Then Who Could Save Us?

Some cartoons speak larger truths — like this one.

The really good news is this: Good Friday is followed by Easter Sunday.Happy Easter!

Doctors' Views of Obamacare

Dr Mark Moyad was introducing another doctor at a medical conference, but he had a few words first about doctors' true feelings about Obamacare. This introduction (which can be seen here) is transcribed below. I suspect you'll all appreciate this, whatever your views.

I've talked to allergists, and the allergists voted to scratch it, but the dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled "over my dead body", while the pediatricians said "oh, grow up".

The psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the plastic surgeons said "this puts a whole new face on the matter."

The podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

The anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the cardiologists didn't have the heart to say "no".

Finally, in the end, the proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the asses in Washington.

Yes, I laughed at this. A lot.

Hygiene vs. Health

Mrs Critter had a dental appointment, and I was in the lobby while she saw the dentist. There, I saw a magazine I'd never run across before — Living Without, described as "The magazine for people with allergies and food sensitivities." It was the August/September 2012 issue, and it had a really interesting article in it (on pages 44-47) called Fishing for a Cure which talked about an alternative treatment for a group of autoimmune disorders. These disorders include — depending on who you talk to — multiple sclerosis, asthma, autism, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), inflammatory bowel disorder, Crohn's disease, multiple food allergies, and other disorders.

The striking thing to me was not the specific alternative treatment (the Helminth treatment which is, in some cases, the only available treatment — a treatment that is not available in the United Statees). It was what the article said about how our modern lifestyle may have affected this class of disorders. The article notes that

The biome depletion theory says that, as a result of better hygiene — afforded by post-industrial advances, such as toilets and water treatment facilities — people in developed countries are no longer exposed to, and therefore no longer harbor, some of the microscopic bacteria with which humans have historically had a symbiotic relationship. As a result, people in developed countries are missing some of the key microbes that keep the immune system in balance.

We — I — had previously thought about the fact that there seemed to be a lot fewer folks with this kind of disorder in the past. I had attributed this to three things — (1) the lesser awareness of a youngster, (2) the likelihood that medical advances have allowed those with these disorders to live full lives who would have died of them rather young in previous generations, and (3) the fact that exposure to some of these things probably innoculated us against some of their effects (sort of like a smallpox vaccination).

It now appears, however, that there is another factor involved — that some of the things we now protect ourselves from were actually helpful to, and maybe even necessary for, our health and well-being. That is, the better hygiene we are all so proud of may have deprived our children of many of the symbiotic bacteria that have kept us healthier in the past, as well as removing the harmful bacteria that made us sick in the past.

In other words, we may have done some of this to ourselves by being so sterile. Which suggests my sons are healthier because they spent so much time playing in the back yard dirt when they were young.

It looks like we actually need some of the "pathogens" we have dealt with for many generations. That also means that, in a very real sense, dirt is our friend.

He's Sure We're Gullible

President Barack Obama evidently thinks the American public is stupid, or at least very gullible. President Obama gives us a whole laundry list of bad things he says will happen if the sequester he proposed is allowed to take effect. But, as Mona Charen notes,

Even if these “draconian cuts” are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.

That's just another way of saying these "draconian cuts" aren't even cuts — they're just minor reductions in the rate of growth of government spending.

And then there's this:

In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were the elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat?

I think I agree with this assessment:

The president’s doom-saying is so absurd that a mature country would hoot him off the stage. As it is, the housebroken media credulously report his obviously partisan scare-mongering as fact.

Mark Steyn makes a similar point in saying

Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?

It may very well be that, as a number of observers have suggested, President Obama is really worried the sequester brings none of his dire predictions to pass. Then what would he scare us with?

The Sequester & etc.

The sequester is a huge problem — at least according to President Obama. But it's just another manufactured crisis. It's like this:

And the root cause of this problem is this:

This, too:

Heaven help us all!

Thoughts on the Sequester

I find it really interesting! The Obama White House came up with the idea of sequestration — reportedly by Tresury Secretary Designate Jack Lew and with the explicit approval of President Barack Obama. But now that it looks like his idea will go into effect, President Obama is attacking it as the worst idea ever. Fascinating!

Let's look a little more closely at President Obama's idea. A couple of key things stand out.

1. The first is IT IS NOT A CUT! — it's just a small reduction in the projected increase in the budget. Even with the sequestration, federal spending this year will still be higher than last year — just by not as much as automatically projected.
2. The second is that the sequestration amounts to just a SMALL PERCENTAGE CUT in the PROJECTED INCREASE in federal spending. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL CUT IN SPENDING.

In other words, it really looks like the White House hype doesn't match the reality.

And then there are the issues of how the sequester's "cuts" are laid out. This, too, is in a couple of parts.

1. As the Obama White House designed it, 50% of the cuts are taken from defense — which is less than 20% of the federal budget. That's a much bigger cut, in relative terms, than the cut to the rest of the budget. And ...
2. The sequester does not specify where those cuts are to be taken. That specification is entirely up to the Executive Branch — the officials of the Obama Administration.

In other words, when President Obama tells us about all the terrible things that will result from the sequester, every single one of those things ie entirely up to him. He will choose where the cuts will be taken. If national parks are closed, it's because Obama chose to close them. If FBI agents are furloughed, it's because Obama chose to furlough them. If teachers are laid off, it's because Obama chose to lay them off. No one else has the authority to make those choices — only President Barack Obama.

So the one person doing all the fear-mongering — for his own purposes — is the one person responsible for whatever damage will be done.

This is what we need to keep in mind throughout the coming weeks and months. And to us all I say buena suerte.

UPDATE: Here's another view of the sequester's impact.

Drink the Kool Aid

How Not to Use a Chainsaw

Seems to me this guy might be about to become a candidate for the Darwin Award.

UPDATE: One friend e-mailed to note the title of the post is exactly right — the guy's not using any safety glasses or hearing protection!

Fire Harry Reid

There's an article out with some observations that are right on point. It says this early on.

In Mr. Reid's Washington, the House works its will, the Senate does crossword puzzles. Its committees do not produce bills, its senators do not debate or amend, the body does not vote. The House, to accomplish anything, is forced to engage in backroom wrangling with the White House, the results of which are presented to the nation as a fait accompli. The Senate claims total deniability.

Why has Harry Reid done this and behaved this way? That's something I had tried hard to understand. The only thing I had was that this was what he did, whether I could understand why or not. This article has observations that look really right. In part, it says this.

He [Reid] does not want a debate on gun control, as it would force Democratic senators to choose between President Obama and their own pro-Second Amendment constituents. The majority leader would not offer a bill during the fiscal-cliff negotiations because many Democrats disagreed with their president's proposed tax hikes. He has not produced a budget because to do so would expose the party's real spending ambitions [and/or expose the Democrats' divisions on this subject, too], which would create political problems back home for his members.

Mr. Reid knows there is a brilliant added bonus to making sure the Senate is inactive: It keeps all the attention on Republicans.

In other words, it's all political deception designed to protect Democrats' power by deceiving the American people.

It's sad that "our representatives" have sunk to this level. Harry Reid must be dumped or bypassed. He cannot be allowed to continue damaging the Congressional system.

Free the Senate. Let the Senate actually begin to do its job. Let the Senate debate.

Go read the whole thing.

Harvey's Advice

I read this, and it sounds like good advice to me.

No matter how bad it gets, never listen to the naysayers. Someone has survived it, someone who had it that bad before you. If the doctors say your odds of making it through five months - let alone five years - are one in a hundred, don't look at what the ninety-nine did, because that didn't work and it isn't for you. Find the one who made it through and imitate him.

Obama & the Fiscal Cliff

The Congress and President Barack Obama went right up to the edge of the "fiscal cliff". Efforts to find at least a temporary solution went so badly that everyone involved dumped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and brought in Vice President Joe Biden to provide the Democrat side with at least a little rationality.

Why was that? It was because of President Obama's insistence on a fiscal cliff deal that increased taxes without any attached spending cuts. In other words,

Yes, President Obama said he (eventually) wanted a "balanced" approach — just not all at the same time. He wanted the tax increases now, and the spending cuts later. In other words, President Obama is today's version of Wimpy.

The trouble is that this gambit has been run on the Republicans before. It's always the promise of spending cuts later for tax increases now. The tax increases have always come quickly, but the promised spending cuts never materialize. So we see that that President Obama's "balanced approach" really looks like this:

Seems to me it's been just a giant scam on all of us. And it hasn't fixed anything about the deficit problem — in fact, it's added to it.

I'm Paying Your Share, Too!

This is a letter to the editor, printed in the Albuquerque Journal on January 8

I received a nice letter from the Social Security Administration last month, informing me that my Medicare Part B premium would be the standard $104.90, plus an income-related monthly adjustment of $230.80, for a total of $335.70. That figures out to $11.03 per day. I get no better coverage, of course, just pay more than three times as much as most people pay.

So "means testing" is here. I could cover all utility costs or eat for less per day. But, hey, the good news is I must be rich. I thought I was middle class.

Anyway, I am not complaining, because I know if I do, my coverage will likely be cut, too. How do I feel about all this? Oh, I'm happy to pay my share and the shares of at least two others.

What, you don't believe that? Yeah, I know. You think I'm a greedy old skinflint who doesn't want to pay is "fair" share. But if you work in a restaurant or retail business, don't expect to see me as often.

The "rich" are already paying more than their fair share — which is not good enough for the rich liberals who what to take even more from those a rung below them, so they can give it to others who (they hope) won't notice the loss of their rights and prosperity.

What Has Already Been Done To US

Legal Insurrection had a posting on appropriate responses to actions of some of the agenda journalists. One of the commenters on that post, Subotai Bahadur, made a broader point, beginning with an assessment of our current historical position. He writes

Professor, we are literally in the end stage of pretending that politics as normal mean something. The Constitutional order has been de facto overturned, while retaining the external trappings of the old order. The government is at open war on the Bill of Rights. Congress has lost the power of the purse and no longer represents anything but their own vested interests. The rule of law is gone. Who you are and who you are connected to decides if you will be prosecuted for any crime. No connections = no mercy and frequently no due process. If connected to the regime, you are immune. Our courts have withdrawn from the fray or have been subverted. In any major issue, it seems that the courts rule that there is no one who has standing to oppose the will of the State; so the State wins. And if a matter does get before the courts, the courts rule based on politics, not law. The Supreme Court is no longer a barrier defending the Constitutions. When Chief Justice Roberts suddenly reversed his entire life’s work to rule that the Federal government could violate the Constitution so long as it did it in the guise of a tax; it was obvious that he has been gotten to and is now merely a tool of the regime.

Well said, sir. The comment struck me — and others (Doug Ross, for example), too — as an important short summary. It's worth reading the whole of this comment, as well as a number of others on this thread.

Beyond that, what I would note is this: A lot of things no longer work the way we were taught in civics class. And that statement itself is a measure of how much things have changed.

Happy New Year!

Hypersensitivity

Some people will get upset over anything!

Happy New Year!
Enjoy 2013 — it's got to be better than 2012 was!

Why Is It ...?

. . . that all the stories about the end of the Mayan calendar — the ones that show a "Mayan Calendar" — always actually show the Aztec calendar stone? (Like this.)

Just askin'.

Remember Why There Is A Christmas

Christmas today may look like this

Why Christmas exists looks more like this

Remember the reason for the season.
Wishing you a blessed Christmas

Merry Christmas to All!

Wishing everyone a very
Merry Christmas

. . . with a thought back to the very first Christmas
. . . with the manger and the animals and the shepherds . . .

. . . and with a smile and some laughter of the season!

End of the World

No comment is needed.

Update: The world didn't end, after all. Guess I'd better do some Christmas shopping!

Servicemen's Votes, Uncounted

There's one recent set of news reports that is simply disgusting. Politicians continue to deny our servicemen — soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines — men and women — their constitutional right to have their voices heard as citizens. They do this in violation of the law, as well as all possible justice and morality. Disgusting!

Something more must be done to protect the rights of these citizens.