Following the shooting of Congresswoman Gaby Giffords, President Obama implored the nation for a return to civility. Liberals will try and make the argument that since the President's call to tone down the rhetoric, both the Left and the Right have been equally guilty of less than civil language, however, the speech from the Left has been far more extreme. Here are just a few examples. At a community summit in her district, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said, "As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell." Speaking at a Labor Day address to union members, Vice President Biden, told the AFL/CIO audience, "You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates." So, in VP Biden's mind, anyone who is in favor of "Right to Work" laws is a barbarian. While speaking to a group of Hispanics, the President urged them to "Punish their enemies." He was referring to their "fellow Americans" who want immigration laws enforced. At a Labor Day union event prior to President Obama addressing the crowd, Teamsters President, Jimmy Hoffa said, "President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march." and referring to Tea Party supporting lawmakers, Hoffa also said, "Let's take these son of a bitches out." Did the President remind Hoffa to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric? Well no. As a matter of fact, when Republicans called for Mr. Obama to denounce Mr. Hoffa's words, the White House released a statement later saying, "The President isn't going to be the language police." Maybe Hoffa merely meant take out as in, "to a nice suburban Detroit steak house like the one where his father was abducted and never seen again." Um, no wait that's no good. Lastly, Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN) said, “Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me — I’m sorry, Tamron — hanging on a tree.” Carson is an African-American.
So where does all this vitriol come from? A keen bit of insight comes from an unlikely source - Guido the Killer Pimp from the movie "Risky Business." In the movie, Guido, a Chicago pimp, (played by Joe Pantoliano) gives aspiring Princeton University student, Joel, (played by a young Tom Cruise) some sage advice: "Let me give you a little advice so you know. In times of economic uncertainty, never ever f**k with another man's livelihood." And there you have it! We are definitely in times of economic uncertainty and by pushing for lower taxes and limited government, the Tea Party is messing with the livelihood of liberal Democrats and their paid for constituents.
Democrats of course would counter that conservatives and Republicans who mainly make up the Tea Party give tax breaks to the "rich" and "big business" so they also have their paid constituency. Here is where the comparison falls apart. In the case of Democrats, they pay-off their voters with government largess which mainly means other people's money - the socialist redistribution of wealth from the so-called rich to those they believe deserve it more - past and future Democrat voters. Republicans, on the other hand, want Americans to keep more of their own money - the money they earned. Understanding the difference is critical to the survival of our nation.
In the end, socialism will fail as it always has because the Democrats, like all the others who have tried it before them, will eventually run out of other people's money. Given our current debt situation, eventually is already here. Conservatives and Republicans must take back the White House and the Senate in 2012 in order to put a stop to the Democrat Party's socialist agenda and force them and their hand-out constituents to find a new livelihood.
Reader's comments are welcomed.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Junk News; Junk Science
Doctors are scientist so I was troubled when I saw a video clip of Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the NBC chief medical editor, discussing the recent study that rated the United States 41st in infant mortality rate - behind Cuba. It was, to say the least, very short on science.
A somber-faced Snyderman told the equally somber-faced NBC anchor Brian Williams that despite spending more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, our infant mortality rate is worse than that of Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Poland and even Cuba. Further, she reported than the US dropped from 29th place just five years ago. She went on to say that while some states like Washington, Iowa, and Vermont (which she pointed out has universal health care) are doing pretty well, other areas like DC, Maryland, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina are not. So the only metrics this scientist discusses are per capita health care spending and the infant mortality rate. Does she go on to explore other potential factors such as drug and alcohol abuse among pregnant women in the US, American women giving birth later and later in life (which is more risky), more multiple births with corresponding premature delivery and low birth weights as a result of infertility treatment? These are just a few that came to mind to this non-medical scientist. No, she just went on to talk about how we have "taken our eye off the ball" when it comes to newborn health and how intervention is so important. These are both very nice platitudes but hardly science. What she does do is imply that American medicine is bad because we spend too much money and based on this one particular measure, get poor results in return.
So if we "read between the lines" Snyderman believes: 1) All of America should be like Cuba or the state of Vermont and have universal health care; we would spend less money and be so much better off. and 2) The solution to poor performance of a private system is to convert it to a government run system. Using this type of analysis and logic, since we spend the second highest amount per capita of any country on education (behind Switzerland) and our public school students score at the bottom of the list of developed nations in math and science, the solution should be to privatize all primary and secondary education in the US. In neither case would I argue that per capita spending and any one particular outcome are sufficient to draw clear conclusions nor would I propose a 180 degree change of course as a solution.
Dr. Snyderman is a smart woman and she certainly knows that this situation is far more complex than she lets on from her report. This is junk news; junk science and purely political - not something worthy of the chief medical editor of a major news organization. With journalism like this, is it any wonder the public is watching less and less evening news and viewing other scientific news reports from the major media outlets on topics like man-made climate change with an increasingly jaundiced eye? I think our public understands science a bit better than the test scores would have you believe.
Reader comments are welcome.
A somber-faced Snyderman told the equally somber-faced NBC anchor Brian Williams that despite spending more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, our infant mortality rate is worse than that of Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Poland and even Cuba. Further, she reported than the US dropped from 29th place just five years ago. She went on to say that while some states like Washington, Iowa, and Vermont (which she pointed out has universal health care) are doing pretty well, other areas like DC, Maryland, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina are not. So the only metrics this scientist discusses are per capita health care spending and the infant mortality rate. Does she go on to explore other potential factors such as drug and alcohol abuse among pregnant women in the US, American women giving birth later and later in life (which is more risky), more multiple births with corresponding premature delivery and low birth weights as a result of infertility treatment? These are just a few that came to mind to this non-medical scientist. No, she just went on to talk about how we have "taken our eye off the ball" when it comes to newborn health and how intervention is so important. These are both very nice platitudes but hardly science. What she does do is imply that American medicine is bad because we spend too much money and based on this one particular measure, get poor results in return.
So if we "read between the lines" Snyderman believes: 1) All of America should be like Cuba or the state of Vermont and have universal health care; we would spend less money and be so much better off. and 2) The solution to poor performance of a private system is to convert it to a government run system. Using this type of analysis and logic, since we spend the second highest amount per capita of any country on education (behind Switzerland) and our public school students score at the bottom of the list of developed nations in math and science, the solution should be to privatize all primary and secondary education in the US. In neither case would I argue that per capita spending and any one particular outcome are sufficient to draw clear conclusions nor would I propose a 180 degree change of course as a solution.
Dr. Snyderman is a smart woman and she certainly knows that this situation is far more complex than she lets on from her report. This is junk news; junk science and purely political - not something worthy of the chief medical editor of a major news organization. With journalism like this, is it any wonder the public is watching less and less evening news and viewing other scientific news reports from the major media outlets on topics like man-made climate change with an increasingly jaundiced eye? I think our public understands science a bit better than the test scores would have you believe.
Reader comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)