New Site/Domain

Since even I can’t remember how to spell the domain name for this blog, I’ve created a new WordPress blog (“2ndBalcony”) and will be posting there from now on. All posts/comments have been copied to the new site. Please update your bookmarks to:

http://2ndbalcony.wordpress.com/

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Better

Also from Rasmussen Reports™ (Americans Evenly Divided Over Urgency of Health Care Reform, June 19, 2009):

Despite the president’s stepped-up efforts to promote his health care reform agenda with the public, these numbers have changed little from the beginning of the month when 46% favored moving ahead while 45% said wait until the economy improves. In early March, 49% said health care reform should wait for a better economy, but 42% wanted to go ahead.

Rasmussen goes on to report on the differences by political ideology, age, and gender (with women, once again, supporting something asinine out of selfish desires or stupidity).

Health care “reform” (code phrase for socialized medicine) is the greatest threat to our economic freedom.

Unfortunately, it is highly possible, that despite public sentiments, this Congress/Administration will do whatever they damn well please. They’ve ignored the Constitution and the rule of law so this would be business as usual.

Just say “no.” And as Bill Whittle recently said in a PJTV video, say “no” loudly and often.

---

Revised Permalink on Second Balcony

Good Sign

From Rasmussen Reports™ (Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, June 22, 2009):

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -1. Today is the second straight day the President’s rating has been below zero (see trends).

Rasmussen Reports: President Approval Index

This is a good sign (for the country) and is change we can believe in.

H/t Instapundit.

Hello, Captain Obvious

From Daniel Indiviglio (The Atlantic Business Channel, Two Ways To Lower Healthcare Costs, June 18, 2009):

Data like this leads those who want heavier government involvement in healthcare to tremble with certainty. It inspired Leonhardt to argue for healthcare rationing. I have two different suggestions to reduce healthcare costs that I have not heard discussed very much: get more doctors and malpractice tort reform.

[Emphasis mine.]

Not that this shouldn’t be constantly repeated and shouted from the rooftops, but it isn’t that people haven’t been suggesting it (even though Mr. Indiviglio hasn’t “heard it discussed very much”). In fact, the conservative side of the media has been stressing it for decades. It is the mainstream media (once again) that doesn’t let this bit of argument make it into the headlines.

But it’s the same problem we see with just about every issue. When government is the problem that creates higher costs, we never hear it.

We didn’t hear about it when “Enterprise Zones” proved to be a failure. Not a peep (and in fact lies and dereliction of duty) when Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were causing our entire housing market to become destabilized by socialized lending practices and old fashioned cronyism.

The truth is, there are dozens of ways that government itself makes our medical costs higher, without increasing the quality of medical care, including:

• FDA puts far too many roadblocks and delays in bringing new medicines and medical equipment to market.
• Tort (as Mr. Indiviglio mentions). Tort directly impacts every aspect of medical costs (the kind that makes shysters like John Edwards millionaires).
• The courts themselves for not properly throwing out predatory law suits.
• Little (or no) enforcement of fraud laws in medical insurance claims. Fraud, like tort, is theft with one degree of separation. We all pay for it. Similarly, the amount of fraud in the system forces insurance companies to police their policyholders themselves, limiting the monies that could be available to pay the claims of honest people. Tort risk has required that we all receive a battery of mostly unnecessary tests, just so doctors and hospitals can cover their asses, rather than deliver the tests they think a patient really needs.
• Medicare is too slow to pay (with negotiated rates far below a reasonable rate for delivery of services). Medicare itself is an example of how socialized medicine, regardless of label, will look in a few years. Rather than having a government-run heath insurance system for the nation’s truly poor, the government should outsource these programs to insurance companies, and allow them to compete for government dollars. There isn’t anything that the government does that the private sector can’t do better and/or cheaper.

The government, just like it showed itself to be derelict in properly watching the henhouse at Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, isn’t our friend. In fact, it is often the fox that is guarding that henhouse.

Congress is now debating more ways to steal our money to deliver to us a greatly reduced standard of care, under the guise of getting it to us cheaper and more “equitably.”

Government has never delivered on that promise, regardless of the isssue, and it would be insane of us to think otherwise… this time. The outcome is always the same. The only thing that works, the only thing that ever works, is getting the government out of it and unraveling and revising the laws that strangle all of us.

H/t Instpundit.

Letterman’s Not Funny Joke

Regarding Letterman’s terribly inappropriate joke about Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter:  He should be ashamed of himself.

This has nothing to do with political correctness.  Candidates’ children are off limits and “knocked up” jokes about kids aren’t funny.

That aside, what really gets my goat about some of the commentary on the Internet is the constant insertion of the meme of Letterman’s supports: “Don’t you value Free Speech?”

Of course Republicans value Free Speech.  People can say whatever they want, except false speech.

What they cannot expect to exclude, which goes hand in hand with exercising rights, are public consequences. The government cannot put him in jail for telling a bad joke or insulting someone, but the public is certainly within their right to respond with Free Speech and Free Action of their own, to call for Letterman’s head on a proverbial platter.

If that means he’s stripped of his job because people boycott Letterman’s advertisers, or they tune-out of his show, putting his rankings in the tank, that, too is Free Speech.  The public is free to respond with their remote control, to write and complain to the network, and to boycott CBS’s advertisers.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways.

Dog in This Fight

From Frances Gibb (Times Online, Ruling on NightJack author Richard Horton kills blogger anonymity, June 17, 2009):

But Mr Justice Eady said that the mere fact that the blogger wanted to remain anonymous did not mean that he had a “reasonable expectation” of doing so or that The Times was under an enforceable obligation to him to maintain that anonymity.

There are aspects of this case (and this ruling) that are difficult.  I can understand the argument about a reasonable expectation of privacy not being met when someone blogs.  However:

In the first case dealing with the privacy of internet bloggers, the judge ruled that Mr Horton had no “reasonable expectation” to anonymity because “blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity”.

Does this mean that someone who gives information to a newspaper, that is also “a public rather than a private activity” should expect the same?  Newspapers are public, too.  If we extend this decision to its logical conclusion, that would mean that “unnamed sources” have no reasonable expectation of privacy either.  The court seems to be saying that–using the argument that having someone in the press makes moot any desire for privacy.  That’s seems to be the end justifies the mean argument.

I’m surprised the Times UK would want the courts to come to that conclusion.

If someone wants to spend time trying to figure out who I am, more power to them. I haven’t said anything controversial or named any names, so I doubt someone would bother.  As a thought experiment though, I would make no attempts to sue or use the courts to prevent them from disclosing that information, but it follows then that no one should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they say or tell anything to a reporter or any press outlet.  Everyone is now fair game.

I doubt the Times UK would find that a desirable outcome. They appear to have won the battle, but lost the war.

Edit

From Jake Topper (ABCNews-Political Punch, Key Obama Ally Says President Obama Did Not Follow the Law in IG Firing, June 16, 2009) quoting Sen. Claire McCaskin:

“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.”

Mr. Topper could have just shortened the article’s title to “Obama did not follow the law.”  He could have a daily post with that title.

H/t Instapundit.

We CAN Handle the Truth

From Peter Wehner (Commentary Magazine, Let Us Not Comfort Cruel Men), June 16, 2009):

G.K. Chesterton once referred to “easy speeches to comfort cruel men.” Leaders like Reagan (and his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher) were not terribly interested in providing comfort to cruel men. They instinctively identified with the victims of oppression rather than the oppressors — and they were, more often than not, willing to give those views public voice. What we are dealing with is a cast of mind, a disposition toward words, their power and meaning, and their capacity to shape events.

Mr. Wehner links to an article by Bret Stephens (WSJ, Wanted: ‘Hope’ for Iran, June 16, 2009):

Here’s a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. “WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT,” this demonstrator wrote. “Time is not on our side… The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one.”

Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama’s nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration’s meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves.

This is the real test of Obama:  Will he ignore the pleas for help and recognition from Iran’s desperate citizens yearning to be free in their own nation, or will he remain silent and impotent?

H/t Instapundit.

Cyberwar Guide for Iran elections

Instapundit links to a post by Omri (Mere Rhetoric, Cyberwar Guide To Helping The Iranian Protesters, June 16, 2009):

The purpose of this guide is to help you participate constructively in the Iranian election protests through Twitter.

1. Do NOT publicise proxy IP’s over twitter, and especially not using the #iranelection hashtag. Security forces are monitoring this hashtag, and the moment they identify a proxy IP they will block it in Iran. If you are creating new proxies for the Iranian bloggers, DM them to @stopAhmadi or @iran09 and they will distributed them discretely to bloggers in Iran.
2. Hashtags, the only two legitimate hashtags being used by bloggers in Iran are #iranelection and #gr88, other hashtag ideas run the risk of diluting the conversation.
3. Keep you bull$hit filter up! Security forces are now setting up twitter accounts to spread disinformation by posing as Iranian protesters. Please don’t retweet impetuosly, try to confirm information with reliable sources before retweeting. The legitimate sources are not hard to find and follow.
4. Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.
5. Don’t blow their cover! If you discover a genuine source, please don’t publicise their name or location on a website. These bloggers are in REAL danger. Spread the word discretely through your own networks but don’t signpost them to the security forces. People are dying there, for real, please keep that in mind…

Via @allahpundit, the State Department apparently asked Twitter to delay their scheduled downtime to help out the protesters. A very nice move, especially considering the lukewarm support the Obama administration has voiced elsewhere (via @jswtx).

I don’t know what all of the above means, but changing Twitter settings to Tehran seems like a small action to help a great cause.

Et tu, Brute

From Byron York, (Washington Examiner, Will Democrats cover up the AmeriCorps mess?, June 16, 2009):

Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama’s sudden — and suspicious — decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no — unless some. [sic] Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.

Short answer is, of course, “No.” We were doomed from the start:

“The bank mania… is raising up a moneyed aristocracy in our country which has already set the government at defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little on this first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded and unyielding. These have taken deep root in the hearts of that class from which our legislators are drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable has become history. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf of the bad, and thus those whom the Constitution had placed as guards to its portals, are sophisticated or suborned from their duties.“

- Thomas Jefferson, 1817

[Emphasis mine.]

There are few pursuits more potentially damaging to the character of an individual than to pursue a finance or business degree, and to then work in those sectors, rather than actually producing or creating products with inherently tangible value. With the former, corruption is not only likely, it is to be assumed.

I suspect the only worse thing would be a career in law. (Pardons to Prof. Reynolds as the hat tip.)