« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »

January 31, 2010

What Were They Thinking?

Guest-blogging at Hot Air for a couple of days.

Posted by slublog at 09:23 PM | Comments (151) | TrackBack

January 26, 2010

Geekiest Rap Ever

I'm on Team Hayek.

Posted by slublog at 09:34 PM | Comments (63) | TrackBack

January 19, 2010

On My Signal...

Wow.

Posted by slublog at 09:49 PM | Comments (90) | TrackBack

David Brooks and the Real President

I suppose we should be grateful he's not admiring pants creases. Still, amazing that a guy who prides himself on being smarter than you can write something so breathtakingly false. Behold the power of Obama Beer Goggles:

In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate. When Obama makes a decision, you can be sure that he has heard and accounted for every opposing argument. If he senses an important viewpoint is not represented at a meeting, he will stop the proceedings and demand that it gets included.

If the evidence leads him in directions he finds uncomfortable, he will still follow the evidence. He is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.

Really, David? Really?

Three days after taking office, Obama's response to Republicans who disagreed with the economic stimulus plan was "I won." Obama had been president less than a month when in February he openly mocked Republicans during a speech to the Democratic caucus.

In April, he told a group of bankers that he was the "only thing between you and the pitchforks."

In May, Obama threatened to sic the White House press corps on Chrysler bondholders who disagreed with his plan to bail out GM.

In August, Obama said he did not want "the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," preferring them to "just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."

In September, John Boehner revealed that Obama had not invited GOP leaders to the White House for meetings on healthcare reform since April.

In October, the White House declared war on Fox News and tried to encourage other news organizations to alienate them.

Earlier this month, after both houses of Congress passed different healthcare bills, Obama agreed to a plan that would allow Democratic leaders to sidestep conference committee to once again shut the GOP out of the process. This, despite his oft-repeated promise on the campaign trail to make the debate open and on C-SPAN.

Yesterday, Politico reported that Obama plans to take a "combative" turn to fight for healthcare if Scott Brown wins today's election in Massachusetts.

I'm sure there are other examples, but these stories do not paint a picture of a president interested in "honest and vigorous" debate, and the arguments of those who may disagree with him. His actions on healthcare alone suggest not one who puts evidence-based pragmatism ahead of ideology. It's time for Brooks to bury his Fantasy Obama and face reality - he was suckered.

Cross-posted at The Greenroom

Posted by slublog at 03:42 PM | Comments (48) | TrackBack

January 13, 2010

A Tongue in Need of Taming

Possibly hundreds of thousands dead, many more suffering and Pat Robertson decides blaming a 'satanic pact' is the appropriate response. Read Allahpundit's full post to get an idea of just how offensive Robertson can be when tragedy strikes.

Someone really needs to point Proverbs 21:23 to Pat:

Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

Sometimes, it's better not to open your mouth, lest something really foolish come out of it.

If you want to help the victims of this tragedy:

Samaritan's Purse
American Red Cross
World Vision

ABC News has a good roundup of ways you can help victims of the earthquake.

Posted by slublog at 09:36 PM | Comments (48) | TrackBack

January 07, 2010

Obamacare and the Nursing Shortage

Last month, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released a study on nursing education in the United States. In their research, they studied the extent of the nursing shortage in the country, and the extent of the problem is startling.

To meet current and projected shortages, nursing education programs need to increase their capacity by approximately 90 percent. However, these programs are faced with a severe shortage of faculty, making it difficult to expand; and the already small pool of qualified faculty is rapidly shrinking—almost a third are over the age of 55 and there is a dearth of baccalaureate-level nurses eligible to enter graduate programs. This has caused a sixfold increase in the number of applicants denied admission to nursing schools since 2002.

In other words, nursing schools need to almost double the number of students they graduate into the workforce. There is no shortage of students who want to enter nursing programs, but accreditation requirements mandate a very low student-faculty ratio for those programs, so the number of slots tends to be extremely limited. And, as the excerpt above indicates, the already-small number of faculty is dwindling, which further limits the number of nurses entering the workforce. As the shortage grows worse, the nurses already in the field are forced to work longer hours, which both increases the burnout rate and decreases the quality of patient care.

In short, we don't have enough nurses in this country to meet our healthcare needs, and those needs are only going to grow as the baby boom generation ages and requires more acute medical care. So what does this have to do with Obamacare? To answer that question, one only needs to look north, where the nursing shortage is reaching near-epidemic levels. Because Canada's healthcare is "free," there is high demand for those services and the available resources are consumed all-too-quickly, leading to shortages. How has that affected nursing care? I'll let the Canadian government explain:

As budgets have been cut in healthcare settings, nurses have been caught in the middle of a speed-up. Simply put, there are fewer nurses to do more nursing, and nurses are simultaneously expected to pick up non-nursing tasks that were not previously the routine responsibility of nursing staff. Nurses are educated to care for patients, but the shortage of support staff has meant that nurses must attend to ancillary needs while patient care is neglected. Unfortunately those other tasks cannot be ignored - patients need meals delivered, they need to get to operating rooms and they need supplies and equipment - and nurses are doing them.

Nurses have a finite number of hours in their shifts, so time they spend performing such tasks is time they cannot spend on direct patient care. Add into that equation the effect this has on nurse morale, and you have a perfect recipe for nurse burnout, which leads to nurses leaving the workforce and a further deterioration of quality in care. So where do those nurses go?

One guess.

President Obama and the Democrats may denigrate the American healthcare system in order to pass their version of "reform," but it would be interesting to see them explain why, if our healthcare system is so terrible, nurses flock to our shores for the chance to work in it. There is a major difference between our nursing shortage and Canada's. Here, we lack the capacity to train enough nurses to meet our needs. In Canada, they lack the funds to pay enough nurses to sustain the system. True healthcare reform would seek a solution to the problem of supply in the interests of improving care. Obamacare, on the other hand, puts political correctness first.

Under the Democrats' plans, if a medical school wants to receive contracts and grants from the federal government, it must operate under a quota system and be able to prove it. On Page 909, the House bill states: "In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the (HHS) secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

This policy may help fund nursing programs in some parts of the country, but it will do little to alleviate the shortage of medical care in geographic areas where there simply are not enough minorities to recruit into medical programs. Our shortage of healthcare professionals - nurses and doctors - is too serious to be subordinated to a misguided affirmative action program.

The Carnegie study is not the first to show the extent of the nursing shortage, but Democrats in Congress should fully understand the effects of their reform on that shortage as they 'debate' the bill behind closed doors.

Cross posted at The Greenroom

Posted by slublog at 10:28 PM | Comments (258) | TrackBack

January 04, 2010

"Stand Firm..."

Do yourself a favor and watch this. Now.

Posted by slublog at 10:21 PM | Comments (110) | TrackBack

NPR's Low Standards

I like NPR. Their news stories are long and thorough, and many of their entertainment programs ("Car Talk") are fun. Plus, they're so relaxing. NPR receives 11% of their funding through the federally-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so it was a bit shocking to see the NPR website hosting this bit of "satire."

Like ace says, you helped pay for it by working and paying taxes, so you might as well click the link and enjoy it. And hey, they said "teabag" which makes it edgy, or something.

Personally, I'm not really all that excited about helping to fund propaganda that is both crude and insulting, so I fired up the word processor and wrote a letter to each member of my congressional delegation, something I rarely do. The letters go out in the mail tomorrow. When they open the letters, this is what they'll read:

I am writing to express my displeasure with an animated video hosted on National Public Radio’s website. The video is available at the following web address:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047 and although it is labeled as an opinion piece, is inappropriate considering that the funding structure of NPR includes taxpayer dollars.

The video mocks the so-called “Tea Party” movement, portraying them as people incapable of understanding the complexities of the debate over health care reform. While there has undoubtedly been some overheated rhetoric used to oppose the health care reform proposal, it is improper for an organization supported in part by taxpayers to malign citizens exercising their right to speak out against actions of their government. In hosting this video, NPR is showing derision for those who have legitimate and substantive disagreements with the proposed health care legislation. The very title of the video, “How to Speak Tea Bag,” is insulting, as it is derived from a crude sexual slang. It’s sad that NPR, a station I enjoy, would resort to such a puerile attack on those who disagree with the health care reform proposal.

I would ask that your office please look into the decision-making process that allowed such a video to be hosted by NPR and encourage the media organization to show more discretion in its editorial choices and respect for the opinion of those whose taxes play a small role in helping them stay on the air. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and for your attention to this matter.

I encourage you to do the same.

Cross-posted at The Greenroom

Posted by slublog at 09:07 PM | Comments (143) | TrackBack