Warner_Todd_Huston's blog 2009-07-10T10:01:35Z WordPress http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/feed/atom/ Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Democrats proving Again That Compromise is Not an Option on Healthcare]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2029 2009-07-10T02:10:06Z 2009-07-10T10:01:35Z In this report we get a nice one-two punch. Not only are we seeing Democrats once again refusing even a tiny compromise with Republicans on Obama’s takeover of nearly 20% of our economy with his healthcare plans, but we also get to see another example of why Huffington Post is not journalism. I like a nice one-two punch for a Wednesday.

For one thing, the HuffPo article hilariously calls Democrat pitbull Rahm Emanuel a “conservative Democrat.” But let’s start with the more important political point and deal with the HuffPo chicanery second.

In a HuffPo “report” by Sam Stein, we see leftists, and extreme activists getting their shorts in a wad over the proposition from Republicans that the so-called public option only be set off by a “trigger,” one that would usher in that public option if insurance companies “fail to deliver” the affordable coverage that Obama is demanding. This trigger idea would exclude the public option at the outset only to have it come in later if needed.

To the lefties, though, this putting off of the public option is unacceptable. Even though the public option would come later anyway because the unreal expectations and government meddling of Obamacare would set the table for the trigger to be pulled regardless of initial claims. They know this, of course, but left-wingers want a socialistic healthcare plan and they don’t want to wait for any inevitable trigger mechanism to be pulled later. They want it now and that is that. It’s their way or the highway.

Consequently, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe has become the focus of left-wing ire because she is one senator floating the trigger idea. Absurdly, Snowe seems to be under the delusion that there is going to be some sort of “bi-partisan” bill coming from the Senate.

“It is important to get it to be a bipartisan initiative, given the dimensions of health care reform and the implications to all Americans,” she said. “Every American will be affected one way or the other under this.”

Senator Snowe, I hate to tell you, but they don’t want to compromise with you. Democrats want you to shut up and do what they tell you to do… like you usually do. After all, in the very same AP story, Senator Chuck Schumer admitted openly that he had no interest in Snowe’s thoughts on a trigger saying that the public option must be “available to all Americans from the first day.”

Left-wingers like HuffPo’s Sam Stein are also upset at White House pitbull Rahm Emanuel for his comments in the Wall Street Journal on July 7. Emanuel told the WSJ that the White House is open to the trigger idea if it achieves passage of the “reform” they are seeking. As far as Emanuel was concerned the initial offering of the public option could be put off for later.

“The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,” he said in an interview. “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is” negotiable.

But even as Emanuel made like the White House would consider this particular compromise with Republicans like Snowe, a few hours later the president reiterated that he is strongly for the public option to be in full force at the outset.

So, while Emanuel was floating the possibility of compromise, Obama was putting on airs as if he’d cut compromise off and Schumer was directly stating such proving that compromise is not something that Democrats are interested in. So, to that half of the electorate that vote GOP, the Democrats have a message: you can go pound sand as far as Obama and his Democrat cohorts are concerned. They want it now and that is that.

Now, to the amusing attempt at HuffPo’s Sam Stein pretending at journalism.

Stein essentially said what I just reported but he took many more paragraphs do do so and without as many links to show the original statements. Why? Well, because he padded his story with a ton of that “strategists say” and “a source said” nonsense we are so used to seeing from hack writers. Then he used these unnamed “sources” to buttress his own ideological assumption that Snowe is off-base and Obama and Schumer are right on the issues.

Another hilarious addition to Stein’s “report” is where his “source” called Rahm Emanuel a “conservative Democrat.”

“Rahm’s problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy,” the source added. “He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn’t mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit.”

This is a risible claim. Any look at Emanuel’s political record reveals a perfectly left-wing history. Emanuel’s is in no way a conservative record. Stein only added the Emanuel is “conservative” hilarity because Emanuel seemed to disagree with Stein’s feelings that a socialist healthcare plan is the right course. Further, if Emanuel is seen as “conservative” then his left-wing, “progressive” buddies on healthcare can find it easier to excoriate the White House Chief of Staff and rally to the president’s healthcare cause.

But here is the fact of the matter that Stein conveniently forgot to mention. Rahm Emanuel is not some rogue operative moving on his own agenda. In fact, he has no power of his own at all on the actual terms of the debate in Congress. Emanuel is carrying out the president’s orders. No more, no less. Emanuel spoke to the WSJ with Obama’s full knowledge to make it seem as if they were open to compromise. Then, in his inimitable way, Obama went out tell the American people that he was “strongly for” the public option. Hence, both messages are sent by a president that specializes in talking out of both side of his… mouth.

Only the truth is, Obama’s White House, while touting the public option all along, has also said that they’d listen to all sides. “We are open to all ideas to talk about health reform,” has been a common mantra. (Including, I remind you, a tax on your healthcare benefits from work, something Obama ridiculed McCain for during the late campaign.)

So, Obama is playing the I’m-a-reasonable-guy game. Pretending on one hand that everything is on the table and he’ll listen to everyone to get a good plan, yet on the other insisting that everything isn’t on the table because he insists that a government takeover of healthcare be implemented.

But did Sammy Stein note any of this in his report? No. And why? Only because he could set Emanuel up as a fall guy and make Obama look like the good guy on the white horse riding in to save the day for socialist healthcare. And to support the president, Stein used a passel full of sources saids to make it seem as if “experts” were lining up behind Obama and not that dumb, evil, “conservative” Emanuel.

Stein’s blather is pure advocacy, not journalism.

]]> In this report we get a nice one-two punch. Not only are we seeing Democrats once again refusing even a tiny compromise with Republicans on Obama’s takeover of nearly 20% of our economy with his healthcare plans, but we also get to see another example of why Huffington Post is not journalism. I like a nice one-two punch for a Wednesday.

For one thing, the HuffPo article hilariously calls Democrat pitbull Rahm Emanuel a “conservative Democrat.” But let’s start with the more important political point and deal with the HuffPo chicanery second.

In a HuffPo “report” by Sam Stein, we see leftists, and extreme activists getting their shorts in a wad over the proposition from Republicans that the so-called public option only be set off by a “trigger,” one that would usher in that public option if insurance companies “fail to deliver” the affordable coverage that Obama is demanding. This trigger idea would exclude the public option at the outset only to have it come in later if needed.

To the lefties, though, this putting off of the public option is unacceptable. Even though the public option would come later anyway because the unreal expectations and government meddling of Obamacare would set the table for the trigger to be pulled regardless of initial claims. They know this, of course, but left-wingers want a socialistic healthcare plan and they don’t want to wait for any inevitable trigger mechanism to be pulled later. They want it now and that is that. It’s their way or the highway.

Consequently, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe has become the focus of left-wing ire because she is one senator floating the trigger idea. Absurdly, Snowe seems to be under the delusion that there is going to be some sort of “bi-partisan” bill coming from the Senate.

“It is important to get it to be a bipartisan initiative, given the dimensions of health care reform and the implications to all Americans,” she said. “Every American will be affected one way or the other under this.”

Senator Snowe, I hate to tell you, but they don’t want to compromise with you. Democrats want you to shut up and do what they tell you to do… like you usually do. After all, in the very same AP story, Senator Chuck Schumer admitted openly that he had no interest in Snowe’s thoughts on a trigger saying that the public option must be “available to all Americans from the first day.”

Left-wingers like HuffPo’s Sam Stein are also upset at White House pitbull Rahm Emanuel for his comments in the Wall Street Journal on July 7. Emanuel told the WSJ that the White House is open to the trigger idea if it achieves passage of the “reform” they are seeking. As far as Emanuel was concerned the initial offering of the public option could be put off for later.

“The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,” he said in an interview. “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is” negotiable.

But even as Emanuel made like the White House would consider this particular compromise with Republicans like Snowe, a few hours later the president reiterated that he is strongly for the public option to be in full force at the outset.

So, while Emanuel was floating the possibility of compromise, Obama was putting on airs as if he’d cut compromise off and Schumer was directly stating such proving that compromise is not something that Democrats are interested in. So, to that half of the electorate that vote GOP, the Democrats have a message: you can go pound sand as far as Obama and his Democrat cohorts are concerned. They want it now and that is that.

Now, to the amusing attempt at HuffPo’s Sam Stein pretending at journalism.

Stein essentially said what I just reported but he took many more paragraphs do do so and without as many links to show the original statements. Why? Well, because he padded his story with a ton of that “strategists say” and “a source said” nonsense we are so used to seeing from hack writers. Then he used these unnamed “sources” to buttress his own ideological assumption that Snowe is off-base and Obama and Schumer are right on the issues.

Another hilarious addition to Stein’s “report” is where his “source” called Rahm Emanuel a “conservative Democrat.”

“Rahm’s problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy,” the source added. “He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn’t mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit.”

This is a risible claim. Any look at Emanuel’s political record reveals a perfectly left-wing history. Emanuel’s is in no way a conservative record. Stein only added the Emanuel is “conservative” hilarity because Emanuel seemed to disagree with Stein’s feelings that a socialist healthcare plan is the right course. Further, if Emanuel is seen as “conservative” then his left-wing, “progressive” buddies on healthcare can find it easier to excoriate the White House Chief of Staff and rally to the president’s healthcare cause.

But here is the fact of the matter that Stein conveniently forgot to mention. Rahm Emanuel is not some rogue operative moving on his own agenda. In fact, he has no power of his own at all on the actual terms of the debate in Congress. Emanuel is carrying out the president’s orders. No more, no less. Emanuel spoke to the WSJ with Obama’s full knowledge to make it seem as if they were open to compromise. Then, in his inimitable way, Obama went out tell the American people that he was “strongly for” the public option. Hence, both messages are sent by a president that specializes in talking out of both side of his… mouth.

Only the truth is, Obama’s White House, while touting the public option all along, has also said that they’d listen to all sides. “We are open to all ideas to talk about health reform,” has been a common mantra. (Including, I remind you, a tax on your healthcare benefits from work, something Obama ridiculed McCain for during the late campaign.)

So, Obama is playing the I’m-a-reasonable-guy game. Pretending on one hand that everything is on the table and he’ll listen to everyone to get a good plan, yet on the other insisting that everything isn’t on the table because he insists that a government takeover of healthcare be implemented.

But did Sammy Stein note any of this in his report? No. And why? Only because he could set Emanuel up as a fall guy and make Obama look like the good guy on the white horse riding in to save the day for socialist healthcare. And to support the president, Stein used a passel full of sources saids to make it seem as if “experts” were lining up behind Obama and not that dumb, evil, “conservative” Emanuel.

Stein’s blather is pure advocacy, not journalism.

]]> 6 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[What Kind Of Care, Anyway?]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2027 2009-07-10T02:08:28Z 2009-07-10T07:30:39Z For those that want universal healthcare, the panacea of “coverage” is expected to “give” all those currently without healthcare coverage the access they need to the medical care they now lack. This sounds wonderful all things being equal. It sounds caring and big hearted of them to want everyone to get medical care. But what is the practical outcome of this desire with a system in government hands?

Obama has claimed that he wants to create a sort of standard minimum of coverage provided by government for those entirely without. Again, it sounds like a great idea but how long does that minimum standard stay minimum? Unfortunately, what might be considered minimum now would quickly become all inclusive with just every kind of service imaginable added to the plan as inevitable government “mission creep” continues to raise the bar for political reasons.

Where today a government administrator might imagine that liposuction, botox, and sex change operations don’t fit a minimum coverage, inevitably some Congressman or Senator would have a high donating constituent, or some advocacy group that would cajole them to add it later. this will inevitably cause costs to the government plan to grow without end.

As the founders knew, government tends to take on more and more power unto itself, growing like a weed in a garden until it encompasses the whole plot, chocking out all competitors in the free market. Unless the people cut back government by voting for cost cutters, corruption fighters or small government aficionados, government will become an unwieldy beast. We’ve seen this in California and this is why the state is bankrupt, too.

Applying this to healthcare, we will surely see what might be a basic, minimum coverage plan start out, but it will soon grow to gargantuan proportions once more and more services, operations, and drugs are added to the list that taxpayers will be forced to pay for. More and more patients will uses these unnecessary services causing the system to groan under the weight of what is demanded of it.

In the end, costs will simply run so high that the system will quickly become bankrupted and unsustainable.

Life sustaining services are one thing. But once it is determined that citizens have a “right” to such services on the public dime, it won’t be long before people decide that laser eye surgery is a right, that cosmetic surgery is an important quality of life issue, or that penile extension surgery is something that no one should be forced to do without. And for each of these “necessary” services, a compliant Congressman or Senator can easily be found to vote “yes” on including such necessities in the public plan.

We can easily see that this will be the case when looking at the prison medical systems as a case study. We’ve all heard the ridiculous stories where some judge somewhere forced a state to pay for inmates’ liposuction or sex change operations because these medical systems re operated under color of government authority. Does anyone think that when the first state prison medical system was created that the politicians that authorized it would imagine that a sex change was a necessary medical service to inmates? Certainly not. But we arrived at that point anyway, didn’t we?

We also have the example of the coverage currently offered to New Hampshire state government employees. Due to union overreach and pliant lawmakers, their coverage has evolved into the sort of outlandish, Cadillac plan we are talking about. For a $60 a month premium, state employees get over $20,000 worth of services. Surgery is “free,” MRIs and CAT scans are as well. All sorts of premium services have been added to their plans through purely political, not medical, means.

These examples are the templates that any federal plan will follow. And America will drown in the bills.

]]> For those that want universal healthcare, the panacea of “coverage” is expected to “give” all those currently without healthcare coverage the access they need to the medical care they now lack. This sounds wonderful all things being equal. It sounds caring and big hearted of them to want everyone to get medical care. But what is the practical outcome of this desire with a system in government hands?

Obama has claimed that he wants to create a sort of standard minimum of coverage provided by government for those entirely without. Again, it sounds like a great idea but how long does that minimum standard stay minimum? Unfortunately, what might be considered minimum now would quickly become all inclusive with just every kind of service imaginable added to the plan as inevitable government “mission creep” continues to raise the bar for political reasons.

Where today a government administrator might imagine that liposuction, botox, and sex change operations don’t fit a minimum coverage, inevitably some Congressman or Senator would have a high donating constituent, or some advocacy group that would cajole them to add it later. this will inevitably cause costs to the government plan to grow without end.

As the founders knew, government tends to take on more and more power unto itself, growing like a weed in a garden until it encompasses the whole plot, chocking out all competitors in the free market. Unless the people cut back government by voting for cost cutters, corruption fighters or small government aficionados, government will become an unwieldy beast. We’ve seen this in California and this is why the state is bankrupt, too.

Applying this to healthcare, we will surely see what might be a basic, minimum coverage plan start out, but it will soon grow to gargantuan proportions once more and more services, operations, and drugs are added to the list that taxpayers will be forced to pay for. More and more patients will uses these unnecessary services causing the system to groan under the weight of what is demanded of it.

In the end, costs will simply run so high that the system will quickly become bankrupted and unsustainable.

Life sustaining services are one thing. But once it is determined that citizens have a “right” to such services on the public dime, it won’t be long before people decide that laser eye surgery is a right, that cosmetic surgery is an important quality of life issue, or that penile extension surgery is something that no one should be forced to do without. And for each of these “necessary” services, a compliant Congressman or Senator can easily be found to vote “yes” on including such necessities in the public plan.

We can easily see that this will be the case when looking at the prison medical systems as a case study. We’ve all heard the ridiculous stories where some judge somewhere forced a state to pay for inmates’ liposuction or sex change operations because these medical systems re operated under color of government authority. Does anyone think that when the first state prison medical system was created that the politicians that authorized it would imagine that a sex change was a necessary medical service to inmates? Certainly not. But we arrived at that point anyway, didn’t we?

We also have the example of the coverage currently offered to New Hampshire state government employees. Due to union overreach and pliant lawmakers, their coverage has evolved into the sort of outlandish, Cadillac plan we are talking about. For a $60 a month premium, state employees get over $20,000 worth of services. Surgery is “free,” MRIs and CAT scans are as well. All sorts of premium services have been added to their plans through purely political, not medical, means.

These examples are the templates that any federal plan will follow. And America will drown in the bills.

]]> 0 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Alcee Hastings’ Amendment Prevents ‘Hate Groups’ in Armed Services, But Who Determines ‘Hate’?]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2025 2009-07-08T17:20:23Z 2009-07-08T17:20:23Z Representative Alcee Hastings (D, Fla.) is touting his amendment to H.R.2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Section 524 stipulates a “prohibition on recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons associated or affiliated with groups or associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons of the United States government.”

As Hastings congratulates himself on a job well done — you know, cuz no one else will — one has to wonder exactly who it is that will determine what a “hate” group is in order to keep the armed forces free of “hate-related violence”? It turns out Hastings has given this power to the office of the Attorney General of the United States. That would be Eric Holder, the guy that wants to release Guantanamo terrorists into the interior of the country.

It is also a bit frightening to imagine that the government that issued that now infamous report calling anyone that votes Republican and has an appreciation for the Constitution a dangerous terrorist threat is being also given the power to determine who is and who isn’t a member of a “hate” group. There is something perversely ironic about giving the government that determined that our military veterans are prone to terrorist activities and the lure of extremist, hate groups the power to keep haters from joining the military.

Hastings admits that the armed forces already have numerous regulations governing what sort of recruit is allowed to enter service. So, why do we need this further law?

“The Armed Forces already have a great many regulations in place regarding the prohibition on extremist activities by military personnel. But the problem is that in many instances recruiters and commanding officers are looking the other way.

So, because Hastings has spoken through the force of law, now all those hatemongers will disappear from our military. We are saved!

Of course, as I mentioned above, the key is just who or what is a “hate group”? How far does this determination go? Can we expect that who ever happens to sit in the Attorney General’s office is free and clear to make his own determination? This year Tea Party goers are persona non gratta, but if the GOP takes over should we assume that members of Moveon.org will become anathema for military service? On second thought, that might not work. No one at Moveon.org would deign to serve their country in the first place, they so “loath the military.”

In any case, we are on shaky grounds with this amendment. A “hate” group is such an amorphous term, isn’t it? And isn’t such a vague concept ripe for political gamesmanship?

The full language of Section 524:

SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(c) Persons Associated or Affiliated With Hate Groups-

‘(1) PROHIBITION- A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.

‘(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP- In this subsection, the terms ‘group associated with hate-related violence’ or ‘hate group’ mean the following:

‘(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.

‘(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.

‘(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

‘(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a ‘race war’.

‘(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.

‘(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

‘(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.

]]> Representative Alcee Hastings (D, Fla.) is touting his amendment to H.R.2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Section 524 stipulates a “prohibition on recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons associated or affiliated with groups or associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons of the United States government.”

As Hastings congratulates himself on a job well done — you know, cuz no one else will — one has to wonder exactly who it is that will determine what a “hate” group is in order to keep the armed forces free of “hate-related violence”? It turns out Hastings has given this power to the office of the Attorney General of the United States. That would be Eric Holder, the guy that wants to release Guantanamo terrorists into the interior of the country.

It is also a bit frightening to imagine that the government that issued that now infamous report calling anyone that votes Republican and has an appreciation for the Constitution a dangerous terrorist threat is being also given the power to determine who is and who isn’t a member of a “hate” group. There is something perversely ironic about giving the government that determined that our military veterans are prone to terrorist activities and the lure of extremist, hate groups the power to keep haters from joining the military.

Hastings admits that the armed forces already have numerous regulations governing what sort of recruit is allowed to enter service. So, why do we need this further law?

“The Armed Forces already have a great many regulations in place regarding the prohibition on extremist activities by military personnel. But the problem is that in many instances recruiters and commanding officers are looking the other way.

So, because Hastings has spoken through the force of law, now all those hatemongers will disappear from our military. We are saved!

Of course, as I mentioned above, the key is just who or what is a “hate group”? How far does this determination go? Can we expect that who ever happens to sit in the Attorney General’s office is free and clear to make his own determination? This year Tea Party goers are persona non gratta, but if the GOP takes over should we assume that members of Moveon.org will become anathema for military service? On second thought, that might not work. No one at Moveon.org would deign to serve their country in the first place, they so “loath the military.”

In any case, we are on shaky grounds with this amendment. A “hate” group is such an amorphous term, isn’t it? And isn’t such a vague concept ripe for political gamesmanship?

The full language of Section 524:

SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(c) Persons Associated or Affiliated With Hate Groups-

‘(1) PROHIBITION- A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.

‘(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP- In this subsection, the terms ‘group associated with hate-related violence’ or ‘hate group’ mean the following:

‘(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.

‘(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.

‘(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

‘(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a ‘race war’.

‘(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.

‘(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

‘(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.

]]> 7 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[One Reason Our Healthcare System is in a Mess: Trial Lawyers]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2023 2009-07-08T17:16:23Z 2009-07-08T17:16:23Z OK, my headline is admittedly too simplistic. In fact, the whole medical malpractice milieu is sorely in need of a fix. We have unnecessarily large awards to aggrieved patients, crushing insurance costs to doctors to cover malpractice, a situation where defensive medicine drives up costs, and an entire industry of lawyers whose job it is, apparently, to rape the system and cause it to be burdensome for all of us. On top of that, we have a national party in the Democrats assisting these very destructive lawyers to do just that. This is a part of our medical system that truly needs reform.

We can start by getting Democrats to stop doing everything they can to bend over backwards for the John Edwards’ of this world — ambulance chasers extraordinaire. Democrats are the reason this has gotten so bad. And imagine, we are trusting to Democrats to “fix” what they, themselves broke with the greedy assistance of the trial lawyers.

Last month, I wondered aloud if Obama was going to cut these medical vultures off at the knees? I asked if Obamacare would mean that medical malpractice law will take a hit?

Currently doctors pay outrageous premiums for malpractice insurance. A CBS report from 2004, for instance, revealed that some OB-GYNs then paid as much as $90,000 a year for malpractice insurance. Today it is likely closer to $200,000. These outrageous premiums mean that a doctor must take in something like $400,000 a year to be able to afford the insurance premiums and still make a living worth going through the decades of training and schooling required to become a doctor.

Others are also wondering about Obama’s plans for medical malpractice reform. But it doesn’t look like Obama is really much interested in telling his trial lawyer backers to tone it down. There won’t be any “shared sacrifice” for trial lawyers if Obama has any say in the matter.

Richard Epstein also tackled this topic in The Wall Street Journal on June 30. Epstein compared our medical malpractice arena to that of other countries and the results prove that our trial lawyers and their Democratic Party patrons have created a mess for US in comparison.

Litigation in the U.S. has at least four distinctive procedural features that drive up malpractice costs. The first is jury trials, which can veer out of control and in any case introduce significant uncertainty. The second is the contingency-fee system, which allows well-heeled lawyers to self-finance litigation. The third is the rule that makes each side bear its own costs. This induces riskier lawsuits than are undertaken in most other countries, such as Canada, England and most of Europe, where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. The fourth is extensive pretrial discovery outside the direct supervision of judges, which occurs far more readily here than elsewhere.

Epstein identifies several other problems with our legal practices re medical malpractice and ends up finding that we burden ourselves with waste and abuse beyond measure.

A study led by David Studdert published in the 2006 New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the administrative expenses of the malpractice system were “exorbitant.” And worse, it found errors in jury verdicts in about a quarter of the litigated cases. Juries denied compensation properly due in 16% of the cases, and awarded it about 10% of the time when it was unwarranted. These error rates don’t include damage awards set at improper levels.

And here is one where Canada does do a far better job than we do. Epstein tells us that according to a 1992 study by Donald Dewees and Michael Trebilcock in the Osgood Hall Law Journal, Canada’s medical malpractice caseload was about the same as that of the U.S., but they incur about 10% of the total cost of ours. This is a travesty.

Epstein has several suggested correctives to our system, but he is reticent, it seems, to put the blame where it belongs: the Democrat Party. It is they who’ve passed laws that coddle trial lawyers looking for big payoffs and get rich quick schemes. And, as I said, we are unfortunate enough that it is they that folks are looking to for a healthcare fix.

For Democrats, with the trial lawyer backers in tow, there will be no fix of medical malpractice unless voters force the issue. If Barack Obama truly wanted reform, a major part of his healthcare policies would revolve around fixing the medical malpractice system we are currently suffering under.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not interested in reform. He only wants power.

Cross posted at HealthcareHorseRace.com.

]]> OK, my headline is admittedly too simplistic. In fact, the whole medical malpractice milieu is sorely in need of a fix. We have unnecessarily large awards to aggrieved patients, crushing insurance costs to doctors to cover malpractice, a situation where defensive medicine drives up costs, and an entire industry of lawyers whose job it is, apparently, to rape the system and cause it to be burdensome for all of us. On top of that, we have a national party in the Democrats assisting these very destructive lawyers to do just that. This is a part of our medical system that truly needs reform.

We can start by getting Democrats to stop doing everything they can to bend over backwards for the John Edwards’ of this world — ambulance chasers extraordinaire. Democrats are the reason this has gotten so bad. And imagine, we are trusting to Democrats to “fix” what they, themselves broke with the greedy assistance of the trial lawyers.

Last month, I wondered aloud if Obama was going to cut these medical vultures off at the knees? I asked if Obamacare would mean that medical malpractice law will take a hit?

Currently doctors pay outrageous premiums for malpractice insurance. A CBS report from 2004, for instance, revealed that some OB-GYNs then paid as much as $90,000 a year for malpractice insurance. Today it is likely closer to $200,000. These outrageous premiums mean that a doctor must take in something like $400,000 a year to be able to afford the insurance premiums and still make a living worth going through the decades of training and schooling required to become a doctor.

Others are also wondering about Obama’s plans for medical malpractice reform. But it doesn’t look like Obama is really much interested in telling his trial lawyer backers to tone it down. There won’t be any “shared sacrifice” for trial lawyers if Obama has any say in the matter.

Richard Epstein also tackled this topic in The Wall Street Journal on June 30. Epstein compared our medical malpractice arena to that of other countries and the results prove that our trial lawyers and their Democratic Party patrons have created a mess for US in comparison.

Litigation in the U.S. has at least four distinctive procedural features that drive up malpractice costs. The first is jury trials, which can veer out of control and in any case introduce significant uncertainty. The second is the contingency-fee system, which allows well-heeled lawyers to self-finance litigation. The third is the rule that makes each side bear its own costs. This induces riskier lawsuits than are undertaken in most other countries, such as Canada, England and most of Europe, where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. The fourth is extensive pretrial discovery outside the direct supervision of judges, which occurs far more readily here than elsewhere.

Epstein identifies several other problems with our legal practices re medical malpractice and ends up finding that we burden ourselves with waste and abuse beyond measure.

A study led by David Studdert published in the 2006 New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the administrative expenses of the malpractice system were “exorbitant.” And worse, it found errors in jury verdicts in about a quarter of the litigated cases. Juries denied compensation properly due in 16% of the cases, and awarded it about 10% of the time when it was unwarranted. These error rates don’t include damage awards set at improper levels.

And here is one where Canada does do a far better job than we do. Epstein tells us that according to a 1992 study by Donald Dewees and Michael Trebilcock in the Osgood Hall Law Journal, Canada’s medical malpractice caseload was about the same as that of the U.S., but they incur about 10% of the total cost of ours. This is a travesty.

Epstein has several suggested correctives to our system, but he is reticent, it seems, to put the blame where it belongs: the Democrat Party. It is they who’ve passed laws that coddle trial lawyers looking for big payoffs and get rich quick schemes. And, as I said, we are unfortunate enough that it is they that folks are looking to for a healthcare fix.

For Democrats, with the trial lawyer backers in tow, there will be no fix of medical malpractice unless voters force the issue. If Barack Obama truly wanted reform, a major part of his healthcare policies would revolve around fixing the medical malpractice system we are currently suffering under.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not interested in reform. He only wants power.

Cross posted at HealthcareHorseRace.com.

]]> 29 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Harry Potter Fan Group Promotes Gay Marriage]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2021 2009-07-07T10:43:46Z 2009-07-07T10:43:46Z Orlando Sentinel movie reviewer Roger Moore was excited to report on the efforts of some Harry Potter fans that want to “change the world” based on their interpretation of Potter character Dumbledore’s philosophy of life. He was happy, you see, because the group is all about “global transformation” and spreading global warming fears, gay marriage and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Moore writes abut a group called the Harry Potter Alliance whose website is a sort of Potter fan message board where fans write about what they are doing with their ideas on Potter philosophy. But, it goes “beyond the personal,” Moore approvingly says.

The Doctrine, however, goes beyond the personal, discussing how Dumbledore’s values can be translated onto the national and global stage into public policy that legalizes same sex marriage, indigenous people’s rights, the Employee Free Choice Act, and media reform while joining the HPA’s partner NGO’s in their stand against genocide, poverty, prison torture, and global warming.

And sure enough, a look at the website proves that subjects like “LGBT” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender), anti-capitalism, and global warming abound. There is the rather silly “don’t buy new stuff” section that encourages a fan base built on buying new books and movies not to buy “new stuff” in order to screw capitalist companies world wide. There’s a race section and a section about “political prisoners” in which the only entry is one detailing how evil the USA is for its policies… and not a WORD is spoken about Russia, China, North Korea, or any number of Middle Eastern countries that kill their own people on a daily basis.

The site was created by a 29-year-old failed actor named Andrew Slack who claims himself a “social organizer and human rights activist.” His “What Would Dumbledore Do” website offers a full plate of anti-U.S. and anti-western propaganda for Potter fans to get stirred up about. And it’s because the world faces “dark and difficult times,” you see? We are, the site’s creators sonorously intone, faced with:

  • Genocide, Poverty, AIDS, and Global Warming are ignored by our media and governments the way Voldemort’s return is ignored by the Ministry and Daily Prophet.
  • People are still discriminated against based on sexuality, race, class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and religion just as the Wizarding World continues to discriminate against Centaurs, Giants, House Elves, Half-Bloods, Muggle borns, Squibs, and Muggles
  • Our governments continue to respond to terror by torturing prisoners (often without trial) just as Sirius Black was tortured by dementors with no trial
  • A Muggle Mindset pervades over our culture-a mindset that values being “perfectly normal, thank you very much” over being interesting, original, loving, and creative

Slack and the girls that help him run the site want fans to get involved. In the “rock the vote” section, for instance, the site urges California’s voters to support gay marriage. One of the commenters in “The Common Room” expressed her rage that the Dumbledore character never “came out of the closet” in the kid’s books. And money is being raised for Slack’s favorite causes from site visitors.

Anyway, what we have here is left-wing indoctrination hiding behind a kiddie book and movie series. Let’s hope not too many kids get snared by this false front and get taken in by the propaganda. You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives. Too many Star Trek and Star Wars fans have been like that and now Harry Potter can claim the same sort of lonely, sad people, it appears.

It is great to be a huge fan of some bit of entertainment. Fun to go the movies, collect toys and books, go to conventions. But when you start trying to lead your life via the character’s claimed ideas, then you have gone too far. Forsaking real, ages old philosophy and religion for some kitchy TV, movie, or book series is an act of foolishness. And it never seems to take too long until some propagandist like this Andrew Slack fellow comes along to try to fit his left-wing ideology onto the entertainment in order to lead others toward his own political ideas.

Sadly, the Orlando Sentinel sees no reason not to try to help Andrew Slack snare as many unsuspecting Harry Potter fans as possible.

(Image courtesy of Scholastic Books, American distributor of the Potter book series.)

]]> Orlando Sentinel movie reviewer Roger Moore was excited to report on the efforts of some Harry Potter fans that want to “change the world” based on their interpretation of Potter character Dumbledore’s philosophy of life. He was happy, you see, because the group is all about “global transformation” and spreading global warming fears, gay marriage and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Moore writes abut a group called the Harry Potter Alliance whose website is a sort of Potter fan message board where fans write about what they are doing with their ideas on Potter philosophy. But, it goes “beyond the personal,” Moore approvingly says.

The Doctrine, however, goes beyond the personal, discussing how Dumbledore’s values can be translated onto the national and global stage into public policy that legalizes same sex marriage, indigenous people’s rights, the Employee Free Choice Act, and media reform while joining the HPA’s partner NGO’s in their stand against genocide, poverty, prison torture, and global warming.

And sure enough, a look at the website proves that subjects like “LGBT” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender), anti-capitalism, and global warming abound. There is the rather silly “don’t buy new stuff” section that encourages a fan base built on buying new books and movies not to buy “new stuff” in order to screw capitalist companies world wide. There’s a race section and a section about “political prisoners” in which the only entry is one detailing how evil the USA is for its policies… and not a WORD is spoken about Russia, China, North Korea, or any number of Middle Eastern countries that kill their own people on a daily basis.

The site was created by a 29-year-old failed actor named Andrew Slack who claims himself a “social organizer and human rights activist.” His “What Would Dumbledore Do” website offers a full plate of anti-U.S. and anti-western propaganda for Potter fans to get stirred up about. And it’s because the world faces “dark and difficult times,” you see? We are, the site’s creators sonorously intone, faced with:

  • Genocide, Poverty, AIDS, and Global Warming are ignored by our media and governments the way Voldemort’s return is ignored by the Ministry and Daily Prophet.
  • People are still discriminated against based on sexuality, race, class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and religion just as the Wizarding World continues to discriminate against Centaurs, Giants, House Elves, Half-Bloods, Muggle borns, Squibs, and Muggles
  • Our governments continue to respond to terror by torturing prisoners (often without trial) just as Sirius Black was tortured by dementors with no trial
  • A Muggle Mindset pervades over our culture-a mindset that values being “perfectly normal, thank you very much” over being interesting, original, loving, and creative

Slack and the girls that help him run the site want fans to get involved. In the “rock the vote” section, for instance, the site urges California’s voters to support gay marriage. One of the commenters in “The Common Room” expressed her rage that the Dumbledore character never “came out of the closet” in the kid’s books. And money is being raised for Slack’s favorite causes from site visitors.

Anyway, what we have here is left-wing indoctrination hiding behind a kiddie book and movie series. Let’s hope not too many kids get snared by this false front and get taken in by the propaganda. You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives. Too many Star Trek and Star Wars fans have been like that and now Harry Potter can claim the same sort of lonely, sad people, it appears.

It is great to be a huge fan of some bit of entertainment. Fun to go the movies, collect toys and books, go to conventions. But when you start trying to lead your life via the character’s claimed ideas, then you have gone too far. Forsaking real, ages old philosophy and religion for some kitchy TV, movie, or book series is an act of foolishness. And it never seems to take too long until some propagandist like this Andrew Slack fellow comes along to try to fit his left-wing ideology onto the entertainment in order to lead others toward his own political ideas.

Sadly, the Orlando Sentinel sees no reason not to try to help Andrew Slack snare as many unsuspecting Harry Potter fans as possible.

(Image courtesy of Scholastic Books, American distributor of the Potter book series.)

]]> 6 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[State Workers Worried About Losing ‘Cadillac’ Medical Benefits]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2019 2009-07-07T10:42:49Z 2009-07-07T10:42:49Z If you want to see the logical disconnect of unions and their lap dog lawmakers where it concerns costs to government, one need look no further than the over indulgent healthcare plan that New Hampshire’s state workers have been lavished with.

On July 4, the Boston Globe published a story that details the incredibly rich healthcare plan that state workers have succeeded in getting due to union negotiations with pliant Democrat lawmakers. It seems that they get just about any kind of care they want and all for “free.” It’s called a “Cadillac” healthcare plan and it is amazing for its coverage.

According to the Globe, surgery is free for New Hampshire state workers. So are MRIs, CT scans and X-Rays. It gets even more indulgent.

Pregnant women pay nothing for prenatal care; alcoholics aren’t billed for short stints in rehab. Seeing a therapist costs just $10, as many as 20 visits a year, and prescription drugs top out at $30 for a three-month mail-order supply. New Hampshire state employees get $450 annually toward gym memberships, if they go regularly, or $200 toward their own treadmill - and there’s a $150 annual reimbursement for yoga classes, diabetes clinics, and nutritional counseling.

All this for a $60 a month employee premium! For $60 state employees get $20,400 worth of medical coverage a year. Outside the $720 a year the employees pay, why it’s all free, right?

Now, do New Hampshire union reps think this is overindulgent, highly costly to state budgets, and unearned? Of course not. In fact, they think we ALL should get such expansive coverage.

But Diana Lacey, the chair of collective bargaining for the New Hampshire state employees’ union, says it’s wrong to call their plan “Cadillac’’ coverage, or to encourage employers to offer workers skimpy coverage. A health overhaul, she said, should “bring people up to the standard we have - healthcare that is responsible and affordable and you don’t have to go bankrupt to get the treatment you need.’’

You see, it’s free, ya know? State workers don’t have to pay for it… so it must be free! Right?

Except that you and I both know that nothing is free. So, who really pays for this unearned, over indulgent healthcare plan wrought by union thugs from pliant state Democrats? Who else but the taxpayers of New Hampshire, most of whom have nowhere near the coverage that their own state workers get.

This is the mentality that unions and Democrats are taking into this healthcare battle. Healthcare is a “right,” they insist. It should be “free,” they say. And this is why negotiating with them is impossible. They aren’t in touch with reality in any way. Their every premise is so wrong headed that any step we make in their direction is a step toward madness.

Call your federal representatives and tell them you want government out of healthcare, not even further into it.

]]> If you want to see the logical disconnect of unions and their lap dog lawmakers where it concerns costs to government, one need look no further than the over indulgent healthcare plan that New Hampshire’s state workers have been lavished with.

On July 4, the Boston Globe published a story that details the incredibly rich healthcare plan that state workers have succeeded in getting due to union negotiations with pliant Democrat lawmakers. It seems that they get just about any kind of care they want and all for “free.” It’s called a “Cadillac” healthcare plan and it is amazing for its coverage.

According to the Globe, surgery is free for New Hampshire state workers. So are MRIs, CT scans and X-Rays. It gets even more indulgent.

Pregnant women pay nothing for prenatal care; alcoholics aren’t billed for short stints in rehab. Seeing a therapist costs just $10, as many as 20 visits a year, and prescription drugs top out at $30 for a three-month mail-order supply. New Hampshire state employees get $450 annually toward gym memberships, if they go regularly, or $200 toward their own treadmill - and there’s a $150 annual reimbursement for yoga classes, diabetes clinics, and nutritional counseling.

All this for a $60 a month employee premium! For $60 state employees get $20,400 worth of medical coverage a year. Outside the $720 a year the employees pay, why it’s all free, right?

Now, do New Hampshire union reps think this is overindulgent, highly costly to state budgets, and unearned? Of course not. In fact, they think we ALL should get such expansive coverage.

But Diana Lacey, the chair of collective bargaining for the New Hampshire state employees’ union, says it’s wrong to call their plan “Cadillac’’ coverage, or to encourage employers to offer workers skimpy coverage. A health overhaul, she said, should “bring people up to the standard we have - healthcare that is responsible and affordable and you don’t have to go bankrupt to get the treatment you need.’’

You see, it’s free, ya know? State workers don’t have to pay for it… so it must be free! Right?

Except that you and I both know that nothing is free. So, who really pays for this unearned, over indulgent healthcare plan wrought by union thugs from pliant state Democrats? Who else but the taxpayers of New Hampshire, most of whom have nowhere near the coverage that their own state workers get.

This is the mentality that unions and Democrats are taking into this healthcare battle. Healthcare is a “right,” they insist. It should be “free,” they say. And this is why negotiating with them is impossible. They aren’t in touch with reality in any way. Their every premise is so wrong headed that any step we make in their direction is a step toward madness.

Call your federal representatives and tell them you want government out of healthcare, not even further into it.

]]> 5 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Democrats Will Reveal How They Want to ‘Pay’ For Healthcare]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2017 2009-07-07T10:21:45Z 2009-07-07T10:21:45Z We may know by the end of the week how the Democrats are claiming they will pay for their healthcare plans. News out of the House of Representatives is that they will introduce their bill on either Thursday or Friday of this week.

In the mean time, on Tuesday a caucus meeting with Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) will be held on Tuesday to discuss the funding plans. This will be followed by a brief by House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) while Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will speak on Friday. Rangel is last because his committee is in charge of finding the tax increases that will pay for the plan.

Democrats also say that the “public option” will be a prominent feature of their bill and will be similar to the current Medicare system.

Taxes on soda pop, a national sales tax, new taxes on healthcare benefits from employers, and a surtax on people making more than $250,000 annually are all being considered to help pay for the healthcare “reform.”

If Democrats settle on taxing healthcare benefits from employers, they will find a tough road to get the plan passed as the majority of Americans are against such a tax.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 58% of respondents feel that government run healthcare is a bad thing and that 72% do not want to pay more than $500 a year of their own money to “fix healthcare.”

The poll also found that of the 88% of respondents that already have healthcare 49% say they are very satisfied with their plans and 36% said they are somewhat satisfied. Once these voters realize that Obamacare will take away their current healthcare, there will be a lot of upset Americans.

In fact, in June, a CNN poll found that 58% are very concerned that their current level of healthcare will be reduced by government meddling.

If the Democrats introduce high taxing plans the middle class will surely revolt from Obamacare.

]]> We may know by the end of the week how the Democrats are claiming they will pay for their healthcare plans. News out of the House of Representatives is that they will introduce their bill on either Thursday or Friday of this week.

In the mean time, on Tuesday a caucus meeting with Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) will be held on Tuesday to discuss the funding plans. This will be followed by a brief by House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) while Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will speak on Friday. Rangel is last because his committee is in charge of finding the tax increases that will pay for the plan.

Democrats also say that the “public option” will be a prominent feature of their bill and will be similar to the current Medicare system.

Taxes on soda pop, a national sales tax, new taxes on healthcare benefits from employers, and a surtax on people making more than $250,000 annually are all being considered to help pay for the healthcare “reform.”

If Democrats settle on taxing healthcare benefits from employers, they will find a tough road to get the plan passed as the majority of Americans are against such a tax.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 58% of respondents feel that government run healthcare is a bad thing and that 72% do not want to pay more than $500 a year of their own money to “fix healthcare.”

The poll also found that of the 88% of respondents that already have healthcare 49% say they are very satisfied with their plans and 36% said they are somewhat satisfied. Once these voters realize that Obamacare will take away their current healthcare, there will be a lot of upset Americans.

In fact, in June, a CNN poll found that 58% are very concerned that their current level of healthcare will be reduced by government meddling.

If the Democrats introduce high taxing plans the middle class will surely revolt from Obamacare.

]]> 10 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[SEIU’s Way or the Highway]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2015 2009-07-07T09:07:36Z 2009-07-07T09:07:36Z I have a few questions for all you non-union employees out there (which is 80% of America). Can you lobby your employer for a raise any time you feel like it even when your company is nearly bankrupted? And, do you have employees that can get off work to do so when ever they want to? And do you have bosses that are also one of you and who can just bow to your every demand?

Sounds like a wonderful situation, doesn’t it? I mean, who wouldn’t want a situation where you can get whatever you want as an employee (including never getting fired) no matter if your company is bankrupt or not?

Well, that is the deal that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has with its employers. You see, they have folks that are so close with the employer that whenever they decide they want more benefits or a raise, they go demand it and it happens. It truly is the dream job.

The problem is, though, that WE are the employers. And WE are the ones paying the tab for that dream job because the SEIU represents government workers. And our politicians are the ones that give the SEIU anything it wants.

And WE pay the bills with our taxes. Taxes that are going up, up, up. And services that are going down, down, down, even as we pay more and more every year.

Yep, it’s a dream job, alright. The SEIU is living the dream. Unfortunately, their free ride is the tax payer’s burden.

Here is a nice little video of one of the SEIU’s carnival days that thousands of state workers were given the day off the attend.

Yeah. Must be nice. My favorite scene is the food tent. Yeah. It SURE looked like those folks were starving to death, eh?

]]> I have a few questions for all you non-union employees out there (which is 80% of America). Can you lobby your employer for a raise any time you feel like it even when your company is nearly bankrupted? And, do you have employees that can get off work to do so when ever they want to? And do you have bosses that are also one of you and who can just bow to your every demand?

Sounds like a wonderful situation, doesn’t it? I mean, who wouldn’t want a situation where you can get whatever you want as an employee (including never getting fired) no matter if your company is bankrupt or not?

Well, that is the deal that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has with its employers. You see, they have folks that are so close with the employer that whenever they decide they want more benefits or a raise, they go demand it and it happens. It truly is the dream job.

The problem is, though, that WE are the employers. And WE are the ones paying the tab for that dream job because the SEIU represents government workers. And our politicians are the ones that give the SEIU anything it wants.

And WE pay the bills with our taxes. Taxes that are going up, up, up. And services that are going down, down, down, even as we pay more and more every year.

Yep, it’s a dream job, alright. The SEIU is living the dream. Unfortunately, their free ride is the tax payer’s burden.

Here is a nice little video of one of the SEIU’s carnival days that thousands of state workers were given the day off the attend.

Yeah. Must be nice. My favorite scene is the food tent. Yeah. It SURE looked like those folks were starving to death, eh?

]]> 1 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[NYTimes Sneering at Christianity, Patriotism]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2012 2009-07-06T11:49:08Z 2009-07-06T11:49:08Z It seems that on July fourth, The New York Times saw fit to smirk at both American patriotism and Christianity. A recent Times article about the erection of a giant, though strategically altered, replica of the Statue of Liberty by a showman of a Memphis pastor presented a perfect example of the ridicule and disdain with which the Times views Christianity and American patriotism, both. In Memphis, Tennessee, writer Shalia Dewan could barely hide her sarcasm and distaste for the patriotism and the muscular Christianity espoused by Pastor Alton R. Williams in her coverage of the unveiling of the 72-foot-tall statue.

Tellingly, the entire top third of Dewan’s piece is filled with mockery, mischacterization, inapt comparison and quote after quote from Pastor Williams’ detractors. It isn’t until the initial ridicule is over that writer Dewan finally gives the pastor room to explain what his purpose and principle is in creating the odd paean to Lady Liberty.

One of the inapt comparisons is contained in Dewan’s first paragraph.

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

Since when is a shroud used to hide a statue until its public debut “much like a burqa”? Is what is hidden underneath obscured from view for modesty’s sake? Is it shame that the “brown shroud” covered up? Conversely, is there ever a time when a burqa is removed with pomp and circumstance for everyone to admire what hides beneath? No to all of that. The only reason that Dewan used the burqa quip is to cast aspersions on Pastor Williams’ entire enterprise, a burqa, after all, being one of the most currently well known and visually distinctive religious evils in the world.

The giant mock-up of Lady Liberty altered to fit Pastor Williams’ particular religious/patriotic message is over-the-top, certainly. One would be excused to find a chuckle rising at first sight or a cocked eyebrow at least. With a giant golden cross in Liberty’s upraised hand instead of the more familiar torch, the word “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown, and a single tear coursing down her cheek, the statue is a lot to take in.

But, Pastor Williams has a very specific and serious point that he wants to make with the display. Regardless of the reason for the statue, Dewan is more disposed to ridicule. She assumes that the cross is there “as if to ward off the pawnshops” and then claims that it “is not clear” what the tear on the cheek is for, despite that Williams clearly explains it later in the piece.

Naturally, as far as Dewan is concerned, it was important at the outset to tell readers that the statue “was not universally welcomed” despite that Pastor Williams’ flock was there by the hundreds and pleased at the unveiling. To illustrate the disapproval, Dewan issues no less than five quotes in a row expression their displeasure at the statue.

This is a backwards way to tell the story of an incident. The famous writer’s maxim is to provide the “who, what, when, where and why” of a story before getting to reactions of bystanders. In this case, we get mockery and detractors before many of the facts.

As it turns out, Dewan finally gets to the “why” Pastor Williams set up the huge display and his reasons are pretty solid if not understated in the least. Williams feels that too few black citizens in the U.S. are patriotic enough and he wants to reach out to them and shake them from their slumber.

In “The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity,” he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God’s response to what he calls the nation’s ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country’s “promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism.” In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans’s embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue’s essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation. But because the church he leads is predominantly black, as is he, there is an added dimension to the message.

Pastor Williams also feels that blacks have been too often led to ambivalence over American patriotism because of the history of slavery in America. He wants to reclaim patriotism for his people and reintroduce a pride in the red, white and blue.

Seems to me these are fine ideas and the pastor should be applauded for his efforts, not treated with the ridicule doled out by Dewan and The New York Times. And further that he might be right that a big gesture, a grand show is what is called for to shake the black community from its apathy towards the U.S.A.

Lastly, I’d like to point out that this “mega-church” of 12,000 black congregants obviously approved of the expenditure of the church’s $260,000 on the statue and the attendance of hundreds of them at the unveiling proved it. So, for Dewan to lead off with her disdain and ridicule on full display is an elitist slap in the face to those thousands of black church goers of whom she writes.

Unfortunately, ridicule of Christianity and a casual disregard for American patriotism is required for a writer for The New York Times, it seems, and Shalia Dewan reveals the requisite negativity toward both.

(Photo by John Peyton)

]]> It seems that on July fourth, The New York Times saw fit to smirk at both American patriotism and Christianity. A recent Times article about the erection of a giant, though strategically altered, replica of the Statue of Liberty by a showman of a Memphis pastor presented a perfect example of the ridicule and disdain with which the Times views Christianity and American patriotism, both. In Memphis, Tennessee, writer Shalia Dewan could barely hide her sarcasm and distaste for the patriotism and the muscular Christianity espoused by Pastor Alton R. Williams in her coverage of the unveiling of the 72-foot-tall statue.

Tellingly, the entire top third of Dewan’s piece is filled with mockery, mischacterization, inapt comparison and quote after quote from Pastor Williams’ detractors. It isn’t until the initial ridicule is over that writer Dewan finally gives the pastor room to explain what his purpose and principle is in creating the odd paean to Lady Liberty.

One of the inapt comparisons is contained in Dewan’s first paragraph.

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

Since when is a shroud used to hide a statue until its public debut “much like a burqa”? Is what is hidden underneath obscured from view for modesty’s sake? Is it shame that the “brown shroud” covered up? Conversely, is there ever a time when a burqa is removed with pomp and circumstance for everyone to admire what hides beneath? No to all of that. The only reason that Dewan used the burqa quip is to cast aspersions on Pastor Williams’ entire enterprise, a burqa, after all, being one of the most currently well known and visually distinctive religious evils in the world.

The giant mock-up of Lady Liberty altered to fit Pastor Williams’ particular religious/patriotic message is over-the-top, certainly. One would be excused to find a chuckle rising at first sight or a cocked eyebrow at least. With a giant golden cross in Liberty’s upraised hand instead of the more familiar torch, the word “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown, and a single tear coursing down her cheek, the statue is a lot to take in.

But, Pastor Williams has a very specific and serious point that he wants to make with the display. Regardless of the reason for the statue, Dewan is more disposed to ridicule. She assumes that the cross is there “as if to ward off the pawnshops” and then claims that it “is not clear” what the tear on the cheek is for, despite that Williams clearly explains it later in the piece.

Naturally, as far as Dewan is concerned, it was important at the outset to tell readers that the statue “was not universally welcomed” despite that Pastor Williams’ flock was there by the hundreds and pleased at the unveiling. To illustrate the disapproval, Dewan issues no less than five quotes in a row expression their displeasure at the statue.

This is a backwards way to tell the story of an incident. The famous writer’s maxim is to provide the “who, what, when, where and why” of a story before getting to reactions of bystanders. In this case, we get mockery and detractors before many of the facts.

As it turns out, Dewan finally gets to the “why” Pastor Williams set up the huge display and his reasons are pretty solid if not understated in the least. Williams feels that too few black citizens in the U.S. are patriotic enough and he wants to reach out to them and shake them from their slumber.

In “The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity,” he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God’s response to what he calls the nation’s ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country’s “promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism.” In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans’s embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue’s essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation. But because the church he leads is predominantly black, as is he, there is an added dimension to the message.

Pastor Williams also feels that blacks have been too often led to ambivalence over American patriotism because of the history of slavery in America. He wants to reclaim patriotism for his people and reintroduce a pride in the red, white and blue.

Seems to me these are fine ideas and the pastor should be applauded for his efforts, not treated with the ridicule doled out by Dewan and The New York Times. And further that he might be right that a big gesture, a grand show is what is called for to shake the black community from its apathy towards the U.S.A.

Lastly, I’d like to point out that this “mega-church” of 12,000 black congregants obviously approved of the expenditure of the church’s $260,000 on the statue and the attendance of hundreds of them at the unveiling proved it. So, for Dewan to lead off with her disdain and ridicule on full display is an elitist slap in the face to those thousands of black church goers of whom she writes.

Unfortunately, ridicule of Christianity and a casual disregard for American patriotism is required for a writer for The New York Times, it seems, and Shalia Dewan reveals the requisite negativity toward both.

(Photo by John Peyton)

]]> 0 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[AP’s Hyperbole Masquerades as Journalism]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2010 2009-07-06T11:48:13Z 2009-07-06T11:48:13Z For the Associated Press, Tim Klass shows that taking liberties with facts by enveloping them in wild hyperbole can sex up a boring story into something much more alarming. Unfortunately, what one ends up with is not a presentation of news, but a promulgation of a narrative that befits a particular political agenda. And this time writer Klass uses his hyperbolic style to advance the guns-are-evil story line.

The headline startles the reader by screaming out “Powerful weapons found in Northwest drug raids.” One immediately imagines an image of dozens of high powered and dangerous guns, those above and beyond the norm, in the hands of these felonious drug dealers. One imagines enough guns to arm an army with the police sorely out numbered. But, when the story is read in its entirety, it becomes obvious that “powerful weapons” turns into one high powered pistol, the rest being your average, everyday firearms seen all over the place.

Federal agents busted a drug-trafficking ring that distributed methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico in Washington state and carried unusually powerful weaponry, injecting a dangerous new factor into drug crime in the region.

The “unusually powerful weaponry” in discussion appears to be a .50-caliber Desert Eagle pistol. This pistol is a bit heavier than the average .45-caliber ACP automatic that the U.S. Army once issued by the thousands. The AP piece also describes a few other weapons.

A .50-caliber Desert Eagle pistol, AK-47-type semiautomatic assault rifle and 14 other weapons shown to reporters Thursday were among 23 guns seized in Operation Arctic Chill when 35 search warrants were served in the past two weeks. Also seized were 19 pounds of methamphetamine, a quarter-pound of cocaine, 22 vehicles and $60,000 in cash, and 31 people were arrested.

Yes, the one Desert Eagle is a powerful pistol and it isn’t all too common to see one of these expensive pistols in the hands of drug dealers. But the other weapons listed are not “unusually powerful” at all. In fact, they are common as dirt both in the U.S. and in Mexico.

Then we get more hyperbole in this:

The Desert Eagle pistol can “blow a hole the size of a Mack truck through a person,” said Leigh Winchell, regional chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A “Mack truck”? What over-the-top foolishness. A big hole, yes, but this is simple-minded hyperbole was meant to make the one high powered pistol they found take on gargantuan proportions. This is a government official trying to puff up his actions to make himself look better, nothing more.

But, the AP wasn’t done quoting this spittle-specked official.

“Knowing that you have meth traffickers on the street carrying .50-caliber handguns or assault rifles is very sobering and is of great concern to us,” Winchell said.

Again, we have one Desert Eagle here. Not an Eagle in every drug dealer’s pockets. But this doesn’t stop these self-justifying officials from buttering up the press with wild claims. “This number of weapons is unprecedented” adds U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan.

Now, remember. They found 23 guns total from multiple raids and one high powered pistol.

Raids were conducted in Tacoma, Olympia and nearby communities; Vancouver, Wash.; several Seattle suburbs; and Oakdale, Calif., where Moorin said a “superlab” capable of producing 10 pounds of meth at a time was found in a home.

Is 23 guns such a monumental amount from raids that took place over a large swath of the Pacific Northwest?

Now, there is no question that Mexican drug violence is getting worse and has spilled across the border into our country. There are a lot of troubles here, to be sure. But this story is filled with hyperbole that makes a mockery of the real troubles going on and is a perfect example of fitting in hyperbole where facts are needed.

]]> For the Associated Press, Tim Klass shows that taking liberties with facts by enveloping them in wild hyperbole can sex up a boring story into something much more alarming. Unfortunately, what one ends up with is not a presentation of news, but a promulgation of a narrative that befits a particular political agenda. And this time writer Klass uses his hyperbolic style to advance the guns-are-evil story line.

The headline startles the reader by screaming out “Powerful weapons found in Northwest drug raids.” One immediately imagines an image of dozens of high powered and dangerous guns, those above and beyond the norm, in the hands of these felonious drug dealers. One imagines enough guns to arm an army with the police sorely out numbered. But, when the story is read in its entirety, it becomes obvious that “powerful weapons” turns into one high powered pistol, the rest being your average, everyday firearms seen all over the place.

Federal agents busted a drug-trafficking ring that distributed methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico in Washington state and carried unusually powerful weaponry, injecting a dangerous new factor into drug crime in the region.

The “unusually powerful weaponry” in discussion appears to be a .50-caliber Desert Eagle pistol. This pistol is a bit heavier than the average .45-caliber ACP automatic that the U.S. Army once issued by the thousands. The AP piece also describes a few other weapons.

A .50-caliber Desert Eagle pistol, AK-47-type semiautomatic assault rifle and 14 other weapons shown to reporters Thursday were among 23 guns seized in Operation Arctic Chill when 35 search warrants were served in the past two weeks. Also seized were 19 pounds of methamphetamine, a quarter-pound of cocaine, 22 vehicles and $60,000 in cash, and 31 people were arrested.

Yes, the one Desert Eagle is a powerful pistol and it isn’t all too common to see one of these expensive pistols in the hands of drug dealers. But the other weapons listed are not “unusually powerful” at all. In fact, they are common as dirt both in the U.S. and in Mexico.

Then we get more hyperbole in this:

The Desert Eagle pistol can “blow a hole the size of a Mack truck through a person,” said Leigh Winchell, regional chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A “Mack truck”? What over-the-top foolishness. A big hole, yes, but this is simple-minded hyperbole was meant to make the one high powered pistol they found take on gargantuan proportions. This is a government official trying to puff up his actions to make himself look better, nothing more.

But, the AP wasn’t done quoting this spittle-specked official.

“Knowing that you have meth traffickers on the street carrying .50-caliber handguns or assault rifles is very sobering and is of great concern to us,” Winchell said.

Again, we have one Desert Eagle here. Not an Eagle in every drug dealer’s pockets. But this doesn’t stop these self-justifying officials from buttering up the press with wild claims. “This number of weapons is unprecedented” adds U.S. Attorney Jeffrey C. Sullivan.

Now, remember. They found 23 guns total from multiple raids and one high powered pistol.

Raids were conducted in Tacoma, Olympia and nearby communities; Vancouver, Wash.; several Seattle suburbs; and Oakdale, Calif., where Moorin said a “superlab” capable of producing 10 pounds of meth at a time was found in a home.

Is 23 guns such a monumental amount from raids that took place over a large swath of the Pacific Northwest?

Now, there is no question that Mexican drug violence is getting worse and has spilled across the border into our country. There are a lot of troubles here, to be sure. But this story is filled with hyperbole that makes a mockery of the real troubles going on and is a perfect example of fitting in hyperbole where facts are needed.

]]> 2 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Unions Stand In Way of Calif. Budget Reform]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2008 2009-07-06T11:47:34Z 2009-07-06T11:47:34Z Governor Schwarzenegger said it exactly right. Unions and lap-dog, Democrat legislators in Sacramento are doing their best to make sure that everyone but they have to sacrifice to save California’s budget. The governor told reporters that unions and Democrats are telling Californians, “We want you to make the sacrifices but we in Sacramento don’t want to make any sacrifices or any changes.”

Unions are pointing fingers at everyone but themselves and refusing to budge on cuts in their overweening benefits, lush pay scale and perks but are insisting everyone else make the sacrifices to save union jobs. And, let’s face it, jobs is all the unions care about. They have no interest in what is good for the state or the taxpayers.

I’d suggest a little fix that might help. Instead of furloughing state workers, how about firing some of the most unnecessary jobs and getting rid of them altogether?

According to recent calculations, California has one of the highest levels of state workers per capita of all the states of the union.

California is the third highest in the country in state employees with 105 government workers per 10,000 residents (with Arizona at 108 and Florida at 104). It is the number one in the amount of state and local government workers combined with 486 per 10,000 residents (Mich. is second with 482, followed by Florida with 479). And in K-12 education, California is in second place with 188 workers per 10,000 residents (Texas is first with 273 and Florida is third with 179).

With numbers this high, an obvious solution is to get rid of thousands of state and local government workers. It is plain that many are unnecessary, repetitive, and wasteful.

Of course, the unions don’t care about bad government, waste, political patronage, abuse of the system, and fraud. They want dues money and more workers means more dues money. For unions, the question is not “is it good for the people?” For unions the question is only “how much can we bleed from the taxpayers?”

Don’t furlough union workers, Governor Schwarzenegger. FIRE THEM. Then you’ll start saving money and reforming government spending at the same time.

]]> Governor Schwarzenegger said it exactly right. Unions and lap-dog, Democrat legislators in Sacramento are doing their best to make sure that everyone but they have to sacrifice to save California’s budget. The governor told reporters that unions and Democrats are telling Californians, “We want you to make the sacrifices but we in Sacramento don’t want to make any sacrifices or any changes.”

Unions are pointing fingers at everyone but themselves and refusing to budge on cuts in their overweening benefits, lush pay scale and perks but are insisting everyone else make the sacrifices to save union jobs. And, let’s face it, jobs is all the unions care about. They have no interest in what is good for the state or the taxpayers.

I’d suggest a little fix that might help. Instead of furloughing state workers, how about firing some of the most unnecessary jobs and getting rid of them altogether?

According to recent calculations, California has one of the highest levels of state workers per capita of all the states of the union.

California is the third highest in the country in state employees with 105 government workers per 10,000 residents (with Arizona at 108 and Florida at 104). It is the number one in the amount of state and local government workers combined with 486 per 10,000 residents (Mich. is second with 482, followed by Florida with 479). And in K-12 education, California is in second place with 188 workers per 10,000 residents (Texas is first with 273 and Florida is third with 179).

With numbers this high, an obvious solution is to get rid of thousands of state and local government workers. It is plain that many are unnecessary, repetitive, and wasteful.

Of course, the unions don’t care about bad government, waste, political patronage, abuse of the system, and fraud. They want dues money and more workers means more dues money. For unions, the question is not “is it good for the people?” For unions the question is only “how much can we bleed from the taxpayers?”

Don’t furlough union workers, Governor Schwarzenegger. FIRE THEM. Then you’ll start saving money and reforming government spending at the same time.

]]> 1 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Reid, Pelosi Don’t Want Healthcare Bill Read by Congress, Public Before Vote]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2006 2009-07-06T14:50:35Z 2009-07-06T11:46:51Z Amazingly, neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev) nor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif) want to give Congress or the public much time to read the upcoming Healthcare bills they are rushing through their respective chambers before forcing a “yes” or “no” vote on them.

In a recent interview, Senator Reid was asked if he’d commit to giving the Senate and the public a week to digest any healthcare “reform” bill before he brought the bill up for a vote. Reid however, refused to make such a commitment.

Reid allowed less than two days before forcing a Senate vote on the stimulus bill and many expect him to do the same with any healthcare legislation. He was unapologetic over refusing to allow his fellows or the public to digest the legislation before the vote.

Similarly, Speaker of the House Pelosi refused to commit to allowing a week for any healthcare bill that comes under her purview. Pelosi claimed that the “regular order” is to allow 48 hours for amendments and another day before a vote can be taken.

The president’s expectations for healthcare, including the “public plan” option, is expected to force a government take over of nearly 20 percent of our nation’s economy, yet neither majority leader in Congress will give the public any time to read this bill and figure out what is in it before they rush to judgment.

House Democrats pulled a similar stunt with the recent Cap and Trade bill. At three in the morning on the day that House Democrats hurried up a vote on the bill, 300 pages of amendments was added to the bill in committee. But, even as Democrats were forcing a vote on the bill, no one had ever seen the whole bill because a complete copy of the legislation hadn’t yet been created by anyone.

In essence, Pelosi was forcing a vote on a bill of which an actual copy of the full legislation did not even exist. Outrageously the House voted to pass a bill that did not officially exist.

This is the sort of shenanigans that candidate Barack Obama claimed to stand against to great fanfare and applause. During the campaign Obama promised to allow the country to have five days to read on line every bill he’d sign.

Sadly, Obama has yet to keep his campaign pledge to let Americans see a bill for five days before he signs it. For instance, He signed the SCHIP law only three hours after it left Congress. Neither did he post the omnibus spending bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act, in fact nearly a dozen bills have been signed without observing the five-day sunlight promise made by the president on the campaign trail. The sad truth is no bill signing has fulfilled his promise for any “sunlight” or “transparency.”

In the end, the expectation is that in the healthcare bill, we will see one of the most socialist styled laws ever put before Congress pushed through by partisan forces in direct contravention to both good governing and Barack Obama’s own promise of “transparency.”

Why the rush, Mr. President? Why not actually stay true to your own promises on healthcare and transparency? Will you, Mr. President, and your partisan attack dogs in Congress, allow the public and our elected officials to actually read the legislation you want passed before they are forced to vote on it? If not, why not?

Do you have something against people actually knowing what you are trying to slip by them, Mr. President? Do you so hate an informed vote?

]]> Amazingly, neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev) nor Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif) want to give Congress or the public much time to read the upcoming Healthcare bills they are rushing through their respective chambers before forcing a “yes” or “no” vote on them.

In a recent interview, Senator Reid was asked if he’d commit to giving the Senate and the public a week to digest any healthcare “reform” bill before he brought the bill up for a vote. Reid however, refused to make such a commitment.

Reid allowed less than two days before forcing a Senate vote on the stimulus bill and many expect him to do the same with any healthcare legislation. He was unapologetic over refusing to allow his fellows or the public to digest the legislation before the vote.

Similarly, Speaker of the House Pelosi refused to commit to allowing a week for any healthcare bill that comes under her purview. Pelosi claimed that the “regular order” is to allow 48 hours for amendments and another day before a vote can be taken.

The president’s expectations for healthcare, including the “public plan” option, is expected to force a government take over of nearly 20 percent of our nation’s economy, yet neither majority leader in Congress will give the public any time to read this bill and figure out what is in it before they rush to judgment.

House Democrats pulled a similar stunt with the recent Cap and Trade bill. At three in the morning on the day that House Democrats hurried up a vote on the bill, 300 pages of amendments was added to the bill in committee. But, even as Democrats were forcing a vote on the bill, no one had ever seen the whole bill because a complete copy of the legislation hadn’t yet been created by anyone.

In essence, Pelosi was forcing a vote on a bill of which an actual copy of the full legislation did not even exist. Outrageously the House voted to pass a bill that did not officially exist.

This is the sort of shenanigans that candidate Barack Obama claimed to stand against to great fanfare and applause. During the campaign Obama promised to allow the country to have five days to read on line every bill he’d sign.

Sadly, Obama has yet to keep his campaign pledge to let Americans see a bill for five days before he signs it. For instance, He signed the SCHIP law only three hours after it left Congress. Neither did he post the omnibus spending bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act, in fact nearly a dozen bills have been signed without observing the five-day sunlight promise made by the president on the campaign trail. The sad truth is no bill signing has fulfilled his promise for any “sunlight” or “transparency.”

In the end, the expectation is that in the healthcare bill, we will see one of the most socialist styled laws ever put before Congress pushed through by partisan forces in direct contravention to both good governing and Barack Obama’s own promise of “transparency.”

Why the rush, Mr. President? Why not actually stay true to your own promises on healthcare and transparency? Will you, Mr. President, and your partisan attack dogs in Congress, allow the public and our elected officials to actually read the legislation you want passed before they are forced to vote on it? If not, why not?

Do you have something against people actually knowing what you are trying to slip by them, Mr. President? Do you so hate an informed vote?

]]> 14 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[City of Chicago Fireworks Show: No Patriotic Songs Needed]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2004 2009-07-06T11:45:02Z 2009-07-06T11:45:02Z So when you think Independence Day fireworks audio productions do you think of John Mellencamp, Kid Rock, and Neil Diamond as the musical accompaniment? Apparently the City of Chicago did. Either that, or the City of Chicago didn’t care enough about the patriotism inherent in an Independence Day fireworks show to make sure that the radio station they farmed the job out to bothered to include any patriotic songs in the program.

Not only were there no patriotic songs in the program (unless you think “R O C K in the USA” is a patriotic song?) but someone forgot to tell the obviously clueless radio station that the William Tell Overture is supposed to serve as the finale of the show, not as the tune that is supposed to start off the display!

The City of Chicago is becoming well known for raping its citizens, but it is also now widely known for doing its level best to ignore the Constitution of the USA with its unconstitutional gun banning laws, its practice of high taxation for little return, its internal, mobbed-up corruption, its high murder rate and now even a casual disregard for patriotism.

In a stroke of genius, Chicago farmed out its fireworks audio to local Chicago radio station 101.9 FM THE MIX. And with the result, one can only assume that there was no oversight at all, that no one in the city inquired as to what sort of music the station was going to put in its tape. And if someone in the city did review the music, then they are just as unpatriotic as this radio station for which self promotion was far more important than the event, it seems.

WTMX is a soft rock, adult contemporary station that plays a lot of female artists and girly men like Justin Timberlake. It features a morning team that likes to talk to Hollywood types when they are in town or are hawking something over the phone, but generally the morning hosts are bland and free of any edginess or informative programming. Whatever the station is, it seems pretty obvious that not a one of them are informed enough about America, our traditions or patriotism in general to warrant the job that the city handed them.

As mentioned, the fireworks show started with the William Tell Overture, the music that is supposed to serve as the exciting finale of any fireworks presentation. And, as the city’s paltry 20 minute fireworks display weakly played out, the station played Neil Diamond’s “Coming to America,” Kid Rock, Johnny Cougar Mellencamp, and other contemporary rock standards that in no way fit the occasion. There were no John Philip Sousa marches, no rousing renditions of “America the Beautiful,” not even the National Anthem was bothered with by these halfwits

The show itself was poor and anticlimactic. At a mere 20 minutes, the Chicago show lagged behind New York City’s Macy’s sponsored 30-minute-long show as well as the City of Los Angeles’ much longer, 60-minute-long show.

The indifference that the City of Chicago displayed in its choice of radio partners, the obvious disregard for a proper, patriotic show, and its tiny run time really shows how unconcerned Mayor Richard “King” Daley is over the people of his city. And, as all these foolish residents wasted their time attending this farce, as they got soaked for parking and other fees to do so, Daley laughed at each and every one of them.

The City of Chicago is a disgrace and this incident is just one more example of it.

]]> So when you think Independence Day fireworks audio productions do you think of John Mellencamp, Kid Rock, and Neil Diamond as the musical accompaniment? Apparently the City of Chicago did. Either that, or the City of Chicago didn’t care enough about the patriotism inherent in an Independence Day fireworks show to make sure that the radio station they farmed the job out to bothered to include any patriotic songs in the program.

Not only were there no patriotic songs in the program (unless you think “R O C K in the USA” is a patriotic song?) but someone forgot to tell the obviously clueless radio station that the William Tell Overture is supposed to serve as the finale of the show, not as the tune that is supposed to start off the display!

The City of Chicago is becoming well known for raping its citizens, but it is also now widely known for doing its level best to ignore the Constitution of the USA with its unconstitutional gun banning laws, its practice of high taxation for little return, its internal, mobbed-up corruption, its high murder rate and now even a casual disregard for patriotism.

In a stroke of genius, Chicago farmed out its fireworks audio to local Chicago radio station 101.9 FM THE MIX. And with the result, one can only assume that there was no oversight at all, that no one in the city inquired as to what sort of music the station was going to put in its tape. And if someone in the city did review the music, then they are just as unpatriotic as this radio station for which self promotion was far more important than the event, it seems.

WTMX is a soft rock, adult contemporary station that plays a lot of female artists and girly men like Justin Timberlake. It features a morning team that likes to talk to Hollywood types when they are in town or are hawking something over the phone, but generally the morning hosts are bland and free of any edginess or informative programming. Whatever the station is, it seems pretty obvious that not a one of them are informed enough about America, our traditions or patriotism in general to warrant the job that the city handed them.

As mentioned, the fireworks show started with the William Tell Overture, the music that is supposed to serve as the exciting finale of any fireworks presentation. And, as the city’s paltry 20 minute fireworks display weakly played out, the station played Neil Diamond’s “Coming to America,” Kid Rock, Johnny Cougar Mellencamp, and other contemporary rock standards that in no way fit the occasion. There were no John Philip Sousa marches, no rousing renditions of “America the Beautiful,” not even the National Anthem was bothered with by these halfwits

The show itself was poor and anticlimactic. At a mere 20 minutes, the Chicago show lagged behind New York City’s Macy’s sponsored 30-minute-long show as well as the City of Los Angeles’ much longer, 60-minute-long show.

The indifference that the City of Chicago displayed in its choice of radio partners, the obvious disregard for a proper, patriotic show, and its tiny run time really shows how unconcerned Mayor Richard “King” Daley is over the people of his city. And, as all these foolish residents wasted their time attending this farce, as they got soaked for parking and other fees to do so, Daley laughed at each and every one of them.

The City of Chicago is a disgrace and this incident is just one more example of it.

]]> 19 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Publius Podcast - Let’s NOT Celebrate the Fourth]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=2002 2009-07-05T12:55:02Z 2009-07-05T12:55:02Z Here is the podcast version of my Independence Day feature.

]]> Here is the podcast version of my Independence Day feature.

]]> 0 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Let’s Not Celebrate July 4th]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1994 2009-07-03T11:12:20Z 2009-07-03T10:49:28Z It is well known that John Adams had imagined that July second would be the day that future generations of Americans would remember as their day of independence from England, the nation’s birthday, if you will. It was, after all, on the second that it was proclaimed “(T)hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

But it was two days later that those gathered in defiance to the King declared a “Declaration of Independency” thereby adopting the famed document that carefully delineated the natural rights by which they claimed independence followed by a list of grievances that would explain why they invoked those rights.

So what are we celebrating? Is it our birth as a nation or are we celebrating the document of Independence? Early celebrations were mixed and a bit confused on that point. Additionally, celebrations on July fourth weren’t that common for a time after the Revolution was over. At first, not many felt a need to celebrate something that had happened and was over. It was time to move on from war in many American’s eyes.

Then again, not many Americans had much interest in the Declaration itself until the 1790s when the emerging parties began to vie for bragging rights over who wrote it. The Democratic Republicans proudly held that their leader, Thomas Jefferson, was the author of the document while the Federalists reminded everyone that their leader, John Adams, was also a member of the committee that drafted the document and that he, as much as Jefferson, had his stamp on the Declaration of Independence.

As the fame of the document and interest in it grew in the new United States of America, so too did a focus on celebrating the nation’s separation from England. By the time the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration neared in 1826, Independence Day had become a common day for celebration. And, despite a brief period in the South during and after the Civil War, the holiday atmosphere has grown and remained strong to this day.

The answer to the question above, then, is that we celebrate both the famed document and its purpose for having been drafted. We celebrate our birthday as a nation as well as those stated principles that announced to the world what we were, what this new nation was meant to represent. And so, it is properly Independence Day that we celebrate — a celebration of both the document and its famous ideas as well as our separation from England and the birth of our nation.

But one thing is sure, it is not “July Fourth” we celebrate. The fourth day of the seventh month is an inconsequential number. We are not celebrating a fourth day of anything and the bland, uninformative title of “July Fourth” should be banished from our minds as meaningless.

Why forget that title? Aside from the fact that we aren’t celebrating the numerology of the day, calling it “July Fourth” does nothing toward informing the world and our fellows of what it is we are celebrating. Do we celebrate December 25th, or do we Celebrate Christmas? Worse than a lack of identification, calling this sacred holiday merely “July Fourth” also dims from our minds the great purpose of what the holiday stands for.

Yes, Independence Day is more than a number and more than just a birthday party. It is the heralding of a new set of principles by which all men everywhere can declare their own freedom. It is the assertion that all men are created equal and have been given that status by God. Further, that because these rights are bestowed upon us by God, men have the right to insist that their government serve them, not that men be yoked to serve government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were revolutionary concepts upon which to build a nation and it announced to the world that our revolution was a common cause for all mankind, not just we Americans. That day we declared that men have the right to cast off the oppressive yoke of government and live free.

Without doubt, these are heady concepts. And these are the high principles that we celebrate on Independence Day each year, that holiday that just happens to fall on the fourth day of July.

So, let’s cast off this bland appellation of “July Fourth” for a holiday of such important ideas. Let us proudly call it “Independence Day” so that we can keep in the forefront of our minds those great ideas we hold up as something worth celebrating.

It isn’t “July Fourth,” so let’s stop celebrating that holiday. It is Independence Day and nothing less.

]]> It is well known that John Adams had imagined that July second would be the day that future generations of Americans would remember as their day of independence from England, the nation’s birthday, if you will. It was, after all, on the second that it was proclaimed “(T)hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

But it was two days later that those gathered in defiance to the King declared a “Declaration of Independency” thereby adopting the famed document that carefully delineated the natural rights by which they claimed independence followed by a list of grievances that would explain why they invoked those rights.

So what are we celebrating? Is it our birth as a nation or are we celebrating the document of Independence? Early celebrations were mixed and a bit confused on that point. Additionally, celebrations on July fourth weren’t that common for a time after the Revolution was over. At first, not many felt a need to celebrate something that had happened and was over. It was time to move on from war in many American’s eyes.

Then again, not many Americans had much interest in the Declaration itself until the 1790s when the emerging parties began to vie for bragging rights over who wrote it. The Democratic Republicans proudly held that their leader, Thomas Jefferson, was the author of the document while the Federalists reminded everyone that their leader, John Adams, was also a member of the committee that drafted the document and that he, as much as Jefferson, had his stamp on the Declaration of Independence.

As the fame of the document and interest in it grew in the new United States of America, so too did a focus on celebrating the nation’s separation from England. By the time the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration neared in 1826, Independence Day had become a common day for celebration. And, despite a brief period in the South during and after the Civil War, the holiday atmosphere has grown and remained strong to this day.

The answer to the question above, then, is that we celebrate both the famed document and its purpose for having been drafted. We celebrate our birthday as a nation as well as those stated principles that announced to the world what we were, what this new nation was meant to represent. And so, it is properly Independence Day that we celebrate — a celebration of both the document and its famous ideas as well as our separation from England and the birth of our nation.

But one thing is sure, it is not “July Fourth” we celebrate. The fourth day of the seventh month is an inconsequential number. We are not celebrating a fourth day of anything and the bland, uninformative title of “July Fourth” should be banished from our minds as meaningless.

Why forget that title? Aside from the fact that we aren’t celebrating the numerology of the day, calling it “July Fourth” does nothing toward informing the world and our fellows of what it is we are celebrating. Do we celebrate December 25th, or do we Celebrate Christmas? Worse than a lack of identification, calling this sacred holiday merely “July Fourth” also dims from our minds the great purpose of what the holiday stands for.

Yes, Independence Day is more than a number and more than just a birthday party. It is the heralding of a new set of principles by which all men everywhere can declare their own freedom. It is the assertion that all men are created equal and have been given that status by God. Further, that because these rights are bestowed upon us by God, men have the right to insist that their government serve them, not that men be yoked to serve government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were revolutionary concepts upon which to build a nation and it announced to the world that our revolution was a common cause for all mankind, not just we Americans. That day we declared that men have the right to cast off the oppressive yoke of government and live free.

Without doubt, these are heady concepts. And these are the high principles that we celebrate on Independence Day each year, that holiday that just happens to fall on the fourth day of July.

So, let’s cast off this bland appellation of “July Fourth” for a holiday of such important ideas. Let us proudly call it “Independence Day” so that we can keep in the forefront of our minds those great ideas we hold up as something worth celebrating.

It isn’t “July Fourth,” so let’s stop celebrating that holiday. It is Independence Day and nothing less.

]]> 10 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[What Passes for ‘Journalism’ At HuffPo Isn’t]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1992 2009-07-03T10:48:20Z 2009-07-03T10:48:20Z If you listen to the blabbers and gossipers, the Huffington Post is the talk of the town. It is claimed that Arianna Huffington’s “success” is the “new journalism,” the future of the news. TechNewsWorld proclaimed it “appropriate” that Huffington appeared in the YouTube series on journalism apparently because she personifies it. The New York Times celebrated HuffPo as “hybrid journalism” for its Iran coverage. Jeff Jarvis of The Guardian claims that Arianna is “saving journalism.” She was even just awarded the Fred Dressler Lifetime Achievement Award in journalism from Syracuse University. She even testified before a Congressional committee on journalism. And the list of accolades goes on.

But, what sort of “journalism” does Huffington Post represent? Is it the well researched sort with multiple links, named sources, or other such common journalistic practices? Most often no. In fact, those that write for Huffington Post rarely even bother with the normal journalistic practices of research, attribution, or the habit of having more than one source. Sadly, the largest bulk of what Huffington writers do is merely opine whether they have sourced information or not. And more often than not they do so from the extreme left-wing perspective.

Huffington Post is not “journalism.” It’s really just that simple.

Arianna has set no standards, exacted no homage to journalistic practices, and requires no veracity. She just wants pages filled and advertising to flow. Perhaps she is successful at that goal, but what is this success doing to journalism? I’d suggest it is hurting it, not “saving it,” as Mr. Jarvis claimed.

Examples of the emptiness of Huffington Posts entries are legion and can be found any time one goes to the site.

Recently, for instance, a debate between an actual medical technician and a HuffPo pseudo doctor erupted. Posts by what is billed as Huffington Post’s “wellness editor,” Dr. Patricia Fitzgerald, raised the ire of some readers. It turns out that Miss. Fitzgerald is not really a “doctor” of much of anything and medical internist Peter Lipson called her on it earlier this year. Despite the embarrassment, Fitzgerald is still billed as the HuffPo “welness editor” and still calling herself “doctor.” Lipson points out that several HuffPo “doctors” are either not real doctors or are doctors of fields apart from the subjects they write about on HuffPo. He says it is a bit hard to take their posts seriously because of this.

Then there is the political news that appears every day on HuffPo. For example, a straight out opinion was recently presented as fact by HuffPo writer Jennifer Donahue whose piece makes the claim that the Republican grassroots is lining up behind Mitt Romney, forsaking Sarah Palin, for the 2012 presidential election.

Donahue says it’s Mitt rising in the GOP and has two quotes in the story to support her assertion. However, there are no names attached to the quotes and no sources for them is given. She has no pundits from the right pointing to Mitt, no party members saying they like him and no seated politicians raising Mitt’s banner. She just says it is so and we are supposed to take it on faith. The whole story is thin as tissue paper. It may be true, but we get nothing to make us sanguine of the fact in Donahue’s story. Just her assertions.

Yet, Donahue is billed as the “Political Director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics” and sports a journalism background. She may do a fine job for Saint Anselem College, but for HuffPo, at least, this piece is junk.

Or perhaps we might address a post by Stephen Zunes on Ahmadinejad and Iran. Zunes, who claims to hold the “chair of the Mid-Eastern Studies program at the University of San Francisco,” made a bald-faced assertion in his headlined, “Why American Neo-Cons wanted Ahmadinejad to Win.”

Zunes starts his blather with this line: “The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives…”

This is a pretty startling and pointed accusation. After all, Zunes is saying that a faction of America’s conservatives want a Jew hating, tyrant to win an election. Zunes follows this initial accusation with a lengthy piece on the situation in Iran yet offers not one single quote from any supposed “neo-con” to prove his thesis. No links to “neo-con” think tank papers are featured, no news stories, interviews or TV presentations included. No books or articles are quoted. Astonishingly no proof at all is offered for his wild-eyed claim. He just says it’s so and moves forward with that assumption.

Huffington Post also offers “celebrity news” even as it pretends at being a serious site presenting the important “news” of the day. We get things like the screen shot to the right that I recently saved. Notice that a photo of president Obama is included in with the salacious, sexually charged photos of barely clothed “celebrities” with the caption, “Better wetter? Who’s hotter when soaking wet?” Is this the way to treat a president? Is this the sort of mentality that befits serious journalism?

Look, I have no problem at all with HuffPo being a left-wing opinion site. How could I be? All my work appears on right-wing opinion sites. But, what I do IS opinion and I make no claims otherwise. Sure I’ve covered live, actual events, interviewed people in the news, appeared on CNN and Fox, been heard on numerous radio shows from coast to coast both local and nationally syndicated. But even as some of what I do is news and journalism, I only claim to be a columnist, opinionist, a talking head if you will. That is my primary purpose. And Huffington Post is nothing else but an opinion site, not journalism.

Granted there are plenty of folks out there criticizing Huffington Post and scoffing at its journalistic presumptions. It comes from the left and the right, from journalists and bloggers alike. I am not saying that Huffington is universally presented as “saving journalism.” Conversely, I am not saying that the site has no place on the web, nor am I saying it isn’t successful per se. What I am saying is that thus far Arianna Huffington’s site is decidedly not journalism. It is a successful blog, a fine site for left-wing talking points, sure. But it is not in any way a site built on journalism nor should it be taken as such.

The sad thing is, too many people don’t understand this salient truth.

]]> If you listen to the blabbers and gossipers, the Huffington Post is the talk of the town. It is claimed that Arianna Huffington’s “success” is the “new journalism,” the future of the news. TechNewsWorld proclaimed it “appropriate” that Huffington appeared in the YouTube series on journalism apparently because she personifies it. The New York Times celebrated HuffPo as “hybrid journalism” for its Iran coverage. Jeff Jarvis of The Guardian claims that Arianna is “saving journalism.” She was even just awarded the Fred Dressler Lifetime Achievement Award in journalism from Syracuse University. She even testified before a Congressional committee on journalism. And the list of accolades goes on.

But, what sort of “journalism” does Huffington Post represent? Is it the well researched sort with multiple links, named sources, or other such common journalistic practices? Most often no. In fact, those that write for Huffington Post rarely even bother with the normal journalistic practices of research, attribution, or the habit of having more than one source. Sadly, the largest bulk of what Huffington writers do is merely opine whether they have sourced information or not. And more often than not they do so from the extreme left-wing perspective.

Huffington Post is not “journalism.” It’s really just that simple.

Arianna has set no standards, exacted no homage to journalistic practices, and requires no veracity. She just wants pages filled and advertising to flow. Perhaps she is successful at that goal, but what is this success doing to journalism? I’d suggest it is hurting it, not “saving it,” as Mr. Jarvis claimed.

Examples of the emptiness of Huffington Posts entries are legion and can be found any time one goes to the site.

Recently, for instance, a debate between an actual medical technician and a HuffPo pseudo doctor erupted. Posts by what is billed as Huffington Post’s “wellness editor,” Dr. Patricia Fitzgerald, raised the ire of some readers. It turns out that Miss. Fitzgerald is not really a “doctor” of much of anything and medical internist Peter Lipson called her on it earlier this year. Despite the embarrassment, Fitzgerald is still billed as the HuffPo “welness editor” and still calling herself “doctor.” Lipson points out that several HuffPo “doctors” are either not real doctors or are doctors of fields apart from the subjects they write about on HuffPo. He says it is a bit hard to take their posts seriously because of this.

Then there is the political news that appears every day on HuffPo. For example, a straight out opinion was recently presented as fact by HuffPo writer Jennifer Donahue whose piece makes the claim that the Republican grassroots is lining up behind Mitt Romney, forsaking Sarah Palin, for the 2012 presidential election.

Donahue says it’s Mitt rising in the GOP and has two quotes in the story to support her assertion. However, there are no names attached to the quotes and no sources for them is given. She has no pundits from the right pointing to Mitt, no party members saying they like him and no seated politicians raising Mitt’s banner. She just says it is so and we are supposed to take it on faith. The whole story is thin as tissue paper. It may be true, but we get nothing to make us sanguine of the fact in Donahue’s story. Just her assertions.

Yet, Donahue is billed as the “Political Director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics” and sports a journalism background. She may do a fine job for Saint Anselem College, but for HuffPo, at least, this piece is junk.

Or perhaps we might address a post by Stephen Zunes on Ahmadinejad and Iran. Zunes, who claims to hold the “chair of the Mid-Eastern Studies program at the University of San Francisco,” made a bald-faced assertion in his headlined, “Why American Neo-Cons wanted Ahmadinejad to Win.”

Zunes starts his blather with this line: “The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives…”

This is a pretty startling and pointed accusation. After all, Zunes is saying that a faction of America’s conservatives want a Jew hating, tyrant to win an election. Zunes follows this initial accusation with a lengthy piece on the situation in Iran yet offers not one single quote from any supposed “neo-con” to prove his thesis. No links to “neo-con” think tank papers are featured, no news stories, interviews or TV presentations included. No books or articles are quoted. Astonishingly no proof at all is offered for his wild-eyed claim. He just says it’s so and moves forward with that assumption.

Huffington Post also offers “celebrity news” even as it pretends at being a serious site presenting the important “news” of the day. We get things like the screen shot to the right that I recently saved. Notice that a photo of president Obama is included in with the salacious, sexually charged photos of barely clothed “celebrities” with the caption, “Better wetter? Who’s hotter when soaking wet?” Is this the way to treat a president? Is this the sort of mentality that befits serious journalism?

Look, I have no problem at all with HuffPo being a left-wing opinion site. How could I be? All my work appears on right-wing opinion sites. But, what I do IS opinion and I make no claims otherwise. Sure I’ve covered live, actual events, interviewed people in the news, appeared on CNN and Fox, been heard on numerous radio shows from coast to coast both local and nationally syndicated. But even as some of what I do is news and journalism, I only claim to be a columnist, opinionist, a talking head if you will. That is my primary purpose. And Huffington Post is nothing else but an opinion site, not journalism.

Granted there are plenty of folks out there criticizing Huffington Post and scoffing at its journalistic presumptions. It comes from the left and the right, from journalists and bloggers alike. I am not saying that Huffington is universally presented as “saving journalism.” Conversely, I am not saying that the site has no place on the web, nor am I saying it isn’t successful per se. What I am saying is that thus far Arianna Huffington’s site is decidedly not journalism. It is a successful blog, a fine site for left-wing talking points, sure. But it is not in any way a site built on journalism nor should it be taken as such.

The sad thing is, too many people don’t understand this salient truth.

]]> 4 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[LATimes: Men Secretly Sympathize With Adulterers, ‘See Sanford in Mirror’]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1990 2009-07-03T10:47:40Z 2009-07-03T10:47:40Z Meghan Daum of the L.A. Times has had an epiphany. The story of adulterous South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is still in the news, she’s decided, because America’s men see themselves reflected in him. Yes, Daum apparently feels that all men are adulterers, so they sympathize with him causing the story to keep bumping along.

Daum spies some “gasp–empathy” for the governor in various corners of the Old Media and this, she has decided, must mean that there is a “tiny bit of Mark Sanford” in men across the country. One wonders if Daum spied this same lecherous “sympathy” abounding among Democrats when a certain president was wagging his finger in our faces and saying he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica”?

Betcha she didn’t. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet no such thing crossed her mind as the Clinton’s Monica-gate raged on and on.

Check out this baseless rumination.

So what’s left to say about the Sanford saga? Call me crazy, but amid all this finger-wagging, am I detecting just a little bit of — gasp — empathy? Is there something about Sanford’s puppyish comportment, not to mention the fact that, unlike many adulterous politicos, he seems to be truly in love with his mistress (or at least truly convinced that he is) that’s making him less a pariah and more a symbol of the male midlife crisis? For all his duplicity and entitlement, are some Americans — particularly men — feeling as much pity as outrage? Consider this small sample:

She answers herself thus:

But as we slog through another week of the Jackson postmortem-paloooza and wonder at the fact that we’re also still hearing about the South Carolina governor’s love for certain tan lines, maybe it’s worth asking ourselves why. Is it because we’re uncategorically appalled? Or is it because maybe, just maybe, there’s a tiny bit of Mark Sanford in, if not all men, quite a few of them?

So, what do you think, guys? Are you feeling sorry for the adulterer because you are secretly just like him? Do you have a stack of Argentine frequent flyer miles secretly piled up waiting for redemption at a later date? Is there redemption at a later date?

Is it impossible for men to really feel any outrage? Are they all just using the mask of outrage to cover their sympathetic feelings?

Or is Daum a she-male, man hater that is reaching too far for a column?

]]> Meghan Daum of the L.A. Times has had an epiphany. The story of adulterous South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is still in the news, she’s decided, because America’s men see themselves reflected in him. Yes, Daum apparently feels that all men are adulterers, so they sympathize with him causing the story to keep bumping along.

Daum spies some “gasp–empathy” for the governor in various corners of the Old Media and this, she has decided, must mean that there is a “tiny bit of Mark Sanford” in men across the country. One wonders if Daum spied this same lecherous “sympathy” abounding among Democrats when a certain president was wagging his finger in our faces and saying he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica”?

Betcha she didn’t. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet no such thing crossed her mind as the Clinton’s Monica-gate raged on and on.

Check out this baseless rumination.

So what’s left to say about the Sanford saga? Call me crazy, but amid all this finger-wagging, am I detecting just a little bit of — gasp — empathy? Is there something about Sanford’s puppyish comportment, not to mention the fact that, unlike many adulterous politicos, he seems to be truly in love with his mistress (or at least truly convinced that he is) that’s making him less a pariah and more a symbol of the male midlife crisis? For all his duplicity and entitlement, are some Americans — particularly men — feeling as much pity as outrage? Consider this small sample:

She answers herself thus:

But as we slog through another week of the Jackson postmortem-paloooza and wonder at the fact that we’re also still hearing about the South Carolina governor’s love for certain tan lines, maybe it’s worth asking ourselves why. Is it because we’re uncategorically appalled? Or is it because maybe, just maybe, there’s a tiny bit of Mark Sanford in, if not all men, quite a few of them?

So, what do you think, guys? Are you feeling sorry for the adulterer because you are secretly just like him? Do you have a stack of Argentine frequent flyer miles secretly piled up waiting for redemption at a later date? Is there redemption at a later date?

Is it impossible for men to really feel any outrage? Are they all just using the mask of outrage to cover their sympathetic feelings?

Or is Daum a she-male, man hater that is reaching too far for a column?

]]> 0 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Businesses Hit Hard With Obamacare, Say Goodbye to Mom and Pop Stores]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1983 2009-07-02T12:26:56Z 2009-07-02T13:00:43Z The most insidious part of Obamacare is the backdoor taxes, and defacto control of our healthcare by the nanny state that President Obama’s plan is loaded with. And here is another one that is not getting much play. Employers would be socked with requirements to pay for 72.5 percent of the cost of insurance premiums for their full-time employees under the plan being considered in the House.

They would also be required to pick up an as yet undetermined percentage of the insurance plans for part-time employees, as well. This alone will insure that part-time jobs across the nation are terminated for the destructive cost involved in having them.

Or, conversely, many full-time jobs will be eliminated if the costs of insurance is so steep and that of part-timers less so. Either way, jobs will be lost because of these new, never before seen expenses.

According to the draft legislation in the House, businesses would be required to pay the federal government a fine of 8 percent of their payroll if they do not offer a basic insurance package to their employees. The House bill has yet to determine how large a small business must be before they are forced into this requirement.

Let’s think about what this means, though. This new mandatory expenditure will greatly drive up the costs of business for small and medium sized businesses and force many of them to close up shop. They will not be able to compete with the larger corporations that will have the resources to offer insurance plans even for part-time workers.

This means the permanent elimination of mom-and-pop business nationwide and the proliferation of large, corporate held shops of all sorts. From the corner market and small book store to the local garage and sandwich shop, small businesses will be hounded out of business by overweening government mandates. This will naturally open the business to even more national chains of all sorts.

It seems to me that the self-same people that claim they want nationalized healthcare are the same sort that decry the giants like WalMart. But here they are pushing an idea that will give them more WalMats from sea to shining sea!

Seems a bit illogical of them, doesn’t it?

]]> The most insidious part of Obamacare is the backdoor taxes, and defacto control of our healthcare by the nanny state that President Obama’s plan is loaded with. And here is another one that is not getting much play. Employers would be socked with requirements to pay for 72.5 percent of the cost of insurance premiums for their full-time employees under the plan being considered in the House.

They would also be required to pick up an as yet undetermined percentage of the insurance plans for part-time employees, as well. This alone will insure that part-time jobs across the nation are terminated for the destructive cost involved in having them.

Or, conversely, many full-time jobs will be eliminated if the costs of insurance is so steep and that of part-timers less so. Either way, jobs will be lost because of these new, never before seen expenses.

According to the draft legislation in the House, businesses would be required to pay the federal government a fine of 8 percent of their payroll if they do not offer a basic insurance package to their employees. The House bill has yet to determine how large a small business must be before they are forced into this requirement.

Let’s think about what this means, though. This new mandatory expenditure will greatly drive up the costs of business for small and medium sized businesses and force many of them to close up shop. They will not be able to compete with the larger corporations that will have the resources to offer insurance plans even for part-time workers.

This means the permanent elimination of mom-and-pop business nationwide and the proliferation of large, corporate held shops of all sorts. From the corner market and small book store to the local garage and sandwich shop, small businesses will be hounded out of business by overweening government mandates. This will naturally open the business to even more national chains of all sorts.

It seems to me that the self-same people that claim they want nationalized healthcare are the same sort that decry the giants like WalMart. But here they are pushing an idea that will give them more WalMats from sea to shining sea!

Seems a bit illogical of them, doesn’t it?

]]> 13 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[If Canada’s System is So Great, Then Why…]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1987 2009-07-02T12:29:33Z 2009-07-02T12:29:33Z The left continually holds up the Canadian socialized healthcare system as the best example, one we should strive to emulate. But as each week passes we find more and more reason to doubt the panacea in the Great White North.

Last week news came out that Canada forced an infant to flee its country and into our own to get life saving treatment. A baby was born 13 weeks premature in Ontario, Canada but there were no neonatal intensive care beds open for the child there.

Canada’s perfectly planned and cost-effective system had no room at the inn for Ava, who of necessity had to be sent across the border to a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital to suffer under our chaotic and costly system. She had no time to be put on a Canadian waiting list. She got the care she needed at an American hospital under a system President Obama has labeled “unsustainable.”

This week comes another puncture in the claim that Canada’s healthcare is the perfect system to copy. Lately Canada ha seen a boom in private healthcare businesses.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

“Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn’t live my life the way I wanted to,” says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

If the nationalized system was so perfectly balanced, why would this be?

Of course, one of Canada’s main problems is a shortage of doctors. This is a problem that has also appeared in Massachusetts where a universal healthcare insurance plan was adopted in 2006.

The simple fact of the matter is that the more people that are suddenly covered for little or no costs to them on a per visit basis, the more people there will be that will be clamoring for care. This wouldn’t be such a problem if there were a consequent number of new doctors to handle the growing patient load.

Unfortunately, a nationalized healthcare policy necessarily “holds down costs” and these “costs” must end up being a determination of just how much money a doctor can make per year. The single fact that doctors will see a government mandated cap on their wages will cause folks that might have chosen the medical profession to train for other jobs. The huge costs and investment of time in learning their craft will be seen as not worth all the effort and, therefore, fewer people will chose the medical field.

It’s a fact of life that has been seen in every single country that has tried nationalized healthcare. The more people that get cheap or free coverage, the fewer doctors there are.

It may seem wonderful that “everyone” is covered. But if they die before they can even get seen by a doctor due to packed schedules, what good is the “coverage”?

]]> The left continually holds up the Canadian socialized healthcare system as the best example, one we should strive to emulate. But as each week passes we find more and more reason to doubt the panacea in the Great White North.

Last week news came out that Canada forced an infant to flee its country and into our own to get life saving treatment. A baby was born 13 weeks premature in Ontario, Canada but there were no neonatal intensive care beds open for the child there.

Canada’s perfectly planned and cost-effective system had no room at the inn for Ava, who of necessity had to be sent across the border to a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital to suffer under our chaotic and costly system. She had no time to be put on a Canadian waiting list. She got the care she needed at an American hospital under a system President Obama has labeled “unsustainable.”

This week comes another puncture in the claim that Canada’s healthcare is the perfect system to copy. Lately Canada ha seen a boom in private healthcare businesses.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

“Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn’t live my life the way I wanted to,” says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

If the nationalized system was so perfectly balanced, why would this be?

Of course, one of Canada’s main problems is a shortage of doctors. This is a problem that has also appeared in Massachusetts where a universal healthcare insurance plan was adopted in 2006.

The simple fact of the matter is that the more people that are suddenly covered for little or no costs to them on a per visit basis, the more people there will be that will be clamoring for care. This wouldn’t be such a problem if there were a consequent number of new doctors to handle the growing patient load.

Unfortunately, a nationalized healthcare policy necessarily “holds down costs” and these “costs” must end up being a determination of just how much money a doctor can make per year. The single fact that doctors will see a government mandated cap on their wages will cause folks that might have chosen the medical profession to train for other jobs. The huge costs and investment of time in learning their craft will be seen as not worth all the effort and, therefore, fewer people will chose the medical field.

It’s a fact of life that has been seen in every single country that has tried nationalized healthcare. The more people that get cheap or free coverage, the fewer doctors there are.

It may seem wonderful that “everyone” is covered. But if they die before they can even get seen by a doctor due to packed schedules, what good is the “coverage”?

]]> 1 Warner Todd Huston (Profile) http://www.publiusforum.com <![CDATA[Now It’s SF Chron Using False ‘90% of Mexican Guns From US’ Line]]> http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/?p=1985 2009-07-02T12:28:23Z 2009-07-02T12:28:23Z The San Francisco Chronicle is proving the old bromide true. That’s the one that goes: “a lie can be half way ’round the world before the truth can pull its boots on” (often incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain). Then there is another one Twain didn’t originate but aptly fits here, “there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.” The subject of this scoffing is that factoid the Old Media has been promulgating like gospel where “90% of Mexico’s confiscated guns are from the U.S.”

The problem with this “90%” refrain is that it just isn’t true. There is no truth in the claim that 90% of the guns Mexican officials confiscate from drug dealers in Mexico are from the U.S.A. But, true or not, the Old Media use this line as if it were received truth. Suspicions are easily raised that they do so because it fits their ideological matrix perfectly and the truth of the matter does not fit the approved story line.

This 90% line appeared in The New York Times and many other sources earlier this year and still crops up even after William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott proved the claim to be fraudulent.

And now the SFChron can add its name to the list of fraudulent reporters using this discredited claim. In a story about how BATF and ICE officials are making plans to team up to more easily coordinate investigations of cross-border gun trafficking, the SFChron slipped in this paragraph:

Last year, Mexican authorities seized more than 12,000 weapons that were submitted to ATF for tracing. That compares with about 2,900 such weapons in 2007 and about 2,650 in 2006. Ninety percent of those weapons could be traced back to the United States, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said.

The SFChron simply got it wrong. The 90% is true, of course, but affixed to the 12,000 guns it is not. As La Jeunesse and Lott discovered back in April, the 90% number pertains to those guns that are “tracable” and that is not 12,000 guns but more like 6,000. You see, of the 12,000 guns given to the BATF, only 6,000 proved tracable and of that 6,000 5,114 were found to come from the U.S.A.

But the bigger fact is that of all the guns collected by the Mexican government, only 17% were traced to the U.S.A. According to La Jeunesse and Lott between 2007 and 2008, Mexico took in over 29,000 illegal guns and of that number only 5,114 proved to be from the U.S.

These facts make the bald 90% claim seem far less shocking. So why use the false numbers when the truth is easily known? Why do the denizens of the Old Media continue to use these discredited claims? That would be a good question, wouldn’t it?

]]> The San Francisco Chronicle is proving the old bromide true. That’s the one that goes: “a lie can be half way ’round the world before the truth can pull its boots on” (often incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain). Then there is another one Twain didn’t originate but aptly fits here, “there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.” The subject of this scoffing is that factoid the Old Media has been promulgating like gospel where “90% of Mexico’s confiscated guns are from the U.S.”

The problem with this “90%” refrain is that it just isn’t true. There is no truth in the claim that 90% of the guns Mexican officials confiscate from drug dealers in Mexico are from the U.S.A. But, true or not, the Old Media use this line as if it were received truth. Suspicions are easily raised that they do so because it fits their ideological matrix perfectly and the truth of the matter does not fit the approved story line.

This 90% line appeared in The New York Times and many other sources earlier this year and still crops up even after William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott proved the claim to be fraudulent.

And now the SFChron can add its name to the list of fraudulent reporters using this discredited claim. In a story about how BATF and ICE officials are making plans to team up to more easily coordinate investigations of cross-border gun trafficking, the SFChron slipped in this paragraph:

Last year, Mexican authorities seized more than 12,000 weapons that were submitted to ATF for tracing. That compares with about 2,900 such weapons in 2007 and about 2,650 in 2006. Ninety percent of those weapons could be traced back to the United States, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said.

The SFChron simply got it wrong. The 90% is true, of course, but affixed to the 12,000 guns it is not. As La Jeunesse and Lott discovered back in April, the 90% number pertains to those guns that are “tracable” and that is not 12,000 guns but more like 6,000. You see, of the 12,000 guns given to the BATF, only 6,000 proved tracable and of that 6,000 5,114 were found to come from the U.S.A.

But the bigger fact is that of all the guns collected by the Mexican government, only 17% were traced to the U.S.A. According to La Jeunesse and Lott between 2007 and 2008, Mexico took in over 29,000 illegal guns and of that number only 5,114 proved to be from the U.S.

These facts make the bald 90% claim seem far less shocking. So why use the false numbers when the truth is easily known? Why do the denizens of the Old Media continue to use these discredited claims? That would be a good question, wouldn’t it?

]]> 4