When the News Isn't Fit to Print ... Blog

Archive for December, 2010|Monthly archive page

The best (and oddest) political moments of 2010

In Can You Hear Me Now?, Obamarama on 31/12/2010 at 06:36

Via The Daily Caller:

The 2010 campaign provided enough memorable moments to fill out a list all by itself. Christine O’Donnell, Joe Manchin shooting the cap and trade bill, Aqua Buddha: It was that kind of year.
But that was mostly noise. We’ve compiled a list of moments below that represents the framework through which 2010 can begin to come into focus for what it was as a narrative. We’ll leave what it means, or will mean, for later on down the road. 2011 will go a long way toward deciding that.

Below are the “Big Impact” moments from 2010, along with two other categories: the “Best of the Rest,” and then some moments sent in to us by political types. We hope you enjoy.
And Happy New Year!

Big Impact Moments

1. Scott Brown’s shocker: When the Massachusetts Republican ripped Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat out from underneath the Democratic Party, we thought it was the end of President Obama’s health care bill. We were wrong about that, but so was the White House when they insisted that their policies had nothing to do with the voter backlash.

2. Passage of Obama’s health care bill: Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid surprised the nation when they pressed forward with the health overhaul, but were able to push the bill through despite huge procedural obstacles (remember “deem and pass”?) and the presence of a few thousand protesters outside the Capitol building, behind probably one of the most intense vote whips by congressional leaders in the institution’s history. When Pennsylvania Democrat Bart Stupak brought his bloc of pro-life Dems over to the yea column following the president’s executive order, the game was over. But the battle over the bill will rage on for years.

Read more here:


Tucker Carlson Calls for Vick’s Execution

In Disappearing Ink, Harvard Math, Obamarama, The Wrong Right Turn on 30/12/2010 at 08:35

Isn’t it enough that we have a jug-eared sports junkie in the White House defending Michael Vick, without having a Republican pundit calling for his lynching? Can’t we find some middle ground here?

That is essentially what The Daily Caller editor in chief Tucker Carlson thinks Vicks’ punishment should have been for killing pit bulls. And that is certainly what it would have been.

Okay, Michael Vick did a terrible thing. You can take a boy out of the hood, but apparently not the hood out of the boy. But while I can’t see any grounds for defending him—call me a softy—execution sounds a skosh extreme.

As politically incorrect it is to say, dog fighting is a tradition in the black and poor white communities that goes back hundreds of years, particularly in the South. Some are trying to erase the history but it is there. As a boy my father lived right up the road from the Oklahoma state dog-fighting champion, a dog that had killed many opponents. Dog fighting is not civilized or justifiable to anyone with half an education, but it is an American tradition.

Don’t get me wrong, dog fighting is inhumane and it is justifiably illegal, but there is no question that it is also part of some cultures in the U.S.

But the extreme to which animal rights activists are taking Vick’s crimes is ridiculous. Vick is obviously a kid with serious problems; he has had both drug and gambling arrests, and, frankly, I don’t know why the NFL would want him back. After all, character should have some place in the game, even nowadays. But Vick has paid for his crimes and now it is in the hands of NFL fans.

What is just as annoying for me as Vick’s return to the NFL, however, is how the Republican Party keeps coming up with wackos like Carlson. Dogs don’t have rights, people do. Dogs are property and it is exactly this kind of nutcake logic that is bringing their party down. The inroads progressives are making into the GOP is downright spooky.

Hopefully Michael Vick has learned his lesson, somehow I doubt it, but we can pray. Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, is what happens when conservatives share cabs with liberals. How do we fix that?

End of Life Planning: Gateway to Euthanasia

In Bowling for Dollars, Can You Hear Me Now?, Obamacare, Sarah Palin, The Haters on 29/12/2010 at 07:12

In the end—bad pun intended—end-of-life planning under nationalized health care will be more about how one has lived his or her life than how to end it. In effect it means that we all must accept the Democrat’s rationale of what constitutes quality of life.

I use Democrat here in the broad sense because if you are a Democrat, you by default accept your party’s philosophies and tenets, whether or not you consider yourself moderate or yellow dog. Your party is controlled by the extreme left wing, and, at the very least, your opinion is moot.

The current debate over what Sarah Palin accurately labeled, “death panels,” is academic; one either accepts the government’s assertion that it has a right to intrude in the most personal decision anyone will ever make, or one doesn’t. Because that is exactly what government control of health care will mean; someone somewhere will necessarily make the decision of who will benefit from available treatments and to what degree.

Palin—again accurately—rationalized that the elderly and disabled will suffer most when nationalized health care is enacted. The morbidly obese, the elderly, disabled, smokers, diabetics, the autistic—the list goes on and on—will be at the mercy of the care boards. Boards will govern medication distribution (who gets what when and how much), boards will decide what doctors will be available to you and ultimately who lives and who dies. She was right about all of it.

If you are currently battling a life-threatening disease you have reason for concern; if you are battling a life-threatening disease and you have been a smoker, a drug addict, overweight, or alcoholic you really have reason for concern. If you have muscular dystrophy and you are not Stephen Hawking … Right.

To be fair death panels already exist. Every HMO and PPO in the country has boards that determine who receives what treatment, when and for how long; based on the patient’s age, prognosis, statistical data, and finally what some doctor thinks of the patient, the carrier can effectively cut a life short at will. And that decision is final and cannot be litigated.

To be fairer still, Democrats are accurate in pointing out that end-of-life counseling was included in Medicare in 2008. There is nothing inherently evil with end-of-life planning; people have done it for years. Before my father passed away we discussed his wishes regarding life-preserving measures and he elected not to receive them.

That is not the end-of-life planning Democrats have in mind. End-of-life planning under Obamacare will become what all government-run institutions become—redlined statistical snafus controlled by faceless bureaucrats who will base decisions on their opinions of your value to society.

End of life care may be voluntary now but it will not remain so. Because it comes with a built-in philosophy. Prescription rationing has already begun and that alone is essentially a death panel decision.

Just about anyone who reads a newspaper or has watched “60 Minutes” knows that there is a movement in this country by the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party to legalize euthanasia. Currently three states—Oregon, Washington and Montana—have doctor-assisted suicide. Washington just committed its first legalized murder last year.

End-of-life care is something that one should make provisions for; you should discuss your personal wishes with your family or someone you trust. But the decision of how one ends one’s life should not be placed in the hands of a doctor, someone who may not share your religious beliefs or values, and who may well hold your life in his hands one day.

Keep a close eye on what your congressman does about this.