« July 2009 | Main | September 2009 »

August 31, 2009

Racism in Hawaii?

The answer to Instapundit's question is yes. As I've mentioned before on this blog, I lived in Hawaii for three years in the late 80s and saw first-hand some of the disdain many in that state have for "haoles." Nothing like being spit upon to make a guy feel unwelcome.

Judging from the comments Instapundit is receiving, the problems have only gotten worse. In my limited experience with Hawaiian law enforcement, I found the officers to be courteous and professional. When I was there, school administrators were the worst of the 'see no evil' crowd. After repeatedly being harassed and/or assaulted at school, I complained to the vice principal. His advice? Just avoid certain parts of the campus. As far as he was concerned, it wasn't his job to stop, it was mine to retreat. Even though stuff like this happened.

When I lived in Hawaii, my friends and I referred to the racial animosity as the other side of paradise. As the Hawaiian sovereignty movement gains steam, I expect we'll hear more about the Hawaii that the state's tourism bureau has managed to hide.

Posted by slublog at 10:28 PM | Comments (795) | TrackBack

August 28, 2009

Ted Kennedy: An Honest Appraisal

This article makes me miss Michael Kelly's writing, but also makes me feel both pity and disdain for the late senator. It's a must-read.

Update - Another must-read. If you support the right policies, it's amazing what some will forgive.

Posted by slublog at 09:07 PM | Comments (120) | TrackBack

August 26, 2009

Finding the Strength to Go On...

This was an actual headline at MSNBC.com this evening. Amazingly enough, this is not the most gushing tribute to the late senator from Massachusetts.

So...can I imagine life without Ted Kennedy?

As a matter of fact, I can. Tonight, I will go to bed and sleep. Tomorrow, I will wake up, consume a caffeinated beverage of some sort and go to work. After work, I will go back to my house, eat dinner, spend some time with my wife and daughters, then read and/or blog before going to bed. The next morning, the cycle will start again. As hard as it may seem for those at MSNBC to believe, the chances of me thinking of Ted Kennedy in that average day are roughly 0.0%.

This may come as a shock to those in the media engaged in the deification of Kennedy, but there are likely millions of us who manage to make it through our daily routines without thinking of Ted Kennedy.

So, life without Kennedy is going to look like...well, life.

Posted by slublog at 10:49 PM | Comments (88) | TrackBack

August 25, 2009

Finding Common Ground with the President

I've got to say, I can't disagree with President Obama on some of his pet peeves.

At meetings, the staff knows the do’s and don’ts. And the key to it all is being prepared and precise. Axelrod said Obama bristles when “people talk too much at meetings and prevent others from speaking.”

When it’s time to go around the table to talk about something, “You better make sure you have everything there to discuss the issue,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Read the whole story for a list of Obama's pet peeves. I can especially relate to his feelings on meeting talkers and being late. This story resonated with me today because it was one of those days where it feels as though the world was trying to push all of my personal 'pet peeve' buttons.

So, in the spirit of that story, I have to present another list. It's so...cathartic...

1. Stupid pedestrians - Look, I'll make you dolts a deal. I won't drive on the sidewalk, and you won't walk in the middle of the street or cross when the light is green, okay?

2. Food scolds - Sorry, buddy, KFC is not trying to kill you. If they were, they would come to your house and force feed you the fried chicken/bacon sandwich. Personally, I think the sandwich looks mildly disgusting, but offering "healthier options" doesn't mean the chain should get rid of its less-healthy menu items.

3. Bad Service - I do not expect customer service to be perfect at all times. However, is it too much to ask that the store attempt to put someone behind each cash register, and when they're at that register they do more than just randomly punch buttons instead of helping customers?

4. Old Drivers - Yes, I know I'll someday be old. But that doesn't mean I need to love the octogenarian going 2 mph in front of me.

5. Disney's "FastPlay" - It isn't fast, and it plays the movie only after subjecting us to 10 minutes of commercials. Enough said.

Posted by slublog at 10:47 PM | Comments (54) | TrackBack

August 24, 2009

As Maine Goes, So Goes Obama?

As the president and congressional Democrats continue their quest to convince the American people that a public option will help lower healthcare costs, the Wall St. Journal looks north and finds an example of that approach...lacking.

Then the state created a "public option" known as DirigoChoice. (Dirigo is the state motto, meaning "I Lead.") This plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To entice lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The plan's original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over time, the plan was to be "paid for by savings in the health-care system." This is precisely the promise of ObamaCare. Maine saved by squeezing payments to hospitals and physicians.

The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state's own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine's Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.

It didn't take long for the weaknesses of the program to make themselves evident. The 'self-sustaining' formulas were built upon faulty assumptions, and Maine taxpayers have been paying the price ever since. Even though the tax on insurers (euphemistically called a "savings offset payment') was upheld by the state supreme court in 2007, the program still ran low on funds.

So to preserve Governor John Baldacci's legacy, my insurance premiums are being taxed, and the legislature attempted to tax soda, wine and beer, which violated Baldacci's campaign promise not to raise taxes. (Sound familiar?) Maine voters overwhelmingly rejected that tax, leaving the administration to look for other sources of revenue. One of the ideas under consideration? A $100,000 a year cap on benefits.

In addition, Maine's bureaucrats are making it harder for hospitals to treat patients with their central planning view of the role of government.

According to the US Census bureau, Maine has a population of only 1.3 million. The Dirigo health plan insures only 9,472. This state is unable to run or find enough money to fund a program that insures only 0.7% of the state's population. ObamaCare has many of the same provisions and funding formulas, and the president claims it will not only cover the health insurance needs of over 300 million Americans, but also 'bend the cost curve' downward. Well, each time I get paid, money is taken out of my paycheck to fund my healthcare, Dirigo Care, Medicaid, and Medicare, so color me extremely skeptical of the administration's claims.

Take it from an overtaxed Mainer, the idea of a public option is much better than the reality. In this case, as Maine goes should be what the rest of the nation avoids.

Posted by slublog at 09:08 PM | Comments (73) | TrackBack

August 19, 2009

Memo to Mark McKinnon: Santorum May be "Dangerous," But you are Vile - Updated

Hot Air linked this article a week ago, but I just stumbled across it again and after reading it a second time, I'm struck anew by how truly nasty it is. After a string of anonymous anecdotes and ad hominem attacks, Mark McKinnon sets a new low in the annals of political discourse while communicating his disdain for former senator Rick Santorum:

I’m a pretty tolerant guy, but beyond his ideology, some of Santorum’s behavior is just a little bizarre. For example, Santorum has six children. In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours. He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as “your brother Gabriel” and slept with the body overnight.

As readers of my blog know, I have two beautiful daughters. Thankfully, both of them were born alive and healthy and I love them both. My affection, though, began not when I first held them, but when I first knew they existed - from the moment I saw a heartbeat on the first sonogram. At that moment, I could not wait to hold them. It's a hard feeling to describe, but 'intense anticipation' comes closest to describing it. Had I lost either of them before realizing that initial hope, it would have been devastating, and I cannot imagine what Santorum and his family experienced. If their mourning ritual brought them peace, who is Mark McKinnon to snidely judge it? Does he really believe his political differences with Santorum justifies such a malicious assault upon the former senator's painful experience?

George W. Bush and John McCain hired this man to help them win elections. After reading McKinnon's hateful screed, I think less of both men for having done so, and cannot in the future support any GOP candidate who chooses to have such a dishonorable man on his or her staff. Criticisms based on policy and ideology are fair and within bounds. Attacking a man for how he chose to mourn the death of a child, however, is beyond the pale. It is a paragraph McKinnon should apologize for writing and publishing, and one that should force McKinnon's former clients - Bush and McCain - to disavow the man who wrote it.

Politics may not be beanbag, but there should be some limits to what is fair game. McKinnon seems incapable of respecting those limits, and for that reason should earn nothing less than disdain from those who value civil debate.

Update - Here's the thing about blogging. You never know who is going to read what you've written. Earlier this evening, I received an email from Mark McKinnon. He's given me permission to quote the correspondence:

Thanks for the slap in the face. I deserved it.

I thought because Karen Santorum wrote a book about their son’s death and because it had been written about in a New York Times profile that I had license to bring it up. Whether I had license may be a debatable point but under any circumstance it was in very poor taste. It was unnecessary, mean spirited and it distracted from the main thesis of my column (which questioned Santorum for asking McCain to appear at fundraiser for him to raise money then turning on him and calling him “dangerous”).

I allowed my anger at Santorum to color my judgment and I regret it. I’ve tried very hard to promote comity in politics and I obviously failed miserably in this instance to practice what I preach. Thanks for helping me realize just how far I crossed the line. I’ve extended an apology to Senator Santorum.

Frankly, the fact that a man who's advised presidents and candidates would take the time to write this to a lowly blogger from Maine shows that I was wrong about his sense of honor. Good for him.

Also, I should say that I do feel somewhat guilty for calling McKinnon "vile" in the headline, and not just because he emailed me. I should have been more specific in my language - I was referring to his words, not him personally. Maybe that makes me a softy - blame my daughters.

Posted by slublog at 12:58 AM | Comments (82) | TrackBack

August 18, 2009

AARP Loses Members, Alienates Potential Ones

One of the questionable joys of living in a state with two center-left Republican senators is that whenever a controversial issue is being debated in Congress, the airways are inundated with advertisements for and against. It gets irritating at times, but does provide me with the opportunity to listen to the arguments on both sides and judge the effectiveness of the message. Recently, I heard an advertisement in favor of ObamaCare. The narrator would quote a so-called "myth" about the plan, followed by a game-show 'wrong answer' buzzer.

What piqued my interest was not the ad but who paid for it. After the narrator said the name of the organization he said "paid for by the AARP." Interesting, and probably counterproductive.

WASHINGTON — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.

The article later quotes Nannis putting the 60,000 number in perspective, and he makes a good point. The number of people who have quit may seem large, but is only about 0.15% of the total membership of the organization, which is in the process of getting a huge influx of members as the baby boomers age. So overall, this doesn't sound like such a big deal for the AARP.

At least, in the short-term.

What the AARP does not and has never taken into consideration is that many of the younger are tired of being used as an ATM of sorts for the older and have no intention of ever joining the AARP. The future math is not pretty. In 1950, there were approximately 16 workers for every one person receiving Social Security benefits. Today, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. This was not the fault of those who created the Social Security system. It’s a result of demographic changes. When the system was created in 1935, average life expectancy was 60 for men, 63 for women. An overall improvement in medical and lifestyle changes has brought the average life expectancy up to 77 years. In addition, the baby boomer generation did not have as many kids as their parents, so there are not enough of us to support all of them.

There have been a number of attempts to reform the system, but the AARP has fought tooth and nail against every one of them. When a politician talks about the precarious financial future of Social Security and the need for change, they are shouted down and accused of wanting to slash benefits and leave older people eating dog food out of cans. The AARP usually leads the charge, which is understandable, since it's what they're paid to do.

What the AARP doesn't realize is that in their quest for short-term political gain, they are working against their own long-term interests. When I turn 50, I will likely receive my first mailing from the AARP. When that day comes, I will throw their mailing away and I'm likely not the only one who will do so. Why should those of us in our mid-to late 30's join an organization that has worked against our financial interests for years and whose advocacy has led to greater and greater levels of wealth redistribution from the younger generation to their membership?

Such advocacy may not be the primary mission of the AARP, but it is the most visible one, and the one that has done the most damage to the country's financial future - and by extension, my financial future and that of my children. The organization's ongoing war against reform means a very large bill is coming due all too soon.

Posted by slublog at 06:37 PM | Comments (55) | TrackBack

August 13, 2009

Jackson Lee: I Was Framed

Lies, damn lies...and really, really stupid lies.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, told CNN she had dialed into a Congressional hotline to get more details about a question that was being asked by a constituent at the town hall in Houston on Tuesday. House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room located in Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's, D-Maryland, office that is designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.

"It appears on the video — maybe it's a doctored video — but how I explain it is this: First of all, I take calls from my constituents, but that was not a call that I took," Jackson-Lee said. "I dialed the hotline number to get a better answer."

"It was not disrespectful because I was seeking information for the very town hall I was in," she said. "No offense was intended."

So, the call was completely innocent, but the video was maybe doctored. Good grief. My three-year-old daughter's excuses for her bad behavior are more convincing, if only because the kid's first instinct is not to blame some dark conspiracy.

Watch the video for yourself. Is that a woman looking for "a better answer," or someone who just doesn't give a rat's rear end about the concerns voiced by her constituents?

Posted by slublog at 09:21 PM | Comments (119) | TrackBack

Awww...White House feels "Victimized"

Is the widdle White House not getting what it wants? Awww...poor babies...

Feeling victimized by misinformation spread virally through the Internet, the White House Thursday is launching its own "viral e-mail" for supporters to spread.

With the subject line: "Something worth forwarding," the e-mail — from senior White House adviser David Axelrod — seeks to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" and invites Americans to "start a chain e-mail of our own."

The e-mail outlines 24 points — eight ways the Democrats' health care reform measures will, in Axelrod's view, "provide security and stability to those with or without coverage," eight "common myths" about reform, and eight reasons why reform is an urgent matter.

Huh. If the American people are actually "united" in their desire for healthcare reform, why is the White House having so much trouble creating actual grassroots support in favor of it? When David Axelrod is begging people to help an email go viral, you know they might be in danger of losing the debate.

Oh, and remember those death panels? Yeah, might be time to start writing another email.

Posted by slublog at 09:04 PM | Comments (107) | TrackBack

August 09, 2009

Bored and Photoshopping

Drudge: "Pelosi/Hoyer op-ed in Monday USATODAY calls townhall protesters 'un-American'... Developing... "

Update - If Obama is the Joker, who's Joe Biden...?

Posted by slublog at 09:01 PM | Comments (72) | TrackBack

August 05, 2009

Obama: Report Your Friends and Neighbors!

Well, this is creepy. (h/t: ace):

A leading Republican US Senator on Wednesday sharply assailed a White House request for supporters to help track "fishy" claims about President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul US health care.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House?s political interests," John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.

"As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights," he wrote.

Cornyn was responding to a message on Tuesday from Obama's director of new media, Macon Phillips, who asked on an official White House blog for members of the public to forward questionable claims to the administration...

"Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we?re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," said Philips.

You've got your marching orders. Do your duty, tovarishii. The fate of the country depends on you.

Mockery really is the best weapon against such nonsense. Below is my response. Feel free to pass these on:

Posted by slublog at 10:12 PM | Comments (187) | TrackBack

August 03, 2009

An Alternate Obama Image

Like Allahpundit, I'm not sure I get the point of the "Obama as Joker" poster. My best guess is maybe the artist sees Obama as an agent of chaos, or a thief. Even if I don't like it, I still admire the skill of the artist. That's a very nice photoshop job.

Even though the last sentence of that post wasn't technically an exit question, allow me to post an answer of sorts here:

Not as shocking as the JokerObama poster, but I like to think it gets the point across.

Posted by slublog at 08:52 PM | Comments (106) | TrackBack