A new look for the Third?

At the risk of being accused of rushing the season a bit, I would present a few thoughts about the young woman who is challenging Adrian Smith for the Congressional seat in Nebraska’s 3rd District – one Rebekah Davis.

Detailed information concerning Ms. Davis’ bio and positions is a little thin at this point; a visit to her website reveals the usual vanilla professions of belief in “God, Mom and Apple Pie” boiler plate that sells so well out here in the Third. She “believes in the value and need for a strong, vibrant and profitable family farmer and rancher based agriculture that drives our rural economy” (who doesn’t?), as well as claiming the mantle of “fiscal conservative” who “believes that small business and small manufacturing are necessary to business development in rural communities” (what’s not to like?). She also “supports preserving Social Security” – the usual sop to the geezer demographic.

She thinks education is a good thing, supports “a 100% domestic energy policy“, “respects the sanctity of life from conception to natural death“, “supports the right of citizens to carry firearms for personal protection and recreation“, agrees that veterans’ benefits should be supported and enhanced, and “believes the surge [in Iraq] was a success and supports similar efforts in Afghanistan.”

Addressing environmental issues, she states that “[c]onservation is best achieved by education, economic incentives and voluntary landowner participation”. Not sure ‘zactly what that means, but OK … she doesn’t sound like a tree-hugger.

So far, so good … in fact, one is tempted to wonder why she isn’t running as a conservative Republican. But wait! (as Ron Popeil is fond of saying) … There’s more!

Foreign policy – Davis sees “international collaboration as a cornerstone of effective domestic defense. In a world of uncertainty, strengthening ties with allies while maintaining autonomy is pivotal.” I dunno – sounds a little Obamanistic (Mea culpa! Mea culpa!) and wishy-washy …. “International collaboration” is too often lib-speak for appeasement.

Health care: She is “open to a government-sponsored public option or cooperative that would compete with the private sector without undermining it“. This is standard Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi double-talk. In reality, there is no “government-sponsored public option or cooperative” that would not undermine the private sector – and Ms. Davis should know that.

Illegal immigration: “Davis has worked to assure the integrity of our borders while maintaining a welcoming presence for new Americans.” Trying to sell the concept of “maintaining a welcoming presence” for illegals out here in the Third could well prove to be a task of Herculean proportion. Good luck with that, Rebekah.

Taxes: She’s a little blurry here – supports “statutory pay-as-you-go rules, which would mandate that any new spending or tax cuts be offset so as to be deficit neutral and keep the budget in balance“. Does that mean she supports increased taxes? Hard to judge from this statement. Traditionally, when Dems start using phrases like “pay-as-you-go” and “deficit neutral”, my first instinct is to put my hand over my wallet.

Finally, there are at least two other questions concerning Davis’ candidacy that I find intriguing, but her official campaign website does not address either:

1) A few short years ago (2006) the Third was subjected to the electoral depredations of another Yale refugee who, in almost Arthurian fashion, emerged magically from the wilds of Blaine county and tried to foist his faux Nebraska-ness on what he took to be a foolish and undiscerning citizenry. Two years later, he compounded his transgression by trying to pettifog the entire state in a run for the Senate. Suffice it to say that neither attempt ended well for this callow Galahad – and perhaps the most significant residue of his cynical campaigns is the bad taste left in the mouths of most Thirders for those perceived as interlopers. While it is true that Davis’ Sand Hills bona fides seem somewhat more robust than those of young master Kleeb (despite several years in absentia in Indiana, Connecticut as well as other eastern and overseas enclaves), one wonders exactly how (or if) she intends to address this problem. Make no mistake, Rebekah – it will be a steep hill to climb.

2) I am also curious about Ms. Davis’ position, as a card-carrying member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America clergy, concerning the ELCA’s recent vote at their annual meeting in Minneapolis to allow people involved in same-gender relationships into their clergy. The move has caused a dramatic split among Lutherans all over the country, and promises to remain a divisive issue within that denomination for a long time to come.

If Davis enthusiastically embraces the move, it could bode ill for her electoral chances in the Third District, where, let us recall, the people voted more than 80% in favor of a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage only a few years ago. I realize that allowing gay couples into the clergy and sanctioning same-sex marriage are not precisely the same thing, but certainly the overwhelming support for the constitutional ban must be viewed as at least an indicator of Third attitudes toward officially consecrating homosexual relationships in any venue. Should she come out in support of the ELCA’s official position, I don’t much like her chances out here.

I am sending a draft of this piece to Ms. Davis for her comment (if any) and will report her response should one be forthcoming.

Be well.

Take two hospitals and call me in the morning …

One of the fundamental tenets, indeed perhaps the doctrinal apotheosis, of modern conservatism is the seamless interaction of the co-principles of laissez faire and free markets. Committed Misesians (such as yours truly) would rather gnaw off one of our own gristly appendages than forsake our constitutional devotion to the teachings of old Ludwig and his star pupil Freddie Hayek. Almost before we were eating solid food, we learned that “trickle-down” meant something more significant than a damp diaper, and that a penny saved made less sense than a penny invested. So it is … umm … interesting that, right here in my own pastoral purview, we have been presented with a classic opportunity to measure the strength and substance of our sacred dogma within the laboratory of real honest-to-Bastiat human experience. And with a generous slice of current controversy (“health care” … argh!) in the bargain.

What am I talking about?

Very recently a group of local physicians announced plans to build a brand new $20,000,000 for-profit hospital right here in Kearney. They are waaaay beyond the “intentions” stage; architects have been hired, investors have committed, land has been contracted – this effort appears, as Grandpa used to say, to be a goin’ Jesse.

The group (according to news reports made up of “from 20 to 70″ docs) is upset with the management of the local hospital (Good Samaritan Health Systems), alleging that GSHS has been unresponsive to the medical staff needs in several technical and administrative areas. You can read about some of their specific concerns in the link above.

Good Sam has long been known out here on the prairie as a center of medical excellence; not many towns of some 30,000 folks boast a physician population of nearly 150, and medical facilities that include open-heart surgery, MRI, radiation oncology, and a Level II trauma center. It must be noted, however, that its reputation has suffered somewhat over the last several years – especially since they were taken over by a large multi-state corporation called Catholic Health Initiatives, whose area hospitals include St. Francis in Grand Island, and St. Elizabeth’s in Lincoln. Whisperings of degraded services, cavalier patient care, and widespread employee disgruntlement have surfaced repeatedly over the last several years.

Even though I spent nearly four decades working at GSHS, I take no position on the merits of the dissatisfied group’s concerns because I have no information other than that available through the usual news sources. Having said that, it is interesting that, within days of the docs’ announcement, CHI held a presser and announced that they were committing $65,000,000 to a long term program of improving and enlarging their current GSHS facilities. Less charitable observers than myself might view this as little more than a  cynical counter-tactic.

Motivations and local cat-fights aside, what this provides is a facet of medical care long missing in these environs – competition. If we free-market samurai are correct, and if the protagonists in this medical econo-drama are even passably competent, Kearney and the surrounding area should quickly be the beneficiary of better and more cost-effective care. Will it happen? I dunno … but you can be sure there are a lot of interested bystanders out here in Navel City.

Be well.

Revenge of the Geezers

My Daddy (whose wisdom, you may have noticed, I resurrect on a fairly regular schedule) used to say that the only thing less desirable than growing old was not growing old. As a tad, I always thought Pappy was just being silly and/or cryptic, but as I find myself  wallowing in decrepitude, his meaning takes on more … well … meaning. It comes to this – old age ain’t much, but it’s all us Grey Ones have – and I dang well resent efforts by anyone, especially some grinning neomarxist fool in the White House, to make it less tolerable than it naturally is. And I intend to fight back.

For those who have been in a coma for the past several months, or are irremediably liberal, or just plain dense (all of which are essentially the same thing), know that the various proposed Obamopathies (otherwise known as ‘Health Care Reform’ bills) all contain, along with a laundry list of other treacheries, provisions that will materially gut the Medicare program – to the tune of something like 400 to 500 billion big ones, depending upon which permutation you analyze. That’s a lot of glucose meters, stents, hip replacements, and colonoscopies friends. It’s time to act.

As a starter, how about this: if the Obamanizer and his gang of leftist trogs carry through with their just-announced plan to bribe all us geezers with a $250 check, I swear on my just-opened bottle of Metamucil that I will immediately send that money to DickMorris.com, who has mounted a virulent campaign to defeat Obamacare and is currently seeking donations to support that effort – and I encourage other seasoned citizens to do likewise. Yeah, I know … Morris is a bit of a slickster, but he is almost preternaturally adept at assaying and moving public opinion on a very large scale. Let me put it this way – if you or yours had been horribly wronged, would you seek justice from a social worker … or from Don Corleone? Me too …. However, if you’re just too put off by Morris, there are a raft of other efforts out there working valiantly to slay the Health Care Reform beast before he devours us; find one you’re comfortable with and support it … with Obama’s check.

Besides … wouldn’t there be something deliciously poetic about using this cynical influence-buying scheme to bury Obama’s ham-handed attempt to not only take over health care but to fund it largely by disenfranchising those who have contributed longest? As the kids say …”Swee-eet!”

Be well

Nuthin’ up my sleeve …

For most of my nearly threescore and ten I have been fascinated by illusionists (we always called them ‘magicians’) and their mind-bending tricks and stunts. I have seen Lance Burton’s magnificent sleight-of-hand, I’ve gaped as Siegfried and Roy made white tigers and elephants disappear … I even remember David Copperfield dematerializing the Statue of Liberty in front of a television audience of millions. Heady stuff, and weighty tribute to the skills of those entertainment wizards … but small beer indeed when compared with the thaumaturgical movable feast (also known as ‘health care reform’) currently being brandished by the One and his toadys.

The single most useful tool in the successful illusionist’s bag is misdirection. While he has us staring open-mouthed at a grand gesture with his left hand (or at a gorgeous scantily clad assistant), his right is busy making the mischief that will astound us a few seconds later. It should come as no surprise that this precise strategy also works well for selling snake oil, hustling that 42-24-36 homewrecker just down the bar from you, or trying to pass intrinsically unpalatable legislation – and no one knows this better than B. H. Obama, Harry the Heep, Plastic Nancy and their crew of scrofulites.

They are adept at keeping our attentions and energies focused on meaningless sparklies (like “the public option” – what the hell does that mean anyway?) while artfully slipping dozens (hundreds?) of unremarked yet thoroughly outrageous provisions into their several (5 at last count) legislative salmagundis.

Look for instance at the Senate Finance Committee bill passed out of committee this week with loud trumpets, dancing, cheering and flinging of camel dung high into the air. Everyone was so excited that the hated ‘public option’ had been excised from the bill’s innards that almost no one noticed the rest of the putrescence contained within this truly abominable senatorial chef-d’oeuvre.

Fortunately for the less perceptive among us, Karl Rove did notice and wrote an excellent piece yesterday in the WSJ detailing many of the bill’s more execrable features. I urge everyone to read and digest Rove’s analysis in its entirety; I will only here provide a few paraphrased bullet points to whet your appetite.

* the bill imposes stiff taxes and benefit cuts immediately, but new spending, i.e., the promised increased level of health care, does not begin until 2015 and is not fully operational until 2017. So the costs are dramatically front-loaded while the derived benefit lags by five or more years.

* the assumption is made that employers who cease employee coverage will increase worker paychecks by an amount equal to what they had spent on health care, thus replacing a nontaxable event (providing health insurance) with a taxable one (increasing worker paychecks), magically producing $83 billion in revenues (yeah, right). Without these phantom revenues, the bill adds billions to the federal deficit in the first decade.

* The CBO report estimates that receipts from the 40% excise tax bill would levy on “Cadillac” insurance policies “would grow by roughly 10 percent to 15 percent” a year after 2019. Rove rightly calls this nonsense, noting if you tax something heavily you’ll get less of it. If this tax is enacted, there will be fewer Cadillac plans—and hence less revenue.

* CBO Director Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums.

* the bill expands Medicaid which will shift a big chunk of the federal health-care tab to states. States already pick up an average of 47% of Medicaid’s costs – and expanding it will force states to spend even more.

* there are $400 billion in Medicare benefit cuts.

There is more – much more – in Rove’s piece; if you are at all concerned about the future of health care in America, you owe it to yourself and to your country to study it carefully.

I’ll end today with the same mantra I have been chanting for weeks and months: forget the words “public option”; they represent a chimera, a meaningless fabrication designed specifically for the misdirection of We The People. Any broad health care “reform” legislation – any at all – places us firmly on a path which leads inexorably to single-payer, government-controlled health care. We cannot, we must not, let that occur.

Be well.

There you go again …

Here at the Notebook we try to refrain from providing publicity/notoriety to any of the welter of lefty websites and blogs that crud up the internet like digital barnacles. Occasionally however, some of these shriekers stray so far off the reservation of common sense and decency that they must be shooed back before they hurt themselves or others. Case in point, a recent post over at the Neener-Neener Network (I usually don’t link to demagogic sinkholes but I’ll make an exception this one time) purporting to describe a recent Tea Party held in western Nebraska.

I address the following to the author:

In your description of the Tea Party you failed to mention the part where we all put on our brown shirts, goose-stepped around a bon-fire of books we don’t like, sacrificed a couple of live puppies and swore eternal fealty to Ba’al.

As you note in your post, there is indeed something “very ugly at work here” – but it doesn’t involve Adrian Smith and the Republican Party. Instead, it derives directly from a mindset that drives such despicable actions as your intentional misrepresentation of an entirely legal and commendable grass roots gathering of people whose sole purpose was to make known their dissatisfaction with and mistrust of a federal government that is hurtling out of control.

I urge everyone exposed to your poisonous post to be sure to read the referenced article in the Gering Courier (titled, appropriately, “Adrian Smith: Conservatives winning health-care debate” … guess what – he’s right!), so they can get a much more accurate picture of what actually occurred at the Wyobraska Tea Party.

You cherry-picked and edited your quotes with consummate skill; a particularly nice touch was the phony juxtaposition of the quote from a lady noting that the people need to stop Obama’s governmental take-over of virtually every aspect of our lives, and the raffling of a rifle (which was a simple fund-raising project). You managed to make it sound as though the two events were simultaneous and obviously animated by mindless Conservative blood-lust, when indeed they were related only in your fevered liberal mind.

This type of garbage is yellow blogalism at its worst, and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you wish to attack Republican politicians and policies, then do so honestly, with reason and relevant fact, not scurrilous ad hominem, sly innuendo and deceitful editing.

With tactics like this it is no wonder your side has so much trouble finding robust candidates or mounting anything resembling an effective campaign in western and central Nebraska. I wonder if Rebekah Davis really understands what she has associated herself with, having signed on with your bunch? Again, shame on you.

The rest of you … be well.

Begging your pardon …

Time for my biannual semiannual regular occasional BTQ rant – BTQ being an acronym I derived from the first letter of each of the three words of the most frequently misused cliche in the English (or any other) language. This shamelessly abused chestnut is of course, Beg The Question.

Properly understood, ‘begging the question’ is a logical fallacy (also known as petitio principii, or “assuming the initial point“) wherein the proposition to be proved is assumed or contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the original premise. To give a simple example: She is very beautiful (conclusion) because she is absolutely gorgeous (premise). Begging the question is very similar to the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando) but is not precisely the same; circular reasoning involves both the premise and the conclusion utilizing the same internal logical referent(s), whereas BTQ, in Aristotle’s words ,”is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself…either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical.”

Detection of BTQ can be tricky; as Welton notes in his A Manual of Logic, “Such fallacies may not be immediately obvious in English because the English language has so many synonyms; one way to beg the question is to make a statement first in concrete terms, then in abstract ones, or vice-versa“. Here’s another example: “Jack Daniels makes me drunk because it has an inebriating quality.”

OK – that’s how BTQ is properly used … here is how it most assuredly should not be used. It should not be used to replace the phrase “raise the question.” Ever. Period. If you want to say something like “His sneaky demeanor raises the question of what he is up to”, then say that. His sneaky manner does not “beg the question” of what his motives are. While her noticeably expanding waistline may well cause us to wonder if motherhood is in her near future, her protruding paunch never, never “begs the question” of her potentially enceinte state.

Here are several examples of the misuse of BTQ from sources that should know better, found in a hasty and utterly unscientific Yahoo search of about ten minutes duration:

“Which begs the question, was the previously reported “amount of nearly $1 million” completely true? “

“It cannot be comforting for Republicans to look out at 100,000 plus people on the Washington mall, who should all be part of their natural constituency, booing any mention of their last presidential candidate and cheering speeches that proclaim their movement is not “Republican”. This begs the question: “Why isn’t it?”"

“As if the Times needed any more blows to its allegedly still-existing journalistic integrity, this one can’t help but beg the question of who at the White House put pressure on the Times to do what it did.”

“Boldly going where no T-Shirt has gone before, this shirt begs the question, Tribbles…the other white Meat?”

“Referendum begs the question of our future in EU”   (Headline!)

“This begs the question of why Terry would attack Pelosi over a measure supported by 60% of his fellow Republicans.”

“Now this is irony that begs the question, what was Mr. Peacemaker President thinking?”

The single instance I came across in which the BTQ usage was correct was from an atheist organization’s website – I disagree of course with the writer’s final position, but he/she clearly understands what the fallacy of begging the questions means … and how to use/interpret it.

“Most dictionaries use language that presupposes the existence of “God” as fact, and describes an atheist as one who denies (the presupposed fact) of God’s existence. This definition Begs the Question and is biased in favor of the theistic position.”

All of which raises the question – how about we all be a little more careful in the future with our BTQ’s?

Be well.

To see the cherry hung with snow

Blech … sitting here this morning gazing balefully out through the front windows of the bookstore … godzillions of little freezing flinty white things swirling in the chilled wind … dunno about you folks but I did not sign on for winter that starts in early October. The “headline” above for this post is unapologetically swiped from A.E. Housman’s ‘A Shropshire Lad’  in which he metaphorically links the white bloom of spring cherry blossoms to unseasonal snows. You can read the whole thing here - it is quite lovely. And speaking of poetry …

On a much happier note, last night I attended a bash at the Great Platte River Road Archway sponsored by the Nebraska Writers Guild. I am not a member of that august organization (I rarely “join” anything – put it down to constitutional contrariness), but I know many folks who are members, and I have great respect for the work that they do – promoting and encouraging the literary arts throughout the state.

This particular soiree was the “kickoff” session for the annual NWG Fall Conference held on the campus of UNK, and featured readings by several Nebraska scriveners, from rank amateurs to smooth, widely published pros. My reason for attending (aside from the afore-mentioned generalized admiration for the group) was to hear the featured speaker/reader – none other than Kearney’s own Dr. Don Welch, UNK professor (semi-retired), gentleman’s gentleman, and poet extraordinaire. Dr. Welch has published more volumes of wondrous verse than the entire Literature departments of many universities … out here where the “cranes dance on corn bones” (his marvelous phrase), he is an icon. He is, quite simply, Nebraska’s permanent poet laureate. Yeah, yeah … I know all about Koozer … and Kloefkorn … and even Neihardt, but if your ventricles pump Husker red, Welch is Da Man.

I was able to score a signed copy of his latest book entitled “When Memory Gives Dust A Face“, a sparkling collection of biography-cum-memoir poems that will take your breath away. I’m sure he won’t mind if I share the title work with you – enjoy:

When Memory Gives Dust A Face

When dust like flour sifted the road,
and weeds were skeletal corsages;
when horses broke their hooves unshod
with careless grass their only forage,

she sang high songs. And we listened
as we walked to town. No voice
was more enriched by pain. Her tongue
cleaved to love to make it new.

In loss the dust assumed her songs,
And clods assumed they had been sung to.

- Don Welch -

Have a great wintry(!) weekend, and …

Be well.

Down yet another rabbit hole …

A few years ago I wrote a piece of stupefyingly ordinary poetry (yes, Mel … we’re all poets, aren’t we?) that contained the following snippet:

Make me an instrument – if not of peace,

then at least one that can accurately measure

how far we have fallen.

As I awoke to the yin and yang of this morning’s headlines (the Huskers come back against Mizzou – yeehaw! … and Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – say what?!), that little pseudo-literary driblet penned years ago surfaced in my awareness. It was originally written as part of an examination of what I sometimes see as the inexplicable nihilism at work in the affairs of we hairless, bipedal, upright-walking primates. The poem, to no one’s surprise, then or now, fails spectacularly, but that little clause contains a nugget of meaning that I believe bears on the annual Nobel annointing.

How degraded has the human condition become when the Peace Prize, surely  an emblem of world-wide esteem and approbation, and formerly reserved for humanitarian titans like Ralph Bunche, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Andrei Sakharov and Mother Teresa, is conferred gleefully upon such moral reprobates as Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and now, God help us, Barack Hussein Obama?

I am not often left speechless – but you can this morning color me one stunned bunny. This latest iteration in what can only be described as a continuing series of mindless travesties on the part of the Nobel Selection Committee has nearly rendered me mute. I suppose, if nothing else, it provides incontrovertible evidence of how harmful a lifelong diet of lutefisk can be to brain function.

And also a pretty good indication of just “… how far we have fallen”.

Be well.

Makes ya proud, don’t it?

I am normally of sanguine temperament, though Mrs. Wiggily might be disposed to characterize my affability as ‘unaware’ (less charitable commentators might opt for ’spacey’). Such lexical quibbling aside, it becomes daily more obvious to this bemused and admittedly senescent observer that our beloved republic is being herded inexorably into political geography from which there is no return. Our rabidly neo-marxist leaders seem to find new and imaginative ways to squelch individual rights and initiative with each rising of the sun. An attitude of reverence for liberty and personal responsibility is condescendingly viewed as quaint, even provincial, and that shrinking portion of the citizenry that is still productive  is valued solely as a wellspring of tax revenue.

Political bureacratization of vast sections of American life is the primary strategy of their pernicious program, and even industries and professions historically immune (or at least averse) to governmental interference/control are affected. Entire manufacturing sectors have been nationalized; our financial community is essentially now a lesser bureau of the Fed, and doctors and hospital administrators are finding  it more profitable to contend for government dollars than to compete for market share.

Equally disturbing is the unwillingness of the cult of Obamanicity to confront the outlaws of the world. Our diplomatic corps consistently demonstrates a disturbing eagerness to bend over and spread ‘em for every unshaven, epaulet-wearing greaseball tyrant on the planet. US foreign aid used to imply assisting struggling democracies (à la the Marshall Plan), but now is widely understood (and universally condoned) as bribery and extortion on a monumental scale.

My afore-mentioned natural optimism notwithstanding, I am forced then to report that there ain’t any good news, folks, especially with regard to the three crises du jour, namely, health care reform, Afghanistan, and Iran. While I usually refrain from outright political prognostication of any kind (it is not just unseemly … it also smacks of a gratuitous chutzpah), allow me the following conjectures, based on objective review of the available data:

1) There will be a health care “reform” bill passed this year, along strict party lines, and said bill will include – in fact, its main feature will be – some well-disguised version of the so-called “public option” – simply because there is no other reason under this or any other sun to “reform” health care. The foul deed will be accomplished within the following broad tactical outlines. Dirty Harry will “meld” the two Senate bills, ostentatiously deleting any provision for the public option; since both bills have been passed out of committee, he is allowed by Senate rules to do this – no vote or other permission is required. This amalgam bill will then be approved by the Senate (with no public option it will waltz through), then reconciled with the already passed House version (thereby re-constituting the public option). Feel the plot thickening?

All of this will be accompanied by much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, the point of which will be to render the entire process as confusing and opaque as possible. Once a final bill is cobbled together, look for all kinds of diversion/misdirection on the part of Congressional  leadership as well as the Executive, the purpose of which is to get us all thinking about other “crucial” matters. A mountain of largesse will be spread around among key lawmakers (remember, there are several bazillion dollars of stimulus money still lying out there, just waiting to influence some enterprising Congressional porkulator.

Then, just when our attention is at low ebb, the HC reform package will be attached (as an amendment) to some other, ideally very popular, piece of legislation and whooshed through before the huddled massites know what hit ‘em. A suitable candidate for the vehicle bill might be H.R. 384, already passed (last January) by the House, and since then inexplicably lounging in the Senate Finance Committee hopper. Suitable because, among other things, H.R. 384 imposes severe penalties on fat cats who might misuse TARP funds and after all, who wouldn’t want to smack those rich bastards around? But to continue, the vote is then taken and – voila! – we are well down the path toward single-payor health insurance. That strange clicking sound you hear is Harry and Nancy tap-dancing on the Capitol steps.

UPDATE:
It has been pointed out to me by a perceptive reader that a more likely transport vehicle to be utilized for Harry’s Horrible Hitch-Hike Hustle would be H.R. 1586 – a bill that imposes a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. Good call – you can read the Heritage Foundation exposé on how it will be done here. When I wrote this post I had not seen HF’s article, but reality compels me to recognize that they probably have  better sources than I (since I have … uhh … none). My version seems simpler, but hey … the HF folks cut a considerably wider swath than a spavined old flatland bunny.

2) President Obama will not only NOT send additional soldiers to Afghanistan as requested by his generals, but he will indeed begin a series of obfuscatory arabesques that will ultimately result in all but a token US force being withdrawn. He is simply under too much pressure, both from his fanatically anti-war base and his own personal testosterone deficiency to do anything else. Besides which, he needs the money (now being foolishly wasted on protecting the country) to further his Marxing of America program. There will be a blizzard of dissembling, finger-pointing and camouflage, but before we get too deeply into the next election cycle the de-Americanization of Afghanistan will be well along, and our once proud country will be staring at yet another humiliating military debacle – which Barack Obama will doubtless view as our just desserts.

3) Finally, we all need to get comfortable with the reality of a psychotic Iranian troll with a bad haircut, beady eyes and a windbreaker soon having access to a nuclear arsenal. Having recently been given a chorus of public one-finger salutes by Ahmadinejad and his Orc-ish cronies Chavez and Qadaffi, the Obamanator repaired abjectly to his sanctum sanctorum, there to reflect upon the manner in which America might have displeased his new BFF, and to seek penance for our collective offenses. Meanwhile, A-Jad spun up a few thousand more centrifuges and began to lay out an advertising campaign for his new endeavor, “Nukes’R'Us”.

Shortly following the Strangeloving of Iran, we will all likely be treated to the 21st century version of world war, initiated by the Israelis’ attempted de-nuclearizing of the Iranians (it will fail, because they will have waited too long, trusting Obama to deliver on what they will have finally realized were spurious assurances of US support). The consequences of this series of events are simply too grim to contemplate.

Just a little ray of sunshine, aren’t I?

Be well.

Ellie & Yoda

Eleanor Roosevelt was a veritable quotation machine, running a close second to the undisputed sultan of epigrammatic excess, G.K. Chesterton. One of the best-known of her aphorisms states “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people“. A commendable precept, but, in my view, incomplete; to be characterized as possessing a ‘great’ mind, and, associatively, great abilities, I hold that a thinker should not just discuss ideas, but select out truly noble ones, then embrace and implement them. Endless discussion, smattered with prolonged consideration (“mulling“), absent meaningful action, is a hallmark of intellectual cowardice; it is vapid dilettantism and will surely vitiate any notion, no matter how grand. Like my sainted Daddy used to say to me … “Don’t talk – do.”

Additionally, it is nearly always impossible, or, at minimum, ineffective, to discuss ideas without including pertinent events and people that may be integral. For example, Overlord (the Allied D-Day operation) would have been just another war game scenario without detailed discussion and inclusion of crucial personnel and locations. LBJ’s impressive civil rights accomplishments in the 1960’s might well have been just another politician’s pipedream without extensive reference to and utilization of hundreds of events and people. Without thoughtful consideration and incorporation of employees (people) and airports (places), Fred Smith’s great idea for a central hub-based overnight delivery service might have been just another term paper written for a Yale economics class (which it initially was – he got a ‘C’) instead of a working business plan for FedEx.

The point is, a narrow interpretation of Ms. Roosevelt’s adage seems detrimental to most, if not all, categories of human endeavor – including establishment of rational public policy. This is perhaps best personified by  President Obama’s pathological dithering over critical aspects of governance. What is to be our posture vis-à-vis the Afghanistan war? Which features of health care reform will he abandon, and which is he willing to go to the mattresses for? Will Guantanamo be closed or not, and if yes, where will several hundred murderous jihadists be permanently housed? Is he willing to brace the Iranian mullahs and their evil monkey Ahmadinejad over nuclear weapons? What will replace our now-gutted defenses in eastern Europe? When coal is outlawed (along with nuclear power), and oil is unavailable, what will fuel our nation? When the Israelis smite the Iranians (which they will inevitably do), will the US support them or fold like a cheap ironing board? There are no answers to any of these questions, because our Narcissist-in-chief wants only to talk endlessly about ideas (some great – others notsomuch), while avoiding the messy complexities of translating them into rational and effective action plans.

Yoda, another relatively well-known 20th century philosopher and cultural icon, nettled by Luke’s indecisiveness in coming to grips with the dreaded Force, famously scolded his young charge, “There is no try … there is only do.” At least Yoda’s protege was willing to try – our hippy-skippy POTUS won’t even commit to that.

Be well.