Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Delphine Silverstar's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Friday, October 9th, 2009
7:48 am	WTF "President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize" The people who award the Nobel prizes have been shameful before (awarding one to Carter for his viciousness towards Bush, awarding one to Gore because of his science fiction movie) but this really takes the cake. Barrack Obama might be a nice guy but HE HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED A SINGLE F*CKING THING! This prize comes on the heels of a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of the long list of promises that Obama made and is still trying to fulfill. In other words, as the AP article said, the prize committee awarded it for things that Obama might theoretically do in the future. Moreover, they were considering giving him one of these prizes barely a month after his presidency began (Feb 27 article headline in "The Independent": "Obama 'in running for Nobel peace prize'") when he was just thinking about going out into the world and giving speeches. Today, Obama is blatantly unworthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, having done nothing whatsoever to promote peace other than being "not Bush." It is quite possible that he will later do things worthy of this prize but as it stands now, he has not and therefore is not. What could the Nobel committee have possibly been thinking? Current Mood: shocked (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, October 1st, 2009
10:56 am	Weighed in the Balance I've been following the matter of director Roman Polanski from a distance. Among all of the other things there are to think about, to follow, to be concerned with, the travails of a pedophile/hebephile (I'm not sure precisely which category he'd fit best into) are not particularly important. My thoughts on the matter were really simple: someone should man up, haul him back to the US, and make him defend himself for what he was accused of. But there is another dimension to all of this and that is the throngs of groupies with governments joining in wailing for Polanski to be left alone to enjoy his exile. I cannot imagine what is in the minds of these people. Their argument is that when you weigh what Polanski did against all the great films he's made, the balance falls in his favor. Can anyone imagine a more perverse argument than claiming that a man can rape a child (and I use the words deliberately because while a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old getting it on in the backseat of a car might be a really shaky reason for charging the adult with rape, an older man drugging a 13-year-old girl and having sex with her fits every conceivable definition) and then win indulgence for his sins by making good movies? Even more than that, can you imagine a nation's government willingly and happily sheltering such a person for 31 years? Many on the liberal side of things treat the utility of external morality as an open question; THIS is what sort of thing you get when the only moral principles you hold dear are the urgent morality of putting one more person on the government dole and vehement condemnation of someone who dares to "judge" another or is "intolerant". I hope Switzerland has the moral courage to throw this man off the European continent so hard he bounces--all the way back to the welcoming arms of American law enforcement. No other outcome is just. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, September 25th, 2009
11:29 pm	Obama warns Iran: 'come clean' on nukes Perfect answer from Iran: "Or what? You'll speechify?" I found this article really interesting for a few reasons. First, Obama announces that a military option isn't off the table which, coming from him, is comedic. The much heralded unilateralist cowboy couldn't muster enough grit to seriously threaten Iran with a military response--why would any rational person believe that Mr Apology Tour has the spine to do it? Second, tell me what you think of this: "He said he was confident in the reliability of the intelligence information about Iran's secret nuclear facilities. 'This was the work product of three intelligence agencies, not just one,' Obama said. 'They checked over this work in a painstaking fashion.'" Now, keep that in mind and let's replace a couple words: "He said he was confident in the reliability of the intelligence information about Iraq's secret WMD facilities. 'This was the work product of multiple intelligence agencies, not just one,' Bush said. 'They checked over this work in a painstaking fashion.'" Does anyone believe that there will be ANY chance of Obama being endlessly accused of lying if the intelligence agreed upon by multiple agencies turns out to be incorrect as Bush's information probably was? I don't think so either. Current Mood: amused (Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
10:27 pm	"Analysis: Miles to go on long road to climate deal" From the AP story: "as France's President Nicolas Sarkozy pointed out, 'time is not our ally here.'" Good call, Mr. President! Obviously, he meant something entirely different from the way I'm taking it but he's right... they have to hurry if they're going to impose their schemes on us before they're undercut by the truth. Current Mood: blank (Comment on this)
10:21 am	Obama: US `determined to act' on climate change It's stupid things like this that makes me so happy that the ability to bind our nations to the dreamy fantasies of the wildly irresponsible UN is in the hands of the US Congress alone. Time, in this instance, is on the side of the opponents. Since the proof that mankind really influences the state of the climate is scientifically absurd, the longer we delay the mindless schemes of the alarmists, the more their collectivist dream will fade away under repeated assaults of reality. The reason it's important to hold the line is that once they embark on their little crusade, they will not turn back and by the time science has shown that their allegations were always mythology, the damage will be done and it will be severe. Current Mood: bitchy (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, September 19th, 2009
10:31 pm	"Obama rolling into week of high diplomatic stakes" Frankly, I'm not sure why AP put this story out or even pretends to believe it. He'll be going to the G-20 as the head of state of a country whose financial situation is going to hell in a bullet train which is largely due to policies he believes in; he'll be crippled from day one trying to appear to have any credibility whatsoever on the issue. Global climate change leadership? Pbbbt, right. The way that America under Obama plans to "lead" the world is to paste on a happy smile and follow the mindless notions that Europe is peddling about climate change no matter how scientifically absurd. If America was set to lead the world, it'd be advocating a nuclear plan on every corner and selling coal power plants to third world countries at knockdown rates because it is prosperity that has the strongest influence on environmental care, not halfwitted notions about forcing the world to be virtuous at the business end of a gun. Middle East peace? Pipe dream on stilts. Obama can't create peace in the Middle East because his stance, like Clinton's, is a proud defensive cringe. Creating peace requires strength, realism, courage, and leadership; the America of today lacks all of those quantities and this lacking flows from the top. Same deal with Iran and North Korea: America has been so determinedly weak, even when Bush was vowing to be strong, that it won't be able to stop either country from developing nuclear weapons. Nor will the EU, by the way. The only real hope is Israel committing an act of war (bombing a sovereign nation absent a state of war) and hoping that Iran's program isn't far enough along to allow them to retaliate. Which, incidentally, is the entire point of the Iranian program: nations with nukes don't tend to get slapped around by others, even those that have their own nukes. At least Obama finally did something right (although I doubt he did it for the right reasons) in scuttling that Bush-era missile defense system in eastern Europe. There was a point at which American presidents acknowledged that the geographical areas surrounding Russia constitute that country's sphere of influence vital to its national security, must like the geographical areas surrounding the United States are our sphere of influence vital to our national security. Sticking any military system, even an explicitly defensive military system, in Russia's sphere of influence was a stupid and dangerous move since no nation or military alliance, including NATO, can ultimately prevent Russia from exercising its sovereignty in its backyard. Acknowledging spheres of influence is the first step towards making common cause with one of the larges military powers in the world although I've a feeling that Obama doing the wise thing was an example of subservience, not wisdom. I look forward to Obama's performance and the subsequent weakening of the world's last superpower in the international community. Current Mood: amused (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
6:45 pm	Gee, Who Woulda Thunk It? http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 Click on the above two links and read deeply. I've commented to others in real-life conversations that the system the Democrats and liberal praise and want to implement in America goes beyond mere inefficiency and inconvenience. A cancer mortality rate in ANY category of cancer 604% higher in a first-world country outside the United States is simply ghastly, a frightening failure of a system to safeguard the well-being of those under it. To put it simply, their flawed system plows under thousands of people in pursuit of equality for all yet I can go to blogs and listen to ideologues who warmly praise these systems despite the fact that these numbers are available to them. I submit to you, my loyal readers, that nothing is more damning than knowing that a system will exact a cost in blood... and demand that it be implemented anyway. I am personally not surprised at this ideological purity; this is the same crowd that demands lighter more fuel-efficient cars despite knowing that fuel efficiency lightens vehicles and that people WILL die more frequently in lighter cars. This is the same crowd that demands the extinction of coal power despite knowing full well that it will condemn millions in Africa to squalor for generations to come. This is the same crowd that won the banning of DDT and continues to campaign against it despite knowing that the malaria epidemic (which DDT fights very effectively) in Africa is equivalent to loading 7 Boeing 747s full of people and crashing them into Mt. Killimanjaro every day. Ultimately, this is also the crowd that was singing the praises of the "worker's paradise" of communism as the hands of those that implemented that ideology dripped with the blood of tens of millions of innocent people. Calculated ideologically-inspired blindness is a very scary thing. Current Mood: shocked (7 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009
10:47 pm	Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise "Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?" So let me try to wrap my brain around this sentence from the AP news story. Almost every single line of this healthcare "reform" plan constitutes conservatives not getting what they want and liberals are whining about making concessions? THE ENTIRE FRICKIN' "REFORM" IS A CONCESSION TO LIBERALS! Government having any additional control over healthcare is a concession to liberals. The public option is a concession, openings in the bill for funding abortion and giving illegal aliens health insurance is a concession, spending billions of dollars during a recession is a concession. They're drowning in concessions but are whining about having to give up one of them? Perhaps they should be grateful that at the end of this mess, they'll get something; it's a helluva lot more than they got when Clinton tried this trick and it's about twice as much as they deserve. Ingrates. Current Mood: aggravated (17 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, August 14th, 2009
11:45 pm	"Obama denounces emphasis on health care protests" AP, I love you so... I think this quote pretty much says it all: "President Barack Obama on Friday denounced news media emphasis on angry protesters at town hall meetings." So essentially, Obama would be tickled pink if the news people stopped paying any attention to the proletariat protesting his plans to fiddle around with healthcare. Well, that's ONE way to get your opponents to be quiet... Oh, and another choice couple quotes from this article: "Obama made his latest appearance as a prominent ally, John Podesta, said the high-decibel attacks are designed to destroy his presidency rather than merely defeat health care legislation." Doncha just love wild and completely unsubstatiated theorizing? That a failure in healthcare would severely damage Obama's presidency, that is a juicy side benefit to defeating a horrid proposal for "reform." "At a breakfast with reporters in Washington, Podesta predicted such tactics would backfire on Republicans..." I think Mr. Podesta is having a little trouble with his definitions. People who belong to the Republican Party are Republicans. Those protesting Obama's plans represent the general public, not Republicans specifically. Thus, the tactic can hardly backfire upon Republicans since they're not using it. Current Mood: blah (10 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, August 6th, 2009
10:31 pm	This Ain't 1930's Ukraine, Democrats I think that the Democrat party is experiencing a moment of severe disorientating anachronism. It seems that they are under the impression that they're Bolsheviks and we're kulaks and that this is the 1930s. Why do I say this? Well, they are so certain that they're right that they've decided that the common serfs protesting their grand designs need to be declared enemies of the people and that the proletariat cannot possibly legitimately oppose their schemes. Now if y'all know history, you know what the Bolsheviks decided to do about the kulaks and I'm certainly not implying that the Democrats have anything even resembling that in mind for us but as with that situation, the people who have power and have decided that only they know best are reacting to the people protesting their schemes by rhetorical retaliation and smearing. Their AFL-CIO buddies are vowing to actually and openly do what they pretend that the Republicans are doing and coordinate union members to go to meetings and shout down the dissidents. We're getting sneering rhetoric from the Democrats in the Senate and House about how this isn't a grassroots movement (they're tossing the word "astroturf" around for reasons known only to them) and pretending that all the conservative/Republican arguments against their scheme do not exist so they can further pretend that normal people flocking to town hall meetings to register their negative impressions of the proposed "reform" are Republican thugs being coordinated to shut down debate. Words like "mob" and "thug" are being spit at those registering dissent. You have the party in power doing everything they can to sell the storyline that those vocally opposing them should be ignored because they don't count. Heck, you even have the White House encouraging people to REPORT TO THEM anything that sounds "fishy" (which, considering the source, can only mean any argument in opposition to the Obama administration). According to an unnamed official, the White House has promised wavering lawmakers that "the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising." Sorta sounds like the people screaming that they're being shouted down plan to start shouting people down, don't it? In the first place, this accusation that the Republicans are trying to shut the debate down is complete idiocy that vividly demonstrates either how out-of-touch Democrats are or how unprincipled. The clear fact of the matter is that delaying the vote (in other words, keeping the debate going) helps the Republicans because the longer it takes, the more Americans learn about what's going on--and start telling pollsters "Not In Our Name!" In the second place, isn't this the same little crowd that was babbling about dissent (by which they meant screaming protesters rioting in city streets) being patriotic when it was Bush in office? In the immortal words of Emilio Estevez: "Life's a bitch when it works against you, isn't it, Jack?" Current Mood: annoyed (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009
8:45 am	White House Uses Web against Drudge Attack Yanno, just copying and pasting AP story headlines makes it delightfully easy to create titles for my posts. ^_^ Anyway, I read this and said to my computer screen "Oh, c'mon!" First, I've heard the attack that the article is referencing. The attack consists of playing clips of Obama fairly explicitly laying out his goal of a single-payer system and consoling supporters that while they can't get there immediately, the public option is the first step. And no, this isn't interpretation of what he says... he says precisely that. The clips are from 2004 and 2007 respectively. The article has the White House claiming that the clips were taking out of context to generate a false impression. What context could there POSSIBLY be that would change the meaning of the words Obama spoke? Unless there was a "my opponents say that" or "I'm joking, of course" somewhere in close proximity to those words (although the first one is from years before he was running for the presidency so I doubt the first possibility), the "dirt" is damning to any White House or supporter claims that the public option is a step towards single-payer. In the montage I heard (yes, it was on a conservative talk show although I don't see how that makes the audio clips any less legitimate) there was also a clip of Barney Frank admitting that they can't get to a single-payer system immediately but the public option is a good step in that direction and a clip of a House Democrat (I didn't catch her name) recounting a conversation with an insurance executive in which he expressed the concern that the public option would drive them out of business; at the end of recounting the conversation, the congresswoman shouts "Guess what? He was exactly right!" to general applause. Now, I'll grant that a collection that includes direct statements from the president and a fairly powerful Democrat isn't airtight proof that the public option is meant to be the first step towards the Canadian/British systems that conservatives cite in warning but it DOES complicate the task of a supporter of Obama's plan trying to explain that a single-payer system is highly unlikely and that it isn't Obama's intention. Current Mood: Interested (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
11:27 pm	"Dems warn GOP of backlash for opposing Sotomayor" The title of the AP story sorta says everything, doesn't it? Somehow, the Democrats have gotten the notion in their remarkably numb skulls that opposing a Supreme Court nominee on principle will cause people who happen to share said nominee's skin color to castigate the opposition. Were this true, whites and blacks would be coming for the Democrats with pitchforks and torches after their vicious character assassination campaigns against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Obviously, at least to me, the "warning" is more of a threat that Democrats will manufacture facts to fit what they want the truth to be. One can only hope that Republicans sneer at their opponents' blatant attempts to intimidate them and give up this inane balancing act that the I'm-better-than-the-rest-of-you "moderates" are always talking about and just stand against the type of jurisprudence that Sotomayor represents. A vain hope, I know (some Republicans have already announced that they'll support the lady out of the irrational fear that those who share her skin color will punish them at the polls) but one can dream. As a general aside, has anyone picked up on the fact that the self-designated saints of civil rights are the ones that are going out of their way to focus attention on the RACE of the nominee over her MERITS? But you can be sure that no one who talks about how race is still an unresolved issue is going to slam the introduction of race into this matter... and that is because the "sinner" has established the reality in the public mind that no matter how racist they act, the OTHER guys are the racists. Current Mood: contemplative (Comment on this)
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009
9:31 am	Why They Can't Win Y'all wanna know why I believe Republicans always end up losing elections and being smashed in the poll by Democrats proposing to enact programs the citizens don't want? Because they are WEAK. They're too weak to take a unified party stand against an unsuitable Supreme Court nominee. They're too weak to hold the line against foolhardy legislation intended to miraculously "fix" the mythical anthropogenic climate change. They're too weak to present a unified front against insanely irresponsible levels of spending when we're in the middle of a frickin' RECESSION. And, apparently, they're too weak to roundly refuse to embark on a misguided crusade alongside Obama and his Democrat lackeys to smash the world's finest healthcare system by dropping the anvil of government control on it. Somehow, this situation brings me back to the movie "The Dark Knight" where Joker is telling one of the city crime bosses "This city deserves a better class of criminals." Well, this country and loyal Republicans deserve a better class of opposition party. Not these weak and frightened little men who're so terrified that someone might not love them that they're incapable of standing up to their opponents when needed. Of course I'm not condemning compromise as such but the "moderate" Republican version of "compromise" is no different than supporting every cockamamie Democrat scheme that comes down the pipe. An example of compromise on healthcare reform would be Republicans trading away their blanket opposition to any form of government intervention to get harmful and unnecessary handcuffs removed from the industry. I don't see why Democrats couldn't live with getting to spend more money pretending to help people in return for letting insurance companies put together whatever custom package a customer may ask for (for example). And I, as a conservative Republican, could live with the government buying good insurance for those citizens who are truly unable to buy access to our country's superior system. Current Mood: aggravated (Comment on this)
Thursday, July 16th, 2009
9:18 am	"A Fist to the Nose and a Gentle Elbow Nudge" My title phrase for this entry comes from an AP story detailing how the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are responding to Republican criticisms of the stimulus package and health care "reform". First, the fist to the nose: "No fewer than four Cabinet secretaries wrote to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer — also a Republican — to ask her if she agreed with Kyl that it was time to turn off the state’s stimulus spigot. “If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know,” wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. For good measure, he attached a three-page addendum listing each of the Arizona projects paid for by the $521 million the state is getting." So let's see if I'm understanding this right... Senator Kyl of Arizona is criticizing the "stimulus" package that the Obama Administration put a high priority on and succeeded in passing, correctly pointing out that it is built to start spending the money AFTER the point in time that the Administration claims recovery will begin, has failed miserably in keeping unemployment below the president's promised 8%, and has yet to show any sign of affecting the economic situation. In response, part of Obama's cabinet (under direction from Rahm Emmanuel) write a letter to Kyl's technical boss--the governor of his state--pointedly asking if she wants her state to experience a budget shortfall and just to make it stick, reminds her of how much money they can take away. And then Democrats wave the letters around for all to see. It's not as if Governor Brewer is ignorant of what cutting off the stimulus dollars means for Arizona so why, if not to threaten her, would the Obama Administration pointedly remind her of the fact? It's so tempting to make reference to Al Capone, another gentleman from Illinois who became famous for the way in which he convinced rivals to back off. Additionally, some DNC spokesmouth announced “If Republicans want to bash job creation in their own home states for political purposes, that’s their choice, but we aren’t going to hesitate to point out that they are putting their party’s political strategy above good jobs for the people they were elected to represent.” I cannot even begin to dissect the ways in which that it an imbecile statement. The money is creating one job for every two it destroys; were I the Democrats, I wouldn't brag so loudly about the jobs they're creating lest some enterprising soul point out that they're hemmorhagging jobs faster than they can "create" them. Moreover, these aren't good jobs... they last just as long as as taxpayer money keeps flowing and then they go away. A job dependent upon the taxpayers not getting pissed off and electing a Congress that will kill the "stimulus" and lower taxes isn't much of a job. The gentle nudge pretty much consists of running ads in the states of moderate Democrats emphasizing that the time to fix healthcare is now, NOW, NOW before someone stops a moment to think about it and realizes how bad of an idea it is. The moderates are pretty much giving a collective shrug because making senators feel the heat by appealing to their constituents is a tried and true tactic. At least they're waking up enough that the Administration feels the need to prod them along towards their very own Omelas (read the short story "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" to understand). It'd be even better if they recognized what they were being prodded towards and forced the Administration to start breaking legs before they voted the "right" way. I actually support it getting to that point--it'd go a long ways to illustrating the kind of folks people put into the White House. Current Mood: Resolute (12 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, July 13th, 2009
6:22 pm	A "Wise" "Latina" I'll bet y'all are just chomping at the bit for me to post sometime in honor of the commencement of Judge Sotomayor's hearing before the Judicial Committee. Well, OK, fine, I'm good with that. There's not much for me to say, really. Just between me, y'all, and a lamppost chosen at random, I think it strange that she talks about herself as a Puerto Rican when she's probably only set foot there on vacations. Yes, her parents immigrated there but just because my dad came from Utah and my mom in California doesn't make me a resident of either state; I am a citizen of the land in which I'm born. At this point, I feel like being facetious and asking if it's really wise to put someone on the Supreme Court who doesn't know the difference between New York and Puerto Rico. ^_~ To be more serious, Sonia Sotomayor is no more a Puerto Rican than Cesar Chavez was a Mexican: both were born in the United States and were uncontestedly Americans although Chavez didn't have as much trouble telling people so. Also, as a trifling point of order, wouldn't it follow that a wise person wouldn't join or author legal opinions that are found legally wanting by the highest appeals court? Worse, of course, is joining or authoring a legal opinon that even the dissenting justices regarded as anemic; Ms. Sotomayor achieved this rather amazing feat. Yes, Sotomayor will be successfully approved by Obama's Democratic yes-men. He could have nominated the night janitor of the correct gender and racial background and would probably get a win just on general principle. I think we will look forward to liberal-tilting opinions written in such a way as to create laws and legal precedents that make a deliberate mockery of the Constitution much the way that clever wording paved the way for atrocious decisions striking down all abortion laws (violating the 10th Amendment) and barring religion from the public sphere in deliberate violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Liberal/Democrat senators can lie and smear nominees to get rid of them (see Robert Bork, Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas as recent examples although their proxy lies couldn't derail Thomas); having been too spineless to remain conservative stalwarts and therefore win a filibuster possibility, the Republicans are incapable of protecting the American people from poor judges who make no beans about their intention to ignore impartiality. By the way... since when is a female latino a "latina"? This sounds like the imbicile insistance on using "herstory" in place of "history", replacing a proper word with a gender-specialized alternative that means nothing. Current Mood: amused (13 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, June 19th, 2009
9:58 am	Two Issues Well, I do believe that I'm overdue for my weekly ritual of dosing the wonderful readers in ideology (or my own loopy notions thereon) so off we go! I've got three issues on the grill today: healthcare "reform" and world hunger (which I'll tangent into something else entirely, just because I can). I'll start with the second because it's gonna be the shorter one: according to some international agency, about 1 billion of the world's people are subsisting on a starvation diet. Actually, the agency says that about 1 billion people are "hungry" which has proven to be a rather nebulous measurement in the past but it's a good round number for my purposes. Now, we know what the basic staple crops in the world are: wheat, rice, and corn. Most every human being in the world gets their daily supply of complex carbohydrates from those three grains and so they're considered pretty dang important to have lots of. Well, it turns out that there's an alternative use for corn (and here's where I start the tangent): ethanol. Now, if you feed corn to a distillery instead of a person, you have a hungry person but feel more righteous because you're not burning as much of that evil gasoline in your car. If you feed that corn to a distillery instead of a cow, you have fewer cows and more hungry people but you feel better about yourself. Why is this relevant? Well, in case y'all didn't get it from the mildly biting comments at the ends of the last two sentences, the global warming believers want us to trade food for nicer gasoline which, as the international agency demonstrates, amounts to trading human lives largely in the 3rd world for better gas mileage and a more virtuous fuel. Blood for reduced emissions, you could call it. While for some of the greenies, this formulation has already been considered a reasonable price to pay for salvation, I truly believe (or, more accurately, I sincerely hope) that for most of them, advocating this solution is just another example of screaming for action without thinking about the consequences. I'd much prefer to feed staving children in Africa than have ethanol fuel, wouldn't you? Now, on to the first topic which recently sorta smacked me upside the head. My mom has a very dear personal friend, someone that has practically been a sister to her since they were 5 years old (my mom is around 51 right now) and with whom she's corresponded religiously for 25 years. About 12 months ago, shortly after visiting our home (my mom's friend lives in southern California whereas we live in northern Oregon), she began experiencing unusual cramps and kidney problems which was unusual because the woman's only vice is coffee; she's thin as a rail with seemingly unlimited energy. So she goes into the doctor who blows her off, attributing the illness to age. Problems get mildly worse and 3 months later, a doctor diagnoses her with an extremely rare liver problem--one that is almost never seen outside old white men (the only thing this woman is is mildly white). So they poke around give her a few pills, and put her on the liver transplant list since that's essentially the only way to fix it in the end. 4 months after THAT, they open her up to do get at the heavily scarred liver valve... and realize that the woman has stage 4 liver cancer and is pretty much terminal. Mom's devastated but her friend seems to rally a bit since she's was in great health and is really cheery and hyperenergetic. Within the last week or so, the woman has taken a turn for the worst; as of 4 days ago, her body has shut down so far that she can no longer recognize her family. 7 days ago, it finally occurred to the doctors to put the woman under a full-body MRI to see where the cancer was (they had never tried to do this before then despite knowing for at least 9 months that the liver was cancerous) and discovered that her lungs, liver, and other organs were riddled with metastasized tumors. 5 days ago, about 12 months after my mom's friend has complained of troubles related to her kidneys, a nephrologist (kidney specialist) finally gets a look at her and announces that the woman's kidneys have been virtually shut down for almost a year. Somehow, the awful state of this woman's kidneys, an EXTREMELY important little detail, had completely evaded all these specialists for nearly 12 months. Naturally, my mom is devastated, feeling as if she's preparing to say goodbye to one of her own children; that's how close she was to this woman. It's painful to lose someone to cancer but even more painful to lose them to cancer because the doctors blew them off until they could no longer do so. Now, what, one might ask, does this have to do with healthcare "reform"? Well, examine this situation. Working entirely on their own, well-paid, fully-trained, private sector doctors managed to miss very obvious problems in a suffering patient until it was beyond their power to do anything about it. Now, imagine that there was some sort of health oversight board, a government agency, who rummaged through patient files and determined appropriate treatments without having ever laid eyes on the person they're treating. The prospect is horrifying, a group of folks who are incapable of efficiently delivering a letter and have proven monstrously incompetent at managing MediCare and MedicAid getting their hands on delivering healthcare for all Americans. Can you see why I might think that the government having ANYTHING to do with healthcare might be a dangerous prospect? I've watched my mom's suffering; I don't want anyone to have to go through it on behalf of a friend or relative or child or spouse and I guarantee that if the people who have trouble figuring out how to put a piece of paper with someone's address written on it in their mailbox get control of caring for our health, there'll be numerous other people like my poor mom and her friend out there. There are signs that Obama might be defeated on healthcare or at least have to give immense ground; any senator, lobbyist, representative, or person who ensures his defeat on this issue will be doing the rest of us a great and lasting service. Current Mood: contemplative (42 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, June 11th, 2009
11:55 pm	Sad Commentary I have absolutely no use for what is generally called the mainstream media. I regard them as ignorant, incapable of percieving their own bias, and blatently dishonest when it serves their ideaological predilictions. But I think the saddest commentary on how pathetic the mainstream media is was the interview of John Ziegler by MSNBC's Contessa Brewer. As many of you know, late-night comic David Letterman joked about Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter being knocked up by Alex Rodreguez and referred to Palin's "slutty flight attendent look". Knowing that Letterman made those comments, Brewer actually asked Ziegler "Why was she {Palin} so offended by David Letterman?" Can you imagine the level of mind-numbing ignorance and/or stupidity required to ask why a woman would be offended by comments about her minor daughter being knocked up and having her appearance referred to as a "slutty flight attendent"? Why ask such a question? I can walk down the hall and ask my little brother and he could tell me. I could pull a random idiot off the street and they could tell me. Yet this reporter actually either pretended to be too stupid to know the answer or really is so out of touch with reality that she honestly thought that the answer was difficult. Either way, it's really really sad. Current Mood: Aghast (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, June 1st, 2009
10:17 pm	On George Tiller Over the weekend, one Dr. George Tiller of Kansas, a provider of the procedure (I cannot seriously refer to it as a medical procedure) that is colloquially known as "partial-birth abortion" was gunned down in his church. Whatever the evil of the procedure that Dr. Tiller's medical oath somehow allowed him to comfortably provide, his murder, especially in a church, is an abhorrant act. Quite rightly, the entire spectrum of the pro-life movement vehemently condemned the murder; I believe that the best summary of the movement's opinion of Dr. Tiller was summed up by the words "We prayed daily that Dr. Tiller would have a change of heart but we never wished to see him dead." Despite the horrible and barbaric nature of the procedure that Dr. Tiller provided and despite the mockery it made of his duty as a physician to do no harm and to save any life that was possible for him to save, there is no justification for his murder. But there is a secondary tragedy to this event. Perhaps tragedy is not the correct word; travesty would be better. Nearly the moment this happened, pro-abortion and leftist sources began rolling out dark intonations that while there was only one murderer, there were a multitude of people responsible. Guess who they've decided is partly to blame for one person deciding to murder another? In a way, it is a sick accusation, calling an entire group facilitators of murder because they hold a certain viewpoint about the universal sanctity of innocent life. It would seem that in their minds, because there is a risk that some evil person somewhere out there might hear our moral opinions and use them to justify doing evil to another person, we should shut up. I'm certain that would make them very happy, not having to hear accusations of supporting a horrible and immoral "right"... but so long as the courts refuse to allow the people the right to make the descision for their communities, we will never stop fighting. We wish to see the end of destroying the most innocent of lives... and our opponents wish to see it continue under the aegis of a "right" and further, they feel that blackening names in the way they are is a legitimate tool to defeat their foes. Judge for yourselves who is the worse of the two groups. Current Mood: angry (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009
10:22 am	Finally, the Right Thing Ah, it's hard to properly express my glee. The California Supreme Court chose to act responsibly and upheld Proposition 8. This is a victory for the people against the bullying of a smug minority. Now, they will be forced to gain their victory legitimately, by changing hearts and minds and winning at the ballot box, same as the majority is forced to do. It's always a pleasure to see a court do the right thing. Current Mood: Happy! (33 Comments |Comment on this)
9:13 am	The Highest Court Well, here we are... Obama has finally announced his pick for the Supreme Court. As could have been predicted, he decided to act as if the nomination needed to be the right skin color and gender and so, we have a Hispanic woman named Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee. Mind you, I don't have anything against Hispanics, women, or any combination of the two; I just wonder if they ought to figure in at all when determining who is capable of responsibly serving on the US Supreme Court. At first blush, this woman seems slightly liberal but clearly competant which is about as much as you can ask for. One thing about the AP article announcing the pick irked me, however. It included the sentence "Given her background, any effort to filibuster her nomination could carry political risks, since Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically." I can't help but wonder... why would it carry political risks to delay or reject a nominee because you feel that they cannot or will not fulfill their duties as a Supreme Court justice? Mind you, it's not that I don't know what that cute little sentence means but I simply regret it. In essence, a sentence like that is an warning that if Republicans express misgivings about the woman, the liberals will whip out the "RACIST!" or "SEXIST!" cards so fast that Republicans won't know what hit them. The woman might have all the merits of a Justice John Marshall but if she's placed on the Court after any legitimate criticisms are beaten down with the "-Ism" club, it will be a sad day. When you get right down to it, only liberals would ever consider such a tactic to ram their agenda through. Current Mood: curious (2 Comments |Comment on this)