Leon H. Wolf thinks so: "I have long maintained that the Democratic Party in America views minorities in a fundamentally racist way, and that this racism is clearly expressed in the policies they support."
Harry Alford agrees.
Unfortunately, so do I.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
OBAMA’S CZARS
Today’s list, from Politico.
Good grief. This is unreal.
1) Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
2) AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley
3) Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
4) Border Czar: Alan Bersin
5) California Water Czar: David J. Hayes
6) Car Czar: Ron Bloom
7) Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
8) Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
9) Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
10) Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
11) Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower
12) Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois
13) Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
14) Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones (now departed)
15) Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
16) Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
17) Information Czar: Vivek Kundra
18) International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
19) Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair
20) Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom (TBA)
21) Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell
22) Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
23) Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein
24) Science Czar: John Holdren
25) Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney
26) Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration
27) TARP Czar: Herb Allison
28) Terrorism Czar: John Brennan
29) Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra
30) Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
31) Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
32) WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore
Good grief. This is unreal.
SARAH PALIN'S 'DEATH PANELS'
"[Liberals] couldn’t believe that Sarah Palin was capable of something as canny as that deadly 'death panels' phrase. They couldn’t see that it was a metaphoric shorthand for something real."
Astonishingly to me, Rosenblum, a liberal himself, figured it out.
In the comments to Rosenblum's post, "Class Clown" correctly observed:
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides the reasoned view, which is obvious to anyone who has at least a passing acquaintance with unintended consequences.
Astonishingly to me, Rosenblum, a liberal himself, figured it out.
In the comments to Rosenblum's post, "Class Clown" correctly observed:
The real reason that the “death panels” struck so deep is that a whole lot of us are really uncomfortable with how flippant the Left has become about human life. .... They may not sit on any “death panels”, but they sure bring a scary perspective to the debate. If I had to have my family’s fate decided by Peter Singer and Dr. Emmanuel, I’d rather take my chances with an insurance company.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides the reasoned view, which is obvious to anyone who has at least a passing acquaintance with unintended consequences.
YOUR LIFE, YOUR CHOICES
There has been much written, mostly negative, about the “death book”, the Department of Veterans Affairs booklet on advanced planning directives.
All of the above is correct, but it only describes 2-3 pages of 50. I agree with the Washington Times editorial that the booklet shorts the “what would it take to want to live” question, but dispute the argument that the booklet focuses on “wanting to die.” A more correct description is that it focuses on responding to the inevitability of death, which, unfortunately, is a subject for which happy faces do not abound.
Congressman Steve Buyer (R, IN, 4th district) has posted a copy on his website. Read it and decide for yourself if it’s truly a “death book.”
Officially titled, "Your Life, Your Choices," the [death] book fosters dark thoughts about a difficult life somehow being less of a life.
On Page 21, the Death Book poses questions to veterans to which they are to answer whether life would be "difficult, but acceptable," "worth living, but just barely" or "not worth living." The scenarios include: "I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair," "I can no longer contribute to my family's well-being," "I live in a nursing home," "I can no longer control my bladder," "I am a severe financial burden on my family," "I cannot seem to 'shake the blues' " and "I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive."
The most positive answer allowable is "difficult, but acceptable." Every situation is phrased in the most negative terms. If veterans check any of the "not worth living" boxes, they are asked if this means they "would rather die than be kept alive." Further along, the book asks, "If you checked 'worth living, but just barely' for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life 'not worth living?' If so, which factors?"
There is no attempt to ask people, "What would it take for you to want to live?" Instead, the booklet focuses on wanting to die.
All of the above is correct, but it only describes 2-3 pages of 50. I agree with the Washington Times editorial that the booklet shorts the “what would it take to want to live” question, but dispute the argument that the booklet focuses on “wanting to die.” A more correct description is that it focuses on responding to the inevitability of death, which, unfortunately, is a subject for which happy faces do not abound.
Congressman Steve Buyer (R, IN, 4th district) has posted a copy on his website. Read it and decide for yourself if it’s truly a “death book.”
OBAMACARE AND TORT REFORM
Former governor Sarah Palin strikes again:
Simple. Elegant. Right.
President Barack Obama waffles:
Confusing. Inarticulate. Wrong.
As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation’s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims.
Simple. Elegant. Right.
President Barack Obama waffles:
[I]t will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they're constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits, ... but ... "I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards, which I personally believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed.
Confusing. Inarticulate. Wrong.
THOUGHTS ON OBESITY
As a result of Megan McArdle's post on healthcare, there is an interesting response and counter-response on the subject of obesity.
Read both, and skim the comments as well. What I find amusing is the general progressive "What's the matter with Kansas?" response, roughly argued as Americans' propensity for voting for policies against their own self-interest. It can't possibly be that obesity is a result of food being abundant, available, and cheap; it must be a result caused by - and cured by - government policy.
Link via Instapundit.
[Update] More from Greg Mankiw:
Mankiw's post is concerned more with healthcare costs than obesity, but the bottom line appears to be that obesity is primarily related to availability and cost.
Read both, and skim the comments as well. What I find amusing is the general progressive "What's the matter with Kansas?" response, roughly argued as Americans' propensity for voting for policies against their own self-interest. It can't possibly be that obesity is a result of food being abundant, available, and cheap; it must be a result caused by - and cured by - government policy.
Link via Instapundit.
[Update] More from Greg Mankiw:
Americans are also more likely to be obese .... 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.
Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.
Mankiw's post is concerned more with healthcare costs than obesity, but the bottom line appears to be that obesity is primarily related to availability and cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
