People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

So Is This a Happy Ending Or Not?

The kids on the editorial staff at the Charleston (WV) Gazette are about as rabidly anti-gun as anyone around. Or are they?

From something called "Potpourri" a few days ago:

Bearing arms in West Virginia: Stephanie Holsinger and Dexter Dewayne Gilmer pleaded guilty to accompanying former Capital High School basketball star L.B. Hooker on an armed robbery — but the robbery victim pulled his own pistol and killed Hooker with a bullet in the back. (link)
An innocent man is confronted by armed would-be felons.
He has exercised his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and is packing.
He drops one of the assailants.
He apparently subdues the others.
A success story.

Thanks, Founding Fathers.
Thanks, NRA.
Thanks, Charleston Gazette, whether you meant for this to be taken properly or not.

But These Are Your Heroes

The Charleston (WV) Gazette is keen on the government taking over our health care system. Starting with that idiocy relating to expansion of SCHIP to nearly every citizen of the Mountaineer State.

The same government, ahem, that supervises the mines:
Mine deaths
● Failed government

Charleston Gazette editorial

Every few weeks, it seems, West Virginia gets a fresh reminder of what happens when the government does not do its job. Unfortunately, the reminder comes when another coal miner is killed.

Although federal law requires each underground mine to be fully inspected four times annually, the mine where Keeney died had not been inspected for almost a year.

It is outrageous that the federal government has brushed aside its legally obligated duty. West Virginia’s workers are paying for it. (link)
Think about this next time you read on these same pages a call for the government - that same government - to step in and begin oversight of the health of your children.

May God then have mercy on us.

We Need McCain-Feingold II?

This is almost humorous, it's so devious.

John McCain (and a host of other Big-Government types) continue to try to separate political campaign cash from political campaigns, with McCain-Feingold being, memorably, the last in a long line of many legislative attempts to bring donations - influence - under control.

It seems that each time a new barrier is erected, those most interested in affecting election outcomes in this country find a way to blow right past them. This is really kind of shrewd:

A Drive-By Swift-Boating
By Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post

The glossy fliers turned up in mailboxes in Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District the weekend before the election. "No one should be signing blank checks to President Bush!" announced one, urging recipients to "Call Jim Ogonowski and tell him you don't agree with his spending priorities!"

Another showed a young girl blowing on a dandelion. "President Bush feels she doesn't deserve healthcare," it said. "Under the Niki Tsongas Plan, kids get the healthcare they need!"

[T]hey were produced by a group with the audaciously ironic name Democracy Still Works. Staffed by Massachusetts Democratic strategists, it was created Sept. 28; it won't have to report the source of its money or how much it spent until January.

Unlike the candidates' own committees (which are limited to $2,300 donations) or regular political committees that register with the Federal Election Commission (limited to $5,000 checks), groups such as Democracy Still Works claim they can accept unlimited donations from any source, including corporations and labor unions.

This is the electoral equivalent of a contract hit, conducted by a mysterious assailant specially created for the mission at hand. (link)

Where's McCain when we need him? More laws, man. We need more laws. More ...

But Isn't That The Point?

Rudy Giuliani got to the nut of the HillaryCare matter the other day with the release of a campaign ad in which he began the process of informing the American people as to that which they could expect from government-run health care. In the ad he said the following:

I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and, thank God, I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent under socialized medicine.
A shocking comparison.

Naturally, the British government/medical establishment is fighting back. Though how this is supposed to nullify Giuliani's argument is beyond me:
Giuliani’s Prostate Cancer Figure Is Disputed
By Julie Bosman, The New York Times

In a radio advertisement playing in New Hampshire and in speeches along the campaign trail, Rudolph W. Giuliani has cited statistics to cut at the heart of his Democratic rivals’ health care proposals, which he has derided as European-style “socialist” plans that will lower the standard of care in the United States.

Mr. Giuliani’s Democratic rivals would argue that they are not advocating government-run health care in their plans to extend coverage to the uninsured. But, beyond that, the 44 percent figure that Mr. Giuliani has been citing is in dispute. The Office for National Statistics in Britain says the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer there is 74.4 percent. And doctors also say it is unfair to compare prostate cancer statistics in Britain with those in the United States because in the United States the cancer is more likely to be diagnosed in its early stages. (link) (my emphasis)

That last point is exactly the point that Giuliani is trying to make. Because Britain has adopted a HillaryCare-like health care system, long lines, poor quality care, inadequate staffing, and equipment shortages have become the norm. People can go for months waiting to see a physician. Thus, cancers are more likely to not be diagnosed early in Britain. And thousands are dying as a result.

A line worth remembering in Giuliani's ad that went unreported by the Times is this:

“Government has never been able to reduce costs. Government never increases quality.”

Of that axiom, the British are a glaring example.

Finally, Rudy has this:

“We have the best health care system in the world. We just have to make it better.”

And we will. If we keep Hillary Clinton and her ilk away from it.

We Need A Lot More Smokers

If Congress is going to cover all those children of parents who can afford their own health care insurance but don't wish to, we are going to need a whole lot more cigarette smokers out there. It's a massive tax increase on cigarettes, you see, that is going to be the funding mechanism for the program, called SCHIP. So no cigarette purchases and the kids suffer.

Makes no sense? Follow along:

Buy a carton of Marlboros today. It's for the children.

Double-click on the triangle to activate.

1984 Comes to 2007

Where once the free exchange of ideas was encouraged, there is now the heavy hand of GroupThink imposed. How did our once-fabulous institutions of higher learning sink to this level?
University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation
FIRE Press Release

Newark, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.” (link)
These people must be stopped. For all we hold dear ...

Nobody's Stopping You

You'll never read me criticizing Warren Buffett when it comes to investment strategy. The man knows his stuff. However, when it comes to his liberal Democratic politics, he's as boneheaded as the best of them.

Apparently, mysterious forces are preventing him from writing a big fat check to that United States government that he is so enamored with:
I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett
By Andrew Clark, The Guardian

The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed." (link)
Buffett is a big Clinton supporter. Can you tell?

"I'm not paying enough! I'm not paying enough!"

Put your money where your mouth is, Warren. Get out the checkbook. Make that check out to: