Email Exchange

February 25, 2010

in chronological order;

My introduction to the topic: This is why it was important to have a plan

We debated last night whether Republicans could run on what would essentially be a “change” theme in 2010 or whether they actually had to have a plan.

I argued for the need for a plan.

If today’s health care summit has any meaning at all (and impact on public perception would give it meaning), then I believe today’s actions is an indication of the need for a plan.

The headline of the referenced article from the Associated Press is “GOP to Obama at summit: ‘We have a better idea’

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Most people will only read the headline and without any kind of plan, the headline would have been quite different. I’m actually surprised the AP ran this headline regardless of the underlying facts.

Today CNN released a poll that both in which both sides can take comfort. On one hand only 25% of the public wants Congress to pass the existing bill. (25% just want them to stop working on health care altogether.)

On the other hand the public likes most of the provisions of the bill independently. Which part of this poll each side focusses on is not a mystery. We’ll see how perception changes, but for many, I think it’s obvious the President and Congress were never sincere in soliciting input from the GOP.

But, we’ll have to see how opinion shifts.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/24/rel4ha.pdf

On thing’s for sure, the Democrats are not going to stop pushing for this, not matter what any polls say.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ first friend’s reply:

I think the first part of the plan should be to explore whether the states can be convinced to start working on an amicable divorce arrangement to scrap the “United States” as it currently stands.  I’d be willing to become a citizen of whichever side comes closest to keeping the Bill of Rights and providing constitutional guarantees against slavery, abortion, gay marriage, and unlimited federal borrowing (maybe throw “medicinal” use of marijuana in there too).  If that’s not workable in the short-run, then maybe an interim arrangement to trade Illinois to Canada for province to be named later would suffice.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{second friend’s reply:

I’m thinking it would be worth taking all those parts of the US that would fit in non-FriendOneLand and make them (us) part of Canada, while Alberta and parts west could join the USA.  I know that New England would become part of Canada (probably would do it today if a plebiscite were held).  I’m guessing that Virginia would be part of Scott’s USA, unless it voted county by county.  My question is where Maryland would fall.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{ {Back to Friend One:

Whether the old Civil War divisions would hold up or not would be intriguing. Another interesting scramble might be out on the Pacific Coast. And whether TX would align at all or just go completely independent.

A county-by-county split would make for a lot of isolated islands on both sides, no? There might have to be a grace period during which a county of the opposite color of its surrounding counties would be permitted to come into line with that country’s Constitution, at least in FriendOneLand. Since Non-FriendOneLand would be tolerant of all behaviors that didn’t threaten the power of the central government, I suspect that the foreigners in their midst would probably just be ignored.

Hey, it would be cool to just have one of these new countries named after me, let alone both.

In the tank, as they say

February 22, 2010

This AP article mentions that the Obama plan intends to limit the amount an insurance company can raise rates three times. If that were the limits of the legislation, then it might take about ten pages. What are the other 1,990 for?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100222/D9E19OD80.html

No wonder I have to go to the British press to get actual news.

 

But it seems to lay out a position.

http://action.gop.com/site/c.ouITL8MRJrE/b.5816033/k.A506/Sign_the_Petition/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=ouITL8MRJrE&b=5816033&en=ctJSJ2NEJfLVK2PKIoIQKXPOJlLYJbOLIiLVL8MNInJ5ImK

 

I think George Will’s speech before CPAC is strongly aligned with the principles a friend sent along by Rockefeller. Will sets up the fight between Liberalism and Conservatism as the fight between the dependency agenda and the freedom agenda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/best-speech-cpac-so-far

It’s long, but you may find it interesting, worthwhile, and entertaining. I’d point out highlights, but they’re too numerous to catalog.

 

. . . for, perhaps, making too much of this administration’s apparent inability to handle anything resembling protocol, but after the giving the DVD’s that didn’t work to Great Britain, the bro-shake with Chavez, the party-crashers, and now the Dalai Lama, you kind of have to see a pattern.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/daily/daily.asp#blog-421460 10:03 AM 2/20/10

I believe his criticism will be that these are superficial sorts of criticisms, while it’s policy differences that matter. Now, as you probably know, I have no end of policy differences with this President. So, I’m pretty much covered there. But there’s always two sides of a policy debate. So, it’s difficult to judge someone’s competence this way. You can just agree or disagree.

In these other matters, one can question the administration’s competence. They just don’t know what they’re doing, and they don’t really seem to care, which is among the things that should worry us. We haven’t seen this kind of incompetence since the Carter administration hired The Captain and Tenille to perform for Helmut Schmidt or the President himself related an anecdote regarding getting Montezuma’s revenge in a speech before the President (Portillo) of Mexico.

Hmmm. . . Carter. . . Obama. . .Connecting the dots?

Common Sense

February 20, 2010

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/nuclear_countdown_mAoh5EZJHtdBznCnDMo74H

This is why when expert opinion contradicts common sense, it’s common sense which is quit often correct. By what logical reason would Iran have stopped working on its nuclear weapons program?

Global Warming falls into this same category.

 

Conflict of Interest?

February 20, 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703315004575073730423195928.html

. . . a trillion for pensions, pretty soon it adds up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pension_shortfall_study

 

You’ll notice

February 16, 2010

. . .that none of the articles talking about more moisture in the air bother to cite any statistics on current levels of precipitation vs normal.

Let’s take a look at January in DC. Normally Reagan National Airport would get 3.21 inches of precipitation. In 2010 it got 1.56. It’s not clear that this February will have above average precipitation either, and even if it is higher, it’s not going to make up for the fact that January was over 50% low.

A couple months of data from one city doesn’t a rule make, but, like I said, why haven’t any of the Warmist articles I’ve read cited any actual statistics? The question answers itself.

Stephan

http://www.accuweather.com/us/md/bethesda/20817/forecast-climo.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&zipchg=1&metric=0&mnyr=1/1/2010

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021210/content/01125107.guest.html

His take on people saying all the snow is created by Global Warming. He points out that in the recent past absense of snow was used as evidence of, you guessed it, Global Warming.

Perspectives differ. Some people may call it simple minded. I think a better description is focused and sharp.