Against early release, For capital punishment

As a Christian it’s difficult to deal with the question of capital punishment. I don’t believe “Thou shalt not kill” is a commandment that extends to governments who provide fair trials, but that’s not something I’m generally confident enough to shout from the rooftops. Then I see a story like this appalling one from Cleveland:

A convicted rapist was charged with multiple murders on Tuesday after police dug up 10 corpses at his home, which produced a stench of death in the depressed Cleveland neighborhood.

That no innocent should ever be put to death by the state is, to my mind, the most convincing argument against the death penalty. So long as we remain human, there will be tragic cases where people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Neighborhood residents said they avoided Sowell, who was released from prison in 2005 after serving 15 years for raping a pregnant woman.

Anthony Sowell got a second chance, and he used it to rape and murder women. I can think of no punishment too cruel or unusual, but a series of injections guaranteeing he can never rape or murder again seems to be in order here.

Post to Twitter

Progressive Wizardry

Forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Pah-kee-stahn, Iran, North Korea, Venezu… actually, let’s save time and say “forget foreign policy.” I’m not in the mood to pretend Nobel Laureate Obama has much capacity to shock me when it comes to his dealings with other countries. Why feign disappointment when anyone paying attention knows the progressive position on any foreign policy initiative is, “What can America stop doing wrong so you’ll leave us alone?”

The main concern for President Obama – and maybe an equally troubling issue for Americans – is his dedication to Health Care Reform. President Obama is so serious about increasing the government’s role in health care that he doesn’t have time for opposition, and doesn’t really need anyone in Congress (let alone the public!) to read whatever bill Pelosi and Reid can ram through. From a Wall Street Journal opinion piece:

Washington spent the week waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to roll in with its new cost estimates of the Senate health-care bill, and what a carnival. Behold: a new $829 billion entitlement that will subsidize insurance for tens of millions of people and reduce deficits by $81 billion at the same time. In the next tent, see the mermaid and a two-headed cow.

The political and media classes are proving they’ll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a “green light” for ObamaCare. (What isn’t these days?) The irony is that the CBO’s guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is “paid for” with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.

Democrats, remember when you’re deriding conservatives for “opposing change” that, while some of us may be doing no more than that, Americans are going to have to pay for this. You’ll never find a majority of people who trust D.C. to do anything that resembles efficiently managing the health care of 300,000,000 people… which is why the White House and Congress will hide behind the latest CBO numbers and work out the details in the Obama-style ‘transparency’ of closed meetings.

I’m reminded of one of many Mark Steyn quotes I love:

More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

Emphasis mine. We’re responsible for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid holding the power they have today, and before too long we’re going to find out what that costs.

Post to Twitter

The Obama Doctrine

President Bush wasn’t always clear about why he made the decisions he made. President Obama is better than President Bush, because he can give a 50 minute speech about any old topic but he can also summarize all the important issues into simple precepts.

Foreign policy: If they hate us, kiss their asses harder.

Domestic policy: Spend. Spend. Spend. Has anyone thought about, maybe, spending?

Freedom: No. Let the Government take care of that. Freedom is for racists.

  • Are you rich? You owe everyone who isn’t. President Obama will decide how much income is enough, and tax the rest of it so hard.
  • Are you a corporation? You’d better be unionized, by golly. Corporations are evil, but unions are the coolest.
  • Do you have health insurance? You’re going to. Do you like your private insurance? Pfft.

Post to Twitter

All you need know about Thomas Friedman

Bestselling author Thomas Friedman maintains the appearance of a respected thinker, or at least what passes for a respected thinker on the New York Times opinion pages. It’s difficult to see how he manages, given that he’s utterly insane.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But…

Whoa, Tom: whoa. This paragraph is not off to a good start.

…when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.

China: Reasonably Enlightened Communists. Friedman goes on to wheeze and whine about Republicans hating the earth and ruining President Obama’s glorious, centrist future. This quote would be the standout, if it were in some story that didn’t praise communist China’s autocratic rule:

With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist.

Mr. Obama is not a socialist! He just wants fossil fuel usage, health insurance, mortgage lending, and every other thing on earth to be managed by a centralized bureaucracy. See? Centralized. Centrist.

Democracy is oh so bothersome when you’re smarter than everyone else, like Thomas Friedman is. I wonder if other environmentalists are embarrassed when his op-eds read like the ambling drivel of a hemp enthusiast in a 100-level PoliSci class. Or is it the standard position of tree-hugging types that all other freedoms are optional, so long as carbon usage [Ed. - output, it's carbon output that will kill us all] is restricted?

Post to Twitter

More on Health Care

Alternately, “Moron Health Care.”

“These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having,” Reid said. “They are doing this because they don’t have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It’s really simple: they’re taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers … and insurance rackets.”

Harry Reid wishes these darn citizens would shut up and be governed, already. Not to be a good-for-nothing Internet rumor-monger, but aren’t the insurance rackets key players in every health care bill under consideration? It’s also cute that Harry Reid’s definition of debate includes Democrat Senators but excludes peons protesting the Democrats’ lame hippie legislation.

I read a really interesting story today in the Christian Science Monitor. It’s an opinion piece by Zach Krajacic, titled “Why can’t health insurance be more like auto insurance?

Insurance is intended to be a pooling of people’s money to pay for large, unexpected expenses – not for every expense that is incurred. In other words, it is supposed to be a safety net for catastrophic events.

Yet many Americans go to the doctor for all kinds of trivial ailments, because their insurance pays for it. True, many people want this type of coverage, but that is because they do not understand the long-term cost implications. If Americans want to keep the current healthcare system sustainable (and it appears they do), then they need to take on more financial responsibility for their healthcare. People who choose to visit the doctor for the sniffles should pay for it themselves rather than making everyone else pay for it. If they did, the use of services – and thus the cost of healthcare – would go down.

This is dead simple, to the point that I read the piece and felt like an idiot for not thinking of it before. Surely others have thought and written about what Krajacic does here. I have excellent health insurance, and I’m grateful, but I’ve probably been to the doctor (dentists included) half a dozen times in the last five years. Included in my plan? Accupuncture – check. Infertility treatment – check. Weight management programs; weight loss surgery; smoking cessation therapy – check, check, check.

I hope that, combined with polling through the Senate’s vacation, those ignorant Republican operatives looking Harry Reid’s gift horse in the mouth are able to get the point across. President Obama is still in favor of hope, right? I hope health care reform turns into actual reform, as opposed to taking a broken system and making it bigger.

Post to Twitter

Steyn on Healthcare

Mark Steyn, in the Orange County Register:

Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

I generally enjoy his jokes and always love his writing style, but quotes like this are why I’m such a big fan of Steyn. Personal responsibility is the beauty of American democracy, not a broken feature that should be brought in line with the smothering socialism of other Western states. If a free citizenry looks to you like the result of a lazy central government, you can move to Europe.

We absolutely need health care reform – to clean up Medicare and Medicaid. Is there some compelling reason why, in a stuttering economy, Congress can’t address what’s broken in the current system before trying to implement something even bigger and more complex? Democrats claim “46 million” uninsured Americans desperately need Washington’s help… but I think Steyn gets much closer to the truth.

Post to Twitter

Thanks, Liberal Democrats!

From the LA Times:

In the House, liberals are furious at their leaders for striking a deal with conservative Democrats that would weaken the proposal to create a government insurance program, a dream long cherished on the left.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I heard the news today that a “compromise” bill was making its way through one of the six-hundred-seventy House subcommittees, and I worried. Is $900 billion a number that Congress would expect us to swallow? Was the originial $1,000,000,000,000+ bill merely intended to shock and make way for a marginally less sickening little brother?

Then I saw this LA Times story. The Democrats have a problem: not all of them are lunatics. Without a lunatic supermajority, there’s a limit to how many trillions of unfunded spending you can ram through Congress unread and unchallenged. The “Blue Dogs,” those arrogant SOBs, think they have a right to strip the shiniest bauble out of Team California’s pretty, pretty bill.

Today, 57 of these liberals sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) warning that they would vote against any bill that contained the terms of the deal.

“We have compromised and we can compromise no more,” an angry Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) said at a raucous news conference outside the Capitol.

Good! Keep demanding the same Berkeley commune crap you’ve been pushing since the 70s, and soon even President Obama won’t be able to spin your tired stoner fantasies as rational federal policy.

Post to Twitter

The Helpless, Uninsured Masses

A coworker sent me a link to an interesting story from KeithHennessey.com, a site I hadn’t visited before. Hennessey was an economic adviser in George W. Bush’s administration, and offers more detailed analysis of the problem – and more recommended solutions – than anyone I’ve stumbled across.

First, a post from way back on April 9, “How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?” takes a close look at the “46 million uninsured” number we hear from President Obama, leading Democrats, and most media outlets. A brief excerpt:

Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

That’s one point from a bulleted list wherein Hennessey lists categories of people included in the 46 million number advocates of expanded health entitlements use to paint a Dickensian picture of uninsured Americans dying in the streets. Six million here, four million there, and it’s obvious that far fewer than 46 million Americans need the ~$1,000,000,000,000 legislation slithering through Congress – unless you consider every good and service a “right” to be doled out on the government’s terms.

And here’s Howard Dean:

But, wait a minute, that’s, that is the farce of the argument, uh, on the conservative side. The farce is consumers can make informed decisions about medical care. You can make some informed decisions, but I practiced for ten years, I never had anybody with substernal chest pain get off my table and say, “Doc, the guy down the street does it $2,000 cheaper, I’ll see you later.”

In a single (bolded) sentence, the rotten core of Progressive thought. There’s an element of truth in Dean’s point – yes, medical decisions can be very complicated and difficult. But the conclusion that citizens cannot make decisions, and thus Government must make them, is telling. Replace “medical care” in the bold sentence with “credit,” “automobiles,” “home buying,” et cetera, and you have the foundation on which all the Democrats’ policies are built.

Post to Twitter

Profiling Questions?

The Associated Press reports on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., in a story titled, “Black scholar’s arrest raises profiling questions“:

Cambridge police say they responded to the well-maintained two-story home after a woman reported seeing “two black males with backpacks on the porch,” with one “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”

By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.

Why, because I’m a black man in America?” Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.

Emphasis mine. I can think of just one question this raises: Why is Henry Louis Gates Jr. such a jackass? Police responded to a phone call, and apparently it’s too much to ask of a Harvard professor that he behave like an adult. In America, where – as Professor Gates may not have realized – we have a black President, jumping to complaints of racial profiling is about as much an issue as racial profiling itself.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is vowing to attend Gates’ arraignment.

More salve on societal scars. Wait, “salve” is the wrong word… salt. That’s what I meant.

“This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen,” Sharpton said. “I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low in police community affairs.”

“The Reverend” is a blowhard who does more harm than good. Each time I see his Malcolm X impression, I’m grateful to have grown up in a world where skin color is only a big deal to a few of my racist white peers — and a few of my racist black ones.

Post to Twitter

Adventures in Health Care

Today’s AP story on health insurance has one of the best opening sentences I’ve read in a looong time:

House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with Medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.

When I say “best,” I mean “worst,” because words can mean anything you want them to mean. This is a fact I learned from the Associated Press, just now!

House Democrats want to “make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans.” No, not a ‘responsibility’ like it is now, with you responsible for determining your health insurance needs. That type of responsibility is utter crap. House Democrats mean the kind of responsibility where the federal government decides what you need and who’s going to pay for it, with fees and taxes for the convenience — and penalties for disobedience.

And before even coughing up a period, the AP story mostly contradicts itself, saying that “Medical providers, employers and the wealthiest” will cover the majority of the costs. Of course they will! Can’t expect poor people to pay for their own… anything. Here we get closer to the point: some Americans have responsibilities, while other Americans simply are responsibilities.

Not to mention that what Democrats are suggesting is “a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan.” Well, by all means, if it’s far-reaching, giddy-up! After all, what’s another $1.5 trillion among friends?

Standing before a banner that read “Quality Affordable Care for the Middle Class,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moment “historic and transformative.” The bill would provide “stability and peace of mind” by braking costs and guaranteeing coverage, she said.

This plan, like the AP’s coverage of it, is amazing. “Affordable care” will result in a doubling of our exploding deficits. Heaping more taxes on the economy’s producers to insure the poor equals “responsibility.”A bill based on the horrendous failure of Medicare will yield “stability.”

…backers of a public plan – including Obama – say it would provide healthy competition for the insurance industry.

Ah, nearly forgot: “healthy competition” is what you get when you take an industry and add a competitor whose costs are determined arbitrarily, enforced by the federal government, and covered by hundreds of billions in Treasury debt.

“We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn’t happen in our lifetime,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the main sponsors.

Really… so, in whose lifetime did many people feel Congress would accomplish the permanent ruination of republican government in the United States?

[Update: Fixed a typo - made it clear to the last sentence! Then misspelled a stupid word.]

Post to Twitter