Archive for the 'Annoyances' Category

Passing Obamacare without another House vote? It could happen

Published on March 10, 2010 in Annoyances, Current Events, Liberty and Politics. 1 comment

Hey, you want to know what happens next?  How about the House “deeming” the health care bill passed without ever voting on it?  Read that again, to make sure you’ve got it.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.  Read this post to The Corner, and then this one.

Now, never mind that House rules are supposed to set term for debate, not policy.

(Add that to your “never mind that Senate reconciliation is supposed to apply to budgetary matters, not policy.”)

Here it comes, ladies and gentlemen—Obamacare shoved right up your ass, without a drop of K-Y (or any of that pesky voting stuff).

The Democrats are about to pass “health care reform” without voting on it.

Sacrifice 2010 for the greater “good”?

Published on March 7, 2010 in Annoyances, Current Events, Liberty and Politics. 9 comments

President Obama gathered some more prop white-coated doctors this week for a speech.

(Loved them being on stage with him this time, like they were going to grab him and head for a rubber room as soon as the speech was over.  “That was a very good speech, Barack!  Let’s go for a nice walk!”)

Anyway, it seems he was making an impassioned case for “health care reform.”  (Did you know he was interested in doing that?  It’s so hard to know what’s on our esteemed president’s mind.  He’s so shy and quiet.)

As reliably grounded and insightful as Mark Steyn usually is, I read a column of his several months ago that made me think he might be losing it.  Essentially, he said that he thought the Democrats might sacrifice the 2010 election to pass “health care reform,” spend a few years out of power, and their orgy of socialism would be waiting for them when they returned, because the Republicans wouldn’t have the stones to repeal it.

Having heard at the tender age of 17 from a smart man that an elected official’s top priority was getting reelected, and having reliably found in the intervening two-plus decades that almost all elected officials’ behavior was entirely consistent with that assertion, I thought Steyn was nuts.  No way would today’s bunch of nitwits fall on their swords for a bunch of anonymous nitwits at some unknown point in the near future.

Then Nancy Pelosi held up a ladle of delicious, refreshing grape Flavor Aid to her fellow Democrats.  Quoting this story:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”  “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

(Incidentally, when I Googled Nancy Pelosi just now to find that quote, one of Google’s guesses was “nancy pelosi breasts.”  What the hell is wrong with you people?)

And Mr. Steyn is hammering it again in this weekend’s column, and its plausibility and eminent reasonableness makes it a chilling read:

Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A bigtime GOP consultant was on TV crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it’s so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November. Okay, then what? You’ll roll it back — like you’ve rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago? Like you’ve undone the federal Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel ’n’ dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter? Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus: “Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?”

Why indeed?

If I had to commit one way or the other, I think I’d still say there aren’t enough members of Congress who will think that largely.  They’ll feel the pinch, and vote self-preservation.  Let’s hope so.  I think if we can get this omnibus nonsense turned back one more time, it’ll be enough for the foreseeable future.

March 1: 289.5 lbs.

Published on March 1, 2010 in Annoyances, Consumption, Family and Leisure. 6 comments

That’s a loss of 1 lb. in February, and a total loss of 7.5 lbs. since January 1.

Well, it’s the correct direction, you know?  Yeah, I wish it was more, but I know why it isn’t.  I overindulged in the first part of the month when I added poultry back, and wound up relinquishing some of my January progress in the process.  So there have been a few pounds I’ve had to lose twice.

Nevertheless, the weather should markedly improve this month, and more hiking opportunities shall present.  (I’m also reminding myself that this is the first time I’ve ever been lighter two months after quitting smoking.)

Onward.  It’s not a sprint.  Don’t worry about winning; worry about doing the right things, day after day, and the win will come.

Defending the orca

Published on February 25, 2010 in Annoyances, Current Events and Language. 5 comments

My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of Dawn Brancheau, the trainer who was killed by one of her charges at Sea World in Orlando yesterday.

I saw more than one person on Twitter either say or retweet something like “what part of ‘killer whale’ don’t you understand?  Duh!”  Well, that is a poor response to a complex situation.

We’re talking about what is essentially the largest member of the dolphin family, and even though it is the prevailing term, “killer whale” is a really bad name for it.

In the wild, the animal is no more a threat to people than any other cetacean.  Do you worry about dolphins and sperm whales coming to get you?  I’ve preferred and used the term orca for a long time.  People still know what I mean, and I’m not perpetuating a myth.

That is not to say that orcas haven’t occasionally attacked and killed people before, but it invariably happens in captivity.  Why is that?

Well, it’s highly likely that orcas have considerable intellect.  It’s pretty clear that their play is complex.  Their communication may rise to the level of language, and there is even evidence for reasoning skills.  Moreover, they form tight and stable family units.  I suppose that could be argued away as instinct, but I could as easily argue for a basis for real emotion.

Now I’m not much on a lot of the “animal rights” prattle.  I believe the human race has many legitimate uses for many different animals, and I don’t give them a second thought.  But does that extend to an orca (literally) jumping through hoops?

I’m terribly hazy on that.

I don’t find it far-fetched to consider that a captive orca could be aware of his situation to a much larger degree than nearly any other animal would be.  What if he can remember what it is to swim freely, and realize day after day that he’s still denied it?  What if he can remember friends and family, and contemplate the futility of hoping he’ll see them again?

Couldn’t it be an intelligent creature who accommodates confinement as best it can (and mathematically, that must be pretty well), but is still capable of “snapping”?  This article quotes a marine biologist who says it may well be the end result of chronic neurosis, and honestly, I find that a persuasive notion.

I don’t know for sure.  You don’t either.  But I’m confident such is a lot closer to the truth than “duh, it’s a killer whale.”

Hoping Obamacare’s Waterloo is imminent

Published on February 23, 2010 in Annoyances, Current Events, Liberty and Politics. 0 comments

It’s been a while since I have, but I’m pretty weary of blogging about Obamacare.  Hopefully there will soon be little further need.

Our esteemed president, despite the opposition of a substantial majority of American citizens, is bringing essentially the failed Senate plan to Thursday’s “health care summit.”  Moreover, there are rumblings that he and Harry Reid are willing to use the budget reconciliation process to get it through the Senate, thereby requiring only a simple majority and not a filibuster-proof majority of 60, which was lost when Republican Scott Brown won Kennedy’s old Senate seat.

(Still feels weird to type that, but there it is.)

None of this should be surprising.  It’s a gigantic “fuck you” to the American people, and surely it is now obvious to even the most casual observer that Barack Obama is a “fuck you” kind of guy.

(No, I have that wrong.  It’s that you don’t appreciate what he’s trying to do for you, you stupid son-of-a-bitch.)

The president’s “summit” is not a good faith effort to negotiate.  This should be clear not only from the aforementioned lack of real change in the proposal, but in the steady stream of lies issuing from places like the White House web site and Robert Gibbs’ cakehole (“Republicans have no alternative plans” being the most blatantly dishonest claim).

Instead, it’s a trap, but a simply laid one, and rather late in the game, assuming the 2010 elections are as significantly negative for the Democrats as anticipated.  Let’s have a good and principled showing, and here’s hoping enough senators’ self-interests prevail and turn this affront to liberty and responsibility back one more time.

« Previous Entries

WmWms is using WP-Gravatar