Grace and dignity from unpopular man

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not a big fan of Bush (mostly because of his fiscal policies and religious bias), but the hatred he incurs is outrageous and undeserved. He's kept us safe, which is the MOST important of a presidential task. So, it's nice to see articles, such as this one, recognizing the grace with which he has endured the taunting, personal attacks and general hatred constantly spewed against him. It takes a special person to rise above these things. And while I think he should not be so apologetic now, especially about his foreign policy decisions, this is another reason why he is a good, if not great man. Can you see Clinton being sincerely apologetic about anything? He's about as humble and sincere as O.J.

Velcro Presidency

Leadership: George W. Bush was pegged as a hate figure even before being sworn in. Yet he resisted bitterness, stuck to principle and became what history will judge to be one of our better presidents.

---

We may have witnessed in the last eight the Anti-Watergate. Richard Milhous Nixon never forgot a slight, used federal law enforcement powers against his political enemies and infuriated the Republican Party's conservative base with policies ranging from wage and price controls to detente with communists to Supreme Court appointments.

President George W. Bush

Soon-to-be-ex-President Bush, on the other hand, has taken at least as much personal abuse, yet his graciousness seldom fails. While the 37th president acidly told the press, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore," the 43rd told the reporters at his final presidential press conference Monday that they were "just people trying to do the best they possibly can."
That's charitable in the extreme: Every step of the way, the establishment press has been eager to see this president fail.
And unlike Nixon, who so disappointed his supporters on the right that he was challenged for the GOP nomination in 1972, Bush stuck to the conservative principles on many if not most issues, including income and investment tax cuts, the invasion of two terror states and the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
Bush came to the plate with two strikes against him. He was falsely accused of stealing the 2000 election and hit the ground in the middle of a recession. Then came the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor. In the face of the threat to both the U.S. and the free world, the commander in chief made war against governments that sponsored terrorism and cut taxes to revitalize the post-9/11 economy.
As he noted Monday, when the establishments of both parties in Washington insisted on throwing in the towel in Iraq, rather than accepting the status quo because the party might end up not doing well in the elections, Bush "decided to do something about it — and sent 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing."
Asked about alleged damage to America's international image, the president offered a challenge: "Ask Africans about America's generosity and compassion; go to India . . . go to China and ask . . .. No question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries."
On Hurricane Katrina, he asked: "When I hear people say, 'The federal response was slow,' then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers, or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs?"
The one foreign-policy area where Bush may legitimately be faulted in the history books is in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. As the New York Times reported Saturday, a major covert program that would "subtly sabotage Iran's nuclear infrastructure" was begun by the administration early last year. It would "undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies" and "is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon."
If Barack Obama lets that program succeed, it'll be yet another reason history may place "the Velcro president" somewhere near the top tier occupied by the "the Teflon president," Ronald Reagan.

The Slippery Slope of Government Programs

Mark Perry, of the "Carpe Diem" blog, highlights a disturbing aspect of this article:

Universal Healthcare And The Waistline Police

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

~Dr. Paul Hsieh in the Christian Science Monitor

Thanks to Ben Cunningham.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. Aside from all of the other reasons that government health care is inefficient and wrong-headed, these examples are easily identifiable and scary. Why don't the people who have problems with wire-tapping and video surveillance camera have a problem with this kind of taking of a person's basic rights? Just as something so commonplace and ridiculous as the seat belt law, people should have the right to make their own stupid choices. It should not be up to government as to what they eat, how they dress, etc. Where is it in the Constitution that government's job is to protect us from ourselves? Should they protect us from foolish investments? Where does it say that government should provide us with anything other than protection from force and fraud? Why is the government able to take such liberties today? And where has it gotten us? Deep into a deficit. Especially in California. This particular nanny state, once a golden land of entrepreneurial opportunity, is now driving business people away in droves, depriving us of jobs and cash flow, that we desperately need. And in the meantime, our Governor tries to invent new ways to tax us for his programs that have done nothing anyway. Oh excuse me, we don't call them "taxes" anymore, we call them "fees."

Below is another excerpt from the Paul Hsieh article about the nanny state trend:

Although American healthcare is only under partial government control in the form of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, American nanny state regulations have exploded in recent years.

Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a "zero tolerance" ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy.

These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

It is a serious problem for California, when the best and the brightest are heading for the hills.
"In 2000, according to the state's Department of Finance, about 150,000 people moved into California. But in the years that followed the in-migration slowed, and in 2005 it reversed, when a net 52,000 people moved out. In 2008, the outflow topped 135,000 people." This is bad. Very bad.

My question is, where is all this increased spending going? Is your life better because of it? I can't see it, I can't feel it. Instead of improvements, I see failed programs, a failing school system, government agencies that everyone dreads (the DMV for example). Show me something that all this government money has improved. In fact, I'm pretty sure things are worse, even though we are throwing money around like madmen.

While it has the sixth highest tax burden in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, California is facing a breathtaking $40 billion budget deficit this year. This comes on the heels of a decade-long spending spree. Last year the state budget was $131 billion, up from $56 billion in 1998.

What I see is more and more excuses every day for spending and taxing because everyone's terrified to just do nothing.

Just do nothing.

Let people and companies fail. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's become leaner and meaner and more efficient. These bailouts of big, bulky and inefficient industries teaches us all to function like the big, bulky and inefficient government, while removing consequences. When did we become a country of handouts?

It's not always a bad thing to fail.

Sea Kittens: Kid tested. Mother approved.

Do the people over at PETA ever just sit back and take a look at some of the things they're saying?

Their latest nonsensical campaign is to rename the species formerly known as "Fish" to "Sea Kittens."

"Why?" You might ask.

People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?

PETA's trying to be cute in their approach to this. But the mentality behind this movement is absolutely ridiculous and offensive. And it's as if we don't have bigger "fish" to fry at the moment with our Global Economy imploding and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, let's focus our efforts on important matters like changing public opinion of fish, banning text messaging while driving (rather than spending more resources targeting drunk or illegal drivers), banning trans-fats, and placing further burdens on restaurant owners by requiring they post nutritional information. At least we have our priorities in the right order.

Serious *groan*

"Something for Nothing"

How many times over do we have to prove that the private-sector does thing better than the government before people will start to believe it? And why do people feel that health care is a service that should be provided for free?

Why can't health care be budgeted for, just like food and housing? For those of you who are uninsured, I guarantee that there are financial sacrifices you could make that would free up enough cash to become insured. Yeah, it's not always easy. Life's not easy. It's not supposed to be. Why should it be the government/taxpayers job's to make life easier on those who choose to buy other commodities and services, rather than have foresight and protect their health? What are some things that we could relinquish to help afford health care? Cigarettes? I hear that's a pricey habit. Not to mention, terrible for your health and will probably make your rates go up. Restaurants? Those get expensive and are generally unhealthy anyway. That nasty shopping habit? Time to tear up the Bloomingdales cards, girl. Is it more important to look like Malibu Barbie or be able to fulfill a prescription or see your doctor regularly?

Point being, there are lots of places to cut the fat in pretty much anyone's budget. And what is more important than your health? There should be no excuses on this one. Have some personal responsibility, take care of yourself, don't wait for the government to bail your ass out. It may be too late, anyway.

Not to mention the numerous reasons why government-run health care has been proven not to work.

Here's a great post from the blog, Carpe Diem:

Entrepreneurs Can Solve Health Care Problems

From Devon Herrick's (National Center for Policy Analysis) study "Health Care Entrepreneurs: The Changing Nature of Providers:"

The market for medical care does not work like other markets. Providers typically do not disclose prices prior to treatment because they do not compete for patients based on price. Payments are usually not made by patients themselves but by third parties — employers, insurance companies or government (only 12% of medical costs are paid directly by patients, see chart above). And the amounts paid are not really market-clearing prices; they are "reimbursement" rates negotiated with bureaucratic institutions and networks. Furthermore, when providers do not compete on price, they usually do not compete on quality either. In fact, in a very real sense, doctors and hospitals are not competing for patients at all — at least not in the way normal businesses compete in markets.

The lack of competition results in a highly artificial market plagued by problems of high costs, inconsistent quality and poor access, according to Devon Herrick at the National Center for Policy Analysis in his study "Health Care Entrepreneurs: The Changing Nature of Providers."

But in health care markets where patients pay directly for all or most of their care, providers almost always compete on the basis of price and quality. Examples include:

Cosmetic surgery: Since it is rarely covered by insurance, patients pay out of pocket and are thus sensitive to prices; they can typically compare prices prior to surgery and pay a price that has been falling over time in real terms (see chart below).


Laser eye surgery: Competition is holding prices in check and improving quality in vision correction surgery, including accurate correction, faster healing, fewer side effects and an
expanded range of conditions that can be treated.

Price competition for drugs: Wal-Mart became the first national retailer to aggressively compete for buyers of generic drugs by charging a low, uniform price ($10 for a 90-day supply). Other chain stores have responded with their own pricing strategies.

Walk-in clinics in shopping malls and drug stores compete by offering low money costs and low time costs, and electronic prescribing improves quality using error-reducing software.

Telephone-based practices: TelaDoc, provides telephone consultations to 2 million customers. It allows patients access to a doctor any time of day from any location and also
uses electronic prescribing to reduce errors.

Medical tourism provides cash-paying patients health care outside of the United States in high-quality facilities that rival domestic facilities. Patients can save 30 to 50 percent by going abroad.

Bottom Line: In health care markets where third-party payers do not pay the bills, the behavior of providers and patients is radically different. In these markets, entrepreneurs compete for patients’ business by offering greater convenience, lower prices and innovative services unavailable in traditional clinical settings. What lesson can we learn from these examples of entrepreneurship in health care? The most important is that entrepreneurs can solve many of the health care problems that critics condemn. Public policy should encourage, not discourage, these efforts.



This promise of "universal health care" is similar to Obama's "Hope" and "Change." As economist, Thomas Sowell wonders, have we not yet figured out that the "promise of something for nothing" is like a pyramid scheme or any number of cons? All of the other countries that currently have universal health care have a number of problems with their systems.


For example:

...new life-saving medications that go immediately into the market in the United States take a much longer time to become available to Canadian patients-- if they ever get approved by the bureaucrats.

No doubt that lowers the cost of medications-- if you count costs solely in money terms, rather than in terms of how many people literally pay with their lives when the bureaucrats are reluctant to buy new pharmaceutical drugs, while they can continue to approve obsolete and cheaper drugs for the same illnesses.

Cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Europe. A recent report by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver estimates that annually tens of thousands of Canadians seek medical treatment outside of Canada, even though treatment is free inside Canada and they have to pay themselves for treatment elsewhere.

Other studies show that waiting times for surgery are months longer in Canada, Britain and Australia-- all countries with government-controlled medical care-- than in the United States.

First of all, the average uninsured American has above-average income-- and people living in poverty are already eligible for Medicaid.

There are of course some serious problems with Medicaid, as there is with government medical treatment at Veterans Administration hospitals and with Medicare. But such things only highlight the dangers of having the government take over the rest of the medical sector, given its dangerous failures where it is already involved in medical matters.

The lure of something for nothing may be seductive when you are in good health. But it can become a bitter irony when you are waiting for months for surgery to relieve your pain or when your life hangs in the balance while some bureaucrat decides whether you can get the best medication or something older and cheaper.

Why is Cheney so hated?

I really can't understand it. True, he doesn't come across as the most dynamic of personalities. He's no Obama, that's for sure. But, he is sincere, pensive, intelligent, deeply knowledgeable and straightforward. He doesn't feel like a greasy politician. He doesn't engage in doublespeak. He tells it how it is and doesn't beat around the bush (no pun intended). This is rare in politics.




It's a shame Cheney wasn't President in lieu of Bush.

I can't take it anymore...

Sometimes it feels like there is so much to be angry about, I don't even know where to start.

This indoctrination of our children/propaganda/brainwashing is just another example of PC lefties in the media, completely out of control.

Transcending Race

One more thought on Obama's mythic transcendence of race: if the Obama win is so transcendent, how is it that Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) is blaming the Senate appointment blocking of Burris (the "Magic Man") on race? I thought we were past that, now?

Just wondering.

And, by the way, I had to scour the Internet for this quote. The only mainstream media outlet that posted this part of his quote was Fox. CNN, ABC, NBC, the NYT and the Washington Post all seemed to miss this little tidbit:

While they might not be termed racist, their action is racist. I think that if Roland Burris hadn't been an African American, then he would have been allowed to accept the appointment and become a senator.

This is outrageous and vile, especially coming from a man in the United States Congress. This is not some random guy. He is an elected official. Ann Coulter's inflammatory statements are plastered all over the blogospehere and the mainstream media. She is accused of virtolic hatred, but Bobby Rush is given a complete pass?

Wow.