About Me

Name: Defend America
Email: guy.ratki@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

'Obama's Nanny Care Insults the American Spirit'

Obama's nanny care insults the American spirit

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
February 24, 2010

You are victims. You are helpless against the wiles of big corporations and insurance companies and you need protection. You need the government to take over and do things you cannot do for yourself.

That is the thinking of what David Brooks calls "the educated class" that favors the Democrats' health care bills. Members of this elite spout tales of woe of people denied coverage or care with the implication that there but for the grace of government go you. So sign on and the government will take care of everything.

It's an argument that has often been appealing to Europeans but that has always been unappealing to Americans. That's why these advocates segue to other arguments, like Barack Obama's assertion that the government can expand coverage and save money at the same time.

But voters quickly sniff out what this means. The government will use the "science" of comparative effectiveness research to achieve cost savings the only way government can: denial of care. The Soviet medical system kept down the heart disease caseload by placing cardiac care units on the fifth floor, walk up. Death panels, anyone?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-nanny-care-insults-the-American-spirit-85115567.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Too Many Apologies'

Too Many Apologies
by Thomas Sowell

Tiger Woods doesn't owe me an apology. Nothing that he has ever done has cost me a dime nor an hour of sleep.

This is not a plea to be "non-judgmental." I am very judgmental about all sorts of things, including Tiger Woods' bad behavior. But that is very different from saying that he somehow owes me an apology.

For all I know, my neighbors may be judgmental when I drive out of my driveway in a 15-year-old car. But they have never said anything to me about it, and I have never offered them an apology. This is not equating driving a 15-year-old car with what Tiger Woods did. But the point is that any apology he might make should be made to his family, who were hurt, not to the public, who might be disappointed in him, but not really hurt.

Public apologies to people who are not owed any apology have become one of the many signs of the mushy thinking of our times. So are apologies for things that somebody else did.

Among the most absurd apologies have been apologies for slavery by politicians. For one thing, slavery is not something you can apologize for, any more than you can apologize for murder.

If someone says to you that he murdered someone near and dear to you, what are you supposed to say? "No problem, we all make mistakes"? Not bloody likely!

Slavery is too serious for an apology and somebody else being a slaveowner is not something for you to apologize for. When somebody who has never owned a slave apologizes for slavery to somebody who has never been a slave, then what began as mushy thinking has degenerated into theatrical absurdity-- or, worse yet, politics.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/02/24/too_many_apologies


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Better Here than There'

Better Here Than There
by Jonah Goldberg

"I have been over into the future, and it works."

Lincoln Steffens, the muckraking journalist, offered that review of the Soviet Union on his return from a fact-finding mission there. For decades, conservatives invoked that line as proof that a generation of progressives were Soviet fellow-travelers. Conservatives were far from entirely wrong, but the focus on communism obscured a more enduring dynamic: The left loves to press its nose against the window on the world and talk about how things are better "over there."

Indeed, a year earlier, Steffens had gone to fascist Italy and came back praising Il Duce's miraculous accomplishments. Before that, the cream of America's intellectuals were obsessed with emulating the "top-down socialism" of Bismarck's Prussia. Later, the New Deal was understood as part of the "Europeanization of America," in historian William Leuchtenburg's phrase. Liberal economist Stuart Chase, who coined the term "the New Deal," remarked: "Why should the Russians have all the fun remaking the world?"

In the 1980s, some economists, like Lester Thurow, and non-economists, like Robert Reich, Chalmers Johnson and James Fallows, argued that we needed to emulate Germany or, even better, Japan. "The Cold War is over," proclaimed Johnson. "Japan won." American liberalism's infatuation with Japan's industrial policy -- "Japan Inc." -- should be remembered as one of the great embarrassments of recent intellectual history.

But no, like butterflies always looking for a prettier flower, these intellectuals keep flitting to the next "proof" of America's shortcomings. For some, like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, the prettiest flower out there right now is China. For others, it's France or Canada. For the truly demented, it's Cuba.

The problem with all such efforts is that they look abroad solely for what they wish to see at home. For instance, in an effort to push its green agenda, the Obama administration likes to tout the farsighted vision of Spain, which has invested heavily in windmills and other renewable technology. Never mind that today, Spain's economic crisis is just slightly less dire than Greece's, and politicized bets on green technology contributed to their problems.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/02/24/better_here_than_there


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'ACORN's New Shell'

ACORN’s New Shell
The Democrats’ money-and-muscle operation is rebranding, not disbanding.

ACORN is not dissolving. But some of its local affiliates, in an effort to suggest they’re cutting ties with the organization, are giving themselves new names. The reason is money: ACORN cites a string of “vicious right-wing attacks” — and here I doff the purple pim- hat to James O’Keefe — that have made it hard for them to shake down their usual banker benefactors and nonprofit patrons. This is nothing new. The national organization itself was considering a name change back in November, according to this internal memo, in which ACORN’s leaders cite one single overriding concern: money. “Raising money is much harder now, if we do it under the name ACORN,” the memo says. “Some foundations are still will [sic] to fund us, more are not.”

ACORN isn’t the first gang of riff-raff to discover that there’s lots of money to be made at the intersection of politics and poverty — that was part of the original mafia’s business model, too — but you really have to dig into the organization’s workings, its hundreds of bank accounts, its shell organizations and affiliates, its millions of dollars in cash and real estate, its bank stock, and its consulting company, to appreciate exactly how central money-making is to ACORN. And these folks are good at making money. Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase CEO identified by the New York Times as “Obama’s favorite banker,” saw his bank’s charitable foundation give ACORN $1 million in 2007 alone, not counting additional grants to something called the “ACORN Institute.” ACORN’s housing operations have helped themselves to a generous slice of the profits generated by all that subprime slime, marketing loans to low-income borrowers. Bank of America, Citigroup — many names from the rogue’s gallery of TARP-bailout recipients — have contributed to the ACORN gravy train.

http://article.nationalreview.com/425991/acorns-new-shell/kevin-williamson
Tags: ACORN  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive