Archive for June, 2009

“Better” Health Care? Absolutely Not!!

Posted on June 30, 2009. Filed under: Healthcare, Obama, Politics, Socialism/Communism |

What more can I say?? When will people wake up and see that gov’t-run healthcare would be a disaster?

“Better” Health Care?

by John Stossel

President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there’s no free lunch.

In England, health care is “free” — as long as you don’t mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

Obama insists he is not “trying to bring about government-run healthcare”.

“But government management does the same thing,” says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. “To reduce costs they’ll have to ration — deny — care.”

“People line up for care, some of them die. That’s what happens,” says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of “The Cure”. He liked Canada’s government health care until he started treating patients.

“The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house.” “You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months.”

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren’t sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can’t get heart-attack victims into the ICU.

In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it’s much worse in Canada. If you’re sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours.

“We can’t send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. “Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are.”

More than a million and a half Canadians say they can’t find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, “20/20” videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.

Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery “elective.” “The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live,” she said.

It’s true that America’s partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives.

“[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment,” Dr. Gratzer says.

“Literally we’re surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You’ve got to pay a price for that type of advancement.”

Canada and England don’t pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we’d get 2009-level care — forever. Government monopolies don’t innovate. Profit seekers do.

We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology — CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn’t have to wait.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn’t been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is a month. 

LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2009/07/01/better_health_care

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

When Did the Lowbrows Take Over the Culture? We’re being ruled by Idiots!

Posted on June 28, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Media Bias, Obama, Politics |

This is a great article. He tells it like it is and I agree with him wholeheartedly! It’s amazing to me that Obama can have so many BAD ideas but people are so ga-ga in love with him, they’ll just agree with whatever he wants!

When did the lowbrows take over the culture?

By James Lewis

I’ve been trying to grasp for a truth that is so obvious that all of us know it. But it’s not a polite truth, so we don’t talk about it. Yet I think it’s important to say it out loud, because it is a truth that haunts our national discourse.

As a nation we are under the thumb of idiots. Not just indoctrinated, or wrong-thinking, or power-hungry, or manipulative, or even malevolent people. No, I mean real lowbrows, people who constantly fall for really stupid ideas. Neanderthals. (Look at the Governor of California just running the state budget into the ground. See what I mean? That’s not just incompetence. It takes special stupidity, almost a deliberate, willful absence of real thinking.)

The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That’s not just false and unscientific; it’s not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It’s not merely wrong. It’s idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn’t be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the “climate experts,” with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can’t think.

Or look at Obama’s unbelievable spending spree. No sane and sensible taxpayer could possibly believe that spending trillions and trillions of dollars on blue-sky fantasies makes any sense at all; the only reason Americans aren’t in open rebellion yet is that half of them can’t believe it’s happening, and the other half are idiots. We haven’t seen the effect (yet) on our pocketbooks. There’s food in the stores still, and housing has gotten cheaper. But let Obama’s budget affect our wallets directly and just watch the voters explode with rage.

The Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to put the brakes on Obama’s egomaniacal ambitions because they can see themselves going over the edge in 2010. In a self-respecting, intelligent culture, the Obama budget would be dead on arrival. It’s an insult to our national intelligence. (His foreign policy is more of the same.)

Or look at the global warming farce, still hotly pursued by the political classes in Europe and this country, although the Australians seem to be coming to their senses. China now has more millionaires than the UK, because they use all their resources, like coal, to fire their industrial plants. They will never sacrifice a single luxury car to the cap and trade fraud. Neither will India. China and India have been under the thumb of egomaniacal socialists (in the case of India) and communists (in the case of China). They’ve been there, done that, seen the suffering.

No wonder those Chinese college students fell all over themselves with laughter when Timothy Geithner assured them that Obama would never spend the United States into debt. What an idiot! They laughed because Geithner’s stupidity or mendacity was too obvious for words.

That’s how we should all react to the miserable frauds who are now in national office. You have to dull your senses with drugs or endless propaganda to fall for it. I’ve sometimes wondered how many people must have killed off their critical thinking with alcohol and drugs. I know a walking few drug casualties myself, people who just burned out their brains. I’m sure they voted for Obama.

Or maybe there’s such a thing as learned stupidity. How else can so many people be so idiotic? Our national IQ has dropped to about 75: Several standard deviations below normal.

Well, we have now voted in a President for the lowbrows. Yes, Obama himself is smart enough; even smart enough to say a few years ago that he didn’t feel ready for the presidency. Well, now we can see why he said that. But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots — the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.

That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That’s probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there’s a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.

Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He’s their dream, a black man who sounds so smart.

In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It’s a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That’s not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It’s not just their childish immaturity. It’s a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears. Our media stars are just not very bright. They’re idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)

Obama’s 22 White House czars. That’s really stupid. As well as a violation of the Constitution. But it’s a Chinese laugh line. It’s so obviously wrong and power-mad that it’s not worth debating.

Legalizing drugs. That’s really stupid.

Obama’s power-grab over the medical sector of the economy? It’s profoundly stupid. We can insure all the uninsured people in the country for a tiny fraction of all that money. We just need to fix the tire on our national car, and this guy tries to sell us a brand-new O-mobile, it can practically fly off the lot, all on credit, long-term payments, no money down. It’s gonna be free! So what if you have to mortgage your wife and children? Even if we already have two national lemons in our garage, Medicare and Medicaid, which nobody likes. Now Obee is trying to sell us on a really, really expensive dream mobile that will fix our problems forever, plus it’ll be cheaper than what we have now!

Can you believe it?

That sales pitch only works for idiots.

The rise to power and fame of the real lowbrows explains a lot. It even points to an answer of sorts. Because we’ve all been intimidated by the Cult of Nice not to contradict anybody who comes out with a really stupid, destructive idea. We can no longer call a really stupid idea what it is. I know that I censor myself all the time. We have been taught to keep our mouths shut when a word in time might make a real difference. We have allowed the national conversation to be dumbed down.

Here’s my resolution for July Fourth: From now on I’m going to call idiocy idiotic. Not nastily, but as clearly as I can. It is high time for normal, intelligent common sense to become acceptable again. I’m happy to have a respectful argument with anyone who disagrees with me. But I’m going to start saying the magic words:

That’s really dumb! That’s really ignorant! You haven’t thought about that much, have you? Have you ever considered another side of that batty idea?

I promise to be nice.

But honest.

Pass the word.

LINK:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/when_did_the_lowbrows_take_ove.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

CarbonGate: More Lies About Global Warming

Posted on June 28, 2009. Filed under: Environmental Whackos, Global Warming Hoax, Obama, Politics |

Can’t we just get the truth????

Carbongate

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments.

On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing “an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

In the release, the institute’s Richard Morrison said “internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”

Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this “endangerment analysis” contains such interesting items as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field” and ignores the latest scientific findings.

Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, the draft report says the “consensus” on storm frequency and intensity is now “much more neutral.”

Then there’s one of Al Gore’s grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes,” the report says.

Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.

We have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth’s climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms our reporting but the brazen incompetence of those “experts” that have been prophesying planetary apocalypse.

“A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West,” the report says, “suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.”

The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.

Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts’ Web site wattsupwiththat.com: “A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.”

All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.

One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.

Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin points out the peer-reviewed references in his study and points out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.”

For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.

The problem the warm-mongers have is they now are in a position of telling the American people, who are you going to believe — us or your own lying eyes? Forget the snow in Malibu, the record cold winters. Forget that temperatures have dropped for a decade.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious ideology.

LINK: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Obama HealthCare: Limiting Care for Terminally Ill

Posted on June 25, 2009. Filed under: Healthcare, Obama, Socialism/Communism |

Here we go… it’s starting. He’s already discussing saving money by limiting care for people who are supposed to be near death. It starts there and then creeps forward. Who gets to decide if I’m beyond help? Also notice the 2nd article. He wants to push some half-baked healthcare plan on us that he and his family WON”T have to live with. They’ll still get great care and won’t have to worry about when their care will be limited.

Obama discusses deathbed measures

At a healthcare town hall, he says stopping futile procedures for the terminally ill can lower costs.

By Peter Nicholas

June 25, 2009

Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don’t unthinkingly approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.”

He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Obama said he has personal familiarity with such a dilemma. His grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live, he said.

She fell and broke her hip, “and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?”

Obama’s grandmother died two days before he was elected president in November. It was unclear whether she underwent the hip-replacement surgery.

The event, hosted by ABC News’ Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, gave Obama a prime-time forum to promote his healthcare overhaul. A total of 164 guests were invited. ABC pre-screened questions, though the White House was not made aware of what they would be.

Republicans described the event as an “infomercial,” faulting ABC for giving the president such valuable TV time in the midst of a high-stakes partisan policy discussion.

The audience — which included doctors, patients, health insurers, students and people with ailing relatives — clearly was unhappy with the current healthcare system. Gibson asked for a show of hands to see how many wanted to leave the system unchanged. No one raised a hand.

LINK: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health25-2009jun25,0,1978875.story

 

President Obama Defends Right to Choose Best Care ( for himself)

In ABC News Health Care Forum, President Answers Questions About Reform

By JAKE TAPPER and KAREN TRAVERS

June 24, 2009

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother I always want them to get the very best care.”

“There’s a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier,” he said.

Gibson interjected that often patients don’t know what will work until they get every test they can.

“Often times we know what makes sense and what doesn’t,” the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine.

Gibson asked the president if it doesn’t make sense to decide what the limitations will be on options in any health-care reform proposal before voting on it.

“That’s what people are afraid of,” Gibson said.

The president said he understood the American people “know they’re living with the devil, but the devil they know instead of the devil they don’t.”

Another neurologist, Dr. John Corboy of the University of Colorado Health Science Center, asked the president, “What can you do to convince the American public that there actually are limits to what we can pay for with our American health care system and if there are going to be limits, who’s going to design the system and who’s going to enforce the rules for a system like that? ”

Obama, however, didn’t directly answer the question.

“If we are smart, we should be able to design a system in which people still have choices of doctors and choices of plans that make sure that necessary treatment is provided but we don’t have a huge amount of waste in the system,” he said.

‘Great Confidence’ in Physicians

He said he had “great confidence” that physicians “are going to always want to do right thing” if they have the right information and a payment structure that focuses on evidence and results and not tests and referrals.

“We should change those incentive structures,” the president said. “Our job this Summer and this Fall,” he said, is to “identify the best ways to achieve the best possible care.”

The president cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of a medical center where experts had figured out the most effective treatments and eliminated waste and unnecessary procedures.

Sawyer said that e-mails ABC News had received argued that “the Mayo Clinic is exactly the point,” indicating that private companies are solving this problem, and raising the question as to why the government needs to get involved.

“And, unfortunately, government, whether you like it or not, is going to already be involved,” Obama said, citing Medicare and Medicaid.

End-of-life issues were raised as well; right now it is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Medicare’s annual $327 billion budget is spent on patients in their final year of life.

Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirits — that would be pretty subjective,” the president said.

“End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions we’re going to have to make,” he said. “I don’t want bureaucracies making decisions,” he said, arguing that “ultimately, that’s going to be between physicians and patients.”

Earlier in the day at the White House, Obama told a bipartisan group of governors he wants them to be kept in the loop as health care reform legislation develops on Capitol Hill.

“We’re committed to working with them in the weeks and months to come to make sure that when we get health reform done it is in partnership with the states, where the rubber so often hits the road,” the president told reporters.

But Obama acknowledged the thorny issues they’re all facing — including whether there should be a government-run public plan, who will pay for it, and how to achieve universal coverage.

“There’s no perfect unanimity across the table in terms of every single aspect of reform,” the president said.

The biggest bone of contention may be how to pay for reform.

“Anything that we do on health care we have to have a long-term plan to pay the bills,” said South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, who attended the meeting.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that aired today on “Good Morning America,” Obama indicated that there was a breaking point in the balance sheets where he would say that the cost of reforming the system is too great for the federal government to handle, but he did not put a price tag on it.

“I think that if any reform that we get is not driving down costs in a serious way … if people say, ‘We’re just going to add more people onto a hugely inefficient system,’ then I will say no. Because — we can’t afford it,” he said.

LINK: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/Story?id=7919991&page=2

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

How Bristol Palin and Mark Sanford made Hypocrites of the Left

Posted on June 25, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Media Bias, Politics |

Bravo!! I agree!

How Bristol Palin and Mark Sanford Made Hypocrites of the Left

Posted by Mr. Naron, Jun 25 2009,

 A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another, so that pretty much covers all of us in the general sense. There’s a gray area, however, where some of us speak sincerely of what we ought to do and what we all ought to do, yet cannot do it ourselves. Alcoholics Anonymous is full of people who know they shouldn’t drink, who talk about why they shouldn’t drink and despite it all, they continue to drink. At what point do they cease to be hypocrites and simply become poor, fallen creatures in need of sympathy? It seems to me that as soon as someone comes clean, that person is no longer being a hypocrite, and when they speak out against the behavior in which they engaged, they are not being hypocritical.

Why, then, is the Left so able to wield the charge of hypocrisy so effectively when it comes to the sexual misbehavior of those on the Right? With few exceptions, conservatives who get caught tend to come clean and have a seat on the bench. Liberals fight the “smears” until there’s DNA or a dead body and still refuse to fade into the background. If you need an example, consider the fact that Bill Clinton got to Argentina weeks before Mark Sanford and engaged in sexual behavior rarely described as romantic outside a trailer park. Yet, does anyone expect Bill to shut up?

Some will say that liberals cannot be hypocrites because they don’t stand for anything anyway. And in a pure, philosophical sense, that’s probably true. But they do pretend to have principles and morals in order to get support from a public not quite yet ready to abandon morality and principles. Therein lies their hypocrisy. When it came out that Bill Clinton had cheated with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton went on about “the politics of personal destruction” and a “vast right wing conspiracy”. When it came out that Bill had lied about the affair under oath, there were no lasting ill-effects to Clinton’s popularity. The sex part wasn’t supposed to matter. So what did? Weren’t the liberals supposed to be more honest than the greedy fat cat conservatives who tell their underlings to be good little boys and girls while themselves philandering? Weren’t we to believe that if a liberal cheated on his or her spouse that it’s a private matter and nothing to be ashamed of? Weren’t we told that women deserve to be protected by the law against powerful members of the patriarchy? So when the legal system sought to get to the truth about Bill Clinton’s behavior towards Paula Jones, why would this good liberal paragon lie about something about which he should not be ashamed?

See the difference here?

When it came out that Bristol Palin was pregnant out of wedlock, the Left had ALREADY flung themselves headlong into a shameful conspiracy theory about Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome child being Bristol’s. What speech or interview had Sarah Palin given that set her up to be a hypocrite on this issue? Had she gone on tour preaching the evils of single parenthood or pre-marital sex. The best I can recall is that Vice President Dan Quayle gave a speech on family values in which he pointed out that our perception of family had changed to the point where single-parenthood was viewed as a legitimate “life-style” choice”. And he’s still the butt of jokes for it.

Dan Quayle didn’t cheat.

And Sarah Palin didn’t cheat. Nor did she choose to be a single parent. So where is her hypocrisy when it comes to her daughter’s out of wedlock pregnancy? On the other hand, you have the Left who screams about the “politics of personal destruction” and leaving people’s private lives private going after a young woman having a personal crisis. Her mom’s moral values aren’t even relevant as a political topic by any standard or according to anything resembling logic. So how were liberals able to make so much hay of it?

The bottom line is that the Left is the party of no rules but those that provide a means to an end. And even that end may change tomorrow. We conservatives have to stop having this argument with them. We can whine all day long about double standards, but it’s not going to change the fact that the Left is going to hold us to whatever standard that does them the most good while not allowing us to hold them to any standard, even if it happens to be the one to which they currently adhere.

Mark Sanford’s affair is just another reminder of the pitfalls of life and how the Left turns it into political hay, an action they find morally repugnant. Bristol Palin became the subject of hundreds of news articles and TV reports so that the Democrats could destroy Sarah Palin. This, too, is an action the Left finds morally repugnant. Therefore, the Left is hypocritical.

And for the Left, that’s the worst thing you can be.

LINK: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=7

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

EPA’s Own Research Expert ‘Shut up’ on Climate Change: What He Found Didn’t Fit their Agenda

Posted on June 25, 2009. Filed under: Environmental Whackos, Global Warming Hoax |

They are a bunch of lying scumbags! This is why we can’t get good, accurate information on this topic. They cover up the info that doesn’t fit into their agenda!! And they want us to spend millions of dollars fighting global warming??? It’s a waste of our money on a bunch of bologna!

 EPA’s own research expert ‘shut up’ on climate change

Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings

Posted: June 24, 2009

By Chelsea Schilling

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA’s climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”

His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, “His boss basically told him, ‘No, I’m not going to send your study further up. It’s going to stay within this bureau.'”

A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have “any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment.”

Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.

“It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature,” he wrote. “I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding.”

After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.

“Alan, I decided not to forward your comments,” he wrote. “… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, “With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

CEI charges that suppression of Carlin’s study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded” must be included in the rulemaking record.

“They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I’m sure they’re going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists,” Kazman told WND. “But I’d say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can’t be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency.”

CEI also said the incident violated the EPA’s commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.

Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”

Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama’s April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, “[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, “Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.”

“The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA’s new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that’s really incredible,” Kazman said.

CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin’s study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.

Kazman said the issue is “coming to a head” because the EPA’s internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.

He believes Carlin’s study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.

“Any right-minded administrator would have said, ‘Fine, put it in and we’ll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions,” Kazman said. “But instead, they shut the guy up.”

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Myths, Lies and Stupidity About Health Care: Why Obama Care is a Bad Idea

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Healthcare, Obama, Socialism/Communism |

Excellent article!!

Bottom line: Why Obama’s National Healthcare Plan is Bad

-300 million people already have healthcare

-Only 46 million people DON”T have healthcare

-Of those 46 million:

-10 million are illegal immigrants

-9 million have incomes over $75, 000/year and either CHOOSE not to have healthcare or don’t have it for 6 months or less

-12 million are eligible for Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance program – but they haven’t signed up

Therefore,

Of the 46 million “uninsured”, a solid 31 million are uninsured in ways that require NO FIX from the federal government. That leaves 15 million.

A Nationalized health care plan of the sort Obama proposes therefore shifts health care for literally 95% of the population on behalf of 5% of the American population – 5% who, like illegal immigrants, receive emergency care under federal law.

 Myths, Lies and Stupidity About Health Care

by Ben Shapiro

President Barack Obama’s health care plan, we are told, will spend $1 trillion over the next 10 years. But since trillion is the new billion, Americans aren’t supposed to worry about that.

Obama’s health care plan will cause employers to stop providing private health insurance for millions of employees and instead shift employees to public care. But Obama says that government is the best arbiter of your health, so Americans aren’t supposed to worry about that.

Obama’s health care plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will add only 16 million of the 46 million uninsured to the rolls of the insured. But Obama says that’s an improvement, so Americans aren’t supposed to worry about that.

Here’s something we should worry about: Who are the current uninsured for whom all of us are supposed to sacrifice our current health care plans? And should the other 300 million of us turn to government care just to help those 46 million?

Here’s a quick profile of those who are uninsured. Ten million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants — which, by the way, doesn’t mean they don’t get health care. Walk into virtually any emergency room in California and illegal immigrants are the bulk of the population. Education costs and health care costs for illegal immigrants compose between 16.4 percent and 20.5 percent of California’s budget deficit.

Liberal commentators are already urging that Obama’s nationalized health care plan cover illegal immigrants. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post suggests that a failure to include illegal immigrants in the new health care redesign would create unemployment among U.S. citizens; businesses would not be forced to pick up the health care tabs for illegal immigrants and would therefore hire them at greater rates. This is undoubtedly true. But the solution is to prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants — or, better yet, not to require employers to cover employees. Only liberals would use employer malfeasance as an excuse to sacrifice workers’ current insurance plans. 

Another 9 million “uninsured” have household incomes of above $75,000. That’s 3.4 times the federal poverty standard for a family of four. For a married couple, that’s 6.9 times the federal poverty standard. Some of these people – 30 percent — are just temporarily without health insurance for six months or less. Others voluntarily avoid health insurance, even if they can afford it. And that’s a perfectly reasonable position — many people worry less about paying for the occasional visit to the doctor than about paying the monthly premiums. In essence, the Obama plan would force insurance on these people and force public insurance on the rest of us.

And then there are “12 million uninsured Americans … eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health insurance program — but they haven’t signed up,” according to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute and author of The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care. Again, voluntary behavior is voluntary. It’s not an excuse for government involvement.

So, to sum up, of those 46 million “uninsured,” a solid 31 million are uninsured in ways that require no fix from the federal government. That leaves 15 million uninsured unaccounted for. A nationalized health care plan of the sort Obama proposes therefore shifts health care for literally 95 percent of the population on behalf of 5 percent of the American population — 5 percent who, like illegal immigrants, receive emergency care under federal law.

The media and Obama have portrayed the American health system as a system in crisis. They point to skyrocketing premiums — the cost of a family policy is now $1,000 per month for employers. Obama says, “One out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care in a decade.” Premiums for family coverage have risen 78 percent since 2001. And the government programs Medicare and Medicaid will comprise a huge chunk of the federal budget in ten years, more than any other government expenditure.

Why these exponentially higher costs? Because of increased government involvement in the health care system. State regulations have decreased market flexibility by requiring that insurers cover unhealthy individuals at lower-cost and requiring that insurers cover certain hospitals and doctors. The federal and state governments have required that health care providers care for individuals without reimbursement – which means escalating costs for those who do pay. And both federal and state health care subsidization programs have encouraged health care providers and insurance to raise costs.

The answer is more of a free market, not less of one. The answer is competition between insurers, not government monopoly. The answer is a private system, not a public one. 

LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2009/06/24/myths,_lies_and_stupidity_about_health_care

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Bravo Jake Tapper: Obama Lying About Americans Keeping Their Private Healthcare Plans

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Healthcare, Media Bias, Obama, Obama Corruption, Socialism/Communism |

Obama is so full of CRAP!!!! Honestly, every time he opens his mouth the only things that come out are lies, manipulation, and crap! Obama, you are a liar and you are NOT fooling those of us who are paying attention! Your gov’t health plan will ruin our private plans and you know it!

Bravo Jake Tapper: Pushing President Obama On His Absurd Assurances About “Keeping Your Plan”

by Hugh Hewitt 

President Obama is selling snake oil. The “government option” at the heart of his proposed radical restructuring of American medicine –now renamed the “public plan” to ease its acceptance by a public rightly wary of government-run anything much less the health care system they depend upon for life itself– is a giant time-bomb intended to level the health insurance system in America.

The president and his allies in Congress know that the vast majority of Americans like their health insurance and will resist any attempt by the government to interfere with it.

So the president blandly assures everyone who will listen that the “government option/public plan” will not interfere with their current health insurance if they don’t want it to.

President Obama made that assurance last Monday before the AMA.

And he made it again in his press conference yesterday, assuring a reporter and the White House press corps assembled that “the public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies.”

“What we’ve said is,” he continued, “under our proposal, let’s have a system, the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where we call it an exchange, but you can call it a marketplace, where, essentially, you’ve got a whole bunch of different plans.”

And then the kicker:

“If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer’s providing you good health insurance, terrific. We’re not going to mess with it.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper has been doing his homework, and when his turn came he first asked if the government option/public plan was “non-negotiable, and after the president did a bit of deflection, Tapper came right back to the core issue. The exchange is very important, so it is reproduced here at length:

TAPPER: And, while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan and the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans, and may, possibly, benefit from some government subsidies, who knows.

And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you’re promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.

So…

MR. OBAMA: OK. You’re pitching; I’m catching.

TAPPER: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

MR. OBAMA: I got the question.

First of all, was the reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: No.

MR. OBAMA: All right. I just wanted to make sure. No?

TAPPER: Never make fun of you (inaudible).

MR. OBAMA: In answer to David’s question, which you co-opted, we are still early in this process. So, you know, we have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are under-insured. You know, those are the broad parameters that we’ve discussed.

There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It’s too early to say that.

Right now, I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.

Now, let me go to the — the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete.

If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they’ve got to collect premiums and they’ve got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they’re doing their best to serve their customers, that they’re in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I’d like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can’t we?

And that’s good for everybody in the system. And I don’t think there should be any objection to that.

Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we’ve suggested is that, if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we’re going to have some different rules for all insurance companies, one of them being that you can’t preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. You can’t cherry-pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies. Because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there; health care is there when families need it.

But, you know, I’m confident that, if — you know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families.

And if that’s the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it’s not the case, then I think that that’s something that the American people should know.

TAPPER: I’m sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won’t have to change plans even if employers…

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: Well, all right — when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan — or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don’t do anything — let’s say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, “Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can’t afford it. It’s too complicated. Let’s take our time,” et cetera.

So let’s assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there’s the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they’re not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what’s going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We’ve got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can’t provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That’s exactly why health reform is so important.

Margaret from McClatchy? Where’s Margaret? There you go.

Note that the president cut Tapper off when Tapper got down to the core issue, then the president dissembled, and then the president called on someone else.

Tapper was trying to raise the most obvious question of all: The president has promised the American people over and over again that they can keep their health insurance if they like it, but it is quite simply enormously and purposely deceptive of him to do so.

The president has to change the subject, has to dissemble and deflect, because the truth, if understood by Americans, will doom the centerpiece of his takeover of American medicine.

Tapper pointed out that employers provide insurance to most Americans, and if the federal government offers employers a cheaper way to provide health insurance, vast numbers of those employers will dump their employees into that government system.

The government won’t force the employers to switch, but employers will switch, and the president’s promise will be as bogus as a three dollar bill. When this massive disruption occurs, President Obama will stand back and say he had nothing to do with it –that employers made the switch.

Even if Americans then see through this giant bait-and-switch and blame the president, it will be too late. Once leveled the health insurance industry will be too crippled to reconstitute itself as a competitor to the government option/public plan. Millions of Americans and their premiums will have been transferred by their employers to the government rolls, including millions of Americans in the public sector whose local governments will not be able to resist the lure of the savings that comes from off-loading the teachers, cops and firefighters onto the federal plan.

This is not what federal employees and Congress have right now, by the way –another practiced bit of deceptive rhetoric regularly rolled out by the president. What they have is the FEHB –the Federal Employees Health Benefits system, which is a very nice fringe benefit but which is definitely not a government insurance plan but rather a collective of hundreds of private sector plans from which federal employees can chose. This crucial distinction is apparently lost on the MSM which never questions this sleight of hand either.

As many times as the president repeats these deceptions, members of the press corps should press him on it.

When he dodges, they ought to double down as Tapper did today.

When he cuts them off, the next reporter should not facilitate the deception but should continue the line of questioning until the president is forced to explain how the he can back a radical plan that will force millions of Americans to lose their current health plan and see it replaced with an inferior plan and yet not admit to what he is pushing.

The American people will not support this plan if they understand it. The MSM’s job is to bring attention to this deception. The fact that the president is doing the best he can to avoid answering the question would have been an irresistible cue to White House press corps of old.

Sadly for Americans in danger of getting head-faked out of their existing health insurance plans which they value, this new president has thus far charmed or intimidated almost all of the media into acquiescing in the enormous whopper which is his description of the government option/public plan. We have to hope that Jake Tapper’s push-back was the first of many and from many sources.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2009/06/24/bravo_jake_tapper_pushing_president_obama_on_his_absurd_assurances_about_%e2%80%9ckeeping_your_plan%e2%80%9d

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Narcissist in Chief: Stay Tuned for More of ‘The Obama Show’

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Media Bias, Obama |

The narcissistic president strikes again. He just loves having these press conferences and pre-empting programming.He truly does act like he’s the star of his own show!! GAG!!

He also had a pre-arranged (planted) question posed by Huffpo. If Bush had done this, he would have been crucified! More double standards!

Stay Tuned for More of ‘The Obama Show’

Daytime TV’s newest star is good at staying on script.

The Washington Post

By Dana Milbank

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Excerpt:

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted “All My Children,” “Days of Our Lives” and “The Young and the Restless.” But the soap viewers shouldn’t have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. “I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post,” he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. “I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?”

Pitney recognized his prompt. “That’s right,” he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn’t so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, “The Obama Show.” Missed yesterday’s show? Don’t worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting “Good Morning America” from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), “World News Tonight” from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

“The Obama Show” was the hottest ticket in town yesterday.

*snip*

But yesterday’s daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner — from the Huffington Post.

*snip*

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Vicious Academic Liberals:More Discrimination on College Campuses

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Education Idiocy, Liberal Idiots, Political Correctness, Reverse Discrimination |

Heaven forbid we should let people into universities on their merits and hard work! This idiotic view that we let people in based on ‘diversity’ is so racist and unfair that it makes me sick! But that’s the way it is in the public universities. Apparently these university officials would be appalled if we had too many Asians in our schools. Unbelievable! It is so evident that liberals are the racist ones and conservatives are color-blind. Whoever scores the highest should get in, period!

Vicious Academic Liberals

by Walter E. Williams

Ward Connerly, former University of California Regent, has an article, “Study, Study, Study — A Bad Career Move” in the June 2, 2009 edition of Minding the Campus (www.mindingthecampus.com) that should raise any decent American’s level of disgust for what’s routinely practiced at most of our universities. Mr. Connerly tells of a conversation he had with a high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that the administrator was developing to increase campus diversity. Connerly asked the administrator why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. His response was that that unless the university took steps to “guide” admissions decisions, the University of California campuses would be dominated by Asians. When Connerly asked, “What would be wrong with that?”, the UC administrator told him that Asians are “too dull — they study, study, study.” Then he said to Connerly, “If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.” Connerly did not reveal the administrator’s name. It would not have done any good because it’s part of a diversity vision shared by most college administrators.

 

With the enactment of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That’s in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent. When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of “diversity” and equal representation find that outcome offensive.

To deal with the Asian “menace,” the UC Regents have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5 percent of students based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won’t have to take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so heavily in admission decisions. This is simply gross racial discrimination against those “dull” Asian students who “study, study, study” in favor of “interesting” black, white and Hispanic students who don’t “study, study, study.”

This is truly evil and would be readily condemned as such if applied to other areas lacking in diversity. With blacks making up about 80 percent of professional basketball players, there is little or no diversity in professional basketball. Even at college-level basketball, it is not at all unusual to watch two teams playing and there not being a single white player on the court, much less a Chinese or Japanese player. I can think of several rule changes that might increase racial diversity in professional and college basketball. How about eliminating slam dunks and disallowing three-point shots? Restrict dribbling? Lower the basket’s height? These and other rule changes would take away the “unfair” advantage that black players appear to have and create greater basketball diversity. But wouldn’t diversity so achieved be despicable? If you answer yes, why would it be any less so when it’s used to fulfill somebody’s vision of college diversity?

Ward Connerly ends his article saying, “There is one truth that is universally applicable in the era of ‘diversity,’ especially in American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of colorblind policies.” Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal academic elite. But the American people, who fund universities either as parents, donors or taxpayers, should not accept this evilness and there’s a good way to stop it — cut off the funding to racially discriminating colleges and universities. 

LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/06/24/vicious_academic_liberals

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...