Wednesday, August 26, 2009

9/11: A National Day of Service--A(nother) Commie Plot?

In reply to: Pajamas Media - A ‘National Day of Service’? Or a Political Hijacking of 9/11?, and the commentary that ensued:

Be patriotic. Go Shopping.

Really, you folks need to quit bitching and moaning about every little thing. Commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 in any way you see fit, and permit others (yes, even those who disagree with you politically) to do the same. Serving your country is fine. Helping your fellow citizens in your own little piece of it is fine, too. So is spending the day praying, mourning, observing 3000 minutes of silence, or even learning/teaching others to defend it.

Thinking your way of commemorating 9/11 is better than everyone else's way of doing so though, is just selfish and stupid. Thinking it's all a commie plot to take over just makes you look paranoid (& Glenn Beck is doing a good enough job of that without your help.)
Comment submitted for approval #85 - Aug 26, 2009 - 11:55 am (PJ media blog time)

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Arlo may be a republican, but he's not a Republican, y'know...

In reply to: Ron Radosh - Hey Arlo! The Times They Are A-Changin’, which proudly explains that Arlo Guthrie is a registered Republican:

I wouldn't get too excited. Arlo can obviously speak for himself--& I hope he does so again here, since I've had two conservatives contact me pointing to this page, gloating, already--but after reading the commentary at ArloNet, a few comments from Arlo himself, in particular, (and particularly particular, his 7/23/09, 11:35am message in the "2 cups" thread:, I'm pretty sure it's a rescue mission, rather than a statement of approval of the Republican party as is, (or has recently been, either.) I highly doubt he was a big supporter of the actions Bush was taking, and suspect that his joining the party at that time was to move his fellow Americans (Republican Americans) AWAY from the Bush model, through his one vote, at least. (While he did this years ago, this is the first many of us have heard about it. If he intended to use his fame to help any part of the Republican cause, he's done a poor job of it thus far.)

In short, he comes not to praise the party, but to help coax it back from the brink.

Arlo says he's looking to pull Republicans out of the weeds and help them be a viable and sane opposition party. While I think it's a fool's errand (I liken it to the "Monday gas boycotts, to show the oil companies," or having all the libertarians move to & take over NH, neither (none) of which will work until everyone involved does the same, which'll never happen), I wish him well. One party rule for too long is a bad idea, and these tea parties 'n' town halls notwithstanding, I wonder whether the Republican party does have the stuff to regain control of any part of gov't for the foreseeable future...
Submitted for approval Aug 13, 2009 - 8:56 am (PJMedia blog time)

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Whose Death Panels are these, anyway?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel" (See links below)

@ William (August 10, 2009 10:15 PM):

I think the point of that "talking point" is, what Dr. Emanuel wrote in the embedded article isn't what's in the health care bill. What Rep. Isaakson wrote, is. What Sarah Palin said about "death panels," was in reference to Isaakson's addition to the bill. The whole question of Dr. Emanuel's article or judging anyone by their "level of productivity in society" is kinda moot--except as an intellectual exercise--because nothing in the embedded article is actually in the health care bills being proposed.

@ alwaysfiredup (August 10, 2009 11:56 AM):

As regards your definition of death panels - What you describe exists in every health insurance company and most hospitals already. It's not just a part of every single-payer system; it's a part of EVERY system. Decisions are made by the providers of the actual health care (doctors & administrators), and providers of the money to pay for it (insurance company bean-counters and bureaucrats). To whatever extent the government (us) is paying for the health care, we have a right to decide under what circumstances the money starts and stops. (Personally, I trust we, the people, more than folks who're beholden to profits and shareholders.)

And again, Dr Emanuel isn't talking about every aspirin and band-aid. His article is about acute, life or death situations where "who's paying for it?" isn't the issue. There's only one heart, and more than one person who will die in the next 24 hours without one. (Except black market, I guess), one can't just run down to "hearts-r-us" and pick one up, regardless of whether they can pay for it out of their own pocket, have private health insurance, or the government is picking up the whole tab.

The way I see it, this is about creating a floor, not a ceiling. Those who can pay for it can and will always be able to get the "best" health care. These reforms are about getting adequate care for everyone else. Yeah, I suppose there will be procedures and drugs that the government won't pay for, but as someone who's had insurance companies disallow drugs that my doctor prescribed, I don't see this as a big change. Some pencil-pusher is already getting between me & my doctor and determining my care.

As for suing your insurance company, the unfortunate fact is it'll likely be your next of kin brining the lawsuit, and unless s/he's well-heeled enough to afford a team of lawyers, probably losing the case, besides. I don't know the facts about not being able to sue the government (but your claim sounds "fishy" to me--I'll read up), but I'd imagine the public outcry over denials that cause folks to die would bring about changes in a government plan quicker than in a private plan. (No non-disclosure settlements.)

Now as far as those "end-of-life" chats, I'm against any language making the chats themselves or their content mandatory. I wouldn't (at this stage, anyway) be opposed to signage and a document stating the facts about living wills and whatnot, specifying that the patient can discuss this such things with their doctor, and that if cost is an issue, the government will pay for that discussion. A take home hand out for everyone over 18--because anyone can be hit by a bus & left in a coma--and a yearly signed receipt of having received it would be fine. I wouldn't be opposed to a doctor choosing to bring it up, either. But I don't believe the government needs to be in the room mandating the conversation. (Of course, I feel the same way about abortion providers and those mandatory "counseling sessions" some states propose or have written into law.)

"Here are the facts about your options, and we'll be glad to discuss them with you ("at gov't expense," in the case of living wills & end of life care), if you so desire. Please sign & return this page stating that you received this pamphlet."

Submitted for approval August 11, 2009, 11:22 AM

Monday, August 10, 2009

Hey, have you read that post about Dr Emanuel and transplant ethics?

in reply to: Thingumbobesquire: Obfuscations abound (They sure do, Thingumbobesquire... They sure do...)

((The same blog post was submitted as a comment @ at least one of Jacobson's blog posts, and at least two of America's power posts, all unrelated to healthcare. (And that's just what I've seen, so far...)))

@Thingumbobsquire: There's a pretty good discussion about Dr. Emanuel at William Jacobson's blog, titled "An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"" (Short answer: I'm pretty sure the writing you're referring to is actually about the medical ethics involved when you have one donor heart or liver, two or more patients who might not last another 24 hours without receiving one, and a decision has to be made as to who gets the organ. Opinions differ, but from what I've read, Dr. Emanuel (& company; there were 2 other authors to the journal article) is offering a system of ethics that is more compassionate & fair than the one UNOS is using currently, in my opinion.) I'd read the whole threat... someone even mentioned the Nazi angle.

Submitted for moderator approval 8/10/09, 10: 10 AM ( Thingumbobesquire blog time)

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.

In response to Legal Insurrection: Our Leaders Versus the Un-Americans:

@Thingumbobsquire: There's a pretty good discussion about Dr. Emanuel a few posts back, titled "An inconvenient truth about the Death Panels." (Short answer: I'm pretty sure the writing you're referring to is actually about the medical ethics involved when you have one donor heart or liver, two or more patients who might not last another 24 hours without receiving one, and a decision has to be made as to who gets the organ. Opinions differ, but from what I've read, Dr. Emanuel (& company; there were 2 other authors to the journal article) is offering a system of ethics that is more compassionate & fair than the one UNOS is using currently, in my opinion.) I'd read the whole threat... someone even mentioned the Nazi angle.

I'm pretty sure that the author and every other person whining about this understands the difference between protest and drowning out opposing voices, no matter the feigned outrage. Marching in the streets to express your point is one thing; smashing windows to get your point across is another. Even though both activities fall under the heading of "protest," those who speak out against window smashing--perhaps by calling it "Un-American," even--are not maligning all protest.

Same goes here. Speaking out is very American. Shouting down your fellow Americans --both those who're elected, and your neighbors--in public meetings designed to express various points of view, and thereby not allowing those who oppose your point of view to be heard... Yeah, that's kind of un-American.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for being rowdy in response to what you see going on around you... ...but that doesn't absolve you of being criticized for it, especially if others think you're jumping the gun and acting like hooligans for your beliefs, prematurely.

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.
Submitted for approval August 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Sunday, August 9, 2009

He's like... A NAZI!!!

In reply to commenter Lew Waters, at the post Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel", who said:

What should be scary to all about Dr. Emanuel's words is that they sound eerily familiar,

"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures…… I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings."

Testimony of Dr. Karl Brandt, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician. Sentenced to death and executed June 2, 1948 at Landsberg prison in Bavaria.


Really, Lew? A Nazi doctor?

Where does Dr. Emanuel suggest ending anyone's suffering by taking any active step to kill them? Please quote and cite it.

At best (or worst, depending) this is about the allocation of limited resources in the face of multiple patients who all need the same resource to improve their health or (most often) save their life.

It's not about deciding whether or not a patient will likely die; there's one heart, and two or more patients who need one to survive the next 24-48 hours. Somebody will live, and somebody will likely die. Dr. Emanuel's article discusses four different systems of medical ethics for fairly determining who gets the heart.

Perhaps it would be instructive if all the people upset about Dr. Emanuel's suggested method for making this decision were to choose which of the other three ethical systems (or one they create themselves) they support for doing so, and whether the rest of us wouldn't find elements of it (the parts about "...who should therefore not get the heart," especially) equally distasteful.
Submitted for approval 8/9/09, 3:35 PM

Death Panels? Withholding Treatment? Really?!?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

@ William: But if Zeke's not writing the bill, the argument is a specious one. (Do we even know for certain that Dr. Emanuel is a Democrat? And would it say anything about Republicans and health care, if it were to turn out he's one of them? -- The answer you're looking for, is no.)

I disagree that Dr. Emanuel is talking about withholding treatment from anyone, but is instead talking about allocating treatment in acute situations where there's only so much of it to go around, such as transplants (1 liver, 10-15 patients in the area who need one) or overcrowded emergency rooms (How many patients can one ER treat at a time, and how does s/he decide who goes first (a decision that may also determine who "goes" first.)?) I'm not saying that Trig couldn't become enmeshed in a situation like that, but I'd think that his age would be a plus under Dr. Emanuel's guidelines, and I see nothing in his paper that suggests his Down's Syndrome would work against him. (Perhaps that's because I read "prognosis" as referring to the acute condition that brought Trig into the hospital--will the expensive treatment bring him back to where he was before he was shot/his liver failed, or will he still suffer & possibly die because of it, regardless of our efforts?), rather than as judging the worth of his whole life, mental acuity included.

Assuming you state his view accurately (I haven't the time to read the whole paper now, but I intend to), I agree with the Doc, by the way... When resources (doctors, equipment, organs for transplant) are scarce, choices are made. Happens in hospitals right now, and it will continue to no matter what happens with this health care reform. In a finite system, the patient you have a good shot of saving gets more of those scarce resources than the patient that just isn't going to make it, especially in acute, emergency care situations.

The less immediately dire the health threat, the more that can be offset by patient/family money--and I don't think that'll change under the proposed reforms, btw--but when you're freshly shot or suffering a heart attack, your recovery (or survival) has alot to do with which hospital is closest to you, and what other patients happen to be there at the time. On a good night, you'll get the head of the department; on a busy night, you may get the newest intern. It's all supply and demand, and the luck of the draw.

From what I did read of the paper though, it's apparent that it is
a mostly theoretical exercise that assumes scarcity of resources as a given. It's the equivalent of discussing who you would keep and who you would toss off the overcrowded, sinking lifeboat, or whether you would rescue the doctor on the verge of finding a cure for cancer or the toddler, assuming you could only rescue one of 'em, and knowing the other would surely die.

ALL of the systems discussed in the paper (the one used by UNOS, the one endorsed by the World Health Organization) evaluate patients to determine who should get the treatment and who shouldn't. All of 'em have "winners" -- those who will get the liver or heart and will live, and "losers"-- who will not get the transplant and will likely die, and all of 'em propose some method of judging who the "winners" and "losers" should be. (If need be, I can seek out & post the equally disturbing choices the other medical ethics systems--systems in place as we speak, I might add--suggest for judging who should live and who should die.)

You & Sarah are welcome to your opinions and your fears, of course, but I don't agree with your thoughts on this.

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 11:56 AM

Protest is still patriotic, but rude is still rude, too

In reply to: So, Were These Instances Of “Political Terrorism?” | QandO

Pearlstein's "Political Terrorism" line was over the top (referring to the current crop of bad actors, or Henke's examples of the same kinda behavior, then), but thuggish and rude? Absolutely.

Anytime any person or group interrupts a person speaking at a town hall meeting by yelling or chanting slogans--whether the person is the elected official, or a fellow district resident--it's rude behavior. Anytime anyone bangs on the doors and windows because they didn't get a seat in the room, it's thuggish behavior. Anytime anyone strikes another person--yeah, even if you're on "my" side, and hit someone I probably wouldn't agree with, politically--that's thuggish behavior.

I'll give a pass to folks on either side who don't condemn their own. There's no rule against keeping your mouth shut, and in my opinion (& speaking from experience), it's a jump to state that just because a (lib/con) doesn't come out and say that his/her fellow (lib/con) behaved poorly, that that means he's not thinkin' it.

But that "lookit then, lookit now" line of thinkin' goes both ways. Anyone who applauded those thuggish and rude actions then and condemns them now -- or condemned those patriotic acts then, but applauds them now -- is a damned hypocrite. (Same goes for "nazi" references & other partisan "bad" behaviors.) Left or right, situational ethics and moral relativism will get you nowhere. Protest is still patriotic, but by the same token, rude is still rude.

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 at 06:04 AM (QandO blog time)

Thursday, August 6, 2009

JokObama (ObamaJoka?): Not racist, not meaningful; Just mean.

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: Joker-ology

Here I thought the pic was kinda mean-spirited (yes, :::sigh::: just like the one of Bush), but otherwise pretty stupid and meaningless. (At least the author--&/or I--got that meaningless part right. (The Joker, a socialist? Anybody who read or watched ANY Batman--even the silly TV show--knows THAT's not right...)

Submitted for approval August 6, 2009 5:43 PM Legal Insurrection blog time

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

ObamaJoka & BushHitler: Another post on the posters

In reply to: Below The Beltway - If Obama As The Joker Is Wrong, What About Bush As Hitler?

I go the other way than most... I find both of 'em to be kind of offensive, each in their own way.

Sure, it's free speech... ...but so is my (or anyone's) saying they're nasty in reply to seeing 'em. There's a difference between the government (& ONLY the government) saying you CAN'T say something, and anyone (including the government, but not limited to 'em) saying you SHOULDN'T say it, and I wonder why so many folks bring up the issue of free speech at all when stuff like this is discussed... I can think of very few examples of the government stepping in & prohibiting posters of either (any) political stripe in the last 25 years, and certainly not either of these.

As far as I'm concerned, demonization like this reduces us all. I disagreed with Bush. I didn't hate him. I know there are many on the right who feel the same about Obama. He's wrong, not Eeeeeevil...

It is a partisan world, especially here on the internet. (I'm of the opinion that most Americans believe partisan bloggers & protesters--right and left--are nutcases who ought to go out and get a life in the first place, and that seeing posters like these (and the chants and other theatrics that often go with 'em, especially at protests--& lately, town halls) only further cements that nutcase part).

True, anybody who disparages one picture & defends the other is a hypocrite, but with all respect due James Young, that's true whether they're fans of (or disgusted by) BushHitler or ObamaJoka.

And no, neither of 'em really makes sense, either... Like the rumors folks are spreading about the Palin & Obama families, of late, (& not just them, of course) it's lowest common denominator stuff that is more about hurting people personally than it is about any kinda issue advocacy.
Submitted for approval August 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm (Below the Beltway blog time)

Yeah, Bush posters bad, too. But that hypocrisy thing goes both ways, y'know...

In reply to this: In.sur.rec.tion: Because Only The Far Right Incites Violence (& indirectly, this: In.sur.rec.tion: Obligatorily Snarky Obama Joker Poster Post):

What 2470144 said.

Demonization like this reduces us all. I disagreed with Bush. I didn't hate him. (But to be fair, I also didn't speak up often enough when people on the left did these kinda things, just like not enough people on the right speak up now.) It is a partisan world, at least here on the internet. (I'm of the opinion that most Americans believe partisan bloggers & protesters right and left are nutcases who ought to get a life, in the first place, and that things like this only further cement that nutcase part).

Like the rumors folks are spreading about the Palin & Obama families, (& others, of course) it's lowest common denominator stuff that is more about hurting people personally than it is about issue advocacy.

Anyone who supports these pix while disparaging those (or vise versa) is a hypocrite. Wrong is wrong, period.
Submitted for approval, 8/4/09, 1:38 PM (IM blog time)

Oh, btw... This is what 2470144 said:

Regardless of which side puts forth the propaganda that demonizes the opposing side, the profitable exercise succeeds because it relies upon the vast zombie-wing condition of the nation.

The typical member of the zombie-wing has no real 'news & information' cognizance and thus, like some barnacle, must firmly attach him or herself to whatever political and informational vehicle is at hand – including family, social peer group and cultural environment.

Most people do not invest any time or interest in discerning the nature of their moral or political belief system. If the Reformed Lutheran Church tells them that late-term abortion is okay, then it simply is. If the Church tells them that God hates homosexuality, then gays are bad. If a media outlet proclaims so-and-so a racist, then he is. If one political party declares the other ‘evil,’ then it’s so.

The zombie nation watches sports; it doesn’t comprehend political viewpoints unless there is a feel good angle. A moral zombie doesn’t know right from wrong or up from down.

Hate Bush. Dems are Socialist. Conservatives are racists. Liberals are weak. America is to blame.

June 3, 2009 1:33 PM

UPDATE: Same answer to this wingnut blog that, predictably, has no comment area of it's own:
Liberal Hypocrisy of the day | Political Byline
I wouldn't even bother responding to the following ass (assuming he had comments, of course), but he does provide a nice listing of those on the wingnut right typing away about this brilliant picture with just one hand, until the donkey can't cum anymore. (points): Jokebama � docweaselblog

ObamaJoka, the "socialist," free speech, and hypocrisy

Tried to post this comment here: [Spoof poster of Obama's face painted as The Joker branded 'dangerous and mean-spirited' - Mail Online] about 45 minutes ago... They promised me an e-mail confirmation of registration so it would post, but I've not received it so far... So, I'm posting it here, so I don't lose the comment. (With all the right wing blogs I've been visiting of late, "copying before submitting" is becoming an automatic habit. I'm surprised how many of 'em moderate for content prior to allowing the comment to show up--though I must say, Sister Toldjah (& Donald, once or twice) are still the only places I can recall that've rejected any of my comments, at least since I started this site. {Of course prior to this place, there was that odd Libertarian woman from South Africa who posted in support of Billo's appalling treatment of Shawn Hornbeck, who blocked (& also edited, on one occasion) my comments on her blog... What the hell was her name? It'll come to me, eventually, and when it does, I'll add it to the post...})

Anyway, the point:

Whether or not you CAN say it (free speech) is a whole different thing than being ACCOUNTABLE for saying it. Aside from being factually incorrect (anybody who thinks Obama's promoting socialism clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word), it is kinda mean. (And yes, the posters of Bush as Joker, Drac, Hitler, et al. were mean, too. In the name of the same "fair play" & "intellectual honesty" some here are demanding from the left, I hope everyone who condemned the Bush posters then is condemning these now. Any who aren't, are the same kinda hypocrites as folks on the left complaining now, & diggin' the Bush pix, then.) I will say this. I think posting these anonymously and running away is a little cowardly... The artist of the "Bush as Joker" pic signed his work, and stood behind it, as did the majority of the "...but... look at these lib protester signs, that are just as mean..." postings I've seen. Just somethin' to consider...

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Rumors, Hypocrisy, and Rightwing Fringe Gossip In.sur.rec.tion: Don't Link To Nude Photos of Obama's Mother, and in particular, a comment by Cynthia Yockey, justifying the posting of nude photos, rumored by a few on the right to be Obama's mother:
Prof. Jacobson,

With respect, pay attention to the fact that it is conservative women linking these photos. They are NOT being linked for the porn value. We are linking them because they say something voters need to know about the people who raised Obama to help them make sense of how a man with such a sweet smile can do terrible things he is doing and that he will do even more terrible things if people do not get a really good grip on who and what he is. These photos are for the Doubting Thomases who must touch the wounds, so to speak, before they can believe.

Really, professor. Please change your mind about this. It is conservative women who are leading this charge. It is not about porn. It is about showing people how and why Obama is the troubled and duplicitous man he is, raised to hate democracy and capitalism and now in command of the perfect circumstances to destroy them.


August 2, 2009 2:57 PM


Last time I backed Cynthia... This time you're correct, William. And of course, some got it wrong, both times... (Sometimes I wonder whether conservatives take turns with the few consistently moral brains in the room.)

It isn't just the "porn" angle, Cynthia... It's spreading what amounts to unsubstantiated gossip about people, for partisan gain. Sure it's titillating to imagine that Sarah and the Dude are splitting up, or to spread rumors about Obama's dead mother, but whether or not they are, and whether or not she did, it's hurtful to the people involved and to their families, and true or not, it didn't, doesn't, and likely never will have any impact on them politically, or on the American people in any way.

It's just netyard gossip, and it isn't even particularly good netyard gossip.

The way Ms Geller & Dr. Douglas went about this is particularly unpleasant, because they simultaneously decried the rumor mill on the left, and ginned up the rumor mill on the right, in the very same posts, obviously and admittedly for payback.

Either one believes that spreading unsubstantiated rumors and gossip for partisan purposes is wrong, or one does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they decry something done to them, and praise the same thing done by them. YMMV...
Submitted for approval 8/2/09, 5:54 PM (Immoderate Monk blog time, since I missed checking Legal Insurrection time before submitting)

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Rightwing "American Thinkers" Confuse Secret Service CAT Force With Political Partisans, Out To Threaten Or Do Them Harm

In reply to American Thinker: Honing those pitchforks, and in particular, their repetition of the Gateway Pundit "OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol" meme, which was debunked by the second person to comment on that post.

Just wondering whether anyone (else) went to Gateway Pundit and read the early commentary, which debunks Jim Hoft's claim that such security is uncommon, post 9/11. The commentary in question is written by two fellow conservatives, one of whom worked with them, so it's likely you can trust what they say:

Actually, that's the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. They always ride around with the rear window open and their weapons at the ready. Here's one photo:

U.S. Secret Service Counter Assault Team member has his assault weapon at the ready while sitting in the rear of a motorcade SUV as Barack Obama arrives at meeting in the Chicago FBI building.

Here's another:

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:28 am"

"The duty of the Secret Service Counter Assault Team (CAT) is to fight off an assault on the presidential motorcade, delaying the attack while the president's personal protection team whisks him off to safety.

In other words, these men and women are hired specifically to give their lives so that others can save the president. They're amazing people."

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:44 am

"These "hired guns" are the same people who protected Bush. They're total professionals and patriots. To think they're going to open fire on civilians because Obama is angry is an absolute smear and an insult."
Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 1:01 am

"Everyone calm down a little. I work with some of these folks and this is no different than any other event Ihave been at. People are trying to see something that isnt there. We have enough issues to be concerned about without inventing things like this to get spun up about."
Chuk | 07.31.09 - 1:14 am

Google Secret Service Counter Assault Team for more info.

They're not "Obama's personal security," and they're not a threat to anyone, right or left, who doesn't intend their protectees harm. Suggesting that there is a political message of any kind in their presence, is an insult to these brave and decent men & women who make up the CAT force. I urge those folks who're distributing incorrect or politically biased information about them to think it through...
Submitted for approval 08/01/2009 12:06PM (American Thinker blog time)
Previous commentary:
1) American Power: Did Obama's Secret Service Draw Guns on Conservative Protesters?
2) With All Due Respect: Re: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol

The Government Already Knows About That Porn Site, Buddy...

In reply to: -- ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Rebate Program Allows Government to Take Control of Your Computer, and the comments posted there.

It's not ten times worse... It's ten times just the same.

I'm glad someone brought up AT&T under The Patriot Act. Same potential for government to "legally" read & listen in, only no warning page ahead of time. That had to be exposed, and when it was, it was retroactively made legal by Republicans & Dems alike.

This is very bad, and I agree that folks should not grant the government that much unfettered access in exchange for using their site. But, just like the Cons here hope that Dems who were so worried about Bush era loss of privacy speak out about bad acts under Obama, I really hope that the Cons who're so worried about personal privacy now, didn't shrug off these same privacy concerns under Bush. NO government deserves this kinda access into the lives of it's citizens, no matter which party controls the White House &/or Congress. (I"ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume y'all did speak out against the Bush era ATT (etc.) wiretaps, security letters checking out your reading/computer use habits at libraries and bookstores, "sneak & peek" warrants, ...)

I think Beck is an unmitigated nutball (It's my humble opinion, and I pray God blesses those who believe otherwise, with all good things), but he is right about this.
Submitted for approval August 1st, 2009 - 10:23 am, time (It's Howdy Beckky Time... It's Howdy Beckky Time...)

Bomb In The Building? Let's Not Evacuate, Because We Could Be Killed Out There

In reply to: Pat Dollard - Young Americans - Breaking: La Guardia Evacuated Over Potential Terrorist With Bomb, and in particular:
"I am always amused how the threat is isolated inside, meanwhile, a very large cluster of soft targets is formed outside. Can you say much easier target.

Most times government actions lack one simple ingredient — Common sense.

As if being outside the building unprotected is better than being inside the building."


You’ll have to be more specific, bill-tb…

Because, whether the “suspicious package” is an explosive device or a noxious gas, outside & away from it is better than inside the building…

Further, I know of no situation where the evacuation from the building holding the suspicious package has lead to significant casualties of these soft targets.

(I mean sure, if you’re in the free fire zone of a hot conflict, maybe… But in NYC (or anywhere in America, in the last hundred or so years)? I’m not sure you’re take on common sense is either common or sense.)

What would you have security personnel do with an airport or skyscraper full of people, after finding a potential explosive device or poison gas canister? With all due respect, I’m pretty sure that evacuating the innocent civilians is the correct way to go, at least until we see a rash of terrorist/madman sharpshooters, pickin’ off the evacuees as they hit the streets. (Now, if you’re suggesting we move them to a sheltered area, (a different building, a barricaded area outside) away from the potential zone of impact, maybe… But staying in the likely danger zone? I don’t think that idea holds water…)
Submitted for approval August 1, 2009 at 4:44 am (patdollard blog time)
Photo credit: Jim's Big Ego : UnPop for the Unpopulous!. You can hear the song here (last song on the list, as of this posting) NSFW! Warning!! NSFW!!!: My Playlist by Jim’s Big Ego on MySpace Music - listen to songs & purchase MP3s