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

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The Roanoke Times Responds ...

... to my post from yesterday regarding the glaring contradiction that was created over the last few days when on Monday the editorial page called for the creation of universal health care coverage but on Tuesday denounced the notion of universal flood coverage. The staff there sees no contradiction, writing (in "Flood insurance vs. health care"):

Jerry at From On High seems to think he caught us in a contradiction ...

I don't see the contradiction. Part of the problem with a universal flood program is that it makes all taxpayers assume the risk for the unwise choices of a few who decide building in flood-prone areas is wise. By offering premiums far below what is actuarially necessary, it also encourages that unwise behavior.

Eventually, wise or unwise, we all need health care. And, far from encouraging unwise behavior, a universal health care program would encourage wise behavior, since those with insurance are more likely to seek life- and money-saving preventive care.
That's the problem, Dan. Eventually we may all need health insurance but young unmarried males and females without children, as a general rule, don't today. And they know it. That's why millions choose to not have coverage. Statistically, it's a wise choice.

Yet most universal health care plans require that they participate. Thus forcing them to cover the needs of others. Thus it's no different from flood insurance, which does the same.

- - -

Also posted at Roanoke Times Roundtable: http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/editorials/flood_insurance_vs_health_care.html#comments

A Word Of Warning

My daughter wanted me to pass along this announcement to the "coward" who ripped the Marine Corps sticker off the window of her SUV when it was parked in the Wal-Mart parking lot up in Salem on Monday. While she was inside shopping.

Quote: "When I find you, I'm going to kick your ass."

She'll do it too.

And, should it become necessary, she'll probably get plenty of help holding your skinny butt down while she does it.

Then again, they'll probably not care to get involved. The Marines are, after all, occupied with more important matters - like keeping your unworthy carcass free from harm.


'We Care!' & Other Blather

“Remember the poor - it costs nothing.” Mark Twain

John Edwards made poverty in America the centerpiece issue of his 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign (see his tale of two Americas here). And of course he lost.

No, he didn't just lose. He was stomped. The issue of poverty just didn't resonate with the party rank-and-file. Not like it used to.

Perhaps for a reason. George Will (in "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists") tosses us some interesting statistics about liberals and their attitudes toward the poor, revealed in the most measurable way possible - charitable donations:

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. '

• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Good conservative Americans will not be surprised by these stats. We donate generously and, having done it, feel rewarded for the effort.

Liberals will deny them.
And they'll continue to bemoan the plight of the poor.
and they'll continue to do little about it.

So much for all that compassion.

I Feel Better

Florida Legislature Apologizes for State’s History of Slavery

Video Doesn't Lie

It turns out Hillary did experience sniper fire when she went to Bosnia back in 1996. And it was caught on tape. Here we all thought she was lying through her teeth.

Incoming! See her dodging bullets here:

My hero.

Click twice on the triangle to activate.

An Odd Moment It Is

"Conservative" legal scholar and former Mitt Romney advisory committee campaign co-chair Doug Kmiec is taking a lot of heat lately for his announcement that he is supporting Barack Obama going forward. A conservative switching to Obama? How does that happen?

Stephen Bainbridge is having trouble with the concept as well and says: "Something very, very odd is going on here":
When he was still on board the Romney campaign, Kmiec wrote that:

"Mitt Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito, and Roberts."

In Barack Obama’s brief stint in the Senate, he had the opportunity to vote on both Roberts and Alito’s nominations. He voted no on both. How do you go from supporting a candidate pledged to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito to backing one who voted against them?

Finally, in the same NRO column, Kmiec explained why he favored Romney over Giuliani by noting that “we cannot afford a president who is only faking his attachment to conservative legal principle.” But Obama has no such attachment, real or faked!

Something very, very odd is going on here. The explanations simply do not explain. (my emphasis)
How indeed. Had Kmiec simply said "I'd rather open a vein than vote for McCain," his neck-wrenching turnabout would be a bit more understandable. But what he has thus far said and written makes no sense at all.

Obama, it seems to me, deserves this guy.

Where It All Began

That whole "Bush lied to get us into war" canard, where did it begin?

Actually it all started before the war even began, with three congressmen who flew to Baghdad in support of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. A blast from the past, September 30, 2002:

On [ABC's] This Week, after Congressmen David Bonior (D-Mich.) in Baghdad claimed past U.S. bombing in Iraq had caused kids to get leukemia, “a horrendous, barbaric, horrific thing that’s happened,” and Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) confirmed that he thought President Bush would lie in order to justify going to war, Republican Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma told [George] Stephanopoulos: “I’m really troubled by what I just heard. Congressman McDermott said, well I think the President would mislead the American people and basically he’s taking Saddam Hussein’s lines, they both sound somewhat likes (sic) spokespersons for the Iraqi government.”
Both Democrats sound like spokespersons for Saddam's government.

Turns out they were. Paid spokespersons at that:

US: Saddam Paid for Lawmakers' Iraq Trip
By Matt Aouzzo, Associated Press Writer

Washington (AP) - Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.

Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti ... (link)
I thought at the time that the treasonable actions - giving aid to the enemy in time of war - of these Democrats - particularly of Bonior and McDermott - should be looked into as a hanging offense. I still think that to be the case. Now there's more reason than ever.

- - -

See also Don Surber's "Saddam's Three Stooges." He asks: "Shouldn’t congressmen know who is paying for their trips?"

Read also Paul Mirengoff's "An Oil For Stooges Deal."