Disparate Housewives: Sarah Palin Strikes Again

(Disparate Housewives/Desperate Housewives?  The TV show?  Never mind.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparate :

Main Entry: dis·pa·rate

1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements
2 : markedly distinct in quality or character

synonyms see different

________________________

Disparate and incongruous as in Palin/McCain, Palin/President or Vice President, Palin/Politician.

I’ve opined on Sarah Palin before:

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Sarah Palin as Conservative Writer?

Saturday, July 04, 2009

No... more... Palin... puh-LEEZE

 

I haven’t read her new book (Going Rogue), I haven’t seen her on Oprah, I’m not going to watch her Barbara Walters interview.  I still do not see her as presidential or vice-presidential qualified.  I do marvel that she is an instant-packet of modern day political folk hero, someone to be ga-ga about for those Republicans desperately seeking a… marvel.  I sympathize with her for the unevenly rude treatment by the campaign press and the comedic vitriol of the likes of I’m-not-so-holy-now David Letterman.

In my opinion, conservatives AND Republicans would better serve themselves and their fellow men and women by staying focused on the real issues of the day: health care reform, cap and trade crippling of our energy resources, amnesty for illegal immigrants, civilian showcase trials for terrorists, and bowing to the wishes of every country in the world but our own (not to mention bowing to the Emperor of Japan, or the King of Saudi Arabia, but I digress). 

Big Brother has never been bigger, or less of a brother.  Conservatives have better things to do than fawning over Sarah Palin, but she IS a great distraction to Democrats.

NO to Public Health Care Option

I am opposed to a government-run Public Health Care Option as part of the current Health Care Reform bills circulating in Congress.

Health care is not a right.  You and I have no more right to force a doctor or hospital to treat us than we have a right to force a mechanic to fix our car or force a carpenter to fix our house.

The issue is nothing more, or LESS, basic than that.  We do not have a right to strip another individual of his pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and freedom to choose, in order to serve us.  To do so is nothing more than forceful subjugation and slavery of another person.

As a recent hospital patient and successful survivor of cancer surgery, I can see plenty of room for health care reform, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  I am currently engaged in a letter campaign with my health insurance company as they are denying my 2nd day of hospital care (within 24 hours after my noon surgery completion the previous day), saying I was medically stable enough to go home.  Au contraire’, according to my surgeon, and my personal experience on the scene.  I’ll be seeing this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.  And this after paying decades of health insurance.  It’s no wonder the insurance companies are vilified.

HOWEVER, I don’t need dear old Uncle Sam interfering on my behalf.

Further, I am opposed to ANY National Health Care Reform as currently proposed.  Following are just a few reasons:

1.  85% of the population is insured.  National reform will MANDATE that the 85% readjust as necessary to accommodate the other 15%.
2.  Only half or so of the 15% uninsured will become insured under national reform anyway.
3.  The plan will take 3 or 4 years to get started due to the massive bureaucracy involved.
4.  The costs, despite “government assurances”, will likely add to an already crippling national debt.
5.  The government says money will be saved by removing “waste and inefficiencies” in existing government programs.  Who believes this?  If it can or could have been done, it should have been done already.
6.  Proposed national health reform doesn’t address many major issues, such as tort reform.  (Exorbitant non-economic lawsuit compensation is forcing equally exorbitant malpractice insurance on good doctors, thus driving up the costs to consumers, you and me.)  Why no tort reform?  Ohhhh, lawyers have a lot of influence in Congress.  So much for reason, logic, and fairness.

I strongly encourage you to write your Senators and Congressmen and express your own opinions.  Following are links to contact either:

Senators

Congressmen

FYI many of these contact websites won’t let you submit a message unless you can post an address within their district, as they only want to hear from direct constituents.  Phooey on that I say.  Bing, Google, or Mapquest is your friend for finding an address.  Yes, districts elect our representatives, but those reps are voting on NATIONAL issues that effectus all, and we all should have the right to express our opinion to any representative.

Heaven help us should we continue down the road to socialism and the suppression of individual thinking and self-responsibilty.  (To who else but Heaven can we appeal for the ethereal Hope and Change?  Umm, nevermind.)  If we don’t stop this now, I’ll be seeing you in the welfare line, just ahead of me. 

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33237202/ns/politics-white_house/

The jokes of life and fate just never stop. Nominated just 2 weeks after taking office. What a travesty. I guess the Nobel committee Hoped there would be Change.

Of course now the great peacemaker has every reason to protect his Peace reputation and not authorize more troops for Afghanistan. That is yet another travesty as our fellow Americans are getting slaughtered over there.

Obama has been considering working with or negotiating with the Taliban. Now he has the perfect excuse to do so. "They are not a threat to America" they have said. These are the people that blowup centuries old Buddhist mountainside statues, force women to wear head-to-toe coverings (burkas), force men to wear beards, and shoot women in the head in the Kabul soccer stadium for violations, to name just a few of their indiscretions. Let me guess what Obama will say next. "We shouldn't interfere in their affairs." These aren't affairs, they are violations against basic humanity.

The daily global disconnect between thought and reality keeps marching on.

A few more points:

1. Obama getting the Nobel Prize does NOT make America look better globally. It is an embarassment to receive something that is not earned and the global community will not respect the U.S. more as a result.

2. Awarding a prize that has not been earned greatly diminishes the stature and respect of the Nobel Committee itself. The award becomes more of a political statement on the part of the Committee and less of a coveted prize for superior merit. Alfred Nobel must be rolling in his grave, crying out from the void, "Somebody get me some TNT!".

3. The award may dangerously influence U.S. foreign policy in a manner not in the best U.S. interest. Obama has already been an overt apologist for every perceptible injustice (from his point of view) that the U.S. has committed at home and abroad. Attempts to acquiesce to Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, to name a few, and distance ourselves from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, can create an ultimately dangerous unbalance of power in the world.

Am I DONE yet?

Blogging, that is. Don't YOU wish! I am getting caught up.

I have a brief blog drafted on military service. I'd also like to explore, for my own edification, the topic of majority rule (that's freedom isn't it, except we don't want to crush the individual (freedom for little old me) in the process, do we?) and sacrifice (I'm very much into "rational" self-interest these days, and as noted elsewhere, helping others (such as your boss in your job) is really just helping yourself and your own self-interest). Is freedom about individual CHOICE or does the "greater good" take priority over choice? Woof. Hope I can keep both those under thesis length.

 
Then there is the daily news. It's wearisome, often, but we are so UNrepresented on either "side" these days I think it behooves us (behoofs?) to be informed. I am hearing of and reading ever more informed and intelligent commentary from the likes of http://www.ft.com/comment (the Brits are not idiots, despite being British), http://www.ibdeditorials.com/, and http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html, to name but a few.

Oh well, I've never had so much fun talking, talking, and talking. Blog on.

Debunking Canadian health care myths

Speaking of Health Care, this guest commentary in the Denver Post recently, Debunking Canadian health care myths, just smacked me in the face when I read it.  Despite the arguable debunking of myths throughout, the first and last paragraphs speak volumes:

First: "As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one." 

(If Canada is so great, why do you, a clinical psychologist, live here?  Love?  Money?  Better health care?)

Last: "It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life."

("...it has its merits.  ...She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised.  ...Waiting FOURTEEN MONTHS is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life."  Where do I sign up!)

(If the link doesn't work well, try refreshing it a couple of times or search thedenverpost.com.  Author was Rhonda Hackett.)

No..Free..Passes.. for SCotUS

Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor should not be vilified.  She should not be crucified.  She should be scrutinized, and verified, to be qualified.  At age 54 now, she could easily serve on the court for 20 to 30 years.  This is no time to be timid or tepid in exercising diligence.  I’m already reading too much about “we don’t want to alienate the Latino voters”.  What about alienating the U.S. Constitution for ALL voters by approving a judicial activist judge who said at a conference in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made…”?

Even the usually liberal-leaning Denver Post had a few pertinent comments in today’s editorial:

“Despite an intriguing tale, Obama's high court nominee needs to explain controversial past comments in a full Senate review.”

“She also took issue in 2001 with the notion that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion in deciding a case, saying: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It will be important to see how Sotomayor explains these statements. Deliberately setting policy from the bench isn't exactly an appropriate role for a judge. And the second statement is also troubling and merits further explanation. Clearly, a Supreme Court justice needs to be fair-minded.”

President Obama did interview 3 other women for the position, so it’s not like Sotomayor was the only person considered.  If I was of gay or lesbian black Asiatic origins then I might be marching in the streets, but I’m not.  I just want a fair and balanced vetting of any nominee.

No..Free..Passes..

Fear Mongering, and Judicial Empathy

There are 2 excellent opinion columns in the Friday, 22 May, Denver Post newspaper. David Harsanyi writes about Fear: Our national pastime. Mike Rosen writes about Empathy and the Supreme Court.

Democrats accuse Republicans of fear mongering and being the party of NO anytime Repubs disagree with Dems. But when Dems want to exercise haste in instituting policies in the name of economic bailouts, global warming (I mean, “climate change”) and the like, then it’s not fear but expeditious prudence driving them. This conservative, for one, has had a healthy and reasonable fear (as well as shock, awe, amazement, and disbelief) at how far down the road to Euro-Socialism this country has been dragged in Obama’s first 100 days, despite the efforts of the Party of No.

Harsanyi makes numerous cogent (reasonable and convincing) points in his column. One example:

“During the "debate" over the government's "stimulus" plan, the president claimed that the consequences of not passing his plan would mean the "recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

To contend that a country that survived the Great Depression, world wars, a Civil War and the social upheavals of the past century could not reverse a recession without an immense government bailout is farcical. (Moreover, almost nothing the president's economists predicted has come to fruition; the opposite has. We are still approaching double-digit unemployment and sinking deeper into crisis, despite the passage of the "stimulus" plan.) “

Read his short column.

As for Mike Rosen and judicial Empathy:

–noun

1.the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2.the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

(Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)

Although we all surely want the absolutely BEST QUALIFIED human being possible to be the next Supreme Court Justice, in the interest of being “fair” we may get a Hispanic female (who hopefully worked her way through college while digging ditches from the confines of a wheelchair all of which she has since risen from, or not). (I’m kidding… somewhat.)

As Mike Rosen notes in his column: “…the president proclaimed that his replacement must be an individual endowed with "empathy," adding, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily reality of people's lives."”

Mike says further: ”In fact, justice is very much about legal theory and case law. The principle of stare decisis holds that courts will generally honor the decisions of prior courts. This is what makes our system of justice predictable and consistent, rather than random and arbitrary.

When empathetic judges rule on their feelings, they are exceeding their authority.”

A few other excerpts from Mike’s column:

by Congress and signed by the president. The courts are a co-equal branch of government, not a superior branch. Their job is not to rule on what they think the law ought to be. That's government by a presumptuous, unelected judiciary.”

“To use a sports metaphor, judges are referees, not rulemakers. They're not there to represent or empathize with the fans or the players. They represent the rule book, and they aren't authorized to rewrite it or make it "fairer."”

I highly recommend reading the entire column.

For a counterpoint see this article: Goodman: Supreme Court nominees and empathy.

In addition I highly recommend the book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution by Kevin R. Gutzman. (It is also in audiobook version.) He thoughtfully and factually describes how the Supreme Court has continuously strayed from the Constitution and practiced judicial activism almost since it was created. It is educational and YOU need to be informed.

NEW GOP SPOKESWOMAN and INTELLECTUAL

I’m probably not the first to say it, but dare I try anyway? LIZ CHENEY FOR PRESIDENT. Too much Dad Dick Cheney baggage you say? By the time she gets around to it (she’s not even old enough yet (43 in July) (she and hubby Perry have 5 children however)) Obama and the DSP (Democratic Socialist Party) will have spread California-style fiscal irresponsibility across the country. Democrats and Republicans alike will be stark-raving starved for a person with the REAL intelligence, reason, and clear-thinking perception that Ms. Cheney has been displaying recently.

She has been making the rounds of liberal and conservative talk shows with the likes of Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity and others. Perhaps “FOR PRESIDENT” is a bit strong, but her ability to talk factually and not be buffaloed or cowed by her emotive interviewers (umm, where’s the beef?) has been earning her respect from liberals and huge kudos from conservatives.

Here is a blogger’s post impression on Anderson Cooper’s blog:

Jeff C: May 22nd, 2009 10:39 am ET

Very shocking interview. Liz is a tremendously intelligent woman who quite literally outclassed Anderson in this particular conversation. It was uncomfortable to observe Anderson continuously interrupt her, and in a sense struggle to paint a different picture to try to get his point across. Liz graciously displayed professionalism, during, what could be perceived to be an attempt to bully or impose a partisan ideal coming from Anderson’s position. A classic example of rationality versus emotion.

I’m historically a big fan of Anderson, which is why this conversation was such a big shock to me. I’ll be going out of my way to listen to Liz Cheney talk from this point forward. I’m glad Liz brought insight and merit to this issue to help me get off the fence.

_______________________

I haven’t watched the interview but you can watch it from the same page.

Another good excerpt:

COOPER: But --  more than 100 people are known to have died in U.S. custody. Twenty --  I think about 20 of those have been ruled a homicide. I mean, if -- if these were just tightly-controlled things, how come so many people are being murdered in U.S. custody?

L. CHENEY: Well, Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible, and I think that you’re --

COOPER: Why?

L. CHENEY: Because you are conflating things that aren’t conflated.

COOPER: What --

L. CHENEY: When somebody dies or is murdered in U.S. custody, then we are a great nation, and we take the people who are responsible, and we put them on trial, as you’ve seen happen a number of times now throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program. And to somehow suggest that those two things are the same, I think, willfully conflates something, and -- and ends up in a situation where we aren’t able to sort of take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened in the last eight years.

COOPER: Do you personally have any reservations about what may have gone on with these enhanced interrogation techniques, as you call them, under CIA control, or in Abu Ghraib, or in Bagram, or in Guantanamo? I mean, do you have -- do you have any doubts at all? Because your father seems, very clearly, to have no doubts.

L. CHENEY: Look, of course -- of course, as my father made clear today, what happened at Abu Ghraib should not have happened. Nobody is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. I have no doubts at all, no reservations and no regrets, and, in fact, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women at the CIA who carried out this program. I think there are Americans alive today because of that program, and I think that it is the height of irresponsibility for the president to release those techniques, so that, you know, the terrorists can train to them, and now we have our hands tied. Every future president’s hand will be tied and will not be able to use those techniques, if necessary.

_______________________

(Now Anderson Cooper is probably buffaloed about what “conflated” means.)

conflate

  • verb combine into one.

— DERIVATIVES conflation noun.

— ORIGIN Latin conflare ‘kindle, fuse’.

Joe Scarborough Show Video (13 minutes long, after a commercial, of course).

Wikipedia Liz Cheney

Liz has been all over the media lately and thus is now all over the ‘Net.  Be sure and listen to her next time you have a chance. We ALL need people like her articulating clear and reasoned facts.

NO DOH’ FO’ GITMO

No money for closing Guantanamo Prison, that is, at least for now. I just had to add my 2 cents worth to this widely reported story.

Wednesday's 90-7 Senate vote stripped the $80 million from a war-spending bill, and the decision to bar, for now, transfer of detainees to the United States, raised the possibility that Mr. Obama’s order to close the camp by Jan. 22, 2010, might have to be changed or delayed. (Denver Post, New York Times)

It is momentous in that not only did Pres. Obama not get an automatic free pass, go-directly-to-GO but he got a resounding, bi-partisan NO for one of the first times since he became president. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an extraordinary case of foot-in-mouth that seems to be infecting California female political representatives these days worse than the swine flu, said “she knew of one federal facility that would be a perfect fit — Supermax prison in Florence, Colo.

"It isn't in a neighborhood. It isn't in a community. It's an isolated Supermax facility," said Feinstein, standing next to a large blowup photograph of Supermax.

"This facility houses not only drug kingpins, serial murderers and gang leaders, but also terrorists who have already been convicted of crimes in this country," she said.”

As we Coloradans know this is not just a case of NIMBY Colorado (not-in-MY-backyard), it is a case of not-in-ANY-backyard in the U.S. Kansas has the military prison at Leavenworth and Kansas doesn’t want them. Nevada has possibly the most desolate, barren stretches of land remaining in the U.S. (look how long it took to find the remains of plane crash victim and mega-millionaire Steve Fossett) and even Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said “Guantánamo makes us less safe. However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”

The proper backyard for a suspected terrorists prison is exactly where it is now, GUANTANAMO. The U.S. has leased it since 1903. No one else in the WORLD wants those prisoners. The main reason Obama wants to close the prison? It doesn’t make us “look good”. I’ve seen and heard enough about “looking good” in my life to know how superficial an approach this is. Guantanamo works. We will “look” even worse with any other alternative, and function much worse than that.

FYI, Florence, Colorado, in Fremont county, is 29 miles W of Pueblo, Colorado (center to center) (pop. 102,000 in 2000) and 34 miles SW of Colorado Springs, Colorado. (Pop. 360,890 in 2000.) There are 3,653 residents in the city. (Florence.) (REF: Florence, Pueblo, Colo. Springs. So much for isolated, Sen. Feinstein.

Pres. Obama and the Democrats continue to harp on FEAR and Fear-Mongering when anyone opposes their policies. Some of us DO fear Big Brother and the Democratic Socialist Holding Company Government when they continually set logic and reason aside and merely go with “just trust me on this one”. NOOO WAYYYY.

While he accuses dissenters of Fear-Mongering, Obama continues to disparage the previous administration. His speech about Gitmo today is more of the same. (MSNBC1, MSNBC2.) He says, to the effect (my words) “they were wrong, wrong, wrong, but now we have to move on and do it MY WAY.”

NOOOO WAYYYY. Not-in-my-backyard, Not-in-my-backcountry, NOT-ON-MY-WATCH.

1. REFERENCES:
Denver Post
New York Times
Historical Look at Guantánamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Florence
Pueblo
Colo. Springs
Obama calls Gitmo 'a misguided experiment'
Barack Obama's national security remarks
Dick Cheney's national security remarks

DougCo Term Limits

There was a front page headline article in the recent Highlands Ranch Herald about efforts to remove term limits for the county sheriff and coroner. It seems like a newsworthy subject, but the article didn’t say: a) what are the lengths of the term, b) how much of the term is left, c) is the current office holder up to the current term limits, d) who is the current sheriff and coroner (not names I recall on a daily basis).

a) From this: http://www.douglas.co.us/clerk/elections/documents/2006primary-officialcumulativereport.pdf it states the terms for sheriff and coroner are each 4 years.

b) & d) From this: http://www.douglas.co.us/government/Elected_Officials.html I deduced that current sheriff Weaver has been in office since Jan. 2007 and his term expires Jan. 2011. Current coroner Riber has been in office since Jan. 2003 and his term expires Jan. 2011.

From this: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/research/termlim.htm I found that the term limits are 2 consecutive terms if the terms are longer than 2 years.

c) Thus, private “I” that I am, I’ve deduced that Sheriff Weaver can serve another term if elected and Coroner Riber cannot run for re-election in 2011.

Well, I’m glad I figured THAT out! I’m not going to pursue the respective office holders for their opinions, though that would have been newsworthy also. As for should we have term limits, I can’t decide. There’s an argument for having continuity and experience in office and an argument for having a fresh, new (but less experienced?) perspective every so often. Hmmm. Something to keep me awake at night.

Pelosi foot in mouth yet AGAIN?

How to get the Democrats out of power?  Make sure they keep TALKING.  As a person committed to logic and reason, I am "keeping my fingers crossed" that the facts prove to be against Pelosi in the water boarding issue.  (What did she know and when did she know it?)  Pelosi raises detainee debate to a new level
You CALIFORNIANS, even the ones who didn't vote for her, should be ASHAMED for allowing this travesty of freedom to occupy your representation.  Get her to resign NOW!  Maybe this latest issue will do it.

Cheapening Murder?

(Well, for title the instructions sometimes say "give us something catchy".) This is about the Colorado legislature bill to repeal the death penalty. ( Denver Post article and discussion.) In a TV panel discussion a couple of years ago about dropping the death penalty I heard Dennis Prager say "It cheapens murder". The rest of the panel looked at him aghast, and I didn't get it at first either. But what he was saying was, if the price for taking another person's life is not expensive, such as the death penalty, it cheapens the crime, making it no big deal.

With no death penalty a person may be more inclined to take another's life if they know they can only get jail time, even if it's life in prison, for doing so. On the other hand I've often heard it said that if you take one life you might as well take as many as you want as you can only pay with one death penalty. (And you still may have a chance at jail time.) Lovely logic either way.

Certainly taking a human life, whether as a crime or a legal punishment, is a horrible thing. Death could be said to be a cruel and unusual punishment, as might be said about a life without parole spent in incarceration (except that the incarcerated IS alive, but his murder victim is not).

I have often felt that someone taking another's life has given up their own right to life. (Just talking crime here, not war and "legitmate" (?) life-taking.) If we want to hold life as extremely precious then the penalty for taking another's life has to be extremely expensive. My vote would be for the death penalty. Could I throw the switch on a convicted killer myself? I don't know, but if it was because I'd lost a family member or loved one I'd have to give it some very, very serious thought. Who is going to fire the last shot, the killers or the victims? What do you think?