Yes, provocative title, since the article says that DNA evidence can be faked!
pm
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Man carries gun into restaurant - thankfully, no one injured.
Had lunch (while armed) at a local eatery today .......
My firearms still haven't killed anyone.
pm
My firearms still haven't killed anyone.
pm
Is this a good enough reason?
I'm wondering ....
I live in a rural area - nice, quiet, occasional gunfire but out here, that's pretty normal. I barely notice it anymore.
Lately, my wife has kept me abreast of a rash of thefts, break-ins and such, that are really out of the ordinary for this area. We've seen a couple of strange dogs around - they didn't cause any trouble, but my wife was bitten while jogging.
Now news of an older couple killed, best the authorities can tell, by a pack of dogs.
And the wife can't understand why I carry all the time?
pm
I live in a rural area - nice, quiet, occasional gunfire but out here, that's pretty normal. I barely notice it anymore.
Lately, my wife has kept me abreast of a rash of thefts, break-ins and such, that are really out of the ordinary for this area. We've seen a couple of strange dogs around - they didn't cause any trouble, but my wife was bitten while jogging.
Now news of an older couple killed, best the authorities can tell, by a pack of dogs.
And the wife can't understand why I carry all the time?
pm
Words from another free man.
Chris B in his own words, from Phoenix earlier this week ....
Sebastian thinks that this is a bad idea, and thinks to clarify here, and here, and here. Now, I've been reading Snowflakes in Hell for a few months now, and I've heard Sebastian on the Vicious Circle, and I'm sure he's a stand-up guy - I just happen to disagree with him. My wife disagrees with me, and because of the Affliction, it's hard for me to explain why this doesn't bother me, 'cause it don't!
But I'll work on an explanation ....
pm
Sebastian thinks that this is a bad idea, and thinks to clarify here, and here, and here. Now, I've been reading Snowflakes in Hell for a few months now, and I've heard Sebastian on the Vicious Circle, and I'm sure he's a stand-up guy - I just happen to disagree with him. My wife disagrees with me, and because of the Affliction, it's hard for me to explain why this doesn't bother me, 'cause it don't!
But I'll work on an explanation ....
pm
Words from a free man.
William Kostric, the original cause of much panty-wetting, was interviewed by The Faster Times. A must read .....
Note that the interviewer is obviously opposed to Mr Kostric's viewpoint, but is courteous ........ see that, Ms Couric?!
pm
Note that the interviewer is obviously opposed to Mr Kostric's viewpoint, but is courteous ........ see that, Ms Couric?!
pm
Monday, August 17, 2009
Guns, guns, everywhere!
Update: Arizona Shooting has more information about the demonstrators carrying - all anti-Obama types. But they did the right thing by alerting law enforcement prior to going.
Another sighting of a firearm at a presidential rally today, but this time it was an Evil Black Rifle. Take a look ....... it is CNN, and Rick Sanchez at that, but he doesn't go too far off the reservation.
I'm going to part company with what seems to be a majority of my gunnie brethren, and ask 'What's the big deal? You know, journalists may not be firearms knowlegable, but then again, journalists don't represent much of the population.
And some gun bloggers think that while you do have the right to carry, maybe you shouldn't, 'cuz you might scare the white people. I think you should ... the more gun owners that are seen carrying, even though the general public might think it's stooopid, the better off we are.
And in this clip, the best I can tell is that both sides of the debate were armed, and no one got shot.
An armed society is a polite society .... indeed!
pm
Another sighting of a firearm at a presidential rally today, but this time it was an Evil Black Rifle. Take a look ....... it is CNN, and Rick Sanchez at that, but he doesn't go too far off the reservation.
I'm going to part company with what seems to be a majority of my gunnie brethren, and ask 'What's the big deal? You know, journalists may not be firearms knowlegable, but then again, journalists don't represent much of the population.
And some gun bloggers think that while you do have the right to carry, maybe you shouldn't, 'cuz you might scare the white people. I think you should ... the more gun owners that are seen carrying, even though the general public might think it's stooopid, the better off we are.
And in this clip, the best I can tell is that both sides of the debate were armed, and no one got shot.
An armed society is a polite society .... indeed!
pm
Nobody wants to shoot .....
The New York shopkeeper who defended himself and a couple of employees notes how he didn't want to shoot anyone.
No one who carries does ...... we carry not to find trouble, we carry in case we run into trouble.
Happily, Mr Augusto kept shooting until the danger was gone.
pm
No one who carries does ...... we carry not to find trouble, we carry in case we run into trouble.
Happily, Mr Augusto kept shooting until the danger was gone.
pm
My head hurts ......
The recent talk about 'death panels' in relation to health care reform has brought to mind something in the distant past (distant in 'modern' terms) - the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Alert Americans will remember the BRAC - a way to cash-in the 'peace dividend'. So how does that relate to the 'death panels'?
Barack Obama spoke to David Leonhardt of the New York Times (back in April of this year) about a great many things, one of which was health care reform. In the interview, the president had this to say (referring his elderly grandmother):
"So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
When asked what to do about the problem, he replied:
"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."
Imagine, if you will, the country making medical decisions through a political process, rather than consulting with doctors. Does that sound good? Doesn't to me, either. But if I did have to call my representative, I would think he'd be for my enhanced medical care, because if he denied it, I might not be inclined to vote for him next election (if I made it that long).
Not a good solution.
Enter the Death Panel. But lets not call it that ..... too mean, too vicious. Lets call it ..... I don't know ... how about ...... Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. That's much nicer. And government-sounding. But we all know it's the government word for death panel. And it's here that all the 'tough' decisions get made regarding health care.
This is where BRAC comes in. Remember what BRAC was for? BRAC was the mechanism by which the military was going to return the peace dividend to the country by closing now-unneeded bases. BRAC was also the mechanism to defeat politicians' desire to close the other guy's bases, not the bases in my district (because, well, hell .... he might lose votes!). BRAC presented a slate of bases for closure, and if approved by a senate subcommittee, would go to the full senate for an up-or-down vote ..... no cherry picking your pet military base.
So money was saved .... the Peace Dividend. Bases closed ...... money saved. A commission ..... bases closed .... money saved. Commission ...... money saved.
How is the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research going to save money? By limiting, ultimately, the amount of health care that is paid for by the government. Oh, it won't be pulling the plug on grandma at first. All it will do is "give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system." But slowly, surely, the government will start to nudge physicians not to do that procedure, or don't prescribe that drug, because they're not comparatively effective, or they don't add enough productive life-years, or make a complete life more likely. Because they don't improve the performance of the health care system.
But President Obama said that the commission guidance wouldn't be "determinative"! Then what good are its' recommendations, if they're not going to encourage doctors to follow them (and trust me, the federal government has all sorts of ways to encourage folks)? Well, that's the $1 trillion question, isn't it?!
The government will ration health care more and more (they do it now, just like the insurance companies do) in order to cover more Americans (and illegals, too?). And the more Americans that the government covers, the more rationing that will occur (and covering more Americans is the point of the public option plans).
A reform of the health care payment system cannot be accomplished in a few weeks ...... I imagine it could take the better part of a presidents' term, to be done right.
But it won't be done right.
It never is ........
pm
Barack Obama spoke to David Leonhardt of the New York Times (back in April of this year) about a great many things, one of which was health care reform. In the interview, the president had this to say (referring his elderly grandmother):
"So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
When asked what to do about the problem, he replied:
"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."
Imagine, if you will, the country making medical decisions through a political process, rather than consulting with doctors. Does that sound good? Doesn't to me, either. But if I did have to call my representative, I would think he'd be for my enhanced medical care, because if he denied it, I might not be inclined to vote for him next election (if I made it that long).
Not a good solution.
Enter the Death Panel. But lets not call it that ..... too mean, too vicious. Lets call it ..... I don't know ... how about ...... Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. That's much nicer. And government-sounding. But we all know it's the government word for death panel. And it's here that all the 'tough' decisions get made regarding health care.
This is where BRAC comes in. Remember what BRAC was for? BRAC was the mechanism by which the military was going to return the peace dividend to the country by closing now-unneeded bases. BRAC was also the mechanism to defeat politicians' desire to close the other guy's bases, not the bases in my district (because, well, hell .... he might lose votes!). BRAC presented a slate of bases for closure, and if approved by a senate subcommittee, would go to the full senate for an up-or-down vote ..... no cherry picking your pet military base.
So money was saved .... the Peace Dividend. Bases closed ...... money saved. A commission ..... bases closed .... money saved. Commission ...... money saved.
How is the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research going to save money? By limiting, ultimately, the amount of health care that is paid for by the government. Oh, it won't be pulling the plug on grandma at first. All it will do is "give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system." But slowly, surely, the government will start to nudge physicians not to do that procedure, or don't prescribe that drug, because they're not comparatively effective, or they don't add enough productive life-years, or make a complete life more likely. Because they don't improve the performance of the health care system.
But President Obama said that the commission guidance wouldn't be "determinative"! Then what good are its' recommendations, if they're not going to encourage doctors to follow them (and trust me, the federal government has all sorts of ways to encourage folks)? Well, that's the $1 trillion question, isn't it?!
The government will ration health care more and more (they do it now, just like the insurance companies do) in order to cover more Americans (and illegals, too?). And the more Americans that the government covers, the more rationing that will occur (and covering more Americans is the point of the public option plans).
A reform of the health care payment system cannot be accomplished in a few weeks ...... I imagine it could take the better part of a presidents' term, to be done right.
But it won't be done right.
It never is ........
pm
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Hey Mr Conservative, try a slice of STFU .....
They say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ......
Darleen at Protein Wisdom has more, much more.
pm
Darleen at Protein Wisdom has more, much more.
pm
Death panels, redux.
So you think that death panels can't be set up here?
I think you're wrong, but let's see what smarter and more well-informed individuals have to say.
Darleen over at Protein Wisdom, deconstructs Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's assertion that he had no intention that 'death panels' were needed in the current heath care reform bill.
But Joseph Ashby, writing for The American Thinker, maintains that the panels have already been set up and funded.
I sure am glad that I've got the MSM around to tell me this ....... not!
pm
I think you're wrong, but let's see what smarter and more well-informed individuals have to say.
Darleen over at Protein Wisdom, deconstructs Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's assertion that he had no intention that 'death panels' were needed in the current heath care reform bill.
But Joseph Ashby, writing for The American Thinker, maintains that the panels have already been set up and funded.
I sure am glad that I've got the MSM around to tell me this ....... not!
pm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)