I'm in a pretty bitter mood right now about my new hometown of Charlotte. My Dad came down here from Boston to have his hip replacement surgery--at my suggestion mind you--because he thought he'd get more attention at a smaller specialized facility like Presbyterian Orthopaedic Hospital than he would at that factory on the Charles, Mass General. He also thought (as did I) that the southern hospitality would extend to the nursing staff at the Ortho hospital and he'd be well looked after as far as his post-op care. Seems logical, right?
WRONG.
Not only has he experienced (undeservedly I might add) "Yankee backlash" in the sense that they feel justified in treating him and my entire family with the contempt typically reserved for enemy combatants (and frankly, I think prisoners at GITMO are on the receiving end of better attitude), he's been a victim of gross incompetence and gross negligence in terms of his care.
A vibrant, brilliant man with a memory like a steel trap walked in there this past Thursday, and today--thanks to being allowed to dehydrate and then overmedicated into a stupor--his short-term memory is for shit, he's slurring his words and at least two days behind in his physical therapy program. We're thinking of getting a neurologist to look at him, and yes, we're also considering a lawsuit if his mental status doesn't improve markedly in the next 48 hours.
Spread the word: Presbyterian Orthopaedic Hospital is full of incompetent, uncaring BITCHY nurses who honestly don't give a flying fuck if the patients they're responsible for live or die. Were it not for my sister and me, my father might be in much worse shape than he is--perhaps worse--and I for one am convinced that his diminished capacity is 100% their fault.
I want my Dad back. I miss him. He's still here in the flesh, but there's something not quite right. Can't blame drugs, he's not on any. He even refuses Tylenol because he says he's not in pain. He's un-hooked from all his tubes finally, but he's still foggy, still not himself and we're at our wit's end. I am convinced that he would not be in this state if he had been properly hydrated post-op day 1. I am convinced that had we not pointed out his color, his mental status changes, his lack of fluid output, he would have been dehydrated to the point of no return. As it was, when they FINALLY listened to us, it was a rush situation to get him hooked back up to the IV and catheter. I'm angry, and I'm sad, and I can't stop blaming myself for suggesting he come here in the first place.
I'm praying very hard he'll come around, come back to his full self, but my family and I need more power than our meager prayers can provide. So please, if you have a minute, pray for my Dad. He's a great guy and he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he's been treated.
If we wanted him to be ignored, treated like a medicare card number and a nuissance, we could have had him operated on in Boston.
...and it ain't "Big Oil!"
I don't know why, but this issue really gets my undies in a bunch. I'm so frustrated with the way people--including now the President (who ought to know better)--blame "BIG OIL" like it's some homogenous blob controlled by one or two evil rich white men in fancy suits who smoke cigars and step on the little people for fun. There is no such creature!
People forget that companies like Exxon Mobil had some pretty lean years, and that their profit increases this first quarter pale by comparison to those of Comcast Cable or even Harrah's casinos! Exxon showed profit increases (even during these recent higher-priced periods) of only 7%. Know what Comast and Harrah's had? 200% and 75% respectively.
Where are the protesters with pitchforks going after the evil awful BIG CABLE or BIG GAMBLING companies! Cable is the better analogy really because at this point, everyone "needs" cable just to watch even the most basic TV (you get no reception without it anymore).
Even people who don't drive cars (like New Yorkers) have to pay absurdly high prices for their television and Internet service, but they don't complain about it. The irony of course is that the cable companies do more--much more--to "conspire" to gouge us than the oil companies ever do or did, even in their wildest dreams they couldn't imagine a public complacent enough to allow them the latitude Comcast has had! Cable companies have a stranglehold on their markets, and government has colluded with them to have it. Then the government has taxed the crap out of the product we have no choice but to have, and at such high price points to begin with, that has jacked up government's revenues to all-time-highs!
But find me the people who will rant and rave about the high cost of government, and how the evil fat cats in suits in D.C. are to blame, are "gouging" us. Find these people, and I'll find you a flying pig.
If the oil companies really could gouge us now, why wouldn't they have done it sooner? (I imagine hearing crickets chirping in Chuck Shumer's office when this question is asked). If the oil companies were made up of rich greedy people, then why are so many state government pension plans invested so heavily in their stocks??? Come to think of it, how much Exxon stock do you think Chucky has in his own portfolio?
Where are the reporters who really DESERVE Pulitzer prizes when we need 'em?? Oh, that's right, no one is leaking information like that to them, so we'll never hear about it. Pity...
This whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot anyway. Want cheaper gas? Increase supply relative to demand. How do you do that? Not by driving more, but by DRILLING more, preferably in ANWAR. Personally, I think it would do more to help our position with the Iranians than sanctions ever would, AND it would bring the cost of gas in the USA down dramatically.
But even if we can't get gas prices down, I'd be happy if we could just stop hearing from people who can't do math.
WARNING: Content may offend you. Explicit analysis of Duke rape allegations ahead...
OK, so I was reading the original police reports and some of the other factual information about the allegations in the so-called "Duke rape scandal," and I wanted to analyze her story a little more "thoroughly" than the MSM has been doing.
Leaving aside the fact that it's hard for it to be a scandal if no rape actually happened, and since we don't know yet if one did, it's a bit premature to call it a scandal...I found the timeline implausible.
The stripper (please, let's stop calling her an "exotic dancer." There's nothing "exotic" about taking off your clothes for money in front of 40+ ogling young men) alleges that she was held against her will by three (count 'em, she said THREE, not four, not ten, but three) of the Duke lacrosse players in a bathroom of a rental house off campus. She further alleges that in a period lasting 30 minutes (count 'em, not 40, not 60, not 2 hours, but half an hour), these three men "gang raped" and strangled her, violating her anally, vaginally and orally.
Hmmmm....
OK says I...Let me wonder for a moment how exactly that might have worked? The bathroom of this house is--no doubt--not huge. I've seen these off-campus-type houses before, and I've been inside homes like the one shown on TV. I live in NC and this type of bungalow is pretty common here. The typical bathroom is barely large enough for two people to fit in comfortably, never mind FOUR, especially when one is a person who doesn't want to be there and who--we have a right to presume--fought the people who were keeping her there.
But let's set even that aside. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt that it was some recently remodeled huge spa-like room in which three big athletic guys could easily subdue a 27 year-old "dancer" (so one assumes she's not some little weak wilting violet physically) without leaving substancial evidence of a struggle (i.e., broken glass, blood from scratches on surfaces, ripped shower curtain, spilled toiletries, broken toilet seat, etc...
Let's also give her the benefit of the doubt that the reason there was ZERO DNA or any evidence of sexual activity with any of the 46 players (including those arrested) on her person was that they all wore condoms while viciously attacking, raping and sodomizing her.
Can someone please explain to me the following:
Where was her dance partner in all this? Why didn't she call the cops for her, if--as she claims--she was so out of it from shock and horror that she couldn't herself? How do we know that she just didn't want to spend a night in jail for public drunkenness and loitering (which she would have to have done had she not given the cops the rape story)?
I just find it impossible to believe her timeframe of the events. It would be more plausible if there were DNA evidence all over the damn place. I can imagine it's easy to do what she alleges they did if you're messy about it. I further believe it's possible if you have a huge conspiracy in place (i.e., if all the party attendees knew about and helped plan such an attack, and didn't mind if it only involved 3 of their number, even if they might all get in trouble for it). Whatever people might think or say about these Duke students, no matter how good they are at lacrosse, I doubt such a prestigious university would accept 46 amoral morons in a four-year time period (and if you think admissions procedures aren't critical enough to uncover such tendencies in so many applicants, you are an amoral moron yourself).
I can also imagine that it would be easier to perpetrate such an attack if the woman were drugged or otherwise significantly impaired, but then how is it that she claims to be so clear on the details of what happened, who did it, for how long and where? If she were drugged by them or so drunk she passed out a mere 30 minutes later in a car, how is it that a month later she can clearly remember the faces of the people she claims did this to her? Everyone knows one of the most "appealing" properties of "rufies" for those pigs who use it is that the victim can't remember THAT anything happened, much less what or who did it! Even your garden-variety alcoholic intoxication produces memory-impairment of a magnitide significant enough to call into question any IDs she might make, never mind her account of the events that allegedly took place!
All I know is, if I were the defense attorneys for any of those who get arrested, I would do the following:
I want to stay objective, to avoid letting the media try this case, but the "facts" available so far (mostly from her--her police report, the search warrant, her IDs) make it seem highly unlikely that an attack like the one she described took place. My "gut" tells me what we have here is a woman who didn't want to spend a night in jail, who knew the team had a "rep" in town as being a rowdy bunch, who saw an opportunity and took it. If it turns out my gut is correct, and she lied, then I feel strongly the DA should prosecute her, should apologize to the university, the team and the community as a whole, should resign and finally, should be personally sued in civil court for monetary damages by those wrongly accused and tried.
I could be wrong. This could have been the fastest, cleanest gang rape overlooked or covered up by the largest number of people in history, but I doubt it, I really do.
I was just watching Bill O'Reilly (yeah, I know, HE is a pinhead at times, but he keeps me up-to-date on people who are worse), and he did a segment on Planned Parenthood's latest disgusting attempt to takeover parenting our kids.
Apparently, they produced a condom ad for MTV--I searched online for a copy of it, to no avail-- and Bill showed it repeatedly on the show. I was so offended on so many levels that I almost puked up my recently consumed dinner.
If you weren't watching, and don't watch MTV to see it for yourself, here's the gist of it:
- A girl (somewhere between 16 and 19 years old) appears on the screen wearing a hard hat, jumpsuit and wielding a jack hammer (Disgusting double entendre #1).
- The voiceover says: "My Dad always told me to use the right tool for the job." (Disgusting double entendre #2)
- We see the girl using a drill that is much too large on a spindly piece of wood, splitting the wood (Disgusting double entendre #3)
- We see the girl use a huge pot of boiling water--poured out of an equally ridiculously oversized spout--to attempt to solder a pipe (Disgusting double entendre #4)
- Finally, we see the girl walking through the door of her bedroom--presumably after work at her "job." Her jumpsuit magically tears from her body, revealing a skimpy tank top with something printed on it--I was too disgusted to read what it was--and she dives (I'm not kidding, DIVES headlong) into bed with her "boyfriend" (hey, not my call, Planned Parenthood admits this is not her husband) in such a way that her head is under the covers while his (still covered by a hard-hat for some reason) is propped up against the wall. He has a stupid grin on his face.
- We see the girl's hand reach out from under the covers and open a toolbox filled with sex toys and colored condoms. She grabs one hastily, sits up ON TOP OF the guy (but with her head still under the covers) and says: "NICE TOOL!"
PUKE! GAG, BLECH, ICK!
Mind you, I am no prude. I may be pro-life and have two daughters, but I was a teenage girl once, I had desires and "urges," but there is no way I can view a commercial such as this as anything other than what it clearly is:
- An enthusiastic endorsement not just of teenage sex, but of CASUAL teenage sex. The commercial clearly depicts "sex as entertainment."
- A clear depiction of woman as aggressive supplicant. Contradiction you say? Well, how do you describe a female who is barely old enough to be called a "woman" who dives headfirst into bed with a guy in such a way that it's clear her head is where his nether-regions are, but she's EAGER for it to be there? Nothing against women giving pleasure, but with all we know about rainbow parties and the unlikelihood that teenage boys are, shall we say, "returning the favor," I'd call it a subservient pose, despite the aggressive body language and slutty attitude inherent in her posture and tone of voice.
- A final message that is FLAT WRONG. It says "Safe is sexy." Problem is, wearing condoms does not ensure "Safe sex," it merely renders some sexual activities safER than they would otherwise be.
What galls me about the ad--aside from how grotesque its visual messaging is--is that it misleads the very audience it claims to target (i.e., "kids who are going to do it anyway") while at the same time leading the audience it claims not to target (i.e., kids who are inclined not to do it anyway, or who are inhibited, or who want to wait for love or monogamy or adulthood at least) to believe that sex is NO BIG DEAL. By painting a picture of sex as something akin to a "job," for which you need the "right tools," and by clearly stating that those "tools" include a penis and a condom, the ad tells teenagers, "Hey, if you have a penis or know someone who does, all you need is a condom and you're ready to go to 'work'!"
Not only is this misleading in terms of its lesson about "safety"--condoms do NOT prevent all sexually transmitted diseases (can you say herpes?)--it is a misleading lesson about the import of sex to the psychology of the average teen! I don't care how disturbing our mores have become (thanks in large part to Planned Parenthood and their partner in crime, MTV), the psychology of human beings--especially those of the teenage persuasion--have NOT changed so dramatically since I was a kid. Teenage girls still want to be "in love," and still mistakenly think sex will get a guy to love them. Guys are still pressured NOT to fall "in love" with their conquests, and are still encouraged to seek out a wide variety of partners. Both are desperately seeking a way out of the cognitive dissonance of their true feelings and what their peer group is pushing them to do. Enter this ad. Now the "culture" at large (which to them translates simply to "the adults who wrote and produced and paid for this ad, people who've been down this road already and must know what's what...") has seemingly given them a way to rationalize away any remaining inhibitions, or excuse physically and emotionally risky behaviors they're "doing anyway."
How is any of this "educational?"
The irresponsibility of Planned Parenthood in producing this ad is so egregious and unapologetic, it amounts to criminal negligence in my opinion. Parents be forewarned. If you don't want your kids--daughters in particular--being convinced (by adults who ought to know better) that sex is not only "no big deal," it's nothing more than recreational fun-with-colorful-rubber, do whatever you can to stand between them and MTV.
My worry isn't that kids watching this ad won't get Planned Parenthood's message, it's that they will.
Dad sent me this article from the Boston Globe along with the following commentary:
This article illustrates what the locals here are really good at-- unfortunately it's not worth much when it comes to solving problems or creating jobs:
- identify problems (that are obvious)
- figure out who is to blame (usually an identifiable political figure, in this case Governors)
- suggest that there may be a solution in a chinese menu of alternatives while excluding -- by rejecting or failing to mention obvious possibilities, (like encouraging the development of an LPG terminal) and espousing the known impossible alternative (cut down on the use of energy, stop driving around as much, cut down on a/c and other electric appliances) and then point the finger at the political figure and say solve the problem.If stock in the NE were traded in the market place, I'd say sell short.
I've reached that wonderful age when people feel compelled to send you birthday cards that talk about hills and people traveling over them. Lovely.
My own father tells me to cheer up and think of it instead as my 20/20 birthday. He then sends me a card telling me that "Forty" is surrounded in the dictionary by words like "Fabulous" and "Festive" and "Fruitful" (but also "Flatulence" and "Funeral"). I feel so much better now (not).
Aw, I'm not that bummed out about it. So what if I'm firmly in the demographic at which pharmaceutical and life insurance ads are targeted. So what if the boys in the beer commercials are drinking to get up the nerve to hit on girls young enough to be my kids (if only I'd started younger). I may be forty, and statistically I may have less ahead of me than behind me on the clock, but given where I am in life--a mom (finally) to two of the most wonderful little girls on the planet--and given that this next decade will be the one in which I watch them grow and learn and become the little people they're going to be, I'd say the best is most definitely yet to come!
So here's to my 20/20 birthday, and while my eyesight may no longer match that age, the view from where I sit is pretty clear. As Tumbuk3 once said, "My future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
Happy Easter (a few hours late)!
Hosana one and all. Had my first Easter as a Christian today. It was very special, in particular because Lily was baptised! Imagine it--a little girl named Lily Grace, surrounded by her namesake flower, on the day on which we celebrate the grace bestowed upon all of us. Pretty amazing if you ask me.
Not much else to say about it other than it was very moving.
Here are some cute pictures.
Lily on Palm Sunday
Emma on Palm Sunday after the Egg Hunt
My Easter girls
Bruce sums up RomneyCare's lunacy rather nicely. I especially like his use of bold text to drive home the points that ought to be obvious to the people of Massachussetts (but aren't).
How terribly sad it is that the people in that once (I'm talking a looooooooooooooooong time ago, c. 1700's'ish?) great state don't realize they're voluntarily living in a dictatorship. Behaviorists could have a field day studying their psychology. I'm guessing they'd call it Learned Helplessness:
Learned helplessness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Learned helplessness is a well-established principle in psychology, a description of the effect of inescapable punishment (such as electrical shock) on animal (and by extension, human) behavior. The theory was developed by Martin Seligman through experiments going back to 1965."Learned helplessness" offered a model to explain human depression, in which apathy and submission prevail, causing the individual to rely fully on others for help. This can result when life circumstances cause the individual to experience life choices as irrelevant. Chemical dependence may also foster such a condition.
Environments in which people feel they have no control over what happens to them, such as prison, [the state of Massachussetts], war, disability, famine, and drought may tend to foster learned helplessness. An example involves concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust, when some prisoners, called Mussulmen, refused to care or fend for themselves. Present-day examples can be found in state-run mental institutions, orphanages, or long-term care facilities.
Not all people become depressed as a result of being in a situation where they appear not to have control; in what Seligman called "explanatory style," people in a state of learned helplessness view problems as personal, pervasive, or permanent. That is,
Personal - They may see themselves as the problem; that is, they have internalized the problem.
Pervasive - They may see the problem affecting all aspects of life.
Permanent - They may see the problem as unchangeable.
[Added by me of course]
Get a load of this (and I do mean LOAD):
''The level of employer responsibility is minimal and does not come close to the cost borne by employers who do cover their workers; the bill leaves in place the unfair $160 million assessment on employers who do cover their workers; the individual mandate does not define clear affordability for when workers would be penalized. This will be a vitally important standard moving forward."
Thanks to Bruce for the link. Bruce, get the heck outta there as soon as you can bud, the ship is going doooooooowwwwwwwwwn!
You have to know that if Hillary, Teddy-the-Hutt and others on the far left are praising Mitt on his healthcare "reform" plan, it has to be a truly awful idea.
Read what he spins about it in my previous post, then read this rebuttal for the reasons why he's
a) Full of shit (perhaps he should see a doctor about that problem?)
b) A poster boy for bringing back the analogy section of the SAT test (i.e., a good analogy never hurts, a bad one can kill a state's economy)
Give Mr. Romney credit as a rare Republican willing at least to discuss health care. In that he's miles ahead of GOP Congressional leaders, who won't even vote on pro-market reforms. We certainly favor state policy experiments, and Mr. Romney may have done the best he could given his far-left legislature. The new law also avoids the worst coercive pitfalls of Hillary Clinton's 1993 reform.On the other hand, his law is far from the market-based approach the Governor claimed in an op-ed on this page yesterday. The core flaw is that the plan forces individuals to buy health insurance, and penalizes businesses that don't provide it, before deregulating the market for private health insurance. So the state is forcing people to buy insurance many will need subsidies to afford, which is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road. Could this be why Mrs. Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the Families USA government medicine lobby are all praising it to the skies? Just asking.
Mr. Romney compares his "individual mandate" to the command that everyone get car insurance. However, states only force people who drive to have car insurance, and only then to insure for liability if they harm others. Drivers needn't take out collision insurance for damage they do to their own cars or bodies.
But wait, there's more lies and misunderstandings embedded in Mitt's blatant attempt to set himself up as compassionate and acceptable to libtards in '08 plan:
The mandate is also supposed to solve the problem of "free riders" who show up in emergency rooms without insurance and thus stick their costs on taxpayers. But studies have shown that the cost of such "uncompensated care" -- i.e., for people the government isn't already subsidizing through Medicaid -- is a tiny fraction of the nation's medical budget.The truth is that Americans have far better health coverage than the media and liberal politicians contend. A vast and expensive ($330 billion a year) Medicaid system covers people who are genuinely poor, and emergency rooms must treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. In Massachusetts as in every other state, about 20% of the "uninsured" are Medicaid-eligible but haven't bothered to sign up. Yet they can sign up whenever they need care. Another hefty chunk of the uninsured (40%) can easily afford insurance but choose not to buy it. There's no inherent free-rider problem here, since they can be pursued for bad medical debts like any other debts.
The real people to worry about are those who are too well off to qualify for Medicaid but are priced out of the insurance market thanks to mandates and other regulations. The Romney plan will subsidize them for buying the compulsory insurance, but it does little on the regulatory side to make that insurance more affordable. Some of our friends praise the bill for setting up a government-sponsored insurance exchange to help people find coverage. But we don't see why a state exchange is preferable to a private marketplace such as eHealthinsurance.com (which doesn't even market individual policies in Massachusetts because of over-regulation).
Enjoy the state-of-the-art healthcare you have now kids, if this trend towards bending over for the socialists continues, we'll no longer have it right about the time we're all old enough to be coming down with the diseases we could have treated successfully had we only gotten them NOW.
This all just proves how STUPID people are becoming in our country (in MA in particular). Not only do the citizens there buy more lottery tickets (often using their welfare and unemployment checks to do it) than anywhere else, they think this is a great idea. Clearly we have an entire state of math idiots, and a math idiot is one thing, but one who's willing to hand over his or her individual freedom at the same time he's struggling to add 2+2? YIKES! Sends shivers down my spine I tell ya!
Oy. What else can be said about Mitt Romney's delusion?
BOSTON -- Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me that "if you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.
Will it work? I'm optimistic, but time will tell. A great deal will depend on the people who implement the program. Legislative adjustments will surely be needed along the way. One great thing about federalism is that states can innovate, demonstrate and incorporate ideas from one another. Other states will learn from our experience and improve on what we've done. That's the way we'll make health care work for everyone.
I guess we can't really blame the guy. I mean, it's nearly impossible to "govern" in Tax AAAAACHOOOsetts without hearing almost hourly how the government owes every man, woman and child free healthcare. Eventually the constant drumbeat of socialism numbs the mind of anyone attempting the job. In Mitt's case, apparently, it's been numbed to the point where he's completely forgotten how to do math. Add that to the fact that he's also (apparently) lost all sense of reality (i.e., entitlements once given may never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, etc... be taken away).
So now this poor numbskull will do whatever it takes to give the Borg of the State what it wants, even if it means more taxation without representation, less freedom, and that hard-working citizens will end up being forced to move out of state, close their businesses, or hire a lawyer to find a loophole or two, and hard-working lawyers will have a new way to get rich.
Think about it. You're an employer who'll have to pay a fee if you employ more than 11 employees and don't provide subsidized health coverage. What do you do? Fire someone, immediately. What if you desperately need that person, or need to hire more people to grow? Sub-divide your company into two fake "divisions" and create a new LLC so no one can quarrel with you legally. Insure no one, toss it back to the government that tried to take away yet another one of your freedoms.
OR simply relocate your business across the border in NH, RI, VT, anywhere this stupid law doesn't apply, and your tax-paying self right along with it. Watch from a distance and laugh as the death march of the Godforesaken (literally) state you left implodes.
Hey, it hasn't even happened (completely) yet, and I'm having a grand ol' time doing just that from my new home here in North Carolina. Trust me, it's a rolicking good time.
Quick:
What do GM, France and Albany have in common?
Answer:
UNIONS ARE RUINING THEM.
At first glance, they seem to have little in common. But the riots in France over labor reform, the slow-motion suicide of General Motors, and the continuing decline of the New York economy all share one defining trait: entrenched and unchangeable union power.These columns have always favored the right to collectively bargain, and any private company that allows a union to organize its workers deserves what it gets. But that doesn't mean we should fail to appreciate the consequences when unions become entrenched inside any organization. On the evidence throughout business and politics today, unions do not provide individual job or income security. On the contrary, they undermine security by contributing to broader business and economic decline.
The current French protests are in response to a modest change that would allow employers to fire people under age 26 more easily. So entrenched has the politics of union entitlement become in France that even at the onset of their careers these young protesters are demanding security over opportunity. In the global economy, this means they will end up with less of both.
Speaking of being run into the ground by unions:
Here in the U.S., the same burden is slowly crippling New York, once a bulwark of American industry. Power in the state capital of Albany is shared by Republicans and Democrats. But both parties bow before the public-sector unions, especially the teachers, and the health-care workers led by perhaps the most powerful man in the state, Dennis Rivera.Thanks to his political clout, New York's Medicaid costs are higher than those of Texas and Florida combined; a health-care insurance premium for a young family of four is roughly six times what it is across the border in Connecticut; and high-deductible health-savings accounts that can help the self-employed afford insurance can't even be offered in the state. New York is also a rare state that actually taxes private health insurance, to the tune of about $2.4 billion a year.
Another union-driven business cost is workers' compensation, and in New York the average cost per claim is second highest in the nation (after Louisiana) and 72% higher than the national average. Governor George Pataki has proposed a reform that would lower costs while actually raising the average payout for the truly disabled, but he's run up against a French-like union roadblock in the legislature.
And what about GM? How do they fit into all this?
In retrospect, GM management should have provoked a union showdown. Yet only a very brave CEO would have been willing to risk a potentially catastrophic strike on his watch for the sake of making the company more competitive after he retired. In any case, would the United Auto Workers really have budged? In 1998, young executive and future CEO Rick Wagoner endured a 54-day UAW wildcat strike at two plants in Flint, Michigan, after GM had tried to change some production rules. The strike shut down most GM production in North America and cost the company some $2 billion. In the end GM caved and the UAW escaped, having made virtually no concessions.Even now at auto-parts maker Delphi -- which is already in Chapter 11 -- the UAW is declaring it will take a strike that could destroy both Delphi and GM rather than agree to Delphi's proposed job cuts and work changes. As in France and New York, these union leaders would rather sink the company than make concessions that would reduce their own power
We recount all this because, even amid GM's decline and France's economic turmoil, most of America's liberal elites refuse to draw the right lesson. They cling to the belief that if only the Democrats can retake Congress, or the union movement can once again organize more of the American labor force, the old economy of union-backed job security and egalité will return. Or, worse, they propose seceding from global competition via protectionism. It is all a delusion. Down that road lies France -- a nice place to vacation, but you wouldn't want to work there.
What angers me most is that the unions are still able to pass themselves off as representing "the little guy," the otherwise disenfranchised worker against "the man" or the "management."
I worked in a union shop--in a restaurant in NYC--and I have to tell you, I never felt so powerless in all my working life. I'd never do it again. I am not livestock, I am not a moron. I can speak for myself thank you very much, with my feet if necessary. These days, the way they are currently organized and run, unions are nothing more than a legalized mafia. Perhaps unions once had a place when the federal government did its job stayed out of labor affairs altogether. But now that we have OSHA and all kinds of other laws and regulations on the books about how employers may contract with and treat their workers, unions seem largely obsolete. But try saying that out loud in public, especially if you're in politics, and you're liable to end up dead. I would personally vote to have them outlawed, for the good of the nation if not for their members.
Found this over on Right Wing News via Polipundit. It's brilliant.
A Tale of two Immigrants By Polipundit.
Consider the case of two men, “Oswaldo,” and “Vikas.”Vikas is a highly educated, experienced computer software engineer from India. He obtained a good job with a US company that was looking for certain specific high-tech skills. In order to obtain a “H1-B” visa to the US, Vikas went through an arduous process, which included waiting in line from dawn to dusk at the US embassy, and dealing with a quota system that limits H1-Bs to 65,000 visas/year. The quota is usually filled on the very first day every year; so you have to file a year in advance. The processing fees run to thousands of dollars, and extensive documentation must be provided.
Vikas’s H1-B visa was valid for three years, and could have been renewed for three more. After that, Vikas would have had to leave the country.
As an H1-B visa holder, Vikas paid income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. But he is not eligible for any of the Social Security or Medicare benefits.
Vikas could not change employers unless he could find another employer able and willing to sponsor his visa out of the quota of 65,000, and go through the extensive paperwork. Vikas was not eligible for unemployment benefits. In fact, if he lost his job he would have to immediately leave the US.
Vikas was laid off. He had to decide between staying here illegally, or leaving the country. Vikas did the right thing, and went back to India, where the per-capita income is about $3,000/year. His children will be raised in a third-world country, and have only third-world opportunities when they grow up.
Vikas really exists. He is a friend of mine. I’ve changed his name to protect the innocent (no pun intended.)
Oswaldo is a high-school drop-out from Mexico. Oswaldo paid a “coyote” $2,000 to smuggle him over the US border. Along the way, Oswaldo’s group trashed an Arizona ranch and accidentally started a forest fire where they camped. Oswaldo made his way to North Carolina, where he paid a forger $100 for a fake Green Card and a fake Social Security card. Using these forged documents, Oswaldo found work at a construction site. Oswaldo has now been violating US laws for seven years.
Oswaldo had his family smuggled in from Mexico. His wife now also works illegally with forged documents. Their children get free education at an American public school, and will be eligible for in-state tuition at the University of North Carolina when they grow up. Oswaldo and his wife just had another son, who is a US citizen by virtue of birth.
In order to be eligible for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, Oswaldo will have to prove that he has been violating US laws for seven years. He can then pay a $2,000 fine, pay back-taxes, and be eligible for a real “Green Card” in six years. Once he obtains the “Green Card,” Oswaldo will be eligible to live in the US permanently. He can apply for US citizenship in five years.
Under current laws, America provides temporary three-year visas to only 65,000 skilled experts like Vikas every year. There is no clear “path to citizenship” for them; when their visas expire, or they get laid off, they’re supposed to immediately leave the country. Getting a “Green Card” on the basis of your skills, education, and inteligence, is a difficult, almost-impossible process.
Under the McCain-Kennedy plan, America would provide an automatic path to citizenship to an additional 400,000 low-skilled, poorly-educated workers like Oswaldo every year. McCain-Kennedy claim this is a “guest” worker program.
Under the McCain-Kennedy plan, America will also provide citizenship to 12 million lawbreakers like Oswaldo, who are already in the US. They claim this is not an “amnesty.”
Call your Senators.
I don't know which is worse, that they are ignoring them knowingly, or out of ignorance?
Either way, consider yourselves educated, and do as he says: CALL YOUR SENATORS. NOW..
Ever read "Through the Looking Glass?"
Check this post found over at Grouchy Old Cripple:
If you are ready for the adventure of a lifetime, TRY THIS:Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.
Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.
Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.
Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc. Procreate abundantly.
Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural U.S.A. thing. You would not understand, pal."
Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.
Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.
Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.
Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico
Drive around with no liability insurance and ignore local traffic laws.
Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.
Good luck! You'll be demanding for the rest of time or soon dead. Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world except right here in the United States, land of the naive and stupid, idiotic politically correct politicians.
Now, back to me. To you idiotic Mexicans waving the Mexican flag in your demonstrations last week, if you're so fucking proud of Mexico, why the fuck are you here in the United States? You want California back? Fine. You can have it. Let's see how long it will take you fuckers to turn it into a Third World hell hole like Mexico. Maybe if we give California to Mexico the asshats in Hollywood would finally be happy. They could leave the United States without moving.
Hey Babs! How's your Spanish?
[Thanks Pete for getting me hooked on Denny's blog--as we used to say when we lived in Teddy-the-Hutt's territory, "He's a pissah!"]
Well, not money exactly, just integrity and dignity.
Any oil company that would be so chicken-shit as to give Hugo Chavez 60% of its revenue just because he asks for it is, well, just too French to fuel my car.
Wow Cindy, you practically made out with the guy who's using stolen money to buy weapons with which to defend attack the U.S. (if only to steal any and all business interests we may have in his godforesaken shithole of a country).
Wonder if Susan Sarandon will leave that little tidbit out of the role when she plays Sheehan in an upcoming movie about the moonbat's life? Wonder who would play Chavez if she didn't? Any casting suggestions out there?
Personally, I vote for George Clooney--he was literally born to play the part of a raving lunatic inventing imaginary enemies for personal gain and glory, dontcha think?
Let's see, I already have news to read, laundry to fold, bills to pay, several episodes of Scrubs to catch up on--not to mention the fact that late-night is "ME" time (the only time I have alone--with no one demanding anything of me, physical, mental or emotional)--but now there's this!.
And to think I get all excited when I happen to glance at the clock at precisely 7:11 (a.m. or p.m.), and when I managed to own a car long enough to see my birthday on the odometer (41766).
What can I say? Despite my cynical nature, I'm pretty easily entertained.
Mark Steyn's question (mentioned in my post below) about how many Jihadis there might really be in all of Islam got me thinking... How large would the "Jihadi Military" be, even if only 1% of the world's population of muslims were members? Wanna know the answer?
TEN MILLION PEOPLE
That's right, only 1% of the total population of the so-called ROP would have to be active fighters for the cause of Jihad for them to have manpower more than ten times the size of our total combined armed forces (National Guard included).
Ten million is hardly a "fringe" group. We should be so lucky as to be able to recruit half that number into our own armed forces on ideology alone. Imagine it: their recruits are often asked to blow themselves up, their survival chances in battle are often zero going in, so even if they are not 1%, but rather only .0001% of the total population, that much dedication, combined with their asymmetrical warfare tactics would still make up for any loss in numbers of "troops."
True, our technology still surpasses theirs--for now--but as we've seen just this week with Iran's test-fire of an underwater missile, the Russians will happily sell technology that's good enough to sink our battleships to anyone who'll pay enough for it. "Show me the money" is their tagline. You'd think they'd care about potentially empowering allies of the Chechens, but noooo, what are a few school kids when there's money to be made?
Now add in the fact that populations sympathetic to these fighters control half the world's oil supply (Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia), have nuclear weapons (Pakistan and North Korea--Kim Jong Il would sell his own mother to hurt the US), and you have a truly terrifying situation.
So next time someone looks at you condescendingly and says that "Radical Islamists are just a tiny portion of the total Muslim population, probably less than 1%, blah blah blah, no reason to fear such a tiny fringe, etc..." tell them they ought to play the lottery because they can't do math and, judging by their arrogance and deep denial of reality, must be hoping you can't either.
Mark Steyn has collected a series of statements made by Aussie leaders about the "learned peaceful religion of Islam" Jihadi fascists that makes me think the only sane place on Earth right now is down under:
If I had to propose a model for Western rhetoric, it would be the Australians. In the days after Sept. 11, the French got all the attention for that Le Monde headline -- "Nous sommes tous Americains" -- "We are all Americans," though they didn't mean it, even then. But John Howard, the Aussie prime minister, put it better and kept his word: "This is no time to be an 80 percent ally."Marvelous. More recently, the prime minister offered some thoughts on the difference between Muslims and other immigrant groups. "You can't find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad," he said, stating the obvious in a way most political leaders can't quite bring themselves to do. "There is really not much point in pretending it doesn't exist."
Unfortunately, too many of his counterparts insist on pretending (at least to their citizenry) that it doesn't exist. What proportion of Western Muslims is hot for jihad? Five percent? Ten, 12 percent? Given that understanding this Pan-Islamist identity is critical to defeating it, why can't we acknowledge it honestly? "Raving on about jihad" is a line that meets what the law used to regard as the reasonable-man test: If you're watching news footage of a Muslim march promising to bring on the new Holocaust, John Howard's line fits.
Is it something in the water down there? Listen to Howard's Cabinet colleagues. Here's the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, with advice for Western Muslims who want to live under Islamic law: "There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -- Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."
You don't say. Which is the point: Most Western government leaders don't say, and their silence is correctly read by a resurgent Islam as timidity. I also appreciated this pithy summation by my favorite foreigner minister, Alexander Downer: "Multilateralism is a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving internationalism of the lowest common denominator." See Sudanese slaughter, Iranian nukes, the U.N.'s flop response to the tsunami, etc. It's a good thing being an Aussie Cabinet minister doesn't require confirmation by John Kerry and Joe Biden.
I'd say you have an uphill battle if you can't even muster the guts to talk about the enemy openly and honestly.
[Thanks to Pete for the link. You're right, it is a "Must Read."]
Bruce reminded me that I forgot one of the all-time most annoying things people say in defense of ILLEGAL immigrants. I did cover it in my post preceding this one, but Bruce does a much better job, so here's what people say that annoys the shit out of him and me both:
"THESE PEOPLE PAY TAXES!"Yes, but only in the same way I "paid taxes" this morning when I plunked down $1.46 for a $1.39 cup of coffee at 7-11.
If they're here ILLEGALLY, they don't have a valid SS# or Taxpayer ID#, so they're not paying state or federal income taxes.
If they're here ILLEGALLY, they don't have a REGISTERED motor vehicle, so they're not paying any registration "fees" (read: taxes), nor are they paying any motor vehicle excise taxes.
If they're here ILLEGALLY, they don't have a permanent address, so it's doubtful they own the house they're living in, so they don't pay property taxes.
If I were to "forget" to pay any of the above taxes, I would be subject to punitive measures, including monetary fines and possible prison time.
I don't want special treatment. I just want all the "rights" that an illegal alien in this country enjoys.
Thanks Bruce!
Sound like the title of a new horror flick?
IT FUCKING OUGHT TO. That's what we'll have here--our own 24/7/365 horror show--if we appease the protesters ingrates marching in the streets in defense of immigrants criminals and separatists.
I have to ask the same question Terry, a commenter at Mitch's site asks:
Will someone please give me an example of a nation where the guest workers have either a) assimilated or b) gone home when the work ran out.
And why in the world would liberals or conservatives support the introduction of an immigrant group legally defined as 2nd class citizens?
For the life of me, I cannot understand either party on this issue. Democrats (i.e., Liberals, they are one-in-the-same these days, are they not?) claim to be for the poor and minorities can't seem to
People who say that would be tantamount to the Berlin Wall are full of shit. I saw the Berlin Wall and that sucker was built to keep people IN, that's a much different thing that building one to keep people OUT.
I'm also in favor of making it easier for those who want to come here LEGALLY, the kind of people who really will pay taxes, who won't bring disease, crime, a never-ending pit of need for public assistance, tax-payer-paid translators and the like. Let's reward the shit out of them and punish the shit out of those who hire any who manage to scale the new wall (or fly over it or swim around it). Also, I'd support a plan to reward snitches who rat out their bosses who hire such people. They could get cash rewards, paid for of course with the huge fines that would be levvied against such employers--it would be a self-supporting program, get it?
Not that I had any doubts on this score, but all I needed to see to reinforce my anger at these illegal aliens who "protest" our laws was the footage this morning of a guy who got caught trying to sneak into Arizona. He was stopped by a Minuteman patrol (God bless those guys!), and when the TV reporter asked him if he knew it was illegal to come in this way, he said defianty "I know." When asked if he cared, he said (in a "FUCK no" kind of way) "I don't care."
Any pity I might have felt for this piece of human excrement went right out the window. I hardly think this RANDOM person is unusual, precisely because of the randomness with which he was chosen to comment, and because he was one of approximately 23 illegals trying to sneak in together. I suspect all of his fellow invaders would have said the same thing. Are these people we want "contributing" to our economy? People who openly mock our laws--laws you and I VOTED TO HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Is there any more obvious frontal assault on our liberty, on our sovereignty, on our DIGNITY than this?
I think not.
I'm mad as hell and I'm just not going to take it anymore. Call me racist if you want, but be sure you direct some of your righteous indignation at the leaders of the countries from which these scumbags hail. If their people are so great, why aren't they working tooth and nail to hold onto them?
Answer that, then answer this for me: How would you feel if suddenly 12M "hardworking, decent Americans" fled to take jobs in Mexico? If they were so great, wouldn't you want them back? And if not, why the hell not?
The question would be rhetorical, except that I doubt most supporters of "Guest Worker" status could answer it even then.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.