Obamacare - Bill O'Reilly vs. Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The problem with the healthcare debate is the debate.  When you read what is in the bill and actually quote the bill verbatim, the other side claims, oh, that's not true. MSNBC has spent a lot of time "debunking healthcare bill myths" that have been "made up" when the language they claim they are debunking is actually in the bill.  It's amazing the amount of denial and deception exhibited by the left every time flaws in the bill are brought up; that and the typical strawman arguments.  The left are masters of the strawman fallacy.

Nancy Pelosi's approach is actually more honest, heaven help us.  She says we will have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill.  This is actually an honest comment.  Nobody knows what the heck this thing is going to do to us.  But at least admitting she's clueless is a shot of integrity.  She hasn't read the bill, she doesn't know anyone who has, and it will be someone's future doctoral thesis project to even analyze and interpret it. 

Then we have the approach embraced by Anthony Weiner (D-NY9).  Weiner has decided to basically call any uncomfortable (unpopular) aspect in the bill madeup.  His style is to ignore the question and attack the messenger.  This video is a riot.  Bill O'Reilly can be a jerk, but Congressman Weiner takes weinie approach to a whole new level (sorry, I couldn't resist).  Why won't Weiner answer the darn question?  If it is in the law, then why is he evading answering.  Why?  Because Weiner doesn't want to admit what O'Reilly wants him to admit.  So instead he plays the stupid liberal game of deny and attack.  But this silent treatment thing is a brand new approach in politics.  Of course, it's worked in marriage for a longtime.  He takes a shot at it here.  I almost think he expected Bill to send him flowers and chocolate the next day.  This is golden.

US officials: Ex-Gitmo inmate becomes Taliban commander

A man who was released from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in December has become a senior Taliban military commander in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

Abdul Qayum Zakir was named to replace Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, whom Pakistani security forces captured last month, a Taliban operative told CNN.

A former Pakistani intelligence official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the subject, also confirmed Zakir's appointment.

Zakir was released from U.S. custody on December 7, U.S. officials said.

Source:  Top Stories, CNN.com

The BO Secretary Has BO

This is a true account of one (and sadly, somewhat typical) morning in my life.

Background knowledge: When you work for the Federal Government, you have to be prepared to use an acronym for any term or title which encompasses more than one word. Sometimes this makes little sense as the acronym is occasionally harder to say than the full term. Sometimes it can end up being a little humorous or even risqué. Recently the VA Medical Center, where I work, had the need to backfill the Business Office Secretary position. Being a government job, the position is commonly known as the BO secretary.

7:31:00 AM – Try to balance piece of toast (breakfast) on top of car keys, bag and coat

7:31:10 AM – Kiss wife goodbye as daughter no. #2 has conniption about daughter no. #1 moving at snail's pace

7:31:20 AM – Discover that car windows have frosted over during the night – can't find scraper

7:31:25 AM – Scrape window with toast. Hey, it's warm; but not for long

7:31:30 AM – Listen to daughter no. #2 complain that she is going to be late

7:31:35 AM – Listen to daughters bicker over leaving late

7:31:36 AM – Wonder why God caused there to be a "teenage period" between cute and adult

7:31:45 AM – Roll down both windows and use wiper fluid to cut through frost for visibility

7:32:00 AM – Pray that nobody is coming fast when we back out onto the road

7:33:00 AM – Pull out onto W. 38^th St. – AKA "aggressive driving zone."

7:33:03 AM – Car stutters and starts to shake

7:33:05 AM – Turn into assisted living home parking lot

7:33:10 AM – Listen to misfiring and pinging of engine

7:33:15 AM – Figure out the vehicle is out of gas

7:33:20 AM – Sure realization that gas station is too far to make it

7:33:23 AM – Sure realization that to stall out on 38^th St is to invite abuse and scorn from fellow travelers

7:33:25 AM – Recollect that there is a gas can in the garage with about a gallon of gas in it.
7:33:26 AM – Recollect that oldest son is not home and has the second car
7:33:27 AM – Vehicle is popping and gasping for petro

7:33:28 AM – Frantic wish to make it as close to home as possible before inevitable

7:33:30 AM – Cross 38^th street into church parking lot
7:33:33 AM – Vehicle dies completely

7:33:40 AM – Start recriminating comments towards teenage daughters who went out in the vehicle the previous night

7:34:25 AM – Point out that they put no fuel in car even though it read less than 1/8 of tank when they took the car
7:34:30 AM – Tell girls that they can either stay in the car until I get back or walk to school
7:34:30½ AM – They opt to stay with the car.  Why walk?
7:35:00 AM – Start to walk down Colonial to house
7:36:00 AM – School Bus blows black smoke at me as it passes

7:40:00 AM – Starting to break a sweat.  Should have left heavy winter coat in car

7:45:00 AM – How far is half a mile anyway?  
7:45:15 AM – Go through front door
7:45:20 AM – In one of life's small miracles, I actually find the gas can and yes, there is gas in it
7:45:45 AM – Start back for car
7:45:50 AM – Catch glances of every driver checking out my gas can trot.  Nobody stops to offer ride
7:45:50 AM – This walk is farther than I thought it was
7:50:00 AM – My legs are starting to feel it, involuntarily start to slow down
7:55:00 AM – One block to go.  Can I just sit here for a minute?
7:56:00 AM – Turn corner and see van rocking back and forth.  Bass sounds trumping out of vehicle

7:57:00 AM – Pour gasoline into gas tank very slowly.  I don't need gasoline stinky shoes for work

7:57:30 AM – I'm wet.  I'm wiping sweat out of my eyes while pouring gasoline.  It's a good life
7:58:00 AM – Turn key to start car.  Nothing.  Try again.  Oh great!  Maybe there wasn't enough gas in the can
7:59:00 AM – Start to worry.  The gas station is another mile in the other direction.  Wonder if anybody would miss me if I walked into traffic
7:59:15 AM – The Fates decide have toyed with me long enough.  The car roars to life.  Off we go
8:01:00 AM – Drop girls off at McDowell
8:01:30 AM – Quickly pump $5 at Country Fair

8:03:00 AM – Zoom onto roadway.  Traffic congestion is lighter.  The 8 AMers are already at work

8:04:00 AM – Absent-mindedly pick up toast and take a big bite
8:04:01 AM – Realize mistake – yuck! Gag on a wet, soggy mess
8:04:05 AM – Wonder if rolling down window and spitting out food is polluting?
8:04:30 AM – Man up and swallow hard
8:06:00 AM – Discover that there are two more 15 mph school zones to traverse after 8 AM
8:10:00 AM – Oh boy!
8:15:00 AM – Consider racing around all traffic at Glenwood Park merge.  It would make me hated but I'm ready for a fight
8:15:30 AM – Consider how getting arrested would go over with supervisors

8:16:00 AM – Crawl up hill behind green pickup blowing black smoke at me.  Have sense of Déjà vu

8:20:00 AM – Pull into parking lot, slam into spot and enter building within 60 seconds
8:22:00 AM – Standing in Darlene's office explaining I'm late.  She's totally bewildered
8:23:00 AM – She gives me 59 minute rule.  No need to dock pay, I'm not habitually late
8:23:15 AM – Really glad that this supervisor never talked to my last supervisor
8:25:00 AM – Arrive at work station.  Colleagues are currently not in; Sheryll gone to meeting, Mike to morning standup
8:26:00 AM – What is that smell?  Oh yeah, that's me

9:00:00 AM – Mike comes back.  We shoot breeze.  I tell him I was 20 late.  He waves it off.  That's fine.  No big deal

9:15:00 AM – Darlene comes in with Sheryll.  Darlene tells Sheryll that she gave me 59 minute (more like 20 minute) rule
9:15:15 AM – Sheryll shrugs.  She didn't even know I wasn't here
9:30:00 AM – HR sends out a new All-employee Message. They are reposting the BO Secretary spot
9:31:00 AM – I sniff my shirt.  BO secretary, huh?  I should make quals.  I may even be overqualified
9:33:00 AM – Wonder what I could qualify for if I ate a big bowl of chili?

Paul Krugman Officially Simplest Nobel Laureate In History

Shared from Suitably Flip

Via The Corner, James Taranto finds something quizzical in today's insufferable lecture on unemployment policy from the gray lady's most special economist.

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":

But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."

What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

Posted using ShareThis

News at 11:00, Opinion at 11:01

Have you ever listened to the news and just said WHAT?

I just heard a peppy female caster proclaim good news for the economy.  She reports that this is the third straight month that there has been a gain in manufacturing hiring.  Then comes the sound bite; a gravelly voiced economist saying there has been an increase in job openings for manufacturing positions, BUT unfortunately it has not kept pace with manufacturing jobs losses.  The giddy cheerleader voice returns to say that economic indicators prove that the US economy has rounded a corner and is on the rebound.  Isn't that like an oncologist telling you he has good news – they are killing more lung cancer cells than ever, unfortunately the cancer has metastasized to all parts of your body and is growing faster than they can keep up.  But hey, we've turned a corner here. 

Last week The Globe reported that there are serious flaws with the data collection of global temperatures in regard to Global Warming.  Scientists admit that sea levels have not risen as computer projections forecast.  The lead IPCC scientist admitted that there has been no significant rise of temperature in the last 15 years.  The rest of the article dealt with the danger the earth is in if we don't act now (it may be too late already) and how some people refuse to accept the reality of global warming even with the mountain of evidence staring us in the face – which, by the way, only science professions can understand.  The article was oblivious to its own contradictions.

Today Barak Obama extended the Patriot Act for another year.  DEMOCRATS called it a necessary step for security.   It was reported matter-of-factly.  Two years ago democrats were calling it the biggest civil rights travesty in US History.   George Bush had to go - Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, Afghanistan – he was a national embarrassment.  He was alternately the devil incarnate or the stupidest man on earth.  As of March 2010, the smartest man on the planet has done nothing about Gitmo, decided to stay in Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan and today extended the Patriot Act.  All these things are okay now.  I mean the situation on the ground is dire. 

Full disclosure, I am neither republican nor democrat and my leanings are more libertarian with a shade of cultural conservativism.  I think Glenn Beck can be a big fat jerk, but he should get a Pulitzer for some of the stories he broke last year.  FOX leans right, NPR leans left and CNN is somewhere out in its own little self-congratulatory universe.  And if there is a court fool it is Keith Olberman.  Though Rachel Madow consistently proves she is not even up to par for her own show.  And not one of them can tell us what is really going on without interjecting biased commentary into the news report.  Okay, so Beck, Olberman, et al, are commentators and can be excused but you know what I mean.  It's their job to look at the news and spin it to their views. And they are paid well for it. It's the actual reporting full of  (not so) hidden commentary that I object to. Just tell me what is going on. Period. Don't analyze it for me. If I want it analyzed I know when Blitzer, O'Reilly and Matthews are on.

I took ONE – just ONE journalism class in college.  It didn't take long, as I listened to their conversations, to realize that the majors in the class were there because they wanted to change the world.  One time I not-so-slyly pointed out that the PoliSci building was on the other side of campus.  It didn't go over well.  They didn't want to be Woodward and Bernstein.  They wanted to be Perez Hilton and slam conservative Christian beauty pageant contestants and expose the bigotry of the right. I sat in many classes just amazed as lessons and arguments against propaganda and prejudice were nothing more than tirades and rants filled with propaganda and prejudice. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men, objectivity was used for a punch line in a joke.

I miss Cronkite. Remember Uncle Walter? It shocked people to find out how liberal his political views were revealed to be after he retired. Nobody knew. Today, we know.  No surprise, but most reporters vote democrat in elections.  We're supposed to believe that any such sharply skewed group even knows what a balanced view is?  Granted, news can be biased because reporters are often lazy and use only the most convenient sources, i.e. government spokesman, PR consultants, etc. but today there is the decision to seek out the more progressive viewpoint, to find alternate interests and to include other societal demographics. These viewpoints usually are not relevant to the facts of the story. But in the interest of "diversity" and "fairness" we are righting the inequalities of the past in the newsrooms of today.

Back in the days of America Past you knew the bias of a newspaper when you picked it up.  Editorial ownership guided the whole tone of the reporting.  Today they all pretend that they are unbiased, impartial, fair and balanced.  Bull.  The Wall Street Journal has the most liberal reporting in the nation – but they hide it by staffing the most conservative editorial board.  The New York Times often has fair reporting but Marx and Lenin would feel comfortable on its Ed Board.  Sometimes you don't know what you're getting.  But sometimes you do.  And you realize that the cheerleading peppy voice on the 3 PM newscast has no idea that she just contradicted herself.