How Much Does The Government Know About You?

Atty. general: Ill. should release FOID card list

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. —
The Illinois attorney general says state police must release the name of everyone in the state who is authorized to own a gun.

Illinois state police determine who gets a Firearm Owners Identification card, which allows people to own guns. The police have always kept the list private.

But Attorney General Lisa Madigan's public access counselor released a letter Monday night saying the information should be public.

The Associated Press had requested the list of FOID cardholders but state police said that would violate the privacy of gun owners. The attorney general's office ruled that argument invalid.

State police officials have not said whether they will comply with the ruling.

There are Republican-sponsored bills in the Illinois House and Senate that would prohibit disclosure of the information.

Milton Friedman on Progressive Taxes

A further factor that has reduced the impact of the graduated tax structure on inequality of income and wealth is that these taxes are much less taxes on being wealthy than on becoming wealthy. While they limit the use of the income from existing wealth, they impede even more strikingly -- so far as they are effective -- the accumulation of wealth. The taxation of the income from the wealth does nothing to reduce the wealth itself, it simply reduces the level of consumption and additions to wealth that the owners can support. The tax measures give an incentive to avoid risk and to embody existing wealth in relatively stable forms, which reduces the likelihood that existing accumulations of wealth will be dissipated. On the other side, the major route to new accumulations is through large current incomes of which a large fraction is saved and invested in risky activities, some of which will yield high returns. If die income tax were effective, it would close this route. In consequence, its effect would be to protect existing holders of wealth from the competition of newcomers. In practice, this effect is largely dissipated by the avoidance devices already referred to.

Capitalism and Freedom

Economic Freedom Is Tied To Political Freedom

"The question becomes, are you going to have everyone play by the same rules, or are you going to try to rectify the shortcomings, errors and failures of the entire cosmos? Because those things are wholly incompatible. If you're going to have people play by the same rules, that can be enforced with a minimum amount of interference with people's freedom. But if you're going to try to make the entire cosmos right and just, somebody has got to have an awful lot of power to impose what they think is right on an awful lot of other people. What we've seen, particularly in the 20th century, is that putting that much power in anyone's hands is enormously dangerous."

Thomas Sowell via Glenn Beck; Broke

Ah The Unions!

In 1943, a New York Supreme Court judge held:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

National Affairs: The Trouble With Public Sector Unions

Rockford's Sock Monkey Makes Time's Top 100 Toys!

The Nelson Knitting Co. of Rockford, Ill., may not have invented the sock monkey, but it standardized its manufacturing process somewhat. In 1932, the company added a line of socks whose red heels assured their customers that they were indeed purchasing original "Rockfords." When worn out, the socks were then deployed as playthings by American mothers who made stuffed monkeys out of them, using the red heel as a mouth. Hearing about these enterprising homemakers and seeing great promotional opportunity, the Nelson Knitting Co. began including a sock-monkey pattern with every pair of socks.

Time Magazine All Time 100 Top Toys

The International Human Right -- Firearms!

A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."

Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.

Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

Fox News - Opinion -- The International Right

Why Small Government? Bureaucracies fail and damage many when they do!

Alexander Natta, former General Secretary of the Italian Communist party:

At the same time we, the communists, having either overestimated or underestimated the functions of the “welfare state,” kept defending situations which, as it became clear only now, we should not have defended. As a result, a bureaucratic apparatus, which serves itself, has swelled.
...
Any bureaucratization encourages the apparatus to protect its own interests and to forget about the citizens’

That is the the best explanation of government and from an unlikely source.

Source: Margaret Thatcher: a legacy of freedom via Glen Beck Broke

On the concept of A Living Constitution

“a formula for an end run around popular government” and is “genuinely corrosive
of the fundamental values of our democratic society”.
William H Rehnquist

Jefferson on Redistribution of Wealth

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

America's weakness affects its friends, but aren't we all getting along now? Nay, not so much.

Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara.

America's general weakness clearly affects its friends.

Haaretz

Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt

Best SOTU Response

Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."

And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now -- at this very minute -- is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.

Ann Coulter

From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?

Charles Krauthammer

China Keeping the Lights On

Of course President Obama is being nice to China. After all, now that the government has gotten involved in choosing your light bulbs for you we don't make any light bulbs here anymore. If we want to keep the lights on we need China to keep sending them to us.

God forbid we ever end up in a serious war with China it will be lights out literally.
DKK

This Is Not Your Father's Census -- The United States Census in the 21st Century

Long gone are the days of completing the US census for the sake of civic duty or to ensure you are represented in Congress.

This is the Census of the 21st century (first minute is all you need):

It happens once every ten years.

It seeks to discover who we are and what we need.


It determines how we distribute more then $400 Billion dollars for things like schools, public works, emergency services, and senior centers.

It's the United States 2010  Census!

Or this one:

When you take, say, ten minutes to answer 10 questions you help our community get what it needs for, oh, the next ten years.

We can't move forward till you mail it back, 2010 Census.

DKK

Updated and bumpted (March 15, 2010):

And then there is the letter this week.  Here is the text, make sure you get your money!

Dear Resident:
About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

Not A Right, A Responsibility and Responsibility = Control

Health coverage is not a right, it is a responsibility.

As such the debate should be over who is responsible for your health coverage -- your employer, the government, or you.

Remember, responsibility for an issue is equal to control of that issue.
DKK

(Even today as the government assumes more control over health coverage the inevitable laws banning availability or taxing the consumables that may affect your health are creeping into the control over your body. Is there a right to control our own body as the left has always assured us?

Perhaps not, that is what we will decide as the health coverage debate begins again).

Didn't Believe Me Update, June 10, 2009:

Hot Air is reporting on a Politico story today:

Don’t be fooled by the presidential burger runs. Obama and Congress are moving across several fronts to give government a central role in making America healthier — raising expectations among public health experts of a new era of activism unlike any before.

Any health care reform plan that Obama signs is almost certain to call for nutrition counseling, obesity screenings and wellness programs at workplaces and community centers. He wants more time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas.

The president is filling top posts at Health and Human Services with officials who, in their previous jobs, outlawed trans fats, banned public smoking or required restaurants to provide a calorie count with that slice of banana cream pie.

Even Congress is getting into the act, giving serious consideration to taxing sugary drinks and alcohol to help pay for the overhaul.

DKK

Updated and bumped:

On Red Eye early this AM (March 4, 2010) TV's Andy Levy pointed out that anything that requires you to do something like purchase insurance or requires another to provide you with a service cannot, by definition, be a right. 

From Master Strategist to Master Batter Of Blame

In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Barack Obama patted himself on the back for having "refocused the fight - bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks".
He then told people to remember that "our adversaries are those who would attack our country, not our fellow Americans", before decrying "fear and cynicism" and "partisanship and division" - the code phrases for horrid Republicans used during his 2008 election campaign.

Complacency, faux moralising and partisan shots at Republicans. It was a neat summary of where Obama is going wrong after the Christmas Day debacle when the Nigerian knicker bomber managed to waltz onto a Detroit-bound flight.

For a man who campaigned denouncing the politicisation of national security under President George W Bush, it is worth noting how intensely political Obama's treatment of what might henceforth be known as Underpantsgate has been.

His White House recognised its political vulnerability more readily than it comprehended the level of danger faced by Americans.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father had courageously contacted the American Embassy in Abuja in November and met the CIA station chief to tell him that his son was involved with fundamentalist elements in Yemen. American intelligence had also intercepted discussions in Yemen about a possible attack by "the Nigerian".

The Obama administration knew most, if not all, of this by last Sunday, 48 hours after the attack was thwarted. But the priority in Obamaland was to play things down and take pot shots at the Bush administration.

Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security chief – who prefers the term "man-caused disasters" to "terrorism" - blithely stated that there was "no indication that it is part of anything larger". She then insisted that the "system is working".

Although Napolitano has taken a lot of flak for these comic utterances, she was not "misspeaking" but trotting out the agreed talking points of the day.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's chief mouthpiece, also stated that "in many ways this system has worked" and would say nothing about a possible wider plot.

In Hawaii, where Obama was holidaying, Gibbs's deputy Bill Burton told the press that "we are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us" and that Obama was reviewing "procedures that have been in place the last several years" (i.e. Bush instituted them). He added, without apparent irony, that "the President refuses to play politics with these issues".

Meanwhile, the White House was working overtime to build a case against Bush. A source in the White House counsel's office told The American Spectator of memos frantically seeking information that would "show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could".

Republicans smell blood. There is a pattern in the Obama administration of dismissing Islamist terrorist attacks as regrettable random acts. In his radio address after Major Nidal Hassan's slaughtered 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama made no mention of terrorism or militant Islam, instead blandly promising that the "ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy" would "look at the motives of the alleged gunman".

Hassan was a committed Islamist who had corresponded with the fanatical Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In June, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert being watched by the FBI and who had previously travelled to Yemen, murdered a US Army recruit in Arkansas. That rated only a tepid statement by Obama about a "senseless act of violence".

But the violence wasn't senseless, it had a calculated objective - just as Abdulmutallab was not, as Obama described him, an "isolated extremist". No wonder many Americans want to grab Obama by the lapels and scream: "It's the Jihad, stupid." Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, clearly struck a nerve when he charged last week that Obama was "trying to pretend we are not at war".

The White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer eagerly descended into the political fray, responding to Cheney with the obligatory jibe about Iraq and also a litany of examples of Obama's "public statements that explicitly state we are at war".

It's a sure sign that you're losing the argument when you have to research quotes from your boss's speeches to prove that he gets it that America is at war. The problem for Obama is that people are now judging him by his actions as well as his words.

The incompetence of the US intelligence bureaucracy is not the only thing that makes Underpantsgate so damaging for Obama. More serious is his failure to understand or acknowledge the nature of the enemy - and to view war as mere politics.

Barack Obama is vulnerable on terror -- and he knows it -- Telegraph UK


We've gone from an administration of master strategists the press labeled as a bunch of bunglers to a bunch of bunglers the press labels as master strategists.

Iraq was no more a distraction from the War on Terror then the invasion of Sicily and Italy was in the War on Fascism.  It managed to eliminate thousands of al Qaeda from the battlefield in the same manner Churchill called Italy the soft underbelly of Europe.  (See reports early this year showing numbers of al Qaeda killed or captured in Iraq, al Qaeda appears near destroyed, zero combat deaths in 12/09 in Iraq, etc.)

As long as the left fails to see (for political reasons) that these aren't separate wars but separate battles in one war then we will never make headway again (as one US commentator said in late 2001, "we will just have to get used to terror attacks as a way of life like the rest of the world.")

We went from al Qaeda being near functional destruction, based on reports early 09, to resurgent and ready to attack by Christmas.

In 1989 after 8 years of Reagan the Berlin Wall fell because smart men kept up the pressure he had ramped up.  In 2009 the smart men were sent home in favor of the polished -- to all our loss.

Cleverest Innovation of 2009

New accounting standard BHO/DC-02009.01.

Using this standard a good friend of mine was able to create or save $30,000 by spending every penny he earned in unemployment as well as some of his child's college fund in 2009.  He is thrilled with the results and feels he will be able to convince the bank not to foreclose on his home once he shows them his accurate online tracking of the funds.

Personally I was able to show that I lost or didn't gain 20 pounds!
DKK

Update:

This is the same system, including the web reporting that we are using to determine how many jobs were CREATED or SAVED by the stimulus. If it works for Washington....

Read the Speech, Mr. President, Don't Just Quote From It!

During his December 1, 2009 speech to West Point President Obama quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address of January 17, 1961,

I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.

With all due respect, Mr. President, it is frankly ironic that you would choose this speech.  If you did read and understand this speech you would understand that it is a frank warning against everything you have done and proposed to date. (I have previously written about the Eisenhower speech while discussing the scientific-technological elite and global warming).

A few examples:



Take over of the nations health care:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

Cap and Trade/Climategate:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. 

Bailouts/Takeovers/Nationalization :

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future.

Stimulus/Economic/Resources :

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Foreign Policy/Honduras:

America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

War on Terror/Long Term Conflict:

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

It really is a fascinating prescient speech, take a couple minutes and read the entire thing.

DKK 

 

'An Army Of Davids' or Just A Different Gated Community?

The blogosphere has no doubt improved information gathering and dissemination, including many stories not covered by the traditional media -- so much so that popular bloggers have taken to calling it an, "Army of Davids," based on popular blogger Glen Reynolds of Instapundit's book of the same name.

Is that still true?

As a disabled blogger who doesn't have the stamina to blog daily (though I have repeatedly tried) or even the ability to consistently formulate proper sentences (and sometimes even difficulty in spelling and word finding, due to the cognitive part of my illness) coming up with an idea and putting it in pixels can be taxing with some even simple posts taking hours to write, however it is often quite worth it as you see a good idea right there on the internet.

However that same excitement can turn quickly to disappointment when you see that same idea, often times in nearly the same form being linked by the big blogs -- despite your attempts at getting it noticed when you wrote it.

For example:

Yesterday Instapundit linked to Bill Whittle of Eject Eject Eject with the tagline:

BILL WHITTLE ON CLIMATEGATE: A warning from President Eisenhower.

Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 10:23 am (December 2, 2009)

Here is Bill's piece:

Hat tip to Michael Moore for reminding me about President Eisenhower’s famous “Beware the Military-Industrial Complex” speech, in which the Liberal Icon and Pacifist Saint Dwight David Eisenhower had this to say:

“…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
(Emphasis mine – BW)

I wonder if this admonition from Eisenhower – uttered a few moments after he warned of the influence of the Military-Industrial complex — will be repeated among the Left with the same grave sense of somber warning as his previous few sentences?
December 1, 2009 11:46am

Strange thing is that if you Google scientific-technological elite the very first hit you get (as of the time of this posting) this piece I wrote almost a year ago and updated when the climategate issue came to light:

UPDATE: November 27, 2009 --  With the release of the University of East Anglia's emails this month and the beginning of the discovery of "climategate" this message has never been more important!

Everybody remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” shoot, it has become the siren call of some.

(Google video search. "Eisenhower's Farewell." 53 most 2 minutes or less of a 46 minute speech one of the full speech. Reagan's, "Tear Down This Wall," gets less then half at 26, JFK's inaugural, "Ask Not...," gets 7, and FDR's, "Pearl Harbor," gets 3 (and one is from Crooksandliars ripping Condi for a comment she made))

Few if any recall — and it is never repeated — the second of the two specific warning he made in that very same speech:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis added)

The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today.
DKK

More interesting are the exact same comment I made on numerous blogs during the past two and a half weeks, including the #3 commetn at  Pajama Media's Exclusive Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive), which read:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis and changes added)

Every Liberal remembers Eisenhower warning against the, “military-industrial complex” but few if any know his second stated warming in that same farewell message, his warning against the, “scientific-technological elite“!
This speech could have been made last week, read the whole thing.
David
Nov 27, 2009 - 5:43 am

Now I am NOT, no way, no how accusing Bill Whittle of anything -- people can come up with the same ideas.  However I did send this story to Instapundit (another Pajamas Media Blogger and other blogs nearly 2 years ago and once again when the climategate issue broke last month with nary a reply, not to mention posting that comment on untold number of blogs.

Which leads me to wonder if the 'new media' is still an, "Army of Davids," or if it has become just another elite gated community where those not on the list aren't recognized? 

Another example:

May 8, 2009 at 2:27 am I wrote:

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).
So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies", although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point. Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation?
(Just One Minute -- Don't Know Much About History...)

Yalta was considered a diplomatic disaster that enslaved millions in Eastern Europe. Roosevelt, who called Stalin, "Uncle Joe," failed to recognize the evil that would lead to the deaths of 15 to 20 million Soviet citizens -- Time Magazine (13 April 1998) (Some estimates as large as 52 million with 30 million being the median estimate).

I can't recall when Truman talked to our enemies, other then perhaps their surrender after he dropped the atomic bomb . Truman lead the UN into Korea and did so without talking to our enemies -- they were boycotting the UN -- rather then talk he gave ultimatums and took action to remove our enemies from South Korea.

As a matter of fact Truman has his own Doctrine (The Truman Doctrine) that supported our allies financially and militarily against Soviet (our enemies) influence. This lead to what was known as the Domino Theory and formed much of the Cold War doctrine that lasted for decades (a variation of which Bush uses to push democracy).

Along with The Marshall Plan The Truman Doctrine helped feed the Soviet reaction that led to the Berlin Blockade. It was only the show of determination and strength -- redeployment of B-29's to England, the same bombers that dropped atomic weapons on Japan -- that prevented escalation of the conflict during the 11 months of the airlift.

Kennedy escalated Vietnam as a part of Truman's doctrine and while he did speak to Kruschev during the Vienna Summit it was considered a failure that caused the players (Kennedy and Kruschev) to push the world toward the most dangerous nuclear stand off in history -- The Cuban missile Crisis.

(About Vienna, Kennedy later claimed of Khrushchev, "He beat the hell out of me.")

If this is what Obama has in mind, getting the hell beat out of him by Kim and Mahmoud I don't want anything to do with it! I should just start digging the shelter now!
DKK

After posting that in the comments of popular blogs and forwarding to many including Instapundit the next day Jack Kelly at RCP posted this:

May 09, 2008

Obama Needs a History Lesson

By Jack Kelly
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Jack's is better written then mine, but even in my often confused state I hit all the points he did and I did it a day earlier.  His got picked up by the same blogs I sent mine to more then a day earlier and mine was ignored.

My point is this question, can a non journalist nobody with a cognitive disability still break through the gates or is the "Army of Davids" limited to those in the new gated community?  Because if I can't, then is it still citizen journalism?
DKK

The Future Of American Health Care -- "Just Boil It and Reuse It!"

I'm not sure why but I have yet to see the root problem with government writing a prescription for America's health care needs articulated using an easy to verify example.

The fact is, the root problem doesn't involve the debate over inclusion of a government option, it goes far far deeper then that; to the root of governments involvement in the health care process.

Most of us feel it deep down but don't really realize what the problem is.  Perhaps that is because many people see evidence of what bothers them on a daily basis right there on their own television without even realizing it!
 

Government Central Planning of medical care through the Medicare system lead to the brilliantly idiotic idea that catheters could and should be reused.  Medicare only covered 4 a month under the old ruling, today they cover up to 200.

People either had to pay for additional catheters or, it was recommended that users BOIL AND REUSE THEM.  Seriously, grab a pan, we're cooking up a wonderful plan for your health!  If you have had two (2) serious urinary tract infections in the past you could get yours covered -- that's right, you had go through the pain and risk twice.

Here is the kicker:


Even after the governments own FDA changed the labeling of catheters making them one time use products they were not covered!

Since the governments centrally planned Medicare system determined reuse was okay almost all private insurance companies followed suit!  With the change in the ruling most insurances have changed their coverage as well.

This went on for DECADES! 

It took people getting upset and finally getting a congressman to act -- that is not how we want our medical care coverage determined, via congressional fiat?

The key point -- when the government sets rules of coverage, for whatever reason (and you just know it will get political -- God forbid you get a disease out of favor with today's political will) the entire industry follows.  Doctors change their recommendations, insurers change their coverage. Having the same policy as the government keeps you just one more step away from the lawyers! 

The public option is not the devil, the devil is in the details of any program that offers or requires central planning by the government or any entity they set up.  Leave the planning to your own doctors!

Governmental Central Planning is almost always the worst solution to even simple problems, and we know from history that it is a joke when it comes to larger issues!

Increase competition in both the insurance and the medical sides of the business, reduce government interference, and reform medical malpractice, that should be all the involvement the government should have in your health care!
DKK

Medicare Changes Catheter Ruling -- IC Disease Today

Update:  It gets even better -- did you know that the Baucus plan included a tax on all medical devices?  This tax would increase the cost to everyone.  Initially it was all devices, tongue depressors, catheters, etc. but the saw some wisdom in that an have now increased that to items priced over $100.  But does that make any sense?  Imagine you need a prosthetic, or a back brace due to an accident -- you now will pay more for those, already very expensive items!   Literally adding insult to injury!  And as Hot Air points out this includes powered breast milk pumps!

Amazing, the ,"Boil it and reuse it," mentality will flourish even more then today -- seriously, do they even care about us at all because if they did they wouldn't be pulling this crap!
DKK

Public Health, Didn't We Try That Once? How Did That One Work Out?

Updated and bumped*

You know I got to thinking, didn't we already try a public health option before?  Then I remembered a reference to the Public Health System -- PHS -- it lasted about 40 years or so.

Here is what they offered:

• "special free treatment"
  
• "lower class African Americans, who often could not afford health care, the chance to join"
• "Patients were to receive free physical examinations"
•  "free rides to and from the clinic"
•  "hot meals on examination days"
• "free treatment for minor ailments"

Oh, it started great, there was a dedicated staff, the care was quality, they received praise for their work, they also received special praise for their, "flair in framing," the message to the potential patients encouraging many to join who would normally have been reluctant.

They had control of the costs and the treatments, what tests were done, what treatments were issued and it worked all quite well for the PHS.

Then about 1972 a whistleblower contacted the Washington Star and The New York Times and all hell broke lose.

I am simply amazed that anyone would even consider allowing the government to run a health system or more specifically set standards and recommended cost contained treatments for conditions.  Even today when the government makes recommendations about medications and treatments most insurers and doctors use that as their guide and only cover or prescribe those treatments.  That is why experimental treatments or medications are not covered!

But what really amazes me is why any black person in America would be in favor of a Public Health System following the end result of the above listed Tuskegee Experiment!

If you weren't aware of this your friends probably weren't either, send it to them all, click the email icon below and send it to them.
DKK

Update 9/15/2009


With the cries of racism reaching a fever pitch directed at anyone who would dare question the President (see Ace this week or HotAir this week), much of it directed at Republican lawmakers you would think that this would really freak liberals out -- how can you trust a PHS that may one day end up in the hands of those racists (everyone of them)!!!

Not gonna happen!

I keep waiting for Scotty to get that transporter fixed so he can beam me out of this alternate universe where everything is upside down!
DKK


*Update 12/11/2009 (original post date 09/14/2009 17:45)


Baldilocks tries to explain the reason Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government Is Our Friend.  

Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.
What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that it what it was supposed to do.
The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs
Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You'll get an earful about her "rights".) 
And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.
What's needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education--not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.
Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People--even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one's needs is not government's role.  That's God's purview.