There have been some desperate reactions to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This would be one of them. Here’s the take-home from the 5-4 decision, I’m told:
Ann’s Omelet Recipe
1. Gather every egg in your kitchen. Throw them all down the garbage disposal. (This omelet is going to be so good. Trust me.)
2. Go out to your breaker box and turn off the electricity to your entire home. (No, really. It’s going to cook up better than anything you’ve ever had before.)
3. Burn your house down. (This omelet is going to be delicious. You’ll see.)
4. Find a handgun. Load it, cock it, put it in your mouth, pull the trigger and blow your brainstem to kingdom come. (Can’t you almost smell how delicious this omelet is going to be?)
The ‘Ann’ in this recipe for healthcare a la Cobain is Ann Barnhardt. She’s not your typical wingnut. No. This one is extra spicy buffalo.
I will not be celebrating Independence Day tomorrow, because to do so would be utterly hypocritical and a lie. The First Republic is dead, and to pretend that it isn’t only feeds and enables the usurpers and tyrants who are desecrating its corpse in order to give themselves the appearance of legitimacy. If I live to see the establishment of the Second American Republic, THAT date will I observe.
She’s having a bad day. Which is silly, isn’t it? It’s a perfectly good Wednesday. A holiday, dammit. And now a few more of us, someday, will get to see the doctor without having to pay thousands of dollars for the luxury.
. . Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet.
But the government attempt to keep its citizens from needlessly wasting away and dying is too much for Ann to bear. I have no idea why this puts Earth in a concentration camp, but I have to take Ann’s word for it.
. . we are either going to have to have a junta, or an all-out hot civil war. I strongly, strongly advocate a junta at this point. A junta would be, by far, the least bloody solution. Sadly, there are no men of integrity left in the flag officer corps to do it – the U.S. military is populated by vile, power-hungry, money-grubbing Marxist degenerates just as much as the three branches.
You can’t tame the crazypants in this one.
I’ve heard of people prostrating themselves before god every day and offering up a prayer. You seen anybody make their blog do it? This bananas muffin does that. Every day. You get the feeling she grabs the dog and the cat by the back of the neck as well and gets them down on all fours. You think you’re angels, Mr. Scruffers? Pumpkin?
For the piece de non compos mentis, I add this. Here Ann reads Patrick Henry’s famous ‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ speech. This is what the Founding Fathers would have done if King George had offered them affordable alchemy. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. Bonus points for Barnhardt. She combines bug-eyes and glass-eyes into a mania all her own:
She reminds you of whom? In the pop culture world, that is. Rasputin after they pulled him from the river? No — Julia Louis Dreyfus. This Elaine would have killed George and worn his skin.
Now that we’re all being herded into Soviet gulags because we can see the doctor, there’s trouble afoot. Do you see it? Can you hear it? The foul wind it blows. The clouds chafe, then they scatter. Like the weather. ‘I used to like the weather,’ he thought. A baleful dog barks. It bales. The crow hiccups. ‘Don’t ever tell a Navy man he’s had too much to drink’ it says. She is dying because I loved her too much. I HAD TO KILL HER. The Supreme Court, they said. That’s what they all say.
Noonan: Obama Has a Good Day But liberty has a bad one.
DECLARATIONS | Wall Street Journal
ObamaCare, including the insurance mandate, was upheld. What would have been a political disaster for President Obama has been averted. He has not been humiliated, and the centerpiece of his efforts the past 3½ years has not been rebuked by the Supreme Court.
And yet. I feel as if there’s something more to this. Something . . else.
The ruling strikes me as very bad for the atmosphere of freedom in our country, the sense of freeness and lazy, sloppy liberty we’ve long maintained with some hiccups along the way. Those hiccups seem to come more and more now, and closer and closer together.
‘She stole my hiccups’ he realized. ‘I should read this crap before I blog it’ he thought. No. It was too late for that.
There will be a downside: The president is left carrying the burden defending a bill nobody likes. It certainly has the worst public reputation of any new government program of my lifetime.
I suppose the War in Iraq wasn’t a program. Nor was Vietnam. And then he remembered Peggy Noonan’s face. Yes, the War of 1812 was fairly popular. Nice try.
Those already insured will find their coverage “more secure and more affordable,” insurance companies will provide “free preventive care like checkups and mammograms,” “seniors” and “young adults” will receive benefits, those with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied coverage. Also, the insurance companies “won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman.”
It was a targeted base-greaser.
‘Say, are you talking about me?’ he wondered. ‘That’s not my thing.’ He protested. He protested too much. ‘Something’s greased,’ Peggy thought. She knew.
The president had a good day, the first in a long time, in months.
Is it too late for him to change his image to modest and moderate man of the center who’s only trying to do what’s best for America?
Can we bomb Tehran? ‘I think so,’ he replied. They’re still around. We still have bombs.
Because that’s what he’s trying to do. He’s in a perfect position now to tell the leftwardmost parts of his base that he’s given them plenty and suffered for it, it’s time they got in line.
‘That would be good,’ Peggy thought. ‘After giving America tetanus shots, he could balance it. He could go blow up Iran.’ Yes.
‘Very good. Strong, and centrist.’ Her thinker shoulders did ache. She thought way more. To sink in her big chair. And pour a glass. ‘It would be good for him,’ she thought.
The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
The individual mandate is more properly legally seen as a ‘tax.’ I never understood why the administration lawyers didn’t (more vigorously) take this line of argument in the appearance before the court. Citizens simply opt out of the tax by getting their own insurance, seems simple to me. Credit Tom Hartmann for pushing that line of reasoning, well done, Tom.
More blog, just now:
The money quote from the section on the mandate: ‘Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it . . ‘ The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.
While the serious people in the serious America party continue to favor religious authority over hot sex (the former being a reason to live, the latter being a farcical mirage), Bill Buckley’s magazine continues to have itself a field day. Rarely have so many serious people given the word “serious” a back-alley rogering. In the style of “Roger” Mahony, the L.A. Archbishop who built a career out of hoarding child molesters and erecting monuments to himself. Seriously.
A couple minutes into reading yesterday’s National Review, the logic-hoarding and the victim self-regarding did blaze their way across the pages, internetted as they were. And flammable, as they were, only in the sense of ‘flim-’. So get ready. Put on your mortician’s apron, sniper’s glasses and go-to-meeting most miserable ‘cuz the arguments are about to get real, well, you know.
A Genius for Subject Changing
By Mona Charen | National Review
The Obama administration issues an edict regarding birth control that is a) blatantly unconstitutional, b) economically absurd, and c) completely unmatched to any national need, and what are we talking about? The “Republican war on women.”
Boy howdy, there’s some whirlwind logic. Let me start by saying: a) don’t be silly, b) it saves money, and c) it’s completely necessary. Now, just yesterday morning, I posted a piece about Selwyn Duke’s article at Renew America, the Christian politics site. While Sandra Fluke never once said a word about her sex life — not a syllable — this was Selwyn’s reaction:
Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?
He makes his case clear, Mona: If a woman should testify before Congress about the need for contraception coverage in insurance plans, one’s proper and Christian response is to confer “slut status” upon her. If we haven’t descended to barbarism, that is. And if that isn’t a call to shun women who dare speak about their lives, what is? I’d call that a war.
Anyway, it’s your article, Mona. You make your case. Tell me about a) and b) and c).
Democrats are geniuses at muddying the waters and twisting the debate in a direction they find congenial. They’ve been at this a very long time. Recall that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we found ourselves ensnared in a discussion of so-called “censorship.” The National Endowment for the Arts, (a luxury no deeply indebted nation should indulge), had provided grants to two particularly obnoxious exhibits. One was a photograph by Andres Serrano called “Piss Christ” that depicted a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. The other was a series of homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, featuring, to cite just one example, a man’s anus being penetrated by a bullwhip.
Fair enough. You’d say our contraception argument is a crucifix in a jar of pee crammed up someone’s ass, back in 1989. You’re not by any chance changing the subject on me, now, are you? Because that’s the sort of yucky metaphor I’d prefer to avoid, our differences notwithstanding.
The liberals were ready with a jaw-dropping claim: To deny a federal subsidy to “Piss Christ” was censorship. Or, as Obama might put it, “It’s not who we are.”
Pretty muddy of you, Mona. Or, as Obama might put it: “Mona Charen, you’re not a particularly honest woman.” You can expect to hear that whenever you pretend the President can conduct conversations backwards through time.
Are you perhaps trying to say you don’t like it when the government pays for things you don’t like? The Pill, IUDs, smelly whips? Is there another point anywhere in here, amongst the art galleries and posters on the ceilings?
That even Catholic institutions, who object to this command on religious grounds, are to be bullied by the federal government into violating their consciences, ought to have provoked an outcry from liberals, allegedly firm guardians of the First Amendment.
Except they’re not, Mona. The premium-payers won’t cover the cost of contraception under Obamacare, the insurance companies will. The President made the policy change back on February 10th, saying: ” . . we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here — and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution,” Obama said. “As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.”
When does the adult, sensible and substantive part of a National Review article begin? Can I skip to that?
Contraceptives are not a matter of life and death. But even if they were, as for example, cancer drugs are, is that an argument for forcing insurance companies to provide them free of charge? Why not force free distribution of all medicines?
If all medicines save money in the long run, why not knock yourself out? Because that’s what contraception does. Here’s a sensible non-NR argument:
“If you look at the overall cost of providing health care to a woman the cost goes up, not down, if you take contraceptives out,” [Jacob] Lew said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “This is not going to cost the insurance companies money because, on an overall health care cost basis, it won’t cost more.”
The argument that contraception services save money over time is an old one in family planning circles. Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute says it simply costs the health care system less money when couples plan their pregnancies.
“And that means healthier pregnancies and healthier infants,” he says. “It means fewer preterm births and low birth-weight baby births. It means starting prenatal care earlier. All those things also can lead to cost savings.”
Poor Mona. She couldn’t get a single thing in her post right. Speaking of serious human beings: Jonah Goldberg. Just look at all the miserable hard work they put him through yesterday. First, he had to compare Sandra Fluke to another serious person:
Sandra Fluke v. Joe the Plumber
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review
. . I think the comparison is interesting in numerous ways. When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism . .
Yeah, they’re pretty similar in story, the women’s reproductive rights activist at Georgetown law and the ‘plumber.’ One caused and courted controversy to jump-start a career as a know-nothing political gadfly, and the other was called a slut by the leader of the GOP. Joe the Plumber got the short end of that deal, surely.
Then Jonah had to append serious commentary to these:
Here’s a relevant one:
And though you’d imagine he’d be exhausted by now, he wasn’t. Jonah then scribbled down some thoughts on Super Tuesday:
News reaches us from the Cotton-Mather-C.H.U.D.s. Can you believe it? They’re still digging.
To wit: At the top of Renew America’s charts this morning, the Christian go-to site for politics, its the righteous refrain of Selwyn Duke and his Pasted Chastes. Fire up the old Firestone Air Chief, gals, and huddle ’round. Let the sound of sex panic wash over you like the pneuma of a plague.
A woman close to me once characterized the sea change in our society well. “Years ago you knew who the bad girls were,” said she. “Now you know who the good girls are.”
So it begins. The giant god-fearing blog decides, today, to attack Sandra Fluke.
Now, I’ll leave it to you to determine her implication, but I’ll say that if a female law student is engaging in so much sexual congress that she’s spending a mint on birth-control, I wouldn’t reflexively assume she’s a slut.
. . 2 . . 1 . .
Because I’d wonder how she was working her way through law school.
You thought we blew past this days ago. You were wrong. These topics, women’s reproductive health and contraception, are freighted with moral complexities you, so far, have refused to understand. That’s why the fire drill for crotch politics stretches into, what, week 3? Where are you going? Get back here. Square people want to tell you about the coitus. Square people really need to, apparently.
Really, though, if such a woman doesn’t deserve slut status, who does? Is the word now obsolete? Have we become like a Barbary-pirate nation where the term “thief” may be out of style because its use may offend the majority?
So get out your textbooks on civil rights, social justice, healthcare’s role in modern society, human behavior, and whatever you’ve got on privacy issues. After so many days of one side simply calling Fluke “a slut,” the tenor of discussion is about to ratchet, ehh, somewhere. I sense something’s about to get plenty deep (never mind the discussion).
Remember that copulation among unmarried people that requires birth control used to be called fornication; now they call it recreational sex. But it’s called “recreational” for a reason.
It’s done for recreation.
Ba-doom-pah. Yes, the First Annual Colloquy for Serious Chatter About Your Sex Life opens today. You’re invited. And look who’s offering the plenary lecture of the debut assembly? Duke! Selwyn Duke, everybody.
So the question is, why should taxpayers be forced to fund someone’s salacious conception of recreation? Hey, pay for my golf, too, okay? That can be expensive also.
This is much better. The petty fears and hang-ups pushed aside. Our two sides finally generating an adult discussion about sex.
Meanwhile, oh-so chivalrous Barack Obama placed a phone call to feminist Fluke to offer his support — and increase his among the fairer sex. I guess he’s that certain type of man who uses loose women for personal gain.
I anticipate some sort of porque detente soon. Maybe later today.
I suppose I could’ve come up with a better title, but David Brooks doesn’t earn anything more sophisticated. His New York Times op-ed on ‘end of life’ care and its costs to society is a dismal attempt at meaningful thoughts.
Rather than composing something insightful and provocative, seeing as we’re dealing with our deaths, in Death and Budgets he writes a cliche. It’s what you’d expect from a Conservative sharp enough to earn the routine praise of “He’s not that bad.”
It was a post from the wittier and far more engaging Dudley Clendinen that inspired Brooks to his latest humdrum. Dudley is dying from one of the most awful, most cruel afflictions, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Lou Gehrig’s disease. It will rob him of all his fundamental neurological functions: movement, speaking, eating, crapping and breathing. Dudley knows his future, and he’s made his plans:
When the music stops — when I can’t tie my bow tie, tell a funny story, walk my dog, talk with Whitney, kiss someone special, or tap out lines like this — I’ll know that Life is over.
It’s time to be gone.
That is awesome courage. It’s humbling to be aware of what he faces and how he’s chosen to die. Dudley will kill himself. I thank the stars for my having avoided challenges even half as terrifying, so far. I hope my luck continues.
Reflecting upon the life and approaching death of Dudley, David Brooks appreciated something else; he was struck by the appropriateness of it all. Why don’t more people do this? If only they knew.
Clendinen’s article is worth reading for the way he defines what life is. Life is not just breathing and existing as a self-enclosed skin bag. It’s doing the activities with others you were put on earth to do.
Ugh. I’d like to apologize for Brooks. I immediately recall the quadriplegics in the world who go on living difficult but meaningful lives, each an apparent “self-enclosed skin bag.” I think of the brilliant and productive Stephen Hawking, now 69. Brooks won’t sniff the edges of the boundless idea “What makes life worth living?” An over-simplification of Clendinen’s idea suffices totally for Brooks. Dreadfully lazy.
Lumbering forward, Brooks adds that our elder society aren’t really getting any better. They’re merely lingering in an enfeebled state.
Years ago, people hoped that science could delay the onset of morbidity. We would live longer, healthier lives and then die quickly. This is not happening. Most of us will still suffer from chronic diseases for years near the end of life, and then die slowly.
Huh? From where did Brooks conjure a “die quickly” objective? I don’t work in research any more, but I used to, in molecular biology. And in all my days, I never heard any rational person say that old people dying suddenly was either a likely or worthwhile development. It’s a senseless claim.
Brooks made this up, I think. If anything is the hallmark of poor medical care, it’s sudden death. This is what goes on in Third World countries, with their lacks of doctors and drugs and hospitals and research. Lingering death is what you get when you have good medical care, period. This is a good sign, David, and you should hail its arrival.
Knowing this, yes, it’s time to have some serious discussions. We are likely to end up in a chronic, debilitating condition. We should be thankful for the many years we had before we got there. But it is not incumbent upon us to bow out in a manner convenient to David Brooks . .
. . it is hard to see us reducing health care inflation seriously unless people and their families are willing to do what Clendinen is doing — confront death and their obligations to the living.
. . especially when you see what a dreadful animal of convenience he is. Clendinen, in choosing suicide, obliges no one but himself. He chooses to die, in the face of any and all of Brooks’ societal obligations, because that’s what’s best for him. Brooks comes close to lessening Clendinen’s wholly personal courage by tossing him into a utilitarian hopper. It’s clumsy and ugly, frankly.
And I can imagine someone else facing the same fate who’d write from the opposite perspective: that he or she would reject any other way out, that they would fight on, with all the indignities, to the bitter end. I promise you, I would be moved by that. And I don’t particularly care to think of what it means to society.
Accepting death in a manner appropriate to you is a daunting thing to ponder, awesome in its size and consequence. If we’re to take ‘end of life’ issues seriously, let’s avoid lazy parables. Let’s avoid lauding suicides as practical and good medical care as problematic.
Let’s also affirm that the growing tendency of the dying to be capable of hanging on is a positive development. This is a choice mankind never had before. Let’s agree lack of medical care prevented millions of people from getting the opportunity to say ‘yes’ to this particular fate. Let’s admit that David’s friends, the insurance companies, have been sentencing people to premature death for decades, and this is not a solution. It has been an anti-societal abomination. Let’s call out David’s buddies for their war on science and scientists in the form of Bible-based Creationism and head-banging Global Warming denials. When a medical ‘scientist’ tells you your condition will deteriorate and result in death, you’ve got to be able to accept his prognosis. Given the most important decision of your life, you’ve got to know he isn’t lying.
When everyone has the right to hang on long after perhaps we’d predict, then we can have a robust discussion about what’s best for all of society. After.
Republicans act weird. Republicans who are newly restored to power, ready to grandstand, act bizarre:
So this is the Republicans’ brilliant legal argument against healthcare. Babies dying in dingy back alleys never participate in interstate commerce so NA NA NA NA. You suck Q.E.D.
Can you blame Representative Jared Polis for being dumbfounded? I can’t. My mind went blank too trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with Representative King.
Perhaps Steve will next point out that aborted babies never get to participate in anything, even dumpster diving. Therefore, by his interpretation of the equal protections clause, the Army get to shoot the First Lady in the ass. And the United States technically ceased to exist in Medieval Times (the joust-theater restaurant). The law is open to wee interpretations, his and Steve’s.
FTW, the individual mandate doesn’t force you to buy insurance, it forces you to pay a $695 yearly tax. The government’s power to tax is spelled out in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution. If you’d like to avoid the tax by buying affordable healthcare that the tax subsidizes knock yourself out.
And to indulge Steve’s perverse imagination: the baby never lives long enough to be subject to the provisions of the law. It uses no healthcare and it isn’t forced to buy insurance. Your argument is moot. And insane.
The price of perpetual adolescence
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
. . which got me thinking about the much ballyhooed provision of the Obamacare bill that allows parents to include “children” up to age 26 in their family health insurance policies. This is said to be wildly popular among the Millennial Generation, those born after 1980.
I think it’s appalling, on several grounds . .
It insures uninsured Americans in their twenties. That’s appalling to you guys, we already know that.
. . people aged 26 are not “children,” . .
Fuck young adults with crappy jobs and slender incomes. Yeah, yeah, got that.
. . they for the most part don’t have substantial health care expenses (aside from pregnancies and births) and they should not be encouraged to remain dependent on parents for extended periods.
Huh? These people are the golden group, insurance-wise. Nobody is cheaper to cover — you yourself pointed that out, Barone. So why does it torture you that their parents now can elect to continue to cover them without interference? I know if I had a kid in graduate school, it would be a wise, humane and cheap thing to do.
In that spirit, let me suggest that the Obamacare bureaucrats, in order to hold down health care expenses, may have to set some terms and conditions for “children” aged 21 to 26 who remain on their parents’ health insurance policies.
Late night activities can result in increased rates of accidents and unplanned pregnancies, so they may be required to be home by 10:30 on weeknights and midnight on weekends.
OH HO! Aren’t you sneaky? And funny?
Extended periods of idleness and physical inactivity can promote obesity and attendant health care problems, so they may be required to do household chores including laundry, window washing, lawn mowing and cleaning out the garage.
No you’re not. But I think I see where you’re going. This is the sort of shit your asshole alcoholic Dad pulled on you, Michael. And, gee, don’t you miss him? Ah, caustic memories. Gosh, you had some nasty run-ins with him, but, all tolled, wasn’t he . . pretty much right about the world?
Substantial alcohol consumption and tobacco use, not to mention the use of controlled substances, can cause expensive health care problems, so they may be required to submit to laws on alcohol and tobacco use otherwise applicable only to those under age 21.
Naw, he was just another drunk. And didn’t you already state that twenty-somethings don’t have pressing health crises? Or is there some post-collegial lung cancer epidemic I missed? Maybe they’re huffing Snus because they miss being un-insured.
And given the concerns about brain damage from excessive cellphone use, they may be subject to limits on the number of minutes they can talk each day.
“Progressives” are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth . .
We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center — all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism — liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.
Prosecutors: Enraged by health reform, man threatens to kill Murray
By SCOTT SUNDE
A central Washington man was so enraged by the passage of federal health care reform that he threatened to kill U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, prosecutors charged Tuesday.
“I want to …. kill you,” court documents say Charles Alan Wilson of Selah said in one of his foul-mouthed calls to Murray’s office.
“Kill the …. senator! Hang the …. senator! I hope somebody puts a …. bullet between your …. eyes,” court documents say he said in another call.
Wilson, 64, was charged Tuesday morning with threatening a federal official. He was undone, in part, by an FBI agent who posed as being with a group that wanted to repeal health-care reform . .
“It only takes one piece of lead….Kill the ….. senator! Kill the …. senator! I’ll donate the lead,” court documents say he said in the first recorded and saved message . .
“Since you are going to put my life at risk, and some bureaucrat is going to determine my health care, your life is at risk, dear. Yes, your life is at risk,” court documents say Wilson said in one of the calls on March 23 . .
On April Fool’s Day, an undercover agent called Wilson, pretending to be a representative of Patients United Now, a group that wanted health-care reform repealed. Wilson agreed to have the call recorded . .
During the call with the FBI agent, Wilson said he hated health-care reform and that he called Murray and her fellow Washington Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell, every day.
He called them both “Pike Street whores,” which is a phrase that court documents say was used in the messages left at Murray’s office.
He allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he regularly carries a gun and that he has a concealed-weapons permit . .
ADD: FBI arrests Calif man for alleged Pelosi threats
By JASON DEAREN and DEVLIN BARRETT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 7, 2010; 7:09 PM
SAN FRANCISCO — A California man angry about health care reform allegedly made threatening and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including at least one call in which he got through and spoke to her directly, law enforcement officials said . .
Several federal officials said [Gregory Lee] Giusti made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office. They said he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted . .
Why do these people try so hard to make other people look foolish when they’ve already been shown to be fools? Why do they open their mouths when they know everybody is about to burst out laughing? Why does David Hasselhoff step outside of his house, why does Madonna do interviews?
Glenn Reynolds criticizes the recently passed healthcare reform. His angle is that the legislation is actually people, in the form of ‘regulators’ or ‘operators’, and he’s just gotta tell you they’re all morons:
Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Progressives can’t get past the Knowledge Problem
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
April 4, 2010
– “If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” — President Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981.
He’s put on his critical thinking cap, and he’s gonna let you peek in on his genius tinkering by quoting President Bonzo? Granted, George W. Bush made him look like a likable C student, but they’re both frighteningly dumb. Ronnie:
– “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
– “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
– “Facts are stupid things.”
That’s not somebody worthy of quoting in a post that’s meant to shame your opposition for sheer stupidity.
. . In his “The Use of Knowledge In Society,” [Friedrich] Hayek explained that information about supply and demand, scarcity and abundance, wants and needs exists in no single place in any economy. The economy is simply too large and complicated for such information to be gathered together . .
Market mechanisms, like pricing, do a better job than planners because they incorporate what everyone knows indirectly through signals like price, without central planning.
– “Market mechanisms, like pricing, do a better job than planners because they incorporate what everyone knows indirectly through signals like price, without central planning.”
This guy’s got the chutzpah to quote a thinker and to lecture us all, and he’s a naked fool. Or, to insult him another way . .
– “Pricing does a better job because it incorporates what we learn through price.”
Brilliant! Given the price, stuff like pricing tells you a lot. I have to agree.
Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there’s some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!
But it’s just as likely that adding 30 or 40 IQ points to the average congressman wouldn’t make much difference.
The United States Code — containing federal statutory law — is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117pages
[sic] long and composes226volumes [sic].
No one on Earth understands them all, and the potential interaction among all the different rules would choke a supercomputer. This means, of course, that when Congress changes the law, it not only can’t be aware of all the real-world complications it’s producing, it can’t even understand the legal and regulatory implications of what it’s doing.
In other words — still Glenn’s –, when something is this big, no one should be allowed touch it. But moronic, arrogant liberals will try. And yet Glenn always wants to fuck with the government, or invade countries full of millions of innocent people.
Gee, you think Andrew Breitbart’s brain is a little overheated? Think his view of the Tea Party being equivalent to all of the United States is a stretch? Think that maybe he’s a little self-important, figuring that Obama had a grand design by deploying the Black Congressional Caucus to walk through a group of Tea Partiers? Think his assertion that Obama knew a gesture like that was capable of destroying both the movement and the nation a bit much?
Barack Obama’s Helter-Skelter, Insane Clown Posse, Alinsky Plans to ‘Deconstruct’ America
Posted by Andrew Breitbart
After 14 months of committing 100% to health care reform, the day after the signing of the Health Care bill was to mark the Democratic Party’s new primary concern: destroy the uprising, annihilate by all means necessary, the Tea Party movement.
Well, it’s such a huge threat. It might actually change a couple of Republican elections. We can’t have that, can we?
The first sign that a plan was in place was the ham-fisted, high-camp posturing of the most controversial members of the Democratic caucus walking through the peaceful but animated “Tea Party” demonstrators on Capitol Hill. There is no reason for these elected officials to walk above ground through the media circus amid their ideological foes.
DAMN. Well, you finally caught on to it. I was hoping that no one ever figured that one out: yes, the walk-through was totally a ruse. The amazing thing is . . we’ve been doing it for years, walking in some proximity to the opposition. I’m walking next to a Republican right now, and, I swear-to-gawd, I’m about to burst out laughing — he has absolutely no idea.
. . Nancy Pelosi tipped her hand that race was a central part of her strategy. She invoked the Civil Rights Act and compared it with the universally reviled health care bill. Her caucus is doubling down on the civil-rights rhetoric. There are no coincidences.
Linking the health-care bill, which has nothing to do with black and white, to the divisive civil-rights period, while simultaneously accusing its opponents of being racist, is an evil strategy — literally. Charles Manson would approve.
Of course, in between slashing actresses, he’d send a message of approval of our politics. He’d say it was a terrifically nefarious strategy, literally.
And what would a metaphorical “evil strategy” be? Obviously, it’s some sort of non-strategy, the way a “bug” isn’t actually an insect. Or would a “strategy” strategy qualify? Why am I wasting time on Andrew Breitbart, ferchrissakes?
Here, feel free to read the angry ape-shit yourself . .