Friday, September 30, 2005
Getting personal
Sometimes my seven-year-old looks at me as though he completely understands me. Our eyes meet, and it’s as if he can look through me and see my sadness. I try to smile for him, because the moment never lasts more than a few seconds. Then he looks away and starts flapping his arms madly.
Some fellow parents, also raising an autistic child, have observed something similar. “It’s as if he lives his life behind filters,” they said recently. “Once in a while, all the filters line up and the boy can see out. But it doesn’t happen often and it doesn’t last long.”
I thought of these fleeting moments with my child while browsing a recent article at National Review Online by Catherine Seipp. She begins by railing about the tragic, and probably preventable, death of a three-year-old. It’s a sad story, and as Seipp tells it, there’s little doubt the girl’s parents and her doctors are at fault.
Seipp’s piece then goes off the tracks.
She begins by suggesting that if all schoolchildren would get vaccinated, rates of flu infection “would fall dramatically, because schoolchildren are more likely to infect large numbers of people.” What a great idea! Children already get about 20 shots in their first 2 years of life; what’s one more?
Oh, except for the fact that the flu shot is the only remaining one (supposedly) that still contains thimerosal. That’s a mercury product. You know, mercury -- the heavy metal that’s highly toxic.
Some parents of autistic children think there may be a connection between thimerosal and autism. That’s the basis of the book “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby. He follows parents through their quest as they discover what was injected into their children and at what ages.
Of course, there’s no proven link between autism and mercury. Maybe that lack of proof is what allowed Seipp to write, “Too many selfish and medically illiterate parents are sending children to school unimmunized against basic childhood diseases like measles and mumps. They refuse to expose their children to the miniscule risks of vaccination, gambling that the herd mentality of other, vaccinated children will keep them safe.”
Where to begin.
First, “medically illiterate parents.” In our particular case, my wife and I diagnosed our son as having Celiac Disease at age 4 and autism at age 7. Even though he’d been to doctor after doctor, expert after expert, none of them diagnosed either of these conditions, despite a family history of the former and ample evidence (flapping arms, lack of eye contact, running in circles) of the latter.
On a larger scale, an interesting study from the University of Washington recently bolstered the case of these “medically illiterate parents.”
For years, parents have been telling their doctors that their children regressed after getting vaccinated. Impossible, the doctors insisted. Hitting a developmental milestone is like falling off a bike. Once you do it, you’ll always be able to do it. You parents must have somehow missed the signs.
Except the researchers at UW looked at video of autistic children on their first birthday and their second birthday. Lo and behold -- the children had skills, words, abilities at age one that they no longer had at age two. So much for medical experts. Score one for parents, the real experts when it comes to their own children.
Second, Seipp writes about a supposed “miniscule risk.” She continues, “Responsible families assume all the risks, while irresponsible ones benefit.” That’s a lovely assertion, as long as one assumes there is no risk (or even just a “minimal” one) from vaccinations. Again, there’s no proven harm from them. But there’s plenty of evidence, both biological and in stories from those “medically illiterate parents,” that points to harm caused by vaccinations. The case for whether to vaccinate or not isn’t nearly this black and white.
Even if it was, Seipp’s wandering into one of the logical fallacies that vaccination proponents frequently use: Since vaccinations have done so much good, they couldn’t possibly cause any harm.
Now, almost everyone will stipulate that vaccinations have done plenty of good. So has aspirin. But there are people who’ve overdosed, even died, from taking aspirin. That doesn’t make aspirin bad. It’s a great good. But it can have bad outcomes.
So it is with vaccinations. They’ve prevented thousands of diseases and no doubt saved millions of lives. That doesn’t make it impossible that they’ve also caused the alarming jump in autism.
As the CDC puts it on its Web site, “In 1994 ASDs [autism spectrum disorders] were the 10th most common disability serving children ages 6-21 in special education. Between 1994 and 2003 the number of children being classified as having an ASD has increased six-fold from 22,664 to 141,022.” Autism’s now the sixth most common disability. Since autism is supposedly genetic, that’s not supposed to happen; there’s never been a genetic epidemic. So there must be something triggering the outbreak.
By coincidence, or perhaps not, the rise in autism began soon after the number of vaccinations recommended by the CDC was increased in the early 1990s. As an Institute of Medicine report puts it, “Between 1938 and 1985, five vaccines (three childhood and two adult) comprising nine different antigens were available. In the next 15 years, the number of recommended vaccines more than doubled.” Again, the fact that autism increased along with the vaccination load is not proof of a connection. But it’s certainly well worth considering.
Seipp writes that schools should require vaccinations before they allow children to enroll. “California’s lax vaccination laws should be changed pronto, and maybe required annual flu vaccines for schoolchildren should be thrown in while we’re at it,” she writes.
Hum.
Some of us became conservatives because we believe we can make better decisions about our lives than the government can. We want to be as free from government interference as possible. How interesting to read an article in National Review basically saying, “Come on parents, get with the program. The government knows best and ought to be telling you what medical care to give your children.”
Oddly, I believe I can make better medical decisions for my son than the state or federal government can. And, as noted above, I can make better decisions than medical experts, too.
This all points to a second, and more important, fallacy: The idea that doctors ought to practice medicine with an eye on the “greater good.” That’s an odd concept. For some reason, pediatricians have bought into it -- they insist that all children should get all vaccinations on the same schedule because that’s what’s best for all of society.
Well, imagine if other doctors practiced this way. Suppose a 75-year-old man on Medicare comes in to an emergency room. He’s fallen and broken his hip. How should he be treated? Well, if we do what’s best for him, he’ll get an operation, plenty of antibiotics, a new hip, physical therapy … you get the picture.
However, let’s consider what’s best for society at large. All that medical care will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Let’s be realistic -- he’s an old man, doesn’t have many productive years left anyway. Why should taxpayers pick up such a massive bill? Give him a lethal shot of morphine and let’s move on to the next test case.
Suppose a 50-year-old man comes into the same ER. He’s morbidly obese, smokes and has had a massive heart attack, although he’s stable now. What to do? Again, if we’re thinking of what’s best for him, he should get invasive (and expensive) treatment, spend days or weeks recovering, etc.
But that man works in my company. If our insurance plan has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep him alive, my premiums will increase next year. That’s hardly fair to me, or to society at large. I mean, he smokes a pack a day. He hasn’t taken care of himself. Just give him a lethal dose of morphine and move on to the next case.
See how easy medicine becomes when you practice with an eye on the “greater good?” Still sure you want to wander down that road?
Now, I’d love someone to attempt to tell me that it was in my son’s best interest -- not society’s best interests, not everyone else’s children’s best interests -- my child’s best interest, for him to get four vaccinations, two containing mercury, when he was two-months-old and weighed 10 pounds.
How could those shots have been in his best interest? Should we have really been worried that he might get tetanus? That’s one of the things the DTaP shot Richard got at 2 months was supposed to prevent. Richard’s shot contained mercury, although I didn’t learn that until years later. There were only 36 cases of tetanus nationwide in 1994, and an estimated 24,000 children diagnosed with autism last year. Which threat should I, as a parent, have been more worried about?
Seipp tells a story in her piece. “One of my most intense childhood memories was sitting miserably down at the breakfast table with both fists pressed against my jaws as my parents laughed cheerfully, ‘Oh, she’s got the mumps!’ Another childhood milestone achieved, and not worth fretting about in their eyes. But it took decades before I felt pain remotely comparable to that.”
Our son’s pain isn’t physical. Which is unfortunate, because physical pain heals.
I didn’t cry last December when a doctor told me our son was autistic, would never be able to hold a job and would never be able to live on his own. “What happens when we die?” I wondered. “Then Charlie takes over,” she responded. Great. Our younger son is only three, and he’s already got a child to take care of, a child who will never grow up.
As I say, I didn’t cry (my wife did) because for some odd reason, I still have faith in modern medicine. I truly believe they will cure autism. I truly believe that my son will, someday, be able to experience a normal life. As I recently told some friends, if I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t get up in the morning.
“People with special religious or personal beliefs against vaccinating their offspring can keep them home or send them to special religious or personal schools that will accommodate their very special kids. I see no reason why we should be forced to accommodate them,” Seipp concludes.
How sadly ironic that her prescription would be to segregate children whose parents won’t vaccinate. My child was vaccinated, and he’s now segregated, possibly for life. As our friends said about their eight-year-old, “he’ll never have a friend, never marry a woman, never raise a child.” But he’s had all his shots, so at least he won’t infect Seipp’s children, or anyone else’s.
At the start of World War I, British Foreign Minister Edward Grey (whose failed policies did as much to trigger the conflict as anyone’s) announced, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” For tens of thousands of children born in the 1990s, the lamps in their eyes have been put out. It’s not their fault; it’s ours. Our governments, our doctors, our pharmaceutical companies all failed these children.
Still, I believe we can rekindle the light in our children’s eyes. I believe my son will again play with toys and read books, as he does on videotape from years ago. Vaccinations may -- or may not -- have caused that light to flicker. But we need to find out for sure, because we need a cure for autism.Richard will someday have friends, will have a job, will raise a family. He will some day look into my eyes and truly, on every level, understand me. And when he does, I won’t be sad.
Some fellow parents, also raising an autistic child, have observed something similar. “It’s as if he lives his life behind filters,” they said recently. “Once in a while, all the filters line up and the boy can see out. But it doesn’t happen often and it doesn’t last long.”
I thought of these fleeting moments with my child while browsing a recent article at National Review Online by Catherine Seipp. She begins by railing about the tragic, and probably preventable, death of a three-year-old. It’s a sad story, and as Seipp tells it, there’s little doubt the girl’s parents and her doctors are at fault.
Seipp’s piece then goes off the tracks.
She begins by suggesting that if all schoolchildren would get vaccinated, rates of flu infection “would fall dramatically, because schoolchildren are more likely to infect large numbers of people.” What a great idea! Children already get about 20 shots in their first 2 years of life; what’s one more?
Oh, except for the fact that the flu shot is the only remaining one (supposedly) that still contains thimerosal. That’s a mercury product. You know, mercury -- the heavy metal that’s highly toxic.
Some parents of autistic children think there may be a connection between thimerosal and autism. That’s the basis of the book “Evidence of Harm” by David Kirby. He follows parents through their quest as they discover what was injected into their children and at what ages.
Of course, there’s no proven link between autism and mercury. Maybe that lack of proof is what allowed Seipp to write, “Too many selfish and medically illiterate parents are sending children to school unimmunized against basic childhood diseases like measles and mumps. They refuse to expose their children to the miniscule risks of vaccination, gambling that the herd mentality of other, vaccinated children will keep them safe.”
Where to begin.
First, “medically illiterate parents.” In our particular case, my wife and I diagnosed our son as having Celiac Disease at age 4 and autism at age 7. Even though he’d been to doctor after doctor, expert after expert, none of them diagnosed either of these conditions, despite a family history of the former and ample evidence (flapping arms, lack of eye contact, running in circles) of the latter.
On a larger scale, an interesting study from the University of Washington recently bolstered the case of these “medically illiterate parents.”
For years, parents have been telling their doctors that their children regressed after getting vaccinated. Impossible, the doctors insisted. Hitting a developmental milestone is like falling off a bike. Once you do it, you’ll always be able to do it. You parents must have somehow missed the signs.
Except the researchers at UW looked at video of autistic children on their first birthday and their second birthday. Lo and behold -- the children had skills, words, abilities at age one that they no longer had at age two. So much for medical experts. Score one for parents, the real experts when it comes to their own children.
Second, Seipp writes about a supposed “miniscule risk.” She continues, “Responsible families assume all the risks, while irresponsible ones benefit.” That’s a lovely assertion, as long as one assumes there is no risk (or even just a “minimal” one) from vaccinations. Again, there’s no proven harm from them. But there’s plenty of evidence, both biological and in stories from those “medically illiterate parents,” that points to harm caused by vaccinations. The case for whether to vaccinate or not isn’t nearly this black and white.
Even if it was, Seipp’s wandering into one of the logical fallacies that vaccination proponents frequently use: Since vaccinations have done so much good, they couldn’t possibly cause any harm.
Now, almost everyone will stipulate that vaccinations have done plenty of good. So has aspirin. But there are people who’ve overdosed, even died, from taking aspirin. That doesn’t make aspirin bad. It’s a great good. But it can have bad outcomes.
So it is with vaccinations. They’ve prevented thousands of diseases and no doubt saved millions of lives. That doesn’t make it impossible that they’ve also caused the alarming jump in autism.
As the CDC puts it on its Web site, “In 1994 ASDs [autism spectrum disorders] were the 10th most common disability serving children ages 6-21 in special education. Between 1994 and 2003 the number of children being classified as having an ASD has increased six-fold from 22,664 to 141,022.” Autism’s now the sixth most common disability. Since autism is supposedly genetic, that’s not supposed to happen; there’s never been a genetic epidemic. So there must be something triggering the outbreak.
By coincidence, or perhaps not, the rise in autism began soon after the number of vaccinations recommended by the CDC was increased in the early 1990s. As an Institute of Medicine report puts it, “Between 1938 and 1985, five vaccines (three childhood and two adult) comprising nine different antigens were available. In the next 15 years, the number of recommended vaccines more than doubled.” Again, the fact that autism increased along with the vaccination load is not proof of a connection. But it’s certainly well worth considering.
Seipp writes that schools should require vaccinations before they allow children to enroll. “California’s lax vaccination laws should be changed pronto, and maybe required annual flu vaccines for schoolchildren should be thrown in while we’re at it,” she writes.
Hum.
Some of us became conservatives because we believe we can make better decisions about our lives than the government can. We want to be as free from government interference as possible. How interesting to read an article in National Review basically saying, “Come on parents, get with the program. The government knows best and ought to be telling you what medical care to give your children.”
Oddly, I believe I can make better medical decisions for my son than the state or federal government can. And, as noted above, I can make better decisions than medical experts, too.
This all points to a second, and more important, fallacy: The idea that doctors ought to practice medicine with an eye on the “greater good.” That’s an odd concept. For some reason, pediatricians have bought into it -- they insist that all children should get all vaccinations on the same schedule because that’s what’s best for all of society.
Well, imagine if other doctors practiced this way. Suppose a 75-year-old man on Medicare comes in to an emergency room. He’s fallen and broken his hip. How should he be treated? Well, if we do what’s best for him, he’ll get an operation, plenty of antibiotics, a new hip, physical therapy … you get the picture.
However, let’s consider what’s best for society at large. All that medical care will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Let’s be realistic -- he’s an old man, doesn’t have many productive years left anyway. Why should taxpayers pick up such a massive bill? Give him a lethal shot of morphine and let’s move on to the next test case.
Suppose a 50-year-old man comes into the same ER. He’s morbidly obese, smokes and has had a massive heart attack, although he’s stable now. What to do? Again, if we’re thinking of what’s best for him, he should get invasive (and expensive) treatment, spend days or weeks recovering, etc.
But that man works in my company. If our insurance plan has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep him alive, my premiums will increase next year. That’s hardly fair to me, or to society at large. I mean, he smokes a pack a day. He hasn’t taken care of himself. Just give him a lethal dose of morphine and move on to the next case.
See how easy medicine becomes when you practice with an eye on the “greater good?” Still sure you want to wander down that road?
Now, I’d love someone to attempt to tell me that it was in my son’s best interest -- not society’s best interests, not everyone else’s children’s best interests -- my child’s best interest, for him to get four vaccinations, two containing mercury, when he was two-months-old and weighed 10 pounds.
How could those shots have been in his best interest? Should we have really been worried that he might get tetanus? That’s one of the things the DTaP shot Richard got at 2 months was supposed to prevent. Richard’s shot contained mercury, although I didn’t learn that until years later. There were only 36 cases of tetanus nationwide in 1994, and an estimated 24,000 children diagnosed with autism last year. Which threat should I, as a parent, have been more worried about?
Seipp tells a story in her piece. “One of my most intense childhood memories was sitting miserably down at the breakfast table with both fists pressed against my jaws as my parents laughed cheerfully, ‘Oh, she’s got the mumps!’ Another childhood milestone achieved, and not worth fretting about in their eyes. But it took decades before I felt pain remotely comparable to that.”
Our son’s pain isn’t physical. Which is unfortunate, because physical pain heals.
I didn’t cry last December when a doctor told me our son was autistic, would never be able to hold a job and would never be able to live on his own. “What happens when we die?” I wondered. “Then Charlie takes over,” she responded. Great. Our younger son is only three, and he’s already got a child to take care of, a child who will never grow up.
As I say, I didn’t cry (my wife did) because for some odd reason, I still have faith in modern medicine. I truly believe they will cure autism. I truly believe that my son will, someday, be able to experience a normal life. As I recently told some friends, if I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t get up in the morning.
“People with special religious or personal beliefs against vaccinating their offspring can keep them home or send them to special religious or personal schools that will accommodate their very special kids. I see no reason why we should be forced to accommodate them,” Seipp concludes.
How sadly ironic that her prescription would be to segregate children whose parents won’t vaccinate. My child was vaccinated, and he’s now segregated, possibly for life. As our friends said about their eight-year-old, “he’ll never have a friend, never marry a woman, never raise a child.” But he’s had all his shots, so at least he won’t infect Seipp’s children, or anyone else’s.
At the start of World War I, British Foreign Minister Edward Grey (whose failed policies did as much to trigger the conflict as anyone’s) announced, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” For tens of thousands of children born in the 1990s, the lamps in their eyes have been put out. It’s not their fault; it’s ours. Our governments, our doctors, our pharmaceutical companies all failed these children.
Still, I believe we can rekindle the light in our children’s eyes. I believe my son will again play with toys and read books, as he does on videotape from years ago. Vaccinations may -- or may not -- have caused that light to flicker. But we need to find out for sure, because we need a cure for autism.Richard will someday have friends, will have a job, will raise a family. He will some day look into my eyes and truly, on every level, understand me. And when he does, I won’t be sad.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Some years ago
a friend argued that CNN should hire a religion correspondent. After all, religion is important to many Americans.
At the time, I suggested the problem with that would be that, after doing a single story on Christianity, a single story on Judaism and a single story on Islam, the reporter would start filing stories about snakehandlers. Equal time, and all that.
Well, here's a paper that does have a "religion correspondent." Just note the stellar output she manages to come up with...
At the time, I suggested the problem with that would be that, after doing a single story on Christianity, a single story on Judaism and a single story on Islam, the reporter would start filing stories about snakehandlers. Equal time, and all that.
Well, here's a paper that does have a "religion correspondent." Just note the stellar output she manages to come up with...
Worth thinking about
Somebody smarter than me (or at least with more time) ought to look into what liberals were writing/saying about Bill Clinton circa 1997. Had they given up on him? Thrown up their hands in frustration?
The question occurs because Ann Coulter today turns her rapier on the Bush administration, and specifically, the president himself (identified from the first sentence simply as "Bush").
Of course, it was inevitable that she would eventually lash out at the president. Attack dogs are notoriously difficult to control.
Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Having used James Callender to attack political opponents for years, he was surprised when Callender turned on him and printed the Sally Hemmings story, which dogs the late Jefferson to this day.
These days, conservatives like to point to Clinton as the picture of liberalism. The failed health care scheme, the tax increases, the pointless visit to Nebraska (sorry -- I just threw that last one in because I've remembered it for 5 years but hadn't ever found the correct forum to use it in. Now I can forget it. Maybe.)
But in the mid-90s, Clinton would have looked far less liberal. He'd just signed welfare reform, for example, and some liberals hated him for it. Peter Edelman called it "the worst thing Clinton has done."
So -- is this just a predictable dip, with some loyal Republicans getting worked up? Or is it "the end" of the Bush administration and thus time to start the 2008 campaign in earnest?
The question occurs because Ann Coulter today turns her rapier on the Bush administration, and specifically, the president himself (identified from the first sentence simply as "Bush").
Of course, it was inevitable that she would eventually lash out at the president. Attack dogs are notoriously difficult to control.
Just ask Thomas Jefferson. Having used James Callender to attack political opponents for years, he was surprised when Callender turned on him and printed the Sally Hemmings story, which dogs the late Jefferson to this day.
These days, conservatives like to point to Clinton as the picture of liberalism. The failed health care scheme, the tax increases, the pointless visit to Nebraska (sorry -- I just threw that last one in because I've remembered it for 5 years but hadn't ever found the correct forum to use it in. Now I can forget it. Maybe.)
But in the mid-90s, Clinton would have looked far less liberal. He'd just signed welfare reform, for example, and some liberals hated him for it. Peter Edelman called it "the worst thing Clinton has done."
So -- is this just a predictable dip, with some loyal Republicans getting worked up? Or is it "the end" of the Bush administration and thus time to start the 2008 campaign in earnest?
MSNBC insists
that John Roberts will be a "Conservative" chief justice. May be the most influential ever, according to familiar pundit Jonathan Turley (remember him from impeachment?)
Maybe.
But I'm skeptical. Afraid he might be the next Souter. We'll see.
Maybe.
But I'm skeptical. Afraid he might be the next Souter. We'll see.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
It's clear
that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a former coach.
"We'll roll up our sleeves and complete our agenda this year with flying colors," he announced after the DeLay indictment.
Remember: There's no problem so large it can't be tamed by cliches.
"We'll roll up our sleeves and complete our agenda this year with flying colors," he announced after the DeLay indictment.
Remember: There's no problem so large it can't be tamed by cliches.
CNN reports a female suicide bomber in Iraq
Now, this is nothing to laugh at, but I'm wondering:
Does a female suicide bomber get her 72 virgins?
Does a female suicide bomber get her 72 virgins?
Friday, September 23, 2005
There are those who say the left isn't dead
maybe they ought to listen to Charlie Rangel.
"George Bush is our Bull Connor," he told a Congressional Black Caucus forum. Attendees cheered wildly -- most of us say "Huh? Why?"
Another example of the fact that liberalism is history. There are merely a handful of people who haven't figured it out yet.
"George Bush is our Bull Connor," he told a Congressional Black Caucus forum. Attendees cheered wildly -- most of us say "Huh? Why?"
Another example of the fact that liberalism is history. There are merely a handful of people who haven't figured it out yet.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
When you live in a hurricane zone --
be prepared.
CNN's Sanjay Gupta is in Houston. Here's how he described a hospital there:
"A couple of things that jumped out at me, for example -- simple things maybe. But the generators of the hospital are not in the basement, as they were in the hospitals that you and I talked about when I was in New Orleans. They are several floors above sea level. They don't plan on those generators short-circuiting out like they did at Charity Hospital, for example.
"They also have these really amazing submarine-like doors, Daryn. These doors will actually close in the hospital to prevent flooding, again, from essential areas of the hospital so that they can continue patient care even through the hurricane and even after some possible flooding in the city around it. "
Hum. A city that might flood, prepared for that possible flood. Now, there's a concept.
CNN's Sanjay Gupta is in Houston. Here's how he described a hospital there:
"A couple of things that jumped out at me, for example -- simple things maybe. But the generators of the hospital are not in the basement, as they were in the hospitals that you and I talked about when I was in New Orleans. They are several floors above sea level. They don't plan on those generators short-circuiting out like they did at Charity Hospital, for example.
"They also have these really amazing submarine-like doors, Daryn. These doors will actually close in the hospital to prevent flooding, again, from essential areas of the hospital so that they can continue patient care even through the hurricane and even after some possible flooding in the city around it. "
Hum. A city that might flood, prepared for that possible flood. Now, there's a concept.
Toot your own horn
From a John Kerry e-mail:
"Dear Friend, In a few hours, I will deliver a major address at Brown University about what the rage and destruction of Katrina have revealed."
What makes it major? Well, the fact that Kerry's giving it almost guarantees it'll be major -- a major bore.
"Dear Friend, In a few hours, I will deliver a major address at Brown University about what the rage and destruction of Katrina have revealed."
What makes it major? Well, the fact that Kerry's giving it almost guarantees it'll be major -- a major bore.
When you're wrong, you're wrong
A couple of weeks back, I predicted the Senate Judiciary vote would be 10-8 for John Roberts, with all 8 Dems voting no.
Well, it was 13-5, so I missed by 3.
I still think it would be worthwhile for those 5 to explain why they voted no. Their long speeches today weren't convincing, and I suspect most voters agree with me on that.
Well, it was 13-5, so I missed by 3.
I still think it would be worthwhile for those 5 to explain why they voted no. Their long speeches today weren't convincing, and I suspect most voters agree with me on that.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
I love the way
Lt. Gen Russel Honore ends every statement with "over."
In case you are wondering
It really is possible to offset Katrina spending.
But the question is: Are the president and lawmakers willing to do it?
But the question is: Are the president and lawmakers willing to do it?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Root for...
And, so we never forget
Conservatives are pushing for smaller government
We want to eliminate the pork barrel spending in the highway bill and make actual cuts elsewhere to offset Katrina spending.
DeLay is completely wrong. For too long, Republicans in Congress have governed like liberals -- spending freely for no marked return.
It's time for conservatives to lay down the law. We need to insist that lawmakers cut spending, or we need to vote for some different lawmakers who will.
There's certainly movement in our direction. Many, if not most, Americans are tired of waste.
Conservatives should win in 2006. Or lose, having run as conservatives. The time to cut the size and scope of government is now. It'll be interesting to see if the vested interests in congress are as responsive to this movement as they need to be.
DeLay is completely wrong. For too long, Republicans in Congress have governed like liberals -- spending freely for no marked return.
It's time for conservatives to lay down the law. We need to insist that lawmakers cut spending, or we need to vote for some different lawmakers who will.
There's certainly movement in our direction. Many, if not most, Americans are tired of waste.
Conservatives should win in 2006. Or lose, having run as conservatives. The time to cut the size and scope of government is now. It'll be interesting to see if the vested interests in congress are as responsive to this movement as they need to be.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
The Big Lie Principle
It's a classic claim of propaganda that the bigger the lie, the more likely people will be to believe it. So it comes as no surprise that Tom Delay, accomplished in the genre, has generated another whopper. Asked about the spending cuts the President has said will be necessary in light of the cost of Katrina recovery, Delay remarked that he wasn't sure where they'd come from, and that "After 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it (spending) down pretty good."
Um, okay Tom. As the hardly liberal Investor's Business Daily column suggests, this is not the case. People who claim to be conservatives have been voting time and again for big-government Republicans who have bloated government to ridiculous levels over their 11 years of congressional power and 5 years of total power.
Divided government is the only way to go. But conservatives don't have the guts to vote for that most inherently conservative form of government. Faith in Bush trumps his actual record and faith in religion trumps science, so be it. But any claimed conservative who has the remotest faith in the Republican Party as the party of small government is in a state of denial that is beyond blind and into the realm of the ridiculous.
But, of course, they'll keep voting for Republicans, because winning is more important than principle.
Um, okay Tom. As the hardly liberal Investor's Business Daily column suggests, this is not the case. People who claim to be conservatives have been voting time and again for big-government Republicans who have bloated government to ridiculous levels over their 11 years of congressional power and 5 years of total power.
Divided government is the only way to go. But conservatives don't have the guts to vote for that most inherently conservative form of government. Faith in Bush trumps his actual record and faith in religion trumps science, so be it. But any claimed conservative who has the remotest faith in the Republican Party as the party of small government is in a state of denial that is beyond blind and into the realm of the ridiculous.
But, of course, they'll keep voting for Republicans, because winning is more important than principle.
Friday, September 16, 2005
When will these reporters learn?
John Roberts could tell them:
Never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be.
After yesterday's presidential address, ABC News went out to the parking lot of the Astrodome. "I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome," Dean Reynolds announced. "You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?"
"Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us," "Connie London said.
Hum -- better try a different approach:
Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?"
London: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs."
Reynolds: "And they weren't?"
London: "No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
We'll have to forgive London -- she clearly hasn't read the talking points that this is all George W. Bush's fault. In fact, an evacuee named Mary went so far as to take responsibility herself:
"I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late." Mary was eventually rescued from her flooded home.
Reynolds seemed sure some of the evacuees would doubt the president's promise to help them rebuild:
Reynolds: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?"
Marshall: "No, I didn't."
Reynolds: "Good. Well, very little skepticism here..."
And very little insistence that the feds were responsible.
"I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it," an unnamed woman told Reynolds.
Rest assured that these soundbites will end up on the cutting room floor, and that the only bites we'll hear from evacuees will be negative ones that blame the president, and the president alone, for the failures.
Never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be.
After yesterday's presidential address, ABC News went out to the parking lot of the Astrodome. "I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome," Dean Reynolds announced. "You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?"
"Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us," "Connie London said.
Hum -- better try a different approach:
Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?"
London: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs."
Reynolds: "And they weren't?"
London: "No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
We'll have to forgive London -- she clearly hasn't read the talking points that this is all George W. Bush's fault. In fact, an evacuee named Mary went so far as to take responsibility herself:
"I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late." Mary was eventually rescued from her flooded home.
Reynolds seemed sure some of the evacuees would doubt the president's promise to help them rebuild:
Reynolds: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?"
Marshall: "No, I didn't."
Reynolds: "Good. Well, very little skepticism here..."
And very little insistence that the feds were responsible.
"I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it," an unnamed woman told Reynolds.
Rest assured that these soundbites will end up on the cutting room floor, and that the only bites we'll hear from evacuees will be negative ones that blame the president, and the president alone, for the failures.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Watching CNN, as always
I have a few questions about "The Situation Room."
For example, right now there's news happening, but it's not being covered from "The Situation Room."
Can we assume that "The Situation Room" is manned (womaned? personed?) 24-hours-a-day? And that, the only time news isn't coming to us from "The Situation Room" is when the news doesn't measure up to some level of importance?
Or is it possible that other areas of CNN can actually cover news as well as "The Situation Room?"
Because, if that's the case, "The Situation Room" is actually just be a really cool den for Wolf Blitzer and his friends to hang out in and watch the world go by.
For example, right now there's news happening, but it's not being covered from "The Situation Room."
Can we assume that "The Situation Room" is manned (womaned? personed?) 24-hours-a-day? And that, the only time news isn't coming to us from "The Situation Room" is when the news doesn't measure up to some level of importance?
Or is it possible that other areas of CNN can actually cover news as well as "The Situation Room?"
Because, if that's the case, "The Situation Room" is actually just be a really cool den for Wolf Blitzer and his friends to hang out in and watch the world go by.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
And speaking of flashbacks
I think I woke up yesterday in 1985.
All the Dems in the Roberts hearings focused on the Reagan administration.
Sen. Spector: "This was a 1981 memo to Attorney General Smith, December 11th, 1981." "So that the views that you expressed back in 1981, raising an issue about "amorphous" and "so-called," would not be the views you'd express today?"
Sen. Leahy: "I look back to the time when you were a lawyer in the Reagan White House."
Sen. Kennedy: "As you know, we've had a chance to go through many of the documents that you authored during the early and mid-1980s when you worked in the Department of Justice and in the White House ... I'm deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even a mean-spirited view of the law that appears in some of your writings."
"Let me, if I could, go to the Civil Rights Restoration Act. In 1981, you support an effort by the Department of Education to reverse 17 years of civil right protections at colleges and universities that receive federal funds."
Sen. Biden: "The date of the memo was February 12, 1982. I'll give you a copy."
Sen. Kohl: "While you served in the Justice Department and in the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan administration in the 1980s..."
Sen. Feinstein: "In a September 26th, 1983 memo to Fred Fielding, you rejected an alternative proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women."
There you have it. Every Democrat on this committee will vote against Roberts, because ...
Well, really because he was nominated by George W. Bush and they hate George W. Bush.
In fact, here's the hearings I'd like to see: After the committee votes 10-8 to approve Roberts, "The American people" should hold hearings and ask the 8 Dems to explain why they voted against Roberts. They'll say he's "outside the mainstream," but is he? Because he opposed the ERA? Seems to me that's the mainstream position.
Look, Roberts is a blank slate. I'm not convinced he's a staunch conservative; he certainly doesn't have a record that indicates he is one. He might well be the next Anthony Kennedy. We simply don't know.
But there's simply no reason to oppose him. He's smooth, smart, a great lawyer. Confirm him, and we'll see how it turns out.
All the Dems in the Roberts hearings focused on the Reagan administration.
Sen. Spector: "This was a 1981 memo to Attorney General Smith, December 11th, 1981." "So that the views that you expressed back in 1981, raising an issue about "amorphous" and "so-called," would not be the views you'd express today?"
Sen. Leahy: "I look back to the time when you were a lawyer in the Reagan White House."
Sen. Kennedy: "As you know, we've had a chance to go through many of the documents that you authored during the early and mid-1980s when you worked in the Department of Justice and in the White House ... I'm deeply troubled by a narrow and cramped and perhaps even a mean-spirited view of the law that appears in some of your writings."
"Let me, if I could, go to the Civil Rights Restoration Act. In 1981, you support an effort by the Department of Education to reverse 17 years of civil right protections at colleges and universities that receive federal funds."
Sen. Biden: "The date of the memo was February 12, 1982. I'll give you a copy."
Sen. Kohl: "While you served in the Justice Department and in the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan administration in the 1980s..."
Sen. Feinstein: "In a September 26th, 1983 memo to Fred Fielding, you rejected an alternative proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women."
There you have it. Every Democrat on this committee will vote against Roberts, because ...
Well, really because he was nominated by George W. Bush and they hate George W. Bush.
In fact, here's the hearings I'd like to see: After the committee votes 10-8 to approve Roberts, "The American people" should hold hearings and ask the 8 Dems to explain why they voted against Roberts. They'll say he's "outside the mainstream," but is he? Because he opposed the ERA? Seems to me that's the mainstream position.
Look, Roberts is a blank slate. I'm not convinced he's a staunch conservative; he certainly doesn't have a record that indicates he is one. He might well be the next Anthony Kennedy. We simply don't know.
But there's simply no reason to oppose him. He's smooth, smart, a great lawyer. Confirm him, and we'll see how it turns out.
Let's party like it's 1999
Whoa -- flashback time.
For those who haven't been following, my friend Colin has been hammering away at Karl Rove. You can find this rant in the comments section of this lively blog:
"Let's face facts. You don't lack the imagination needed to consider this question. You know exactly what you would have done, what Joe would have done, what the single-note monolith of right wing radio would have done, the OpinionJournal, FoxNews and every right-wing blogger between here and Timbuktu.
"You would have attacked. Then you would have attacked some more. And then when people were utterly sick of it, you'd have attacked still more, just for good measure. Then you'd have included Hillary Clinton in your attack because, well, no right-wing attack campaign is complete without an attack on Hillary Clinton.
"It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. You know it, I know it. 8 years of Republican vitriol established a pretty clear pattern. Don't pretend to me that you'd have yawned and given it a free pass. That's just BS. Any claim that you don't know is just baloney.
"Your party's recent history is nothing if not clear on what it would have done.Rove is your man, to be protected at all costs. Close the ranks, discard all standards, discard all skepticism."
Yikes. Well, with the anger, vitriol and self pity of that post, it could have been written by Bill Clinton circa 1998.
Let's address a few things. First, I had nothing to do with right wing attacks in the 1990s. I was safely toiling away as a writer for the Cable News Network. If I had been of a mind to slip some negative Clinton comment into a script, say if I'd decided to note his dissembling over the Lewinsky matter, I'm sure a friendly editor would have removed it.
Would I have wanted a Clinton staffer fired if he'd given up the identity of a CIA operative? Yes. If it's proven that Rove gave up Plame's identity, I think he should be fired, too, and I expect he would be. That's far from proven yet.
Look, I'm no fan of Karl Rove. He's a good political strategist, but I'm more of a fundamentalist.
The Roves of the world insist the president should work to get Sen. Spector re-elected, even though Spector is about the least conservative Republican senator I can think of. I wanted the president to back Pat Toomey, a real conservative. Rove won out.
Rove will also insist that in 2006 the president should work to re-elect Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, another Republican who falls far short of conservative. Again, I oppose that. Work to get a real conservative in that seat. I'd rather lose an election with a conservative than win with a liberal.
That's not very political of me, I suppose, but the fact is that when conservatives run, they win. Look at Minnesota, where conservative Rep. Mark Kennedy will probably be elected to replace liberal Democrat Mark Dayton.
Minnesota's no conservative state; it's the only state that went for Mondale in 1984, it's the state that gave us Humphrey-Mondale-Wellstone. If a conservative can win there, a conservative can win in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (as Rick Santorum has already done twice), no matter what Karl Rove says.
For those who haven't been following, my friend Colin has been hammering away at Karl Rove. You can find this rant in the comments section of this lively blog:
"Let's face facts. You don't lack the imagination needed to consider this question. You know exactly what you would have done, what Joe would have done, what the single-note monolith of right wing radio would have done, the OpinionJournal, FoxNews and every right-wing blogger between here and Timbuktu.
"You would have attacked. Then you would have attacked some more. And then when people were utterly sick of it, you'd have attacked still more, just for good measure. Then you'd have included Hillary Clinton in your attack because, well, no right-wing attack campaign is complete without an attack on Hillary Clinton.
"It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. You know it, I know it. 8 years of Republican vitriol established a pretty clear pattern. Don't pretend to me that you'd have yawned and given it a free pass. That's just BS. Any claim that you don't know is just baloney.
"Your party's recent history is nothing if not clear on what it would have done.Rove is your man, to be protected at all costs. Close the ranks, discard all standards, discard all skepticism."
Yikes. Well, with the anger, vitriol and self pity of that post, it could have been written by Bill Clinton circa 1998.
Let's address a few things. First, I had nothing to do with right wing attacks in the 1990s. I was safely toiling away as a writer for the Cable News Network. If I had been of a mind to slip some negative Clinton comment into a script, say if I'd decided to note his dissembling over the Lewinsky matter, I'm sure a friendly editor would have removed it.
Would I have wanted a Clinton staffer fired if he'd given up the identity of a CIA operative? Yes. If it's proven that Rove gave up Plame's identity, I think he should be fired, too, and I expect he would be. That's far from proven yet.
Look, I'm no fan of Karl Rove. He's a good political strategist, but I'm more of a fundamentalist.
The Roves of the world insist the president should work to get Sen. Spector re-elected, even though Spector is about the least conservative Republican senator I can think of. I wanted the president to back Pat Toomey, a real conservative. Rove won out.
Rove will also insist that in 2006 the president should work to re-elect Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, another Republican who falls far short of conservative. Again, I oppose that. Work to get a real conservative in that seat. I'd rather lose an election with a conservative than win with a liberal.
That's not very political of me, I suppose, but the fact is that when conservatives run, they win. Look at Minnesota, where conservative Rep. Mark Kennedy will probably be elected to replace liberal Democrat Mark Dayton.
Minnesota's no conservative state; it's the only state that went for Mondale in 1984, it's the state that gave us Humphrey-Mondale-Wellstone. If a conservative can win there, a conservative can win in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (as Rick Santorum has already done twice), no matter what Karl Rove says.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The end of real news
All this news from New Orleans -- flooding, dead bodies, was so draining.
Thank God it's over. Bring on the non-news: The Roberts hearings.
In one of the most humorous moments yet, Sen. Pat Leahy, water-bearer for "People for the (un)American Way" announced that he hasn't yet decided whether or not he'll vote for Judge Roberts. He told CNN:
BLITZER: Is it fair to say you basically have an open mind or -- at this point?
LEAHY: Judge Roberts met in my office, he and I and Senator Specter, this morning. Both Senator Specter and I have said that we have an open mind. We'll make up our mind at the end of these hearings. Actually, you know, that's kind of an old-fashioned way of doing things. You actually hear the evidence before you make up your mind. I wish more senators would do the same thing.
So he hasn't made up his mind? SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE he hasn't.
Sen. Leahy will vote no. That was clear even before Roberts had been named. If President Bush had named Pope Benedict, Leahy would have voted no.
I'll bet anybody $100 that Leahy will vote no on Roberts, just as the NOW protesters I saw outside the Capitol this morning are instructing him to.
Thank God it's over. Bring on the non-news: The Roberts hearings.
In one of the most humorous moments yet, Sen. Pat Leahy, water-bearer for "People for the (un)American Way" announced that he hasn't yet decided whether or not he'll vote for Judge Roberts. He told CNN:
BLITZER: Is it fair to say you basically have an open mind or -- at this point?
LEAHY: Judge Roberts met in my office, he and I and Senator Specter, this morning. Both Senator Specter and I have said that we have an open mind. We'll make up our mind at the end of these hearings. Actually, you know, that's kind of an old-fashioned way of doing things. You actually hear the evidence before you make up your mind. I wish more senators would do the same thing.
So he hasn't made up his mind? SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE he hasn't.
Sen. Leahy will vote no. That was clear even before Roberts had been named. If President Bush had named Pope Benedict, Leahy would have voted no.
I'll bet anybody $100 that Leahy will vote no on Roberts, just as the NOW protesters I saw outside the Capitol this morning are instructing him to.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Problem solved
Mike Brown has stepped down as head of FEMA.
That, according to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, should solve all our problems. Last week on CNN, she had this exchange with anchor Kyra Phillips:
PHILLIPS: So you think taking Mike Brown out of FEMA right now and replacing Mike Brown...
PELOSI: Essential.
PHILLIPS: ... with somebody else...
PELOSI: That's absolutely essential.
PHILLIPS: ... will change this entire dynamic and solve the problem.
PELOSI: I do, indeed. I think it's a question of the judgment of President Bush that he would have somebody in this crucial position who has no qualifications for the job. And if you need any further evidence of that, you need only look to the performance of FEMA.
PHILLIPS: Who would you recommend? Who would...
PELOSI: ... in the past week.
Guess we can put this whole New Orleans thing behind us and go back to talking about important things. Cindy Sheehan, where are you?
That, according to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, should solve all our problems. Last week on CNN, she had this exchange with anchor Kyra Phillips:
PHILLIPS: So you think taking Mike Brown out of FEMA right now and replacing Mike Brown...
PELOSI: Essential.
PHILLIPS: ... with somebody else...
PELOSI: That's absolutely essential.
PHILLIPS: ... will change this entire dynamic and solve the problem.
PELOSI: I do, indeed. I think it's a question of the judgment of President Bush that he would have somebody in this crucial position who has no qualifications for the job. And if you need any further evidence of that, you need only look to the performance of FEMA.
PHILLIPS: Who would you recommend? Who would...
PELOSI: ... in the past week.
Guess we can put this whole New Orleans thing behind us and go back to talking about important things. Cindy Sheehan, where are you?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
It's official:
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
But enough about you...
...let's talk about us.
The Cafferty File this hour is asking: "Did Hurricane Katrina change your view of television news?"
Yes, that's what the country is crying out to know: has the storm saved TV news.
My question of the hour is: "Just how self-centered can you people be?"
The Cafferty File this hour is asking: "Did Hurricane Katrina change your view of television news?"
Yes, that's what the country is crying out to know: has the storm saved TV news.
My question of the hour is: "Just how self-centered can you people be?"
Now, you stand over here, and you stand over there...
As unhelpful as ever, moveon.org is at it again. In an e-mail today, the Bush-bashing organization says it's organizing a "protest to help Hurricane victims."
"Tomorrow four MoveOn members who were evacuated from New Orleans will travel to Washington, DC to deliver a petition to President Bush," the organization says.
What a great idea! Fly these poor people up here to DC! How productive. Wouldn't that money be better spent helping these people? Say by giving them food or shelter?
Moveon assures us that "signs will be provided. (Signs will say, "Shame" and "Help Hurricane Victims")"
Shame's on you, moveon. Why don't you do everyone a favor and "help hurricane victims" yourselves.
"Tomorrow four MoveOn members who were evacuated from New Orleans will travel to Washington, DC to deliver a petition to President Bush," the organization says.
What a great idea! Fly these poor people up here to DC! How productive. Wouldn't that money be better spent helping these people? Say by giving them food or shelter?
Moveon assures us that "signs will be provided. (Signs will say, "Shame" and "Help Hurricane Victims")"
Shame's on you, moveon. Why don't you do everyone a favor and "help hurricane victims" yourselves.
Simply the best
I usually don't bother reading Harold Meyerson's weekly offering in the Washington Post. But his opening today drew me in: "We're not number one. We're not even close."
One assumes upon reading that the author will explain which country(ies) are ahead of us. There must be one or more, if we're not "number one." For example, if I want to say "The Braves aren't the best team in the NL East," I'd better be able to explain who, exactly, is better, since the Braves are far and away in first place.
Sadly, Meyerson never explains which countries are better than us. Instead his piece is just so much more leftist Bush bashing.
Meyerson seems blind to his own contradictions. He writes that, "As a matter of social policy, the catastrophic lack of response in New Orleans is exceptional only in its scale and immediacy," and he blames FEMA for that failure. Yet, he writes, "We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right."
Well, doesn't Meyerson realize that, if we created a government-provided health care system, it would be run by the same sort of people who run FEMA? If the federal government can't respond properly to a hurricane on the Gulf coast, how could any intelligent person expect it to provide quality health care to 300 million people?
Meyerson claims that, "When it comes to caring for our fellow countrymen, we all know that America has never ranked very high." Has he been watching television?
People across the country are opening their homes to storm evacuees. Food water and medicine has been pouring south since the storm cleared. What seems to upset Meyerson is that Americans don't turn to government to solve problems. We'd rather do that through private and faith-based organizations. You know, the ones that work.
It's easy to roll out the usual socialist laundry list of supposed American failures. "Did the Walton family up in Bentonville raise the levees in New Orleans?" Meyerson asks. No. And neither did the various state and local governments charged with protecting New Orleans.
But the Walton family, and the empire they built, is supplying millions of dollars worth of aid to storm victims. In the end, private enterprise will do far more than any bureaucrats to help people.
Which explains why the United States remains number one.
One assumes upon reading that the author will explain which country(ies) are ahead of us. There must be one or more, if we're not "number one." For example, if I want to say "The Braves aren't the best team in the NL East," I'd better be able to explain who, exactly, is better, since the Braves are far and away in first place.
Sadly, Meyerson never explains which countries are better than us. Instead his piece is just so much more leftist Bush bashing.
Meyerson seems blind to his own contradictions. He writes that, "As a matter of social policy, the catastrophic lack of response in New Orleans is exceptional only in its scale and immediacy," and he blames FEMA for that failure. Yet, he writes, "We are, of course, the only democracy in the developed world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens as a matter of right."
Well, doesn't Meyerson realize that, if we created a government-provided health care system, it would be run by the same sort of people who run FEMA? If the federal government can't respond properly to a hurricane on the Gulf coast, how could any intelligent person expect it to provide quality health care to 300 million people?
Meyerson claims that, "When it comes to caring for our fellow countrymen, we all know that America has never ranked very high." Has he been watching television?
People across the country are opening their homes to storm evacuees. Food water and medicine has been pouring south since the storm cleared. What seems to upset Meyerson is that Americans don't turn to government to solve problems. We'd rather do that through private and faith-based organizations. You know, the ones that work.
It's easy to roll out the usual socialist laundry list of supposed American failures. "Did the Walton family up in Bentonville raise the levees in New Orleans?" Meyerson asks. No. And neither did the various state and local governments charged with protecting New Orleans.
But the Walton family, and the empire they built, is supplying millions of dollars worth of aid to storm victims. In the end, private enterprise will do far more than any bureaucrats to help people.
Which explains why the United States remains number one.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Just what the world needed
Incompetent "Lords of Baseball screw Nats again
Yesterday, baseball rosters expanded. Teams were allowed to call up as many as 40 players. That's a big deal for those still trying to reach the post season. It means fresh pitching arms, fresh running legs, fresh energy for the pennant run.
Unless your team is owned by those it's competing against.
That's the deal here in Washington, where the re-located Expos are still owned by the other 29 clubs.
The amazing Nats have somehow remained in playoff contention; people here expected a last place finish, and while that's the position the Nats are in, they're only 3 games off the wild card pace.
But the other teams don't especially enjoy the competition. So the Nats are only calling up a handful of players for the stretch run. ""At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that provides for a call-up of 'X' amount of players," Nationals President Tony Tavares told the Washington Post. "We're going to be over budget on that as it is. You can't call up 30 guys."
Well, you could. If you had an owner willing to pay for it. Bud Selig has been screwing around for years, meaning that while the Nationals now have a home, they're still ownerless.
Rumor has it billionaire George Soros is interested in buying. If he owned the team, there's every reason to expect he'd pour money in. After all, he spent $26 million on last year's doomed John Kerry campaign. The Nats have a better chance at winning the NL East than Kerry did of winning the executive mansion.
Baseball should do the right thing and sell the Nats as soon as possible. Baseball fans deserve real competition.
Unless your team is owned by those it's competing against.
That's the deal here in Washington, where the re-located Expos are still owned by the other 29 clubs.
The amazing Nats have somehow remained in playoff contention; people here expected a last place finish, and while that's the position the Nats are in, they're only 3 games off the wild card pace.
But the other teams don't especially enjoy the competition. So the Nats are only calling up a handful of players for the stretch run. ""At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that provides for a call-up of 'X' amount of players," Nationals President Tony Tavares told the Washington Post. "We're going to be over budget on that as it is. You can't call up 30 guys."
Well, you could. If you had an owner willing to pay for it. Bud Selig has been screwing around for years, meaning that while the Nationals now have a home, they're still ownerless.
Rumor has it billionaire George Soros is interested in buying. If he owned the team, there's every reason to expect he'd pour money in. After all, he spent $26 million on last year's doomed John Kerry campaign. The Nats have a better chance at winning the NL East than Kerry did of winning the executive mansion.
Baseball should do the right thing and sell the Nats as soon as possible. Baseball fans deserve real competition.
