGH. Well, we are back to the stock market being TOO HIGH--way ahead of any slight good news from companies, or even more slight good news on the econoy in general.


Since last October, I have not missed on these "bubble" calls on Wall Street. I don't think I will miss this time. No, I can't guarantee you the stock market will go down today, or Monday, or next week. I can just guarantee to you that this is an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS time to invest in the stock market, as a trader, and that those who continue to buy in the midst of these computer gaming rallies really are the Stupidest People on Earth (after the mainstream "journalists", whho retired the original trophy).

Blog Vacation

I do not expect to make any further blog entries, unless I were to make another before leaving for the airport early this orning, until July 28 (which also happens to be my brithday).


I will be visiting my daughters in NYC (yep, with those high taxes which we have all have to endure eventually) and Boston. I may not survive the trip (not because of lack of health care, but because of the cities involved and the DAUGHTERS involved).


I did invite President Obama to take over the blog, since he has shown he could easily keep up the blog tradition of typos. He is evidehtnly busy trying to ram through this health care disaster and ruin the country.


However, I have noticed that Sonia Sotomayor is even more qulaified, as shown by HER oral "typos" that have come to light. For example, there are tapes of her using "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge"; "providence of Congress", instead of "province of Congeress", "National Labor RELATIONSHIP Board", instead of National Labor Relations Board", and many others. Now I am capable of this kind of TYPING errors, but I don't know that I am capable of this type of ORAL "typo". Nevertheless, Sotomayor would be perfect for thhis blog. You would never know I was gone, and you would not be able to tell whether the errors are typos are the "slips of the mind" that seem to afflict Sotomayor regularly. And Sotomayor really has nothing to do. Her "hearing" is essentially over, and the Supreme Court is not in session.


Therefore, I extend an invitation to Sotomayor to take over this blog while I am on vacation. If you see an entry before July 28, after I get on the plane this morning, you can assume it is here taking me up on this invitation.

Democrats and Health Care: New Technique of Legislating for Maximum Failure

Look at how House Democrats, and Obama, handled the "global warming", "cap and trade" "energy bill"--pushing through a bill that was not even PRINTED (in final form) at the time of the vote, with some 300 pages being added to a 1200 page bill in the dead of night. Needless to say, no person in Congress had actually read the final bill when they voted on it. Aside: Sen. Barbara Boxeer had her hedad handed to her by the head of the blackChamber of Commerce (African-American himself), when she tried to suggest--in as condscending a way possible--that he was a itor to his race because the NAACP had issued a statement supporting the "energy bill"--Barara Boxer being accused by this African-American of playing the "race card" when it was totally inappropriate--reducing her to putting the NAACP statement "in the record" to show the DIVERSITY--racial code word--of opinion on this "global warming" fraud--Boxer showing once again that lieftists are the PRIMARY RACISTS left in our society today).


Now we know central planning does not work, either in theory or practice. What can you say about central planning legislation formulated in this manner--pushed through to meet arbitrary deadlines, with provisions inserted that no one has read in order to buy votes. In fact, the entire bills (e.g. the "stimullus bill") are simplly an amalgam of "goodies" that various Democrats want. Even if massive central plainning, and out of contsrol government, were not already a disaster, this method of legislating is a guarantee of failure. Democrats are trying the very same process with the halth care bill--with Obama demanding a bill setting in motion a Federal takeover of the entire health carfe industry, and helath insurance industry, by the August recess. And this bill has NOT been written!!!!! No one knows what will be in the final bill, because Democrats are putting out several versions in several places (in the House and Senate, and in different committees of the House and Senate). Democrats fullly intend to throw together another massive piece of legislation at the last second (if the bill is even fully drafted when the vote comes). This new method of legislating has to be the worst central planning method of massive changes in our countr--involving massive spending--ever devised. That is why I have tried to indicate that Repubicans should not get bogged down in details here, but need to be attacking the big picture.


The Congressional Budget Office dealt Democrats a blow today by stating the obvious: The proposed House bill (to the extent the 1000 page bill is available to read) will INCREASE costs, rather than a dECREASE in costs "paying" for the bill. Now this was obvious, but think how obvious it had to be for the CBO to say so!


Investors Business Daily red the first 16 pages of the bill, and got to a promvision making private health insurance ILLEGAL. Say what? Yes, Investors Business Daily checked, and they were reading it right. Yes, the bill says (in tyical convoluted, "1984" type language and misleading headings) that you get to keep your prsent insurace. BUT, you can never buy private insurance again. IN other words, if you see a BETTER DEAL, you can't switch. You are FORCED to buy the "government option" if you ever lose your present insurance. If you ever needed proof of waht this blog, and others, have been telling you, this is it. Leftist Democrats want a full government takeover of our health care slystem, and they regard this bill as a step in that process. That will be true even if this particular language is changed (fairly likely, but how will you KNOW what is going to be passed in the rush to SOME bill?).


Yes, I reliied on my brother to try to look into the details of the proposed House bill. Since my brother loses at tennis to GIRLS (bad enough that we have a Prfesident who throws like one!), I should have known better. Thus, my brother told me that businesses with 400 employees would be FORCED to provide helath insurance, or pay an 8% payroll tax penalty. Well, my brother says he misread this, and that businesses with $400,000 dollars in payroll ( a much larger number) are subject to this provision. My brother stands by his assertion (seemingly obviously true) taht his small business trucking company--Shipper's Transport--would have failed at least a year earlier with this kind of burden. Yes, my brother's company provided health insurance, BUT with a high deductible and requiring employees to pay half. This kind of "diversity" (see Barbara Boxer misuse of word above) of approach will no longer be allowed, as one Federal size will have to fit all (no matter how many jobs it costs, and how many busineeses it causes to fail--before the entrie country is bankrupted by the complete Federal takeover that was intended from the beginning).


Oh, there was yesterday's story that high income earners in New York City will pay up to 60% of their income in taxes--that is, they will pay that for a SHORT time until they figure out how not to pay it. There is, of course, also the hefty taxes on much lesser incomes in New York City, including the new tax if you choose NOT to get the government insurance.


The reason I don't feel bad about misleading you on the coverage of this bill is that it DOES NOT MATTER what any version of the bill now says. The final bill that passes, if we are dumb enough to let these people continue this insane process without revolt that even they can't ignore, is going to contain provisons drafted at the last second that no one has read. Who knows what will be in that bill? The only thing we can know with certainty is that it will be a DISASTER. Any bill of the type now being considered would be such a disaster, but this new approach to legislation by Democrats guarantees it belyond any kind of doubt.


My brother (now unemployed, and never above the level the Democrats are (for now) classifying as "rich", suggests a TAX REVOLT: that MASSIVE numbers of people join those kooky tax protestors (like Wesley Snipes) who simply refuse to pay any income tax. Everyone knows that our system depends on voluntary copliance (and a little fear), and that any kind of real tax protest by a large number of people will cause the system to break down.


I have news for my brother (which I think he realizes). I would tend to favor such a revolt. But it does not matter mch, in the long run. Taxpayers WILL revolt, whether they do it that obviously or not. Revenue will NOT be raised (in the long run). People will figure out ways to AVOID the taxes. Thus, the "revolt" WILL happen--whether openly and illegally or less openly and legally.

Taxes and Adjusted Gross Income: The Multiple Deceptions of the Health Care "Debate"

Conservatives are suddenly trying to make a big deal out of the Democratic "sur-tax" being applied to "adjustable gross income", instead of to "taxable income". In the process, they are using the leftist tactic of exaggeration and distortion. See the previous entry. There is a DLIBERATE attempt to confuse "gross revenue" and "adjusted gross income". I even heard one guy last night try to suggest that some people in this country file a form 1040, while others do not, and that thiis "surl-tax" will affect almost everyone filing a form 1040. This is all absurd. EVERYONE (essentially) files a form 1040. Regular corporations, of course, do not, but they are subject to DOUBLE TAXATION--since taking the money out means you have taxable income on--yes--your form 1040. That is another topic, but the Repubican/conservative idea of NO corporate income tax is a TERRIBLE idea, because it encourages GAME PLAYING (as ordinary income is turned into capital gains, which Republicans/conservatives also want to not tax, or tax at a very low rate).


What is going on here? It is deception all of the way around. The left is deceiving as to what they are doing, and conservatives are trying to fight back with deceptions of their own. I don't really have a problem with this, in one sense. The left DECEIVES, and I do not favor turning the other cheek. Meeting deception with deception does not bother me much, except I don't think it is very good tactics.


For example, say that Democrats CHANGE their plan so that the sur-tax is on taxable income, rather than adjusted grooss income? Does that make the Democratic health care plan any better? Don't be stupid. Yet, if you base your opposition to the plan on tihis one (deceptive" argument about the tax code, what do you do when Democrats simply drop the "adjusted gross income" alpproach, and tartet their "sur-tax" at "taxable income", saying that they have MET your objections?


Republicans/Conservatives have simply GOT to stop complicating these arguments. They have made that MISTAKE with the Tax argument already--getting away from the simple Reagan plan of low rates for everyone, with only two non-zero tax rates.


Republicans/conservatives need to hammer home the idea that more taxes do NOT raise revenue, and will stifle any economic recovery--no matter how they are structured. Republicans need to hammer home that the new revenue to pay for government health care WILL NOT EXIST, not matter how the Democrats "tax the rich" (ruining the economy in the process), and that the middle class will end up paying--one way or another. There ain't no such thinkg as a free lunceh. But Republicans/conservatives keep COMPLICATING that message, with the idea they can compete with Democrats (leftist kind) in DECEPTION. Not likely.


This idea of eliminating/phasing out deductions is already part of the tax code. Yes, it is true that if you give away all of your income to charity, and the charitable deduction is eliminated for your adjusted gross income, you will pay taxes on money YOU DO NOT HAVE. But Democrats were already proposing doing away with these deductions for "the rich", even apart from health care. In fact, we ALREADY "phase out" a number o "deductioins/exemptios for "the rich" as a way of raising taxes on "the rich". Romald Reagan proposed getting rid of many dedutions IN EXCHANGE FOR lower rates, and a simpler tax system. What we have done since Reagan is PLAY GAMES with the tax code to RAISE TAXES, and to complicate the tax code by going back on that implie promise of lower rates in exchanve for reduced deductions. That means that the tax rates for "the rich" are actually SKYROCKETING, to the equivalent of higher rates than even BEFORE Reagan (if Democrats get their way). Repubicans/conservatives should be HAMMERING this idea that highter taxes on "the rich" raise revenue, and hammering home the idea that higher tax rates are only going to kill the economy. This should be done in the context of advocating a SIMPLE tax system, and not a more complicated one. Unfortunately, the Repubican "plan" on health care is a central planning plan COMPLICATING THE TAX CODE with this fairly complex system of tax credits (wellfare for the middle class--except there ain't not such thing as a free lunch).


In fact, Repubicans/conservatives are ven pushing an anti-federalims plan whereby the Federal Government makes Idaho (for example) make its health care insurance plan available to EVERYONE--Republicans/conservatives call this a "national market"!!!! How can states come up with their own "solutionis" to health care insurance if the Federal Government is going to make it IMPOSSIBLE? And Repubicans claim to believe in FEDERALISM!!! They DON'T believe in any such thing!!! Yep. NATIONAL "tort reform" (ESPECIALLY on malpractice) is totally unnecessary. The states can do it, as Texas has. It is another central planning "solution" for political purposes.


Yes, health care "solutions", and taxes, are going to DEVASTATE doctors, and other "professionals". Are not many of these people that are gokng to suffer the double whammy of higher taxes and "cost containment" doctors, and other people in health care corporations? Damn right they are. The idea that this assault on HEALTH CARE small business (which many doctors are) will help health care is a major delusion/deception. It is small comfort that the increasingly leftist AMA has brought this on itself by failing to oppose this stuff strongly, and with conviction.


We are headed for disaster, and at least part of the problem is the seeming acceptance by EVERYONE (except me) that we need a "comprehensive", central planning "reform" of our entire health care system. That is the ultimate DECEPTION here, and it seems to me it is a deception coming from all sides, including Repubicans and conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh Is a Big, Fat Idiot: Health Care Fantasies and Truths Starring Mentally Challenged Democrats Trying To Do Us All In

The title, of course, is a shot at Democratic Senator Al Franken (no accounting for the insanity of Minnesota voters)--as well as an "affectionate" shot at Limbaugh. Limbaugh is no lonter fat, and never was an idiot.


But Limbaugh let partisan rhetoric lead him into serious error in his discussion of the health care plan today. He was absolutely correct in stating that Obama and the Democrats are taking dead aim at small business. Limbaugh just got tangled up in explaiing WHY that is so.


Limbaugh made the "error" (which assumes that he did not fully know what he was doing, as leftist Democrats so often fullyknow how they are misrepresenting the truth--Obama being a prime offender here) of saying that most Subchapter S corporations make more than $280,000. That is false--a LIE, if you want to call it that. Limbaugh asserted that Subchapter S corporations pay taxes on "GROSS "earnings" (revenue), rather than net. That is FALSE--simply not true. Individuals electing Subcahpter S status fro their "small" corporations elect to be taxed as if they were not operating as a corporation, provided that they are taxed on the NET income of the corporationi (their pro-rata share) as if they had received the money, whether they actuallly received it or not (income might be reinvested in the corporatioin, but, in reality, this is not much of a practical problem for most people with even half-way competent accountants). Nevertheless, it is still NET INCOME that is taxed, and not gross. Limabugh was exactly wrong to accuse Democrats of lying when they asset that most small businesses do not earn $280,000.00. That is exactly correct. I would note that this blog never makes this kind of elementary mistake (except in typos), mainly because I do not let partisan rhetoric lead me into this kind of "error".


If "small businesses" are not going to be subject to this "sur-tax" on the "rich" the House Democrats are proposing, as most will not be, what is the problem? Well, let us start counting the problems.


1. The "sur-tax" is going to HURT employment as unemployment is heading above 10%. As Paul Rodriguez reminded environmentalists in California, without farms there are no farm workers. The proposed sur-tax would directly take money out of the private economy--from the most successful small business, and others, just at the time the econlmy can least afford it.


2. The democrats are proposing to REQUIRE employers to provide health insurance. You may think you know that that means. You don't. What KIND of health insurance? Is the government going to requirfe every business to provide "cadillac" health insurance? That is DEATH to many small businesses, who may be providing health insurance with large deductibles, or otherwise controlling costs. In other words, are employers going to have to provide at least the equivalent of the "government option"? Can employers tell their employees to elect the government option? Yes, this provision is presently targeted at businesses with over 400 employees, WHETHER THEY MAKE ANY MONEY OR NOT, and those are the "samll" businesses that are providing the most jobs--and where higher costs will cost the most jobs. My brother's trucking company, Shipper's Transport, employed 500 people when he took it over. My brother says this provision would have KILLED his company, because it provides for an 8% payroll tax PENALTY for every such employer who does not provide health insurance. This is a land mine field of of traps for businesses, big and small (the very big businesses, like Wal-Mart, have not problem with it because it hurts their smaller COMPETITORS more than it hurts them). In other words, the government is surely going to TELL employers what health insurance they HAVE to offer, and to the extent the coercion is not sufficient, it will be INCREASED until emplopyers SCREAM (as they already are). Then what will happen? Right. We will get an entirely government system, which is the goal here. In the meantime, the econominy will suffer (losing jobs). This is the central planning problem: ONE size fits all, and coercion is the name of the game. Yes, individuals will HAVE to buy insurance, if they do not get it from employers. Again, what KIND of insurance? Deductibles? Coerage? The media assumes that everyone means the same thing by "helath insurance". That is only true in a CENTRAL PLANNING system, where the government is mandating that there be only one kind of insurance. It is absurdly stupid for the government to try to take over the health care system this way, and most people know it.


3. This "sur-tax" on even people earning more than $1,000,000.00 WILL NOT RAISE ENOUGH MONEY. That sur-tax "raises" $50,000.00 for each person with more than a million dollars in INCOME. That is supposed to pay for health insurance for people who cannot afford it, along with the lesser sur-tax on people with incomes starting at $280,000.00. How much does it cost for a government accepted health insurance plan? $10,000.00? Surely not much less. That means that the extra tax on people earning one million dollars will take care of FIVE people. Okay, say it takes care of TEN people. Even assuming that people with present incomes of over one million dollars do not figure out how to AVOID this tax (and the other rising income taxes on their income--such avoidance being one reason such taxes generally RAISE NO MONEY), there are not enough people earning that much money to pay for the coverage for the other people. Hence, you see why there is this REQUIREMENT that employers provide health insurance. It still will not be enough. This is a disaster waiting to happen, at a time when can least afford it.


4. When you combine the econoomic impact of the extra taxes with the tax avoidance induced by all of these extra taxes (this sur-tax being only one of the many extra taxes proposed for the "rich" in the Age of Obama), NO EXTRA MONEY WILL BE RAISED TO PAY FOR THIS EVER EXPANDING "ENTITLEMENT".


5. This entitlement WILL expand, and is intended to expand. Democrats want Michael Moore style, "single payer", universal health coverage. Yes, that will be a central planning nightmare that will ruin both our health care system and our government. But it is not much more of a nightmare thann the absurd mish-mash of a central plannning system that the Democrats are trying to foist on us. Democats are using absurd ten year projections for a plan not intended to last ten years. Employers alone are going to start SCREAMING (as stated above). The intent is for people to demand a total government system And that will happen. In the meantime, our economy will be further destroyed (if any is letft after the "global warming", "cap and trade" tax). This is a Soviet style "ten year plan" INTENDED TO FAIL--intended to fail in a very specific way that results in a total Federal Government takeover of health care.


6. Just why is it necessary for the Federal Government to mandate all of tis? Has the Federal Government shown the ability to operate efficiently on this kind of scale? There is no "crisis" in health care in this country. Health care is pretty darn good. The poor are covered (in a Medicaid program going broke). The elderly are covered (in a Medicare program going broke). People have "universal health care", in the sense no one is turned away from a hospital emergency room. Why mess this up with a disaster from which we cannot recover--a central planning disaster when we KNOW central planning does not work, and cannnot work. Health care insurance mandated by unions (who thought their members were not "payiing" for it) is "credited" with dooming General Motors. Why should anyone trust the government to tell businesses what kind of health care insurance they have to offer? Still less should we trust the government to take over the entrie health care system (the ultimate goal here).


7. The cost of this kind of Federal program is ALWAYS underestimated, and the revenue to pay for it (see above) is ALWAYS overestimated. This leads to a never ending spiral of more an dmore taxes on an ever expanding number of people as it becomes obvious that it is impossible for the "rich" to pay for everone else to have everything they want.


Did I say the Republicans were much better here? They aren't. As best I can tell, their "plan" is WELFARE for the middle class, providing $5700 for every family to buy health insurance. What about employers? Will not every employer tell peple to use that money, and get out of providing employer insurance? Is that the Republcan GOAL, or do they want to mandate eemployer insurance too? Republicans plan to give a TAX CREDIT, with NO ONE to pay any more taxes (although the rich will not get any net tax benefit). You say you thought Republicans were against increasing the deficit? YOU FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!! What ever made you think that.


The first, second and third optiions here are to DO NOTHING. Wait until we are out of the recession, and then we MIGHT consider tinkering with the margins. Really, the best thing to do is to go back to federalism, and let the "pay as you go" because they can't print money, except for the doomed attempt by California) decide how to handle health care in each state.


Yes, I am going to "out" my brother--the former truck company owner--here. My brother agrees with me that both TORT REFORM (Republicans also believe in central planning) and health care insurance regulations can be handled by EACH STATE. My brother says: "If the 12 non-government employees in Montana don't like their state's plan, they CAN MOVE. Then we will just have one less state." Now you people who live in Montana, or just like Monatana, DO NOT BLAME ME FOR THIS ONE. This was MY BROTHER (who also said: "There is a good reaons Monatana has no speed limit. They don't have enough people to put in police cars to enforce one.") Okay, people of Montana, go lynch my brother. But the point is valid (not about Montana, but about states beind different, and having the option to MOVE if you don't like your state). Why have ONE approach, when you can have 50. You say that why have 50 approaches, when one is the best one? That is the central planning DELUSION? How arrogant are you, Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, to assume that you KNOW the ONE right apporach? All you have to be is wrong ONCE, and the game is over. YOU LOSE. That is not true in the free market, and it is not true in federalism. People are fallible. They make mistakes. The problem with central planning is that a mistake spells DOOM.


Nope. Rush Limbaugh is not an idiot. He is fundamentally, instinctively right. The Democrats really are out to destroy small business in this country. They want economic fascism: that central lplannng partnership between Big Government and Big Business. Then they want Big Government to dominate that partnership. I just wish Rush would not let his partisan zeal lead to falsely overstating his case. The case aginst Federal "health care reform" is overwhelmingly strong without any exaggeration using "dramatic license" (borrowing the license from Obama and other leftists).

President Obama at the All-Star Game: Perfect Guest Host for this Blog? (Although I Can Throw a Baseball MUCH Better Than Obama)

President Obama really cemented his legend as a comic genius last night at the baseball All-Star game:


1. He throws like a girl, or rather lilke the most helpless 1950's girl you ever saw (on video) try to throw a ball. It was so bad that the TV cut away from the cathcer, so that you did not see where the ball ended up.


2. Obama wore a White Sox jacket, and calls himself a White Sox fan. But, in his booth interview (while the game was ignored), Obama referred to "Cominskey Field" as the former home of the White Sox. As even I knew (never a White Sox fan), the correct name was "COMISKEY PARK". The PRESENT White Sox ballpark is called U.S. Cellular FIELD. Just how much of a White Sox fan is/was Obama?


3. The above is all a follow-up to Obama's speech overseas where he said (to "relate" to students, I think) that he met his (Obama's) wife IN CLASS. He actually met her AT WORK, when he was an intern at a law frim (or something like that).


I have a question about 3 above. Yes, it shows Obama is a comic geniius. But is he a DEAD comic genius. If not, it must be because his wife realizes that he will say ANYTHING that sounds good at the time, and that it doesn't really mean that he has forgotten where he met her--and maybe who she is (thinking of a DIFFERENT girl?).


Yes, this is the man who said there were 57 states, and that 1,000 people died in that tornado in Kansas a year or two ago (13 or so died). There are many other examples.


That is why Rush Limbaugh is theorizing that Obama's teleprompter was MURDERED, or perhpas committed SUICIDE--either because the teleprompter was incompetent or because Obama was incapable of reading it correctly. The Vicnce Foster mystery has nothing on this. Yes, Obama's teleprompter DIED suddenly (see Drudge headline--yesterday, I believe).


Why do I think Obama would be a perfect "guest host" for this blog? Well, he is a comic genius, and would provide comic relief while I am on vacation (July 17-July 28). But the main reason is that the harshest criticism I have gotten, outside of my comments on baseball, has been about typos, bad spelling (mainly typos), and other such errors. As I have noted, I don't even use "spell check", because my eyesight makes it a major CHORE for me. And I am not gettting paid for this. Well, I think Obama will fit right in as an author of this blog. Yes, I will sometimes get names wrong, either because I thought I knew the correct one or because I was too lazy to look up the correct spelling (or sometimes repeating the mistake of someone else). If Obama will just step in, you will not even know I am gone. In fact, you will probably notice an INCREASE in errors. Think of how much fun you would have jumping on my errors again!!!!! No, I am not worried about Obama sounding like a liberal. There have been a number of entries in this blog where I have noted that Obama often sounds EXACTLY LIKE ME (as Sotomayor has done). Yes, he usually says exactly the opposite the next day (such as on whether we can afford those huge budget deficits). As long as Obama stays in touch with this side of his "mulitple personality", I am confident that you will not realize I am gone if Obama "guest hosts" this blog--except he will be FUNNIER. I am confident he can even match the bloated verbosity that is a hallmark of this blog. If you see no entries from July 17 through July 27 (when I will be in New York City and Boston), it will be because OBAMA has let you down. I am issuing him an open invitation to him to be guest host of this blog. I am even willing to give him credit at the end (only at the end, in order to test out whether anyone can really tell the difference).

Rick Ankiel (Approaching the Mendoza Line), Sotomayor, Race, and a "Good Story"

Rick Ankiel is a Cardinal outfielder with an "inspiring story". He failed as a pitcher, because of some sort of mental block (now called "social anxiety disorder") which suddenly caused him to be unable to throw strikes. He remade himself into an outfielder, and made it back to the major league Cardinals last year, in that position, with a flurry of home runs.


That shows the difference between sports and the rest of our increasingly leftist society. For Ankiel, and anyone in sports, a "good story" is not enough. In politics, a "good story" (and teleprompter) was enought to get Barack Obama elected PRESIDENT of the United States. A "good story" seems to be the major qualification for Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice.


In baseball, your "story" is not enough. Ankiel had to PERFORM to make it back to the major leagues as a position player, and he will have to PERFORM to stay there. Right now, he is NOT performing. There is something called the "Mendoza line" for a hitter (don't hear the term much lately, perhaps because Mendoza is a "latino" name, which had nothing to do with the origin of the term). That was the term coined, in "honor" of a notoriously light hitting position player, to refer to any position player who approaches a .200 batting average (the "Mendoza line"). Well, Ankiel is approaching the "Mendoza line". In fact, we may have to coint a new term for Ankiel, the "Ankiel line", to represent a player who can't hit more than .100. Ankiel is hitting LESS than .100 for his last 25 or so times to the plate. Further, this is not much of an aberration. After that flurry of home runs when he was first called up last year, Ankiel did not hit well. Further, he did not hit well this year, even before ramming a fence and going on the DL. Ankiel would ot be getting any playing time now, and would perhaps be back i the minor leagues already, except the Cardinals HAVE NO ONE ELSE to play left field who is much better. Chris Duncan is making his own assault on the Mendoza line.


Sports is still an area, and has been ever since Jackie Robinson, where individual merit rules. It is an area pretty much color blind.


You may have watched the All Star game. If you managed to get past the attempt to turn the game into a leftist political commercial, complete with Obama and Carter, you probably noticed the lack of African-Ameridan PITCHERS. Oh, there have been, and are, some good African-American pitchers. But they are not NEARLY so prevalent as black position players. Where is the "affrimative action"? Why not let black pitchers pitch from 50 feet? Why not give them a bigger strike zone.


Take golg and NASCAR. There is Tiger Woods. But name another black golfer! (yes, I am aware there are a few.). Is there any movement to give African-American golfers a stroke a hole? Same with NASCAR. Where is the "affirmative" action? (I know. There may actually be a problem with black drivers getting an opportunity with the racing teams who dominate NASCAR, but the fact remains that any driver who showed real ability would likely get his chance, and auto racing goes way beyond NASCAR, with a limited number of top quality black drivers).


I could come up with all kinds of "socio-economic" reasons why black men dominate some sports (NBA, for example) and/or positioins, and are "underrepresented in others. So What? It is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that matters, and you would be lloked at as NUTS for suggesting that black golfers should get a stroke here and there to make up for their "disadvantages".


You say sports are "different? NO, THEY ARE NOT. The lack of merit of "reverse discrimination" is simply obvious in sports, while leftists DECEIVE elsewhere. How is it different to give a black person 5 points on the LSAT (or some equivalent advantage in the application process for law school) than it is to give a black person strokes at golf (where "handicap" is even part of golf at the club level)? It is NOT different. It is only that leftists can "spin" it differently. In either case it is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that should matter, and not the color of a person's skin.


Yes, we are back to the New Haven firefighters adn Sotomayor. It is like Rick Ankiel overcame his problem throwing strikes (as at least one of the "white" firefighters overcame a type of learning disability), only to be told that he could not go back to the major leagues because of "diversity" requirements. There is NO difference, and leftists are hypocritical liars when they say there is a difference.


Yes, it is SOMETIMES harder to evaluate individual merit outside of sports. That is no excuse for evaluating people on the basis of their skin color--especially when objective measures do exist evaluating individual merit.


How do leftists try to finesse this argument--lying, racist hypocrites that they are? Well, they have recently trended toward the "diversity" scam, which is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose a racial quota system. However, if pressed, they will fall back on trying to twist the word "qualified".


Do you realize that "qualified" has NO objective meaning? Well, it doesn't. Is Rick Ankiel "qualified" to be playing as left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals? Not that I can see, but it is a RELATIVE thing. If Ankiel is the best they have at any tiven time (God help them, the way he is now hitting), then he is "qualified". "Qualified" ONLY has meaning in a relative sense. In sports, this problem is handled easily. There are no arguments as to whom is "qualified" to be on the PGA tour. The peoople who WIN the qualifying tournament are "qualified", and the others are not. It makes no difference that many of those who fail to make the PGA tour play pretty darn god golf, and are ALMOST as "qualified" as those on the tour. You are still evaluated on your individual merit, in comparison with other INDIVIDUALS, and not on lyour skin color.


Using the logic of the left, thousands of people are "quafified" to be on the PGA tour, because they play perfectly acceptable golf. What the left is saying is that you don't need to make ANY effort to evaluate the most qualified individuals, because there is always a big pool of people who are "qualfied"--just not equally "qualified". Do you see the DECEPTION here? The leftist idea is that black New Have firefighters will make perfectly acceptable firefighters, and that it is irrelevant whether some white firefighters might be "better". More importantly, of course, the question is why people should be discriminated against on the basis of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.


If the left applied the sme logic to the PGA tour, they would argue that preferences for black golfers would not really mean that golfers on the PGA tour were "unqualified". They would still be a whole lot better golfers than you or me. Who would notice if you haved SLIGHTLY less "qualified" golfers? They would still be "qualified", would they not? They would still play GOOD GOLF. After all, every week some of the golfers on the PGA tour play pretty BADLY. How do you know "affirmative action" golfers would do any worse?


What is "qualified"? There is no objective meaning. That is irrelevant to the fact that people deserve to be evaluated as INDIVIDUALS< and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group. Sports (generally) gets this right. Leftists (generally) get this wrong.


Thus, despite his story, Rick Ankiel had better improve, FAST, or he will be back in the minor leagues. I, personally, tink he should be there now in an attmpt to rebuild his confidence, and perhaps work on obvious flaws in his swing. Ankiel's "story" will not ultimately save him in baseball.


P.S. I have no intention of turning this blog into a Cardinals fan site, or sports fan site. However, I do think Rick Ankiel in particular, and sports in general, are useful in proving a point about society at large. The poin of this entry is that people should be treated on their merits as an individual, and not either as members of racial or ethnic groups or based on their "life story". Now "life story" may be relevant in many areas, such as inspirational speaker, but a "life story" does not give you abilities in skilled areas--does not, for example, make you a first quality mathematician or computer programmer.


That said, I have some supplemental comments on the Central Division of the National League. With present balck holes in left field, and at third base, the cardinals are still not a truly "good" team. However, with both Ludwick and rookie Rasmux getting got, they MAY stick around to the end, with a chance to win the division (the wild card still comes out of the West). I now have eliminated Milwaukee, unelss they pick up pitching help. Even though Milwaukee is still second in the divisioin, their pitching is just NOT GOOD ENOUGH (even if "qualified"). Their hitting is pretty good, but can't make up for the pitching deficiency (as the Cardinal hitting could not last year). I now reduce the Central Divisnon race to three--a DIFFERENT "trio" of (mediocore) teams from Dan: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, and HOUSTON. Houston did not seem to figure, and yet they are playing as well as, or better than, any team in the division. I am TEMPTED to eliminate the Cubs, who have been terrible on the road and have substantial injuries. Even with Derek Lee having heated up, he has had some physical problems. It seems like Ramirez should still be on the DL, although he is back in the lineup. Their catcher is no the DL. I just can't quite eliminate the Cubs, because they have adequate pitching (if healthy), and the potential to eventually catch fire. I don't considrer the Cubs a truly "good" tema, which is my opinion of every team in the division. But I can't quite dismiss them, because of the substaintial flaws in every other team in the division. The team that wins the division will probably be the team that best "corrects" its flaws. The Cardinals, for example, need to do SOMETING aobut Duncan, Ankiel (left field) and thrid base. DeRosa might yet help, but is now on th DL without a Cardinal hit. And which teams will develop MORE FLAWS because of injuries and/or slumps. Baseball players see to suddenlly be very fragile. I still consider the Central Division wide open, but now believe the winner will be one of the three teams named. Isn't it "brave" of me to elminate Milwaukee? I think so.