3/31/2005 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Farewell to the ghouls It's funny that Michelle Malkin repeatedly deigns to call George Felos a "ghoul." Technically, she's correct - Felos is satisfied in an outcome resulting in death, which is textbook ghoulish. But once this Schiavo mess blew up, I was struck by what crass, deranged people the Schindlers were. For the record: I don't think there's anything sad about a brain-dead person dying, because when they pass on they're reunited with God. I know, I know: Crazy! So from this vantage point, I saw the Schindler family disgracing themselves and their daughter in order to keep her bound in her useless body. - They filmed their brain-dead daughter moaning as they dangled lights and balloons above her, then gave this footage to international media organizations. - They solicited and encouraged support from disreputable people and known self-promoters like Randall Terry and William Hammesfahr, who then lied about their daughter's condition for international media. - They encouraged a slander campaign against their son-in-law, accusing him of abuse and fraud. - When they heard their brain-dead daughter moan "Aahhh" and "Waahh," they ran to cameras to claim she'd said "I want to live." Their media representives let this untruth be repeated again and again, to the point that it's spread into the propaganda of fringe religious groups. In the end, they perpetrated a fraudulent picture of the situation, wherein their daughter was still conscious and her husband was trying to murder her to cover his crimes. I agree with Dan Kennedy that this is mostly the fault of scandal-hungry TV media, but they were led on by a family that seems partly disturbed (interpreting the moans of a woman with no cerebral cortex as word and sentences) and partly malicious. Terri Schiavo's with God. If her family wants to join her, they had better hope they didn't inspire any wackjobs to commit murder for them. At the very least they should start making amends. (And I can't be the only person who thinks this, as 70% or so of Americans in polls wanted the tube removed. Can we get, I don't know, one person on cable who's not siding with the creepy Schindlers?)|W|P|111231523056327559|W|P||W|P|3/01/2006 06:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous group health insurance plans|W|P|Hey, cool blog here. I'm blog surfing and came across yours...some good thoughts here.

regards,
health insurance quote3/31/2005 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Farewell to the ghouls It's funny that Michelle Malkin repeatedly deigns to call George Felos a "ghoul." Technically, she's correct - Felos is satisfied in an outcome resulting in death, which is textbook ghoulish. But once this Schiavo mess blew up, I was struck by what crass, deranged people the Schindlers were. For the record: I don't think there's anything sad about a brain-dead person dying, because when they pass on they're reunited with God. I know, I know: Crazy! So from this vantage point, I saw the Schindler family disgracing themselves and their daughter in order to keep her bound in her useless body. - They filmed their brain-dead daughter moaning as they dangled lights and balloons above her, then gave this footage to international media organizations. - They solicited and encouraged support from disreputable people and known self-promoters like Randall Terry and William Himmelsfahr, who then lied about their daughter's condition for international media. - They encouraged a slander campaign against their son-in-law, accusing him of abuse and fraud. - When they heard their brain-dead daughter moan "Aahhh" and "Waahh," they ran to cameras to claim she'd said "I want to live." Their media representives let this untruth be repeated again and again, to the point that it's spread into the propaganda of fringe religious groups. In the end, they perpetrated a fraudulent picture of the situation, wherein their daughter was still conscious and her husband was trying to murder her to cover his crimes. I agree with Dan Kennedy that this is mostly the fault of scandal-hungry TV media, but they were led on by a family that seems partly disturbed (interpreting the moans of a woman with no cerebral cortex as moans and sentences) and partly malicious. Terri Schiavo's in heaven. If her family wants to join her, they had better hope they didn't inspire any wackjobs to commit murder for them. At the very least they should start making amends.|W|P|111231531116910177|W|P||W|P|3/31/2005 04:39:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|James Dobson: Idiot Dr. James Dobson, March 31, 2005:
Our founding fathers intended that this would be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But now the final arbiter of every significant moral issue comes down to unelected, unaccountable judges to the judiciary.
William Levesque, St. Petersburg Times, September 1, 2004.
ST. PETERSBURG - Circuit Judge George Greer, whose rulings to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube made him a political target, appeared headed to an easy re-election victory Tuesday night. The Pinellas-Pasco judge enjoyed nearly a 2-to-1 advantage over challenger Jan Govan, a Clearwater attorney in his first run for a judgeship.
And just in case you're wondering ...
The Sixth Judicial Circuit is comprised of Pasco and Pinellas Counties and is located on the Central West Coast of Florida.
In the 2004 election, George Bush won 51% of the vote in the Sixth Circuit. In 2002, Jeb Bush won 56% of the vote. But who elected James Dobson?|W|P|111230612075499870|W|P||W|P|3/31/2005 11:57:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Court-Packing II: Judgment Day The talking heads, politicians, and subhuman pieces of shit* are taking to the airwaves to say that the root cause of Terri Schiavo's death - indeed, the entire "culture of death" - was activist judges. Murder by judiciary. A judge "defying the will of congress." Now ... where have we heard this before?
The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third house of the Congress - a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it - reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there. We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. I want - as all Americans want - an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power - in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized. ... Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
Yep. That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 9, 1937 - a president who had just been re-elected with an increased majority of his party in Congress. He used his mandate to take on the courts and squandered most of his political capital, in time for Republicans to win back 81 House seats and eight Senate seats in the midterm elections. I know some post-election commentary (including my own) speculated that the GOP would eventually run aground thanks to hubris, but if they're going to do so by making the same mistake FDR did and attacking the courts - well, wow. Just wow. *Randall Terry|W|P|111229758257904697|W|P||W|P|3/30/2005 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Move on, don't move on Boy, MoveOn can't win for losing. In the last few months they've apparently distanced themselves from anti-Iraq war activism. Arch-lefty Norman Solomon complained about this.
Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org – which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message – is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. With a network of more than 3 million "online activists," the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq. During the recent bloody months, none of MoveOn's action alerts have addressed what Americans can do to help get the U.S. military out of that country.
The funny thing is, people who already hated MoveOn for its anti-war activity haven't noticed. Underneath his confused-looking new byline photo, Byron York just "exposed" the alliance of Barack Obama and MoveOn.
The Obama letter comes at a time when some centrist Democrats have expressed concerns that the party has become too identified with its most vocal elements on the left, including MoveOn. In February, the Washington Post cited Democratic-party strategists who "worry that the influence of grass-roots activists could push the party even further to the left, particularly on national security, reinforcing a weakness that Bush exploited in his reelection campaign."
So they stop being anti-war, and they're still slammed for being anti-war. Sigh. At the risk of getting too pollyanaish, I think this is a positive development. It's better for all concerned if MoveOn turns into a workaday liberal lobbying organization, rather than digging its heels into anti-war activism. I point you to any history of Students for a Democratic Society if you disagree.|W|P|111222503615727202|W|P||W|P|3/30/2005 05:29:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Random thought If Chris Farley was still with us, do you think he'd be the put-upon fat guy in the Ditech.com ads? Because he'd be awesome at that.|W|P|111222185453506685|W|P||W|P|3/30/2005 12:15:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Jimmy Carter makes my dreams come true Bipartisan election reform is an old saw of mine, and I just now am seeing that it might be coming true.
Former President Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III will head a study commission that will recommend changes in the nation's federal election system. The bipartisan panel, announced Thursday by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management, is charged with examining such matters as the disputed 2000 presidential election. "I am concerned about the state of our electoral system and believe we need to improve it," said Carter, a Democrat whose Carter Center in Atlanta has monitored dozens of elections around the world. "There is much we could learn from other democracies and from our own citizens." "America's democracy is the backbone of our society, and only through fair elections can we guarantee that our system remains healthy," said Baker, a Republican, who was the top U.S. diplomat under President George H.W. Bush. Ralph Munro, a liberal Republican who served as Washington state's secretary of state, is one of 16 members serving with Carter and Baker. The group plans public hearings in Washington, D.C. and Houston and will send a report to Congress after the Labor Day recess.
Yes, these committees sometimes write a fat report that gets completely ignored, but I don't think it's radical to say James Baker has some influence with the White House. Hopefully they'll hammer out something that involves paper trails for e-voting (making Democrats happy) and ID requirements (making Republicans happy), and it'll sail through congress like taco meat through a colon. Of course, anti-Muslim blogger Charles Johnson is turning red and stamping his little feet at the mention of Jimmy.
This, coming from the ex-President who sat in the Presidential box next to Michael Moore, declared that Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of his favorite films, and honored a vicious terrorist at his grave.
Deeuhr! Deeeuhr! Non sequitors!|W|P|111216030566461055|W|P||W|P|3/28/2005 11:56:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Registering a complaint That little option on Outlook Express that creates a pop-up notice when you get a new email must be the most intensive piece of code ever written. Hell, nothing slows down my system like that - while it's loading, the rest of my functions stop and for some reason my typing gets bumped off whatever program I'm using to make beeping noises on the pop-up bar. Annoying, is all I'm saying.|W|P|111202913424618909|W|P||W|P|3/26/2005 03:17:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|On vacation In Delaware for a few days. Meanwhile, here's a map of the states I've been to.
create your own personalized map of the USA or check out ourFlorida travel guide Useless factoid: These states equal a total of 312 electoral votes!|W|P|111182585576416532|W|P||W|P|3/22/2005 04:57:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Coming summer 2006 to a theatre near you ... Born to Die The Terri Schiavo Story Starring: Two-time Academy Award winner Hilary Swank (Boy's Don't Cry, Million Dollar Baby) as Terri Schiavo, the courageous woman whose fight inspired a nation! Paul Giamatti (Sideways, American Splendor) as Michael Schiavo, the husband who conspired to end Terri's life! Wilford Brimley as Bob Schindler, the father who refused to say die! Sally Field as Mary Schindler, the mother who ... also refused to say die! Bronson Pinchot as Bobby Schindler, the sibling who took Terri's fight to congress! Joe Pesci as Tom DeLay, the congressman who had no political stake in this whatsoever! Timothy Bottoms as George W. Bush, the president who wanted to create a culture of life! Louie Anderson as Frank Luntz, the pollster who told him to say that! Dan Castellaneta as George Greer, the anti-life judge who started this mess! Jonathan Banks (TV's "Wiseguy") as George Felos, the lawyer who stood with Michael Schiavo! Jude Law as David Gibbs, the lawyer who stood with the Schindlers! Jessica Lange as Nancy Grace, the escaped mental patient whose TV show brought the saga into Americans' homes! and ... Morgan Freeman as "Scruff", the humble hospital janitor who saw it all!|W|P|111152865129095046|W|P||W|P|3/22/2005 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Heh http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war45.html|W|P|111151027666805032|W|P||W|P|3/22/2005 11:17:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Cornpone I'm not a fan of down-home cliches in politics to start with, so the current Social Security war is driving me nuts. Cliche #1 on my hit list: "Come to the table." This is a folksy-sounding concept that means nothing - is there going to be a Versailles-style summit on Social Security where a plan will be hammered out? I also think Bush might have overplayed his hand when he extended this and said "Woe be to the politician who doesn't come to the table and try to come up with a solution." This sounds like a guy who's waiting for a PR campaign to turn polls around for him, not for people to smile and break bread. It also reminds me of the "Cape Feare" episode of the Simpsons, and the legbreaker Homer hires to stop Sideshow Bob from coming after Bart.
Man: Now don't you fret. When I'm through, he won't set foot in this town again. I can be very, very> persuasive. [reloads his gun] [Scene change to a bar] Man: [whining] C'mon, leave town! Bob: No. Man: I'll be your friend? Bob: No. Man: Aw, you're mean!
|W|P|111150885308505904|W|P||W|P|3/20/2005 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Possibly trite thought I don't know much of anything about Terri Schiavo the person, and I'm not sure how much I trust any of the people battling over her. But given that Christian groups are mobilizing around her, I assume that before her accident she found Christ. And if that's the case - why spend 10 seconds keeping her alive? How does it benefit anyone to keep her in a useless body when she could be welcomed into heaven? A less trite thought: Wouldn't it be hilarious if Terri Schiavo was the second coming, and by protesting the tube removal these wackos were delaying the Resurrection and the Rapture? I know something similar happened in Dogma, but life can imitate art!|W|P|111136675134697733|W|P||W|P|3/20/2005 02:36:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Gunner Palace I finally got around to seeing this warts-and-all documentary about soldiers in Iraq, and yes, it's pretty fantastic. Director Mike Tucker inserts himself early on with some worrying "eloquent" narration, but his subjects are so fascinating that he can't help but recede after the first 15 minutes or so. You can read reviews of the film elsewhere, so let me use this opportunity to rant: Why do I have to go to the movies to see video of soldiers in Iraq? The TVs blaring over our desks in the office had been playing nothing but human interest stories all week - Terri Schiavo, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, some missing girl in Florida (why is it ALWAYS Florida?) Stories of euthenasia and murder in small-town America and Hollywood. I could expect to hear about this stuff in times of peace. But we have 150,000 soldiers risking their lives for us 24/7 in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're shooting it out with snipers, busting down doors, arresting assassins, quelling riots, handing out candy to schoolkids, cuddling babies at orphanages, Hummering down to the Baghdad airport's McDonalds to get a precious Big Mac. In what twisted universe is this not interesting? What the hell convinces TV producers that this stuff is less interesting than the latest frigging Amber alert for some frigging mullet kin in Bumbleshit, Broward County? I mean, there's one part in Gunner Palace where troops have raided the house of a man on the blacklist of former Ba'ath leaders. The man comes downstairs, brushes past the soldiers, and goes to a mirror and picks up a comb. He quickly combs his hair. Then he pivots and steps ahead to go into captivity with the soldiers. That's fascinating. Shame, shame on cable news for deeming it not worth covering. UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thank you, Glenn, for pointing out a typo that I have now fixed.|W|P|111134818552887770|W|P||W|P|3/18/2005 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Pot, kettle, black Oh, for Pete's sake.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has embarked on a nationwide tour to discuss Social Security reform. Well, not really. You see, Senator Reid will not talk about reform, because he believes there is no need for reform. "There is no crisis," he will tell you. But Senator Reid is wrong. And instead of touring the country ridiculing his colleagues for trying to fix this important program, he should be in Washington helping to iron out a solution.
Do I have to go there? Do I? All right. Man, this debate is getting ludicrous.|W|P|111118059546301915|W|P||W|P|3/18/2005 03:36:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|On the justice of roasting Hanson I know everyone loves Victory Davis Hanson's essays, but I think this week's one is pretty sloppy and broad-brush.
Immediately after September 11, Ward Churchill compared the victims in the Twin Tower to “little Eichmanns.” Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.) more recently likened President George W. Bush’s political methodology to what transpired in Nazi Germany. Earlier during the run-up to the Iraqi war, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin smeared Bush with a similar Hitlerian analogy.
Actually, Ward Churchill's essay falls in a completely different category of nuttery. Yes, there are liberals who see actions of the Bush administration as echoes of Nazism. Churchill sees America as an echo of Nazism. In the essay, Churchill mentions George W. Bush once, in this graf.
The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere.
See that? Churchill is one of those lefties who thinks America, by history and by nature, is a fascist, imperialist state. The rest of Hanson's examples of Hitlerisms are of liberals talking about specific actions of the Bush admin, usually related to media manipulation. So why tar all Bush opponents with a guy who thinks all corporate Americans are nazis? Hanson makes stuffy overtures at seeing a "trend" in this, but it just ain't there. Certainly not any more than we should glean something from the right-wing nuts who call Bill Clinton's wife "Hitlery." Oh, and somehow Hanson works Howard Dean into this: "if current Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean says publicly, 'I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for' — or, 'This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good' ... the bar of public dissent has so fallen that it is easy to descend a tad closer to the bottom to compare a horrific killer to an American president." Which is just weak. Hating a political opponent is the same as comparing them to Hitler? How wimpy can you get?|W|P|111117904131018027|W|P||W|P|3/17/2005 01:13:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Insert joke about "moral values" here So, last August, David Brooks profiled a congressman named Mark Souder.
Souder was a member of the Apostolic Christian Church, a fundamentalist church with a strong pacifist tradition. One of Souder's jobs as a boy was to cross out the word "devil's" on the Devil's Food Cakes, because his uncle said that nothing that good should have the word "devil" on its package. In accordance with his church's teaching, Souder has never smoked or danced. But the church does allow beer drinking (they're Germans), and he did own a 1966 Mustang as a young man.
Terrific! So, yesterday, we see this article.
The House voted Wednesday to ban the use of federal money to transfer terror suspects to countries that are believed to torture prisoners, a practice that has drawn fierce criticism of the Bush administration. The largely symbolic amendment reaffirms a 1994 treaty barring torture of detainees in American custody, whether in the United States or in countries known for human rights violations. The measure was approved 420-2 as part of an $81.4 billion emergency spending package for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Voting against the amendment were Republican Reps. Robin Hayes of North Carolina and Mark Souder of Indiana.
What an absolutely despicable vote. I guess Souder isn't so much an Apostolic Christian as he is a Pope Urban II Christian.|W|P|111108357724142306|W|P||W|P|3/17/2005 02:22:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Ye shall laugh http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/25512/ I won't spoil it, but I will say that "Bless me/bless me/and teach me about John Wesley" is the funniest rhyme I've heard laid down in months. Perhaps years.|W|P|111104422877172828|W|P||W|P|3/16/2005 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|More books - "You Have The Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America" by Howard Dean I picked this one up for $5 on an afternoon with a few hours to kill, and lo and behold I killed it in a few hours. It's a combination of "The Conscience of a Conservative"-style philosophizing with a part-bitchy and part-hilarious campaign memoir. It had to be hilarious, right? Scream aside, the Dean campaign was a gigantic rolling mess of gaffes and righteous indignation that works very well in print. I actually finished the book before Dean became the DNC chairman. In retrospect, there's only a little bit here that indicates what he would do for the party, and most of that is generic - cast aside centrism and proudly state that Democrats view government as the way to build a national community, whereas Republicans want to make it every man for himself. Appeals to the Poli Sci double major in me, certainly. - "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank Definitely one of the most important political books of the century thus far. You've probably heard the thesis a hundred times, but here it is again: Republicans have used social issues to convince poor Americans that the liberal elite are the source of their problems, and getting them to vote for a regressive, pro-business agenda. This seems to be the new gospel for Howard Dean's Democrats, and it's convincing in parts. I defer to Jesse Walker's superb review.|W|P|111102917661168698|W|P||W|P|3/16/2005 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Bias vs. bias So I check Hugh Hewitt's blog (I don't know why, either), and I see this.
From the President's press conference this morning: THE PRESIDENT: Elisabeth. Q Paul Wolfowitz, who was the -- a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history -- THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) That's an interesting start. (Laughter.) Q -- is your choice to be the President of the World Bank. What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world? Recall that the investigation by the blogs of the left into Jeff Gannon/Guckart began after Gannon/Guckart asked a leading question at the president's last press conference. The rationale was that a partisan with a press pass was a suspicious thing. I don't know who "Elisabeth" is, but her framing of her question is as partisan and leading as any that could be asked of the president. So, will the mob that went after Gannon/Guckart now be sifting through Elisabeth's past for intriguing clues on the source of her partisanship?
My goodness, is this ever dumb. Let's admit that Bumiller's phrasing of the question is hostile. Whatever. It's a question at a press conference. But ok, it's a little harsh. What is wrong with the substance of the question? The president starting laughing at the phrase "one of the most unpopular wars in our history." Which is ... quantifiably true. There are polls for this sort of thing, which showed low support for the war initially that transformed into low esteem for the USA over time. And there are real-world measures of popularity, like the number of allies we're able to bring with us and keep in the field. Since we became a superpower in 1898, you could say the Iraq war was one of three least popular wars in our history - less popular than the Afghan war, whatever Kosovo was, the first Gulf War, Korea, WWII, and WWI, but comparably popular to Vietnam and the Spanish-American War. Why, you could even ask notorious anti-war leftist George W. Bush whether the war was popular.
I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made. I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular.
When George Bush says something's unpopular and a New York Times reporter says it's unpopular, you know what? I bet it's unpopular. Now, let's go back to what poor Jeff Gannon said before he was beaten up by the mean ol' liberal media.
Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
Leaving aside the fact that Harry Reid has never talked about soup lines, the nugget of this question is that Democrats are "divorced from reality." I'm not sure how you prove that, unless you can magic up Douglas Adams to write a book on it. Man, why does anyone take Hugh Hewitt seriously? I'm sick to death of idiots like him browbeating journalists for doing our jobs.|W|P|111102907415904191|W|P||W|P|3/16/2005 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Best TV listing ever http://tv.yahoo.com/tvpdb?d=tvp&id=169296402&cf=0&lineup=us_VA45514d&channels=us_COMEDY&chspid=166030350&chname=COMEDY&progutn=1111028400&.intl=us South Park COMEDY Mar 16 10:00pm Add to My Calendar Series/Comedy, 30 Mins. "Die Hippie, Die", Episode #902. The citizens of South Park seek Cartman's help to battle hippies. Original Airdate: March 16, 2005.|W|P|111102461200215169|W|P||W|P|3/16/2005 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Health care '93, Social Security Just for fun, I used Lexis to grab polls from the early months of the health care battle 12 years ago, which pitted a Democratic president and congress against an obstructionist Republican minority. The plan eventually came to nothing, and Republicans used it as a plank in the successful campaign to win both houses of congress in 1994. I. Size of the problem CBS/NYT poll, Jan. 1993 Is improving the nation's health care an issue that the government should give a lot of attention to, or not? Should - 88% Should not - 8 Don't know/No answer - 4 Gallup poll, May 1993 In your opinion, is there a crisis in health care in this country today, or not? Yes - 90% No - 9 Don't know/Refused - 1 CBS/NYT poll, April 1993 Which comes closer to your view--because of rising health care costs we are headed toward a crisis in the health care system, or even though costs are rising, we are not headed toward a crisis? Headed toward a crisis - 76% Not headed toward a crisis - 17 Don't know/No answer - 7 II. What to do CBS/NYT poll, Jan. 1993 Do you favor or oppose national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money, paying for most forms of health care? Favor - 63% Oppose - 26 Don't know/No answer - 11 Gallup/Newsweek poll, Feb. 1993 Would you favor or oppose additional taxes to pay for reforming and expanding health care in the United States? Favor - 65% Oppose - 32 Don't know/Refused - 3 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation poll, March 1993 If President (Bill) Clinton decided to impose a 3% national sales tax on purchases other than food and medical care in order to move quickly to pay for health insurance for the uninsured, would you favor or oppose it? Favor - 58% Oppose - 40 Neither/Not sure - 1 Association of Private Pension & Welfare Plans & Powell Tate poll, March 1993 (Here are some proposals people have made for lowering health care costs and reducing waste and inefficiency in the country's health care system. For each one, please tell me if you would favor or oppose that proposal.)... Spending government money to provide health insurance to people who do not currently have it. Favor - 69% Oppose - 25 Not sure - 6 III. Who do you trust? U.S. News & World Report poll, April 1993 (Now I would like to read you another list of issues that some people from this part of the country have said are important for government to deal with. Please listen as I read the list and tell me, for each one, whether you have more confidence in--1) President Bill Clinton, or 2) the Republicans in Congress--to deal with this issue.)... Improving the health care system Bill Clinton - 72% Both equal - 2 Neither (vol.) - 4 G.O.P. Congress - 19 Unsure - 4 (Now I would like to read you another list of issues that some people from this part of the country have said are important for government to deal with. Please listen as I read the list and tell me, for each one, whether you have more confidence in--1) the Democratic party, or 2) the Republican party--to deal with this issue.)... Improving the health care system Democratic party - 66% Both equal (vol.) - 2 Neither (vol.) - 7 G.O.P. party - 19 Unsure - 6 IV. Special bonus "Lost in the storm of historical revisionism" poll Gallup/Newsweek poll, Jan. 1993 Do you approve or disapprove of Bill Clinton naming his wife to lead administration efforts to reform the country's health care system? Approve - 61% Disapprove - 32 Don't know/Refused - 8 My unremarkable conclusion: The Democrats are in a better position to defeat Social Security reform than the Republicans were in defeating health care reform 12 years ago. The perception of crisis was higher then, and trust in the governing party to reform the system was greater.|W|P|111099082744621379|W|P||W|P|2/12/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rob|W|P|Hi. I like your blog. It's pretty good, have any others? Just out blogging. Keep up the great blogging.

regards,
pennsylvania health insurance quote3/14/2005 11:45:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Books a-plenty I keep saying to people that I'm burned out on politics, but this obviously isn't true. For evidence, check these weighty tomes I've read since the start of 2005 ... - William Manchester: Winston Churchill: The Last Lion parts I and II The stroke that crippled journalist/author William Manchester in 1998 had ruinous effects on the world of historical biography. The planned third volume of Manchester's Churchill biography, with less than 200 pages in the can, would never be finished - the author couldn't concentrate on writing and wasn't satisfied with anyone who applied to take his notes and finish the book in his syle. As a result, the capstone of Manchester's decades-long career is a biography of Winston Churchill that ends when he becomes prime minister. This is tragic, but not insurmountable. After all, the best parts of the published Last Lion are in the first volume, which covers events that are less well known and more suitable to Manchester's art and framing. His greatest skill was the recreation of pre-television, underreported events. A recorded, televised event - like the breakout of World War II or Churchill's subsequent career - can be brought to life by any competent writer. But it's harder to imagine stuff like growing up rich in 1880s Britain, or joining the army in imperial India, or escaping from a Boer prison camp. Manchester excels at portraying this, with a as-it-happens prose style that allows years to pass on the page with the easy flow of a Mark Burnett series. I got two things out of this. Foremost, there's the fascinating and inspiring character of Churchill - put into context without Bartletts choosing his anecdotes and jokes, he's unbelievably accomplished and only partly likeable. The record of his work and daily schedule is astounding - to stay out of debt in the 30s he was carrying on a Parliamentary career while writing more articles than an average magazine journalist. But Manchester doesn't skimp on the details of how arrogant and flawed Churchill was. Secondly, there's a breakneck history of the end of British supremacy, starting with the height of the Victorian era and ending with the economic doldrums of the 1930s. Manchester is able to imbue the biography with lots of anecdotes and asides and details that only rarely detract from his subject's story. But the reason I'm not too crushed at the loss of a volume three is that Manchester becomes less intriguing when writing about well-told events. The second book only covers eight years - from 1932 to 1940 and the resignation of Neville Chamberlain - and these are packed with stories I already knew going in. Remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, Munich - all interesting, but Manchester writes too much about it, possibly because he covered some of it. But what do I know? Most readers are going to find Appeasement more interesting than, say, Churchill's machinations at the Admiralty before WWI. So I can't say this is anything but a fantastic, class set of books.|W|P|111082036342480272|W|P||W|P|3/11/2005 04:52:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Thoughts upon having CNN on across the TV screens at work Hey, could I hear a little more about that fucking shooting in Atlanta? On the other hand, Nancy Grace is gonna ROCK tonight.|W|P|111057805418361760|W|P||W|P|3/09/2005 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Sullivantastic Is it me or has Andrew Sullivan's blog become much, much funnier and more readable since he went on semi-hiatus? First he linked to pictures of the pop band that David Brent from "The Office" used to be in. Then he finds the funniest picture of the last few weeks, easy. |W|P|111042646164838918|W|P||W|P|3/08/2005 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Grace Yourself Glancing up at the TVs in the USAT offices last month, I kept seeing a commercial wherein a creepy woman with Replicant hair folded her arms as a narrator asserted she was changing the face of legal news. In some versions of this ad, the camera flashed and the woman spoke: "I'm Nancy Grace, and I'm locked and loaded." Having read this excellent New Republic article on the woman, I think that slogan is weird.
The picture is of Keith Griffin, to whom Grace was engaged 25 years ago. The two met as students at Valdosta State University in Georgia, where he was on a baseball scholarship and she was majoring in English. After graduation, they planned to marry. But, in the summer of 1980, Griffin was murdered during a mugging that netted his assailant all of $30.
"I'm locked and loaded" doesn't sound like the slogan of a grieving sorta-widow, does it? Anyway, now that Grace's CNN show has premiered, I'm familiar with her and her brand of malignant evil. She reminds me, in a way, of Linda Vester - the Fox hostess whom I cannot help but watch, so engrossed am I in her average looks, Supercuts bouffant, and radiating ignorance. But Zengerle makes a pretty good case for Grace being one of the worst cable personalities of all. Since I hate "sensational" trials like Alabamans hate Lincoln, I am given to agree.|W|P|111030860179386925|W|P||W|P|3/02/2005 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Dave|W|P|Stupid, evil, or both? So Gallup publishes a poll showing that support for using "nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities" has fallen 7 percent since 2001, while opposition has risen 8 percent. (Question 34 D.) "Would you be willing -- or not willing -- to ... use nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities if the government thought it were necessary to combat terrorism?" Willing: 27% (34%) Not willing: 72% (64%) No opinion: 1 (2%) This is terrific news - obviously we should continue to destroy any terrorist facilities we find, but using nuclear weapons to do that would unleash a host of problems that you'd have to be a moron to deny. Cue the moron, Charles Johnson.
According to a new Gallup poll, more than one in four Americans would use nuclear weapons against “terrorist facilities” if needed: One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists, Gallup Finds. ... Are you listening, Tehran?
So, not only does Johnson not read the info in his own post detailing the drop in support for using nukes - he interprets 1/4 support as a rousing "hell yeah!" to nuke Iran. And the comments are fucking scary:
I think it really shows how many truly sane people there are in America - only 25%. Scary. ... Well thats a start. The terrorists keep screwing around and it will be up to eight out of ten and you will be able to read the poll numbers from the glow in Mecca. ... They(Islamofasicsts) have declare TOTAL WAR on western civlization. Why shouldn't we use ALL our weapons against them? ... Yay nukes! ... Nuke! Nuke! Nuke! ... Iran would make a nice parking lot for the bus. ... btw, if we nuked the Muslims, this war would be over in 15 minutes, just think how fucking whacked out we are to limit ourselves, let this war go on for DECADES, sacrifice needlessly 1000s of lives, when it could ALL BE OVER in 15 minutes, think about it... ... Given the credibiliy W has wrt the use of force to protect the free world from koranimals, a promise to turn Mecca, with its pretty space rock, into a sheet 'o glass might dampen the fascists' spirits somewhat. ... I think by our own refusal to use our most powerful weapons(nukes), we have Dhimiffied ourselves. You can rest assured the Islamofascists would press the nuke button if they had it. ... I see nothing wrong with sending an ICBM over the Middle East, carefully targetted so that the fallout never reaches Israel. ... 27% for nukes on terrorist facilities? What is the percentage for just throwing a couple into Iran, hitting terrorists, terrorist facilities, a couple of mullahs and what not? ... The MSM is pushing us to the nuke option. War is a painful mess that they report as an equal sporting event. It will get to the point of one moment of carnage is easier for politicians to explain than 3 years worth of battle. I vote to wipe the islamofashists out nuke or conventional just get the job done. ... Lets start with Mecca. During their mating season would be nice. I do not have a problem with dropping a nuke on terrorists. Tactical or otherwise is fine with me. ... I like a little barbecue now and then. Might even try some fig and date stuffed camel sirloin a-la-Oppenheimer ... Nuclear weapons are not so scary. Why does everyone think they are doomsday devices? Use 'em or lose 'em. ... I am definitely one of the four but I have advocated for quite some time that we use nukes, and soon. It's time we remind the world a couple of things. We saved their bacon in WWI, WWII, the cold war, the banking collapse of the 1950's. How did we do that (except the bank 'thing'and WWI)? The theat of nukes. We used them once and for decades people respected that power. Now it's time we remind the world again for a couple reasons. One, they are REALLY freakin' destructive. Two, if Islamofascists get them they WILL use them. We need to use one - perhaps as a demonstration warning or perhaps as a demonstative warning, say on a city in the middle east, like Tehran or Pyongyang in the far east. We have only "had" to use them once (stop the nitpicking, I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two cities but one war) and they were indeed effective, in a kind of horrific way - if you were Japanese (the original, modern suicide bombers). So let's set one off over there and remind the world just why the flock we invented and USED them in the first g-d place. Then maybe we can "all just get along" as Rodney King, the felon, so eloquently advised us. ... Nuk 'em till they glow and shoot'em in the dark . . Is that it? ... One in four? One in FOUR?!?!?! Come on, everybody knows the real answer is four in four Americans want to nuke terrorist facilities. ... I am for whatever it takes to kick the sh*t out of the jihadis. This is a war for our very existence. We need to stop all immigration from islamic countries, and seal our borders. The truth about the aims of islam should be told by our media. I do not understand the kid-glove approach that islam is getting. ... What so hard to understand about dropping a nuke on the Mullah quarters of Iran? Kim Il's mega-palace in Pyongyang? 100sq miles of the Hindu Kush? ... KABLAMO, Dude! ... Count me in. ... One in four is a good start. Of course nine over ten would be better, but I think we will get there. ... knocking the snot out of islam*spit* is the only thing that will stop the koranimals. Poster #55 had it right, only we should already have done it. Take out every holy site that islam has , even if it means taking parts of detroit . Most muslims do not even know what idlsm*spit* really teaches... therefore, destroying their holy university in cairo and everything else they hold dear will put a real death blow to islam *spit*
To be fair, a number of posters on the thread keep their distance and say they don't want to use nukes willy-nilly. (Also, a number are confused about the poll - it's not about retaliation, but first strike.) In general, though - these people crazy. And bad at math.|W|P|110978097021202906|W|P||W|P|