I Don't Want to Pay for Your Abortion

I don't want to pay for your abortion. I don't want to pay for your operations. I don't want to pay for your medicines. I don't care if your life is on the line. Call me an asshole, but if I wanted to pay your medical bills, I'd write you a personal check.

I'm employed part-time, so my measly crumbs of tax payments will only pay for a infinitesimal, negligible, invisible morsel of your medical procedures. But then there's also that phantom I call "indirect taxation." Somewhere, some wealthy person cannot afford to expand their security company and hire new help (me), because they're paying for your abortion. Several hundred upper middle-class folks can't afford to go to a BC hockey game, and my company has to reduce its staffing for the event (me). All so some alcoholic in Des Moines can get a new liver to tear up.

Now, I'm not exactly pro-life. I'm not exactly pro-choice. I'm pro-apathy when it comes to abortion. I don't denounce those who have abortions. It doesn't affect me, so I don't much care. I just don't want to pay for it. And that's not a moral stance, it's a fiscal one. Quite simply, my fucking money should stay my fucking money. It shouldn't be used to undo your fucking.



Abortion is elective, it's not healthcare. Unless, of course, the mother's life is at stake. And don't try the old "Well, if the mother can't afford the baby, their life actually is at stake." I'm afraid that argument is preposterous. Doctors are not supposed to be financial planners.

Let's just reduce that lame-brain argument to absurdity, for fun. Should the government pay for an aging, fattening supermodel, with no education and no ability to do anything else; to get a tummy tuck? After all, if she doesn't get it, she'll be unemployed and poor and unable to support herself.



Barack and his cronies want us to pay for abortions. Even if we're zealous pro-lifers, or even if we're sterile/barren, or even if we're abstinent, or even if we use protection. Where in the Constitution does it give people the right to free abortions? Was the Revolutionary War fought over a lack of social benefits from the British Government. Did Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, plead for a government that took care of its citizens' doctor bills?



I have no problems with a charitable trust to pay for abortions for women who can't afford them. A PRIVATE charitable trust. I don't mind giving it tax-exempt status, and giving tax deductions or even credits to those who donate.

But elective abortions are not expenditures for which I'm willing to foot the bill.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of good reasons to be against socialized medicine. Not the least of which is the confusion of who gets control over things like this abortion issue.

Will elective abortions be paid for by the government? That's up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is a Cabinet position, appointed by the President, and approved by Congress. In other words, abortions will be paid for by the government, when the government wants them to be.

This kind of confusion and potential alteration is a red flag. Isn't one of the goals in socialized medicine to keep costs stable, and predictable? Doesn't it seem weird that when Barack is in the White House, elective abortions will be covered by the government. But when/if Sarah Palin comes to town, they probably won't be?



Doesn't this incongruity suggest that elective abortions are not a healthcare necessity? When Palin, or another adamant pro-lifer is in the White House, will anyone die because they weren't granted a free elective abortion?

Doubtful.

But the government will control healthcare. They'll control the definitions of healthcare. They'll eventually control health. What is healthy, what is unhealthy.



I admit that right now, the insurance companies wield this power. BUT, at least we as consumers still maintain the control of selection. Premiums are contained thanks to capitalistic competition, as is quality of product. Health insurance isn't so expensive because the healthcare companies are run by Ebeneser Scrooge and Henry F. Potter.



It's expensive because drugs need to be researched for years, and MRI machines aren't constructed from duct tape and aluminum foil.



Instead of consumers controlling the cost and quality of healthcare, it will be up to the government. Which succeeds so often in maintaining low costs and high quality. Remember the Big Dig? $22 billion for leaking tunnels.



Low cost, high quality.

Barack wants his healthcare reform passed because he'd rather have government workers (and their friends, relatives, neighbors) running your healthcare. After all, we can't trust DOCTORS to make proper healthcare decisions.



We've got to take medical decision-making away from doctors, and give it to bureaucrats who have no background in medicine!

The less control the government has on its citizens, the better. That's a simple axiom, espoused by many people who now adorn U.S. currency. Citizens should control the government, not vice versa.

Why are the Democrats so rushed in their healthcare push? Because November 2010 isn't far away. Despite what the media wanted you to think, Barack's Democratic cronies in Congress aren't exactly safe and secure. A few months ago, the media asked if the GOP was dead. (I answered)

As is natural in American politics, there's been a considerable backlash focused on those in power. And there are more than a few Senatorial and Representative seats up for grabs in 2010 that could affect the balance of that power in both Houses.

The Democrats, for all intents and purposes, currently have a filibuster-proof majority. This means that legislation cannot be held up by purposefully long-winded speeches, which are meant to indefinitely delay voting on an undesired bill.



The Democrats have this power because of 312 people in Minnesota. That's how many votes Al Franken won the 2008 Senatorial election by. 312. That's about one millionth of the US population, and this microscopic sliver of citizens have helped assure that we'll have socialized healthcare.

And because of those 312 Minnesotans, one of the most expensive, and most important pieces of domestic legislation this side of the New Deal (both sides can agree on its importance), doesn't even deserve more than 10 minutes of debate.



The Democrats are smart to hurry. They'll see their legislation passed before they lose their 60/40 edge in the Senate. I just hope I don't get sick until January of 2011, when a new Congress, infused with the anti-Democrat, Tea-Party rage growing across the country, is sworn in. And at the very least, this monumental crapload of crap-legislation can be inspected properly and thoroughly.

Barack the Conqueror

Only Barack could get away with extending a war and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in a 10 day span. The deification of Barack the Conqueror/Peacemaker continues unabated.

It was a funny reaction after Barack declared a Surge in Afghanistan on December 1st. "Surge" seems to be the new favorite word for TV pundits to sound like military strategists. I don't remember there being a "When to Surge, When Not to" chapter in The Art of War. Maybe the Chinese don't have a word for Surge.



The basics of the plan outlined by Barack is that the US fighting strength in Afghanistan will increase by 30,000 troops within the next 3 months. And in 18 months, we would begin to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Remember when Dwight D. Eisenhower set a timetable for US withdrawal from Germany? Wait, that never happened.



But I actually don't think Barack's plan is that bad. Essentially, he's giving a deadline to the Afghan people to put up or shut up. If they can't handle their own shit in 18 months, then they're on their own.

What's funny was how unhappy EVERYONE was with Barack's decision here. Of course most people on the left were pissed that we'll still be in Afghanistan for years to come. But the conservatives who agreed with him were pissed that his speech wasn't zealous and zestful enough to inspire his soldiers. They unfavorably compared it to George Patton, Winston Churchill, even Henry V.







Except, Patton didn't roll through North Africa, Sicily, France and Germany because he gave good speeches. He did it because he was a ruthlessly aggressive expert in armored warfare.



The British didn't fend of Nazi Germany's Blitz because Churchill was a fantastic orator. They did so because of radar, an efficient organization of their fighter command structure, and outright blundering on the part of Germany's Luftwaffe.

The British didn't win at Agincourt because Henry V gave an inspiring speech. They won because it rained, and the heavily armoured French were immobilized and even drowned by a deluge of mud.



In the movie Braveheart, William Wallace gives this rousing speech before the Battle of Stirling Bridge.



You may remember that in the ensuing combat scenes, there's no bridge present. The REAL Battle of Stirling Bridge took place on a bridge. The Scottish allowed some of the English/Welsh to cross, then slaughtered them piecemeal, before the entire English army could come over. But that's not very cinematic, is it?



You don't have to know much about history to know this: no war has ever been won by a speech. No war has ever been lost by a speech. Wars are won or lost by men (and sometimes women), equipment, and decisions.

In an effort to please everyone, by extending the war in Afghanistan but also establishing a deadline, Barack has pleased almost no-one. There's a good lesson there. Yet he'll still have that Peace Prize. If by some miracle the Afghans figure out how to run a country (something they've never even tried to do, ever), I'm sure Barack will be given the credit, not the soldiers, not the Afghans.

If in 18 months, things are no better in Afghanistan, we'll begin the withdrawal, and Barack will still get credit for keeping the war "short." Even though it will be over 10 years old at that point. So Barack's taking a hit right now, but eventually he can claim credit for a victory, or for minimizing a loss. It's political genius, not military genius.

This whole war on terror is still fucked up and unwinnable in any traditional sense. Imagine playing chess against someone who moved his rook diagonally, or moved pawns 3 spaces at a time, or shifted his white bishop to black squares?



When countries like Iran and Pakistan willingly or unwillingly harbor terrorists, and yet no American soldier sets foot in them, you simply can't hope to win. In fact, these countries are the more dangerous in this War on Terror. When the Taliban and al-Quada were buddies, it was easy to go into Afghanistan and obliterate the Taliban. But when the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia simply look the other way, it's a lot harder to go into there and crack some skulls.

So what strategy should we implement for the War on Terror? An old one, but an effective one. The War Party. Kill your enemy, then leave. Simple, brutal, cheap, and safe. In Iraq, for instance, we could have left once Saddam had been captured, and the countryside scoured for those nonexistent WMDs.

But then you get the bleeding hearts worried about rebuilding countries after we destroy them, worried about military strongmen filling in the power vacuums. So be it. Who cares who runs Iraq so long as they stay in Iraq?

I don't care who the Governor of Rhode Island is, a state only 17 miles from my house. Why should I care who runs Afghanistan?

So here's the Zeitz Doctrine:

1. Establish a set of Commandments for foreign leaders to follow. Things like "Thou Shalt Not Train Terrorists to Attack the US or its Allies."
2. Forcibly remove any foreign government that breaks a Commandment.
3. Abrupt exit.

It'd be a whole lot more effective, and a whole lot less deadly (for everyone really), than trying to police the world.

Time to Take an Afghanistand

Want to know what's funny. And I don't mean laugh out loud funny, but like "hmm, that is funny." I've been mulling with the idea of writing this post about Afghanistan for a few weeks now. I'm usually a few days, or even weeks behind current events when I finally write about them here. But my snail's pace is miles ahead of Barack's sloth-on-valium pace.



To be fair, it's a mighty large decision he's faced with in Afghanistan. But at the same time, it doesn't seem, at least on the surface, that he's spending all of his time working on this decision. I understand that it's difficult to weigh all the different factors involved in combat strategy, but it's impossible to weigh them if you spend little time near a scale.

Barack cares more about healthcare reform than Afghanistan. There, I said it.

And what has he done to demonstrate otherwise? He and his Democratic disciples spend more time talking about healthcare, debating healthcare, promoting reform, and writing lengthy bills. How many trees have been killed over healthcare reform.



It's time to review a little history. Like General Patton, I think studying the history of warfare is vital to mastering it in the present. But don't worry, this won't be a long-winded lesson.

Afghanistan has never been a nation-state.

It's been conquered by foreigners, although not lately. It's been a kingdom, but it's never been a true nation. What does that mean? Well, when you leave Boston and go into the sticks of Western Mass. or the rolling hills of Vermont, or the rocky expanses of the Crown of Maine, you don't fear for your life do you? Some tribe of New Hampshirians aren't going to steal your clothes. There's law and order outside of the heavily populated areas. That law and order spreads to and is contained by our national borders.

There's an idea of being an American, and it supersedes ethnic background or accent (usually). But the only thing that has unites people in Afghanistan as "Afghanis" is their hatred of American involvement. Other than that, they're a very loose collection of tribes. And that's what works there.

In the US, different municipalities have different governments. In the square states, county government is a big deal. They don't have towns. In suburban Boston, we have towns, and town meetings. In the cities we have mayors and city councils. People tend to develop ruling systems that can efficiently rule. Afghanis utilize a more tribelike system of government because it works there.

This situation is worse than Iraq. At least down there, there existed a slight framework of nationhood. But to be honest, the only kinds of government that can succeed in these shitty places is your token military strongman.



And should we be surprised by that? We think we're so clever with our Democracy. Yet look at our own history. It took this country about 140 years to have universal suffrage. And then 50 more years to really have civil rights for all. Do you want to spend 190 years helping Afghanistan figure things out?



What is victory in Afghanistan? I hear Bill O'Reilly and other conservative mouths proclaim that withdrawal from Afghanistan now would be defeat. We'd be letting the terrorists win. But don't these people also consider dying to be victory? What the fuck do we care what a bunch of crazy assholes think. If they want to think they're winning, let them.

We can't let Afghanistan be run by the Taliban because the Taliban supports terrorists. If we were to take this logic and apply it to other countries, we'd be involved in many more theatres of war. Iran and North Korea come to mind first and foremost, but also more than half of Africa, and even some of our allies. Are we going to try to install democracy in all of these countries?

To me, Barack's decision seems obvious. Victory remains undefined. It's impossible to fight for a victory when you don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish. Just imagine playing football or baseball if you didn't know the rules. Imagine playing chess without a King to checkmate. You'd just have pieces knocking each other off.



Pull out and monitor. Let the Taliban play in their own backyard. Just make sure they don't have too much fun. Support uprisings against them. But if Afghanis want democracy, we can only give them the tools and the wood, they have to build their own house.

But what the fuck is taking Barack so long? And how come he hasn't asked this one pivitol question: "Why is it taking me so long to figure out how to win this war?" Because you can't figure out what "winning" actually means. And therefore should seriously consider withdrawal.

Every day he mulls, ponders, and spends time talking about healthcare reform; the WRONG STRATEGY is still being used in Afghanistan. Whatever the right strategy is, it isn't being used right now. That much is certain. So every day spent thinking is a day spent fighting a war the wrong way. There are the most serious consequences for such hesitation. You made sure you brought cameras with you so we'd know that you know this.



I know Barack doesn't want to fuck this up. But by spending so much time trying not to fuck up, he is indeed fucking up.

And sadly, all America, liberal, conservative, and inbetween, cares much more about their own health plans than they do about the war.

WTF, Maine?

52.8% of voting Mainers voted "Yes" on Question 1 in the recent election. Question 1 was a binding referendum to reject Maine's recent gay marriage law. In other words, "Yes on 1" meant "No on Gay Marriage." So by public acclaim, Maine is now removed from the ranks of states that allow consenting, unrelated adults to marry whomever they want to.

Shame. But at least it was a close race, close enough to keep the issue on the proverbial front-burner, close enough that if only 3% of the voters change their minds, it will go the other way.

Those of you who've been loyal readers of this political blog might be surprised to hear that somebody (me) who thinks Ronald Reagan should be beatified as a Saint, would be for gay marriage (or as I prefer to phrase it "I don't care about other people and what they do with themselves"). But the truly dedicated, hardcore Ambi-Winger already knows how I feel on this issue:

Miss California vs. Barack Obama vs. Dick Cheney

Iowa Is More Progressive Than California?

Lone Star Tyranny

I have a question for the typical Anti-Gay Marriage conservative. And to liberals out there, or anyone who is Anti-Government-Sexual-Legislation, feel free to utilize this argument, because it's so juicy, it's so relevant, it's so contemporary, but like a ripe apple it'll spoil if you don't use it right now. Just pretend the next line is addressing the person you're debating against:

How come you're against government interference in health care, but you're for government interference in marriage laws?

Here's the anticipated comeback, it's a scare-tactic, actually it's a scare-diversion, even a deflection of the issue. Instead of talking about human rights vs. government rights to legislate human rights (e.g. murder laws=good, anti-gun laws=bad), the Anti-Gay Marriage advocate that isn't a religious nutjob will counter with an argument that scares the shit out of parents. It was the spearhead of the "Yes on 1" campaign.



I love the simplicity, and outright ignorance of a viewpoint like "I don't want gay marriage taught in schools." But I do see that in certain anecdotal cases, like the ones in the commercial, how irritating it could be to a parent. There's a simple solution, and I'll phrase it in question form:

Why the fuck is any marriage taught in school at all? It should be math, science, social studies, reading/writing, gym. I am against sex-ed in school, in all schools, because it's just a way for lazy parents to pay someone else to teach morals and values to their children. Sex-ed should be limited to biology class and should be called Procreation-Ed, or Reproduction-Ed. It should be taught in 6th grade bio class. Penis goes in vagina, ejaculation, fertilization, pregnancy, birth. Keep it clinical, keep it scientific, make kids memorize big words, use disgusting cross-sections, make sex as unfun as the rest of school is.



It seems like year after year, we as a society beg the government to take care of more and more of our problems. Then we bitch about how bad a job the government does. If you want your children to learn abstinence, teach them that. If you want them to learn about condoms, teach them yourselves. It might be awkward for you, but imagine being a junior high teacher having to tell 30 semi-pubescent tweenagers about fellatio and cunnilingus.

And you know what the "No on 1" people should have done? You know what Gay Marriage activists should do? They should be the biggest advocates of keeping gay marriage out of public schools. They should spend more money doing that than anything else. It's a road block and it's not going away.

Sun Tzu's Art of War can be summed up nicely in 3 words: "Make winning easy." If you eliminate this whole school crap, then people apathetic to BS like "sanctity of marriage" will come over to your side, or at least abstain from voting against gay marriage. Furthermore, your remaining opponents are more likely to expose themselves as bigots.

Maine disappointed me last week. I like Maine, I like Mainers. There's a down-to-earth hickness to them. They don't have the cosmopolitan fakeness or smugness of a typical Northeast liberal. They've got more common sense, but they're not book-stupid either. They allow individual Congressional districts to cast electoral college ballots individually (so if a district votes Republican, while the rest of the state votes Democrat, that Republican district can cast its vote for the Republican candidate. 48 of the 50 states don't allow this. For instance, all 54 of California's votes go to one candidate, even if 20 districts voted for his/her opponent).

There's hope for Maine, and there's certainly hope for most logical states. And gay marriage needs to be passed by votes and referendia, not just State Supreme Courts. Otherwise it'll be as illegitimate and scoffed as the BCS.



For non-sports fans:

The BCS is a combination of polls and math equations that select which 2 college football teams (out of 120) will play each other for the national championship. Big time college football is the only NCAA sport that doesn't determine a champion with a playoff system. The BCS has often been questioned, occasionally leaving undefeated teams out of the title game.

The people who want to see rights given to all need to play hard, get dirty, and even play dirty. They need to write ironclad laws AGAINST gay marriage being taught in schools. They need to make people FEAR government intervention in marriage by using history's facts (anti-miscegenation laws) and future's potential. That racist justice of the peace in Louisiana should be the posterboy of the gay marriage movement.

Compare your opponents to Hitler, confuse the issue, scare the hell out of reasonable people into thinking that they absolutely have to be on your side or something terrible will happen to their children.



And the Barack loving liberals out there need to put pressure on their man in the White House and their people in the Congress. There's little to no reason for Barack or any other centrist Democrat to support gay marriage, because there's no pressure. There's no criticism from the Left on this issue.

But it doesn't have to be that extreme in Maine, thankfully. 47.2% of people voted No on 1. If only 1/10 of these people ask their disagreeing friends "Why are you against government run healthcare but for government run marriage?" Then maybe Maine can be turned back. Or maybe Massachusetts should reacquire it, make it part of The Commonwealth like it was before 1820.

The Health of Capitalism

Capitalism, like Julius Caesar, is slowly being murdered by a well-intentioned yet conniving coven of conspirators, each holding a knife, each plunging their blade into capitalism's torso, each thrust drawing more and more blood. With each angry stab, what was once a healthy body is deteriorating into a corpse.



Who mourns for capitalism? After all, it's the system that allowed slavery. It's the system that turned peaceful nations into warlike empires. It's the system that denied you a mortgage. It's the system that repossessed your engagement ring. It's the system that made your health care and your health insurance more expensive than gold-laced cocaine.

Capitalism breeds materialism. He with the most toys win. Consumption, consumption, consumption. It leads to sweat shops making sweatshirts, Wal-Mart forcing small businesses out of business, brand new brand labels that label us as shallow and materialistic.



In a recent TV interview, Michael Moore described capitalism as a system in which "The people have very little to say as to what's going on." And he's right. When a person chooses between Pepsi and Coke, neither company asks the customer what to use for ingredients. Neither company asks him how much a can of soda should cost.

When a man takes his family out to eat, he can't decide what's on the menu. Whatever's printed there is what's there.

When a healthy woman goes to her physician, she can't tell her doctor whether or not she needs to see him again in a week for yet another check-up.

When a family is looking to buy a new car, they can't call the factory and request that they make a more fuel efficient vehicle. The cars are already on the lot!

In 1985, when Coca-Cola decided to change the flavor of their soda, it wasn't the people's collective disdain for the taste of New Coke that removed the drink from the market. Didn't you know that it was all part of Coke's grand scheme to make people fall in love with their classic soda: eventually re-released and renamed Coca-Cola Classic?



The people had nothing to do with New Coke's death! How could people BUYING a product tell the company MAKING the product how to make it? And certainly people aren't more powerful than a multi-billion, multi-national goliath like Coca-Cola. It was all a classic Capitalist conspiracy.

Socialism is where you get choice. Just ask Barack, an intelligent man. The people have control in socialism. They control what everyone eats, what everyone drinks, what everyone buys. Socialism will give us free electric cars, and free health care, and free time. We won't need jobs because the government will take care of everything for us.

The great thing about socialism is that it has momentum. Once you get it started, it's almost difficult to stop it (as if you'd want to). You start off by taxing those greedy, cossack, rich swine who make $100,000+ a year. Then you spread that money around through necessary things like health insurance and car companies. Just like Barack has done and plans to do. And he is an intelligent man.



But why stop there? Once those rich people get taxed down to the level of the working class, there'll be no upper class to start businesses and employ the middle classes and lower classes. But what's fantastic about socialism is that we won't need employers! The government will employ people. In factories, and farms, and camps, and of course we need beefed up police departments to ensure nobody is hording personal possessions.

What's great about government involvement is that it usually makes things more streamlined, efficient, and cheaper. History books don't agree with this statement, but books can simply be altered to say that it's worked in the past. And so long as people believe in it, it will be true. Just like Tinkerbell can live so long as people believe in fairies.



What's even more phenomenal about government involvement in healthcare is that it will put a halt to ever-escalating costs. After all, health insurance grows more expensive as the quality of healthcare increases. Once the government steps in, the profit motivation will be removed, the quality will remain level, and therefore the price will remain level. So that's good. And if we're super lucky, the quality will drop, thus lowering the cost. Barack wants to lower the cost of health care. And he's an intelligent man.

Those big drug companies are the perfect examples of Capitalistic Monsters. Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world, had revenues in excess of $70 billion in 2008. And they only spent $11 billion of that to research new drugs!!! Companies like Pfizer should WANT government control. If that happened, they wouldn't have to spend a dime researching new drugs. Nobody would. And researching new drugs makes new drugs expensive. And nobody likes expensive drugs. Especially not Barack, an intelligent man.



What did capitalism do for you? It made you PAY for the computer you're reading this blog on. It makes you pay for the electricity that's powering the computer. It makes you work for the paycheck that you use to pay for that electricity. It makes you pay for the car to take you to that work. It makes you pay for the gas that takes that car to your work and to your vacation house down Cape Cod. It makes you pay for the beers you drink at the vacation house.

Worst of all, it makes you choose things. You have to go into the store and labor over which brand of chips to buy, or if you want 1% milk or skim. Then the prices. You never get to haggle over price.



You have to determine the price of that milk along with your fellow milk consumers. What a pain in the ass that is. That's no control! That's sharing control with other consumers. And who wants that?

And health insurance, that's the worst idea Capitalists ever came up with. The idea of spreading risk over a large group, thereby avoiding the potential of crippling costs that come along with unforeseeable and unanticipated medical catastrophes is just pure greed. It's people wanting to hang onto what's theirs. That's avarice in its purest form.

I mean what kind of system wouldn't give insurance to someone who is sick? A capitalist system. It's just like those diabolical greedsters at the auto insurance companies who won't insure a car that's about to go off a cliff.

I for one am glad that Barack is going to allow people with preexisting conditions to receive health insurance. It's polite. And it will surely reduce costs.

And I'm glad that Capitalism will be gone. Sure, I'll miss my computer, my car, Sam Adams Octoberfest, professional sports, quality movies, television, new medicines, new medical technologies, and my blog.

But I won't miss the lack of control I feel when I have to buy gas to take my car wherever I want to go. I won't miss my evil health insurance company making me pay premiums so that in the off-chance I contract H1N1 I'll only have to pay a $15 co-pay for my treatment. I won't miss MetLife doing all the legal legwork for me when I got into a hit & run accident a few months ago.

I'm glad we have a President who cares so much about us, and is so smart and wise. I'm glad he's supported by people similarly wise as he is. Hopefully the people of this country listen to him and his designs. Hopefully they give him license to cut his dagger of wisdom across Capitalism's throat. Because he is, of course, an intelligent man.







Here's to inspiration...



Et tu, Barack?

National Socialism and You

It's become a habit of some conservatives to compare Barack to Adolf Hitler, and equate his economic and social policies to that of Hitler's Nazi regime. These conservatives do a great disservice to the conservative cause. Then again, equally ignorant people on the left of the US political spectrum called George W. Bush a Nazi. Everyone calls everyone a Nazi when they want to win a debate.

Godwin's Law states: "As a [debate] grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

As a conservative, these right wing ignoratti comparing Barack to Hitler aggravate me. They make the right look bad. But as an amateur historian, anyone comparing anybody to the left of Mussolini to Adolf Hitler pisses me off to no end.

Some really ignorant people are comparing Barack's economic agenda with Nazism. They point out that Nazi is short for National Socialist. When in fact, it isn't. It's short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This phrase means "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

What is National Socialism? Well much like capitalism, there are different forms of socialism. The socialism of Germany from 1933 to 1945 is different from that of Communist Russia, and from the modern forms of socialism practiced today in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia, and elsewhere. The socialism practiced by Germans, unlike that practiced by Soviet Russia, allowed for individuals to own their own property and goods. So one could own a house, unlike in the USSR where the State owned the house.



The Nazis believed that capitalism was wrong. They believed a government should control the direction of an economy, instead of letting it go wherever the marketplace determined. At the same time, there wasn't nearly the amount of force exerted on the economy as there was in the USSR.

While the Germans' socialism wasn't as hardcore as the Russians', it was more extreme than the socialisms of the 21st century. Canada is a socialist country (relative to the US), but it is also a capitalist country. There's a free market in Canada, with prices set by supply/demand and not the government. People pay higher taxes, receive higher benefits from the government.

Let's say an economy is a road. The amount of government control is the speed limit. Here are some examples of how this analogical road would be under various economic climates:

Pure Capitalism: no speed limit
American Capitalism: 65 MPH limit for safety
Canadian style Cap/Soc: 65 MPH limit for safety, 40 MPH minimum for traffic flow
USSR style socialism: every car must travel at 50 MPH and split gas costs equally no matter how far they have to travel
Nazi-type Socialism: every car must travel between 50 and 60 MPH and drive the same brand of car made in Germany so all Germans are employed

The type of socialism Barack seems to support (socialized health care, billions of dollars to house people in danger of defaulting on their mortgage, buying General Motors) is more of a safety net socialism. And while I vehemently disagree with the ideals of this brand of socialism, it's not as extreme as the USSR's or Nazi Germany's.



And even if Barack's socialism is similar to Hitler's socialism, does that make it or him evil? Do we hate Hitler because he was a lousy economist? No! We hate him because he killed a few million people. The fundamental strength of the Nazis was their belief that Germans were superior to all races. All those rallies, all those concentration camps, all those tanks were built around that belief. Socialism was merely a side dish.

People have been comparing how similar Barack is to Hitler. How much people worship him. How children are literally singing his praises.



And all the "Hope," "Change," and "Yes We Can," is all bullshit, if you ask me. Barack's spread fear of an economic collapse, and is now spreading fear of a healthcare collapse. He hasn't changed the laws regarding same-sex marriage. And he cannot get his healthcare policies passed. He isn't Hope. He isn't Change. But he's also not a fucking Nazi.



Comparing people to Hitler seems like a good way to win an argument. It's half jokingly called reductio ad Hitlerum, or reducing an opposing viewpoint so it can be compared to Hitler/Nazism. Example: Barack wants socialism, Hitler wanted socialism; therefore Barack and Hitler want the same thing and are alike.

But this is such a stupid argument that only stupid people use, and it only works to win arguments against other stupid people. Once this country gets a Zeitzist regime, it will be against the law to use Hitler in arguments.

Albert Einstein spoke German. Adolf Hitler spoke German. Einstein=Nazi

Natalie Portman is a vegetarian. Adolf Hitler is a vegetarian. Natalie Portman=Sexy Nazi



Picasso was an artist. Adolf Hitler painted. Picasso is a fascist.

Hitler wrote a book in jail. Gandhi also wrote while imprisoned. So I guess Gandhi's writings are in the same category as Mein Kampf.

Hitler was German, and so was Albert Schweitzer. So I guess that hospital he built in west Africa was a Nazi hospital.

Hitler had a German shepherd named Blondie. So I suppose all owners of German shepherds hate Jews.

And that was me using reductio ad absurdum on reductio ad Hitlerum. Ship it.

I hate Barack Obama. I hate him and his policies with an unrelenting anger. I would rather a bunny rabbit be President than him. I believe he and his party are ruining our economic future. I think he's indecisive about Afghanistan and people are dying while he struggles to make a decision. I think he's a neo-socialist. I think if George W. Bush spent time trying to get the Olympics in Dallas, liberals would crucify him for it. But it's OK for Barack to go to Denmark to try to get them for Chicago (although Hitler had the Olympics in Germany in '36, hmmmmmmmm).



But he's not a Nazi. He's nothing near a Nazi. There's no Obama Youth movement. There's no propaganda on the scale of the Nazi's. I just said all that stuff about him in the paragraph above, and I won't be visited by the DNC in the middle of the night with a truncheon. He hasn't built concentration camps or invaded any countries. So until he does, let's keep things in context. And let's slap anyone you hear utter comparisons between Barack and Hitler.

The Health of the Health Care "Debate"

The health of the debate itself is not good. In fact, it's dead. There is no debate over health care. You may think there is, but look closer. Is Jimmy Carter talking about health care?



No, he's talking about the liberal belief that conservatives are conservatives because they're racists.

Is Joe Wilson talking about health care?



No, he's talking about the Republican fear that Democrats want to give illegal immigrants the keys to their houses (Las llaves a sus casas). But Pelosi's reaction is priceless.

Is the artist who made this depiction thinking about health care?



No, he/she was thinking about how badly they failed history class. Comparing Obama to Hitler is like comparing W. Bush to Castro. It doesn't make sense.

I guess my whole point is that neither the liberals or the conservatives are making any points that are actually about health care. It's the same old political poop tossing.



But isn't the onus to make points on Barack and his party? They're the ones in power. They and New York Times pundits have had a field day making fun of jackass conservatives at town hall meetings.



The women is an idiot. But what the hell do Barack and the Democrats want in this "reform?" Do they want universal health care? A public "option?" They haven't figured out what they, as a party, want. They have sufficient votes in both houses to pass whatever plan they concot if they could only FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WANT.

But what does Barack want? We know his goals: cheaper, more accessible health care. But we don't know his plans to reach these goals. Does he even know? Or is he like the Underpants Gnomes from South Park?



And remember back in January? Wasn't it the Republican Party and its conservative base that were in trouble? They said the Party was dead, and that conservatism was a dwindling minority in this country. The Republicans had no leaders except Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Yet this leaderless rabble of hicks, racists, "tea-baggers" and ignorant fools have somehow scared enough swing-state-Democrats to ease up on the socialization of America.



And now we'll get the Barack-Attack. An all out multimedia blitz, utilizing tried and true rhetorical techniques delivered via modern vehicles of media. And the spearhead of this attack is fear. If we don't pass health care reform in the next 24 hours, everyone will explode!



I just want the government to stop spending, and stop spending now. That's the only thing I want the government to do as quickly as Barack wants it to reform health care. Complex things take time. Lots of time.

So just take a day off from spending. I'd like to have kids someday, and would like them to inherit the same opportunities I did, instead of a mountain of debt to China, a Dollar worth one tenth of a Euro, and the entire country babysat by the government.

And I want to talk about the actual legislation. I want Barack to just admit that he wants government run health care. He's done it before.



Just do it again. Just tell the truth, please. Barack, I thought you were hope, and change personified. A lying politician doesn't seem very changeful to me.

Curing Health Care Ignorance

The greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Modern Liberal is optimism. This optimism is expressed as an undying faith in government (so long as it is a liberally run government) to solve all the problems of the world.



Take, for instance, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Miss Gitmo, if you're nasty). Here you have a bunch of guys who have been detained. Not arrested, not tried, not indicted by a grand jury. They're simply detained indefinitely. The liberals wanted these guys released because it's unconstitutional to hold someone without charging them with a crime.



But these dudes are terrorists, and nobody wanted them released. So the optimism of the Modern Liberal meets its ancient opponent: Reality. Barack then decides that instead of detaining them indefinitely, they'll be given "prolonged detention." It sounds nicer, and he even promises to create a legal mechanism to make it all legit.



So instead of doing what they set out to do (free the illegally detained), they're simply going to change the law to legalize their indefinite detentions. That's the kind of clever angleshooting (poker slang for circumventing the rules) that George W. Bush lacked.

And now to health care. does Barack want universal health care? No! At least, not tomorrow he doesn't. He does by the end of his first term, or at least that's what he said in 2007.



So what does he want? Why is it that I don't know what he wants? Why is it so hard to know things about this guy and where he stands on issues? Does he still smoke?



Barack's campaign wrote checks that his policies can't cash. HEALTHCARE IS EXPENSIVE. People live for 80 years now. They spend the last 30 of those years going to the doctor once a month. They spend the last 20 of those years taking 5 pills a day. They spend the last 10 of those years in nursing homes, taking 15 pills a day. They spend the last 5 of those years in intensive care wards.

That shit costs money.

We're able to do things with cancer that we couldn't do 10 years ago. So now a patient that would have died at age 40 in 1990, lives to age 60 in 2009. But that's 20 more years of kemo, pills, and doctor visits.

That shit costs money.

We're able to give EKGs at physicals, have an MRI machine at every hospital, and give people face transplants.

That shit costs money.



So as the cost of health care increase, the costs of health insurance also increase. That's how insurance works.



So I simply don't see how the government is going to reduce costs. Maybe Barack can explain it to me...



So he wants:

1. Cheaper healthcare
2. Choice in healthcare
3. Healthcare for all

Well that's great, but HOW? How do you make an X-Ray machine cheaper?

One proposal makes sense until it's scrutinized a bit (like most liberal policies). 46 million Americans are uninsured, and can't afford to pay their hospital bills when they get sick/injured. So the hospital has to eat the cost, which increases what they charge insurance companies, which increases the premiums insurance companies charge their customers.

Makes sense. If you insured these 46 million people, then this expensive conga-line of charges wouldn't have to take place.

But remember, insurance is based on that whole group principle. It's more expensive to properly insure 46 million people then to give 46 million people medical coverage. Or if insured by the government, it costs the same (that's if the government gets its numbers right, which it usually does, right?)



So including 46 million people among the insured DOESN'T reduce the costs of giving them care. Health insurance is based on the principle that it costs $100/year to care for 10 people, so each person pays $10, even though some people might need $15, or $20 worth of care, and others only $5.

It costs $X to give 46 million people health care. It will cost $X (and possibly more) if they're insured, and it will cost $X if they're not.

Then there's the argument that doctors give unneeded tests in order to fatten their wallets. I talked to my physician about health care reform and he was really offended by this notion.



I remember one time, I had blood in my urine. I drove from Ithaca to Boston to see MY doctor, in MY hospital, because the facilities in Boston are 1,000 times better than some farmer's hospital in Central New York.

I spent the day in Faulkner Hospital, getting bloodwork, peeing into cups, getting X-Rays. The tentative diagnosis was a kidney stone, but my physician wanted to make sure I didn't have bladder cancer. So I went to a urologist, and my bladder was "checked" in one of the most traumatic medical procedures imaginable. And if you're guessing where they put the tube-camera, all I can say is "I wish."

I guess that test was "unnecessary" according to some Super Liberal health care reformist, because I didn't have cancer. And I'm sure that Harvard/Pilgrim (my insurer) called up my physician and asked him why some 20 year old was getting a day of treatments and tests meant for a 50 year old.

But that's what's so great about my private sector capitalist health insurance. MY DOCTOR determines what tests are necessary and unnecessary. But he's watched by the bean-counters at my insurance company. Harvard/Pilgrim doesn't want things getting too expensive because there's COMPETITION out there. And I keep tabs on my insurance company, because if there's something cheaper out there, I'm switching.



The liberals also want to cover people with preexisting conditions, and somehow that will make things cheaper? It's just a fact that an 80 year old diabetic man with three kinds of cancer is more expensive to care for than a 25 year old woman who's at her ideal weight and exercises everyday. So how is insuring the expensive-to-insure, going to reduce costs?

One mantra of the liberals is to pay doctors/hospitals for "Quality" of their care, and not "Quantity." How the fuck do you do that? How do you measure the quality of a doctor's care?

I guess you could go by how healthy his/her patients are. But wait a minute, wouldn't that encourage doctors to fill their patient rosters with fit young people instead of the old and sick? My physician's patients are mostly 50+ (he was my mother's doctor, so I'm one of the few people under 30 that are under his care). How do you measure the quality of care for a physician like him? All his patients are getting progressively sicker, so I guess he's a bad doctor. Meanwhile, Dr. Greedy has the US Gymnastics team for his patients. They're all in perfect shape, so he must be a great doctor. GIVE HIM A RAISE!!!



Health care is not perfect. It's expensive, and people still die. But there's nothing any government can do about it without resorting to socialism. I guess you could make the richest 1% of the country pay for health care. And that sounds nice. But that means less people EMPLOYED by the richest 1%.



But what's another 5% unemployed in a consumer-based economy? At least they'll still have health care. They won't have anything else, like the freedom to go out and make a living for themselves, or the ability to positively contribute to society. But they'll have health care. It will be a long-line, inefficient, the-mayor's-brother-in-law-is-the-nurse kind of health care, but they'll have it.

Liberal Editing of History

What are some words that pop into your head when you think about Richard Nixon? Scandal, cheat, Watergate, corruption, impeachment, resignation, dick, prick, asshole, and so on.



We all know about Nixon getting caught in the Watergate scandal, which has lead to the unfortunate tendency to add "-Gate" at the end of every scandal or potential scandal since then. See: SpyGate.

Did you know he pulled US ground troops out of Vietnam? Liberal leaning people will talk about his secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia, but they gloss over the fact that Nixon shifted Vietnam from a ground war to an air war. And Nixon negotiated the ceasefire with North Vietnam.

Oh yeah, he also opened relations with China, and tried to end the Cold War (or at least thaw it out a bit) diplomatically with Russia.

But he has an (R) next to his name, so he was not only a bad man, but a bad President. All that matters is Watergate. Anything he did before that has been ignored by the amateur liberal historian.

We're all amateur historians. We all formulate opinions on past events. Most of us think, for instance, that Hitler sucked. But the liberals among us don't just form opinions. They form facts. They edit history to glorify their own beliefs, and belittle opposing beliefs.



Real facts: 95% of Indians were whiped out by disease and not white men with guns. Most black slaves were sold by other Africans to white slave traders. Sam Colt was from Connecticut, and didn't invent the revolver to suppress slave rebellions. In fact, there were almost no slave rebellions. The NRA was founded by ex-Union Civil War officers in New York, and hardly had anything to do with the KKK, which was founded by ex-Confederates in Tennessee. The 8th President of the NRA was Ulysses S. Grant. Y'know, the guy who was in charge of the Union Army that freed the slaves.

And perhaps we all do it, but I just tend to notice liberals' skewings more. In my honest opinion, I think most people hold liberal beliefs in order to feel better about themselves. It's almost a psychological condition. They need to feel concerned about the environment, or health care for the poor, or people who can't afford to buy a house, all so they can look in the mirror and see a Saint.



So let's just take a stroll back through history with liberal lenses.

George W. Bush is responsible for our current economic crisis. Yes, because he was in charge when the bubble was growing. But Bill Clinton was NOT responsible for the collapse of the .com bubble. Even though he was in charge when the bubble was growing. In fact, under Clinton the economy was stupendous! Everybody had lots of money, and jobs, and bloated portfolios with Pets.com and $150 a share Amazon.com stock.



Even though all that money, all those jobs, and all those stocks were built on a foundation of imagination and not reality, the economy under Clintion was fantastic. Riiiiiiiiight.

Then there's Ronald Reagan. Liberals utterly refuse to give Reagan credit for anything. And every year, they belittle him more and more. They used to just say he was overrated as a President. Now they'll argue that he was a bad President. Eventually, they'll suggest he was the Antichrist, and was the harbinger of the Apocalypse (in 2012, right?). Liberals refuse to admit that supply side economics can work. They refuse to give an ounce of credit to Reagan for helping to end the Cold War.



Then there's JFK. Excuse me, to liberals he's St. John of Brookline. Maybe it's just because I'm in the epicenter of Kennedy love here in Massachusetts, but to me, JFK is the most overrated President in history. People equate him to Lincoln, which is like equating Carter to Washington.

The Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC). Listen to a Kennedy lover gush on and on about the CMC. How JFK was so calm, so collected, played a game of chicken and made the other guy blink.



Ever hear of the Bay of Pigs? 1,500 Cubans who had been exiled from their home by Castro's revolution, armed and trained by the CIA, invade Cuba. But without suppressing fire from the Navy, or air support, the invasion is a colossal failure. Who ordered this farce? JFK. Who ordered that there be no air support? JFK. So not only did he send these guys in, he sent them in with next to no chance of achieving their objectives.

In response to this 1961 invasion, Cuba runs to the open arms of the Soviet Union. The USSR places nuclear missiles in Cuba, which function as a deterrent to any further invasions.

But JFK never gets blamed for the Bay of Pigs, or for his part in CAUSING the Cuban Missile Crisis. He always gets credit for ENDING it. That's like training a dog to eat children's faces, then getting applauded when you stop him from biting some kid's face off.

Oh, and who increased the US military's presence in Vietnam from 800 men to 16,300 (that's a 2000% increase, BTW)? It was JFK. And liberals can't even fathom this. They point out that he was planning to scale down US involvement there before he was killed. That seems likely, but liberals go one step farther than this. They GLORIFY him for wanting to pull troops out. The same troops he sent there! Again, it's the face-eating dog all over again. He's praised for cleaning up the messes he makes. But in this case, he's praised for POSSIBLY INTENDING TO SOMEDAY MAYBE CLEAN UP HIS MESS!!!



Then there's FDR. And here's where we get to something dangerous. I remember in my junior high and high school history books, reading about the Great Depression. Junior year in HS we spent 2 weeks on the Depression (and only two days on World War II). We learned about the New Deal, and how great FDR's policies were. The alphabet soup of TVA, the AAA, CCC, WPA, CWA, FSA, FHA, the PWA, and the SSA. We were taught that all these programs got America out of the Depression.

But that's not the whole truth, is it? Government programs helped slow down the economy's decline, but they didn't stimulate it's regrowth. World War II stimulated the growth of the US economy, like snorting 15 lines of cocaine laced with Viagra and ecstasy.

We sold scrap metal and oil to Japan, tanks and planes to Britain, radios and jeeps to Russia, and we lent money. We lent money to countries so that they could buy stuff from us. Is there any better way to make money? Then after the war, we lend more money to all these war torn countries. We sell them our stuff so they can rebuild. Meanwhile, the only products they can buy are American, because we're the only country in the world with any industry left. That's how GM, Chrysler, and Ford got so big, they were the only game in town. Then Germany, Japan, and Korea rebuild their factories, figure out ways to make better cars, and so GM goes bankrupt.



I can go on and on about how much World War II boosted our economy, but most basic history books won't. They'll talk about how great the New Deal was.

And this is dangerous. Because right now, in power, are people who read the same kind of liberalized histories. These are people who think quasi-socialist programs can help turn an economy around. They think there's an historical precedent for this, and they're quite wrong.

Government spending and socialist style programs do have a place, even in a conservative capitalist's dream economy. Here's an interesting NY Times editorial. Also, note how the writer can't resist insulting Ronald Reagan. And my favorite liberal line was:

"Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan — a number that will grow over time — and that the stimulus has played a significant role in pulling the economy out of its free fall."

So liberals estimate that liberal policies have worked, and they also estimate that their own policies will continue to work. Where people are getting these numbers of jobs saved is beyond me. Couldn't you use the same logic to suggest that Barack's helped 100 million people remain employed? Wow, isn't he AMAZING. Siiiiiiiigh.

But this guys broader points are dead-on. Big Government has helped keep our economy from tumbling down a cliff.

But, if the US economy is a freight train, then government spending is only the braking system. Every train needs a good braking system. Brakes help you slow down when you're going down a steep hill, as the economy has been doing. But brakes don't help you move forward. They don't help you get OVER the next hill.



When you reach the bottom of a dangerous hill, and slow to a safe speed, you get off the brakes and let the train's engines (the private sector) do their thing. You don't ride the brakes when you're trying to go uphill.

The lessons of the Great Depression were vital to preventing Depression 2.0 in 2008 and 2009. But I'm afraid that liberals didn't learn the entire lesson. They took the junior high history of the New Deal saving America's economy. They didn't realize that it stopped the decline, but was actually detrimental to future growth.

History is a great thing to learn from. Unfortunately, liberals don't want to learn from history. They seek only to glorify themselves through it.

"A Teachable Moment"

That's how Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons described the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Only the Mayor of Cambridge could get away with not having a first name.



But she's right. The arrest of Professor Gates by Sergeant Crowley is an opportunity to learn many lessons. Lessons about people. Lessons about the media. Lessons about our society.

Imagine being pulled over by the police, for apparently no reason. You're driving the speed limit, using your turn signals, all that good stuff. You get pulled over, the officer walks up to your window, and requests "License and registration."

And you say "No." What do you think the officer's reaction would be? Even if you gave him/her your ID after that, do you think this officer would be happy with you? Do you think they'd let you go with that broken tail light you didn't know about?

Now let's say the cop misread your license plate and thought you were someone else. So you start yelling at the officer. Do you think the cop would just apologize and walk away?

Notice how in all of these hypotheticals, I never said what color you or the officer were? Because that doesn't matter.



Cops, as part of their job description, are jerks. Not all the time. But just like they carry a gun but don't always use it, they all have chips on their shoulders that they don't always use. Cops EXPECT to be treated with respect. Especially veteran cops. They expect to see a license when they ask for one. They expect you to pull over when they flash their lights. And even when they make mistakes, they still expect to be treated with deference.

That's just the way of things.

Here's what WE KNOW happened in Cambridge on July 16:

1. Gates got home, his door was stuck due to a previous break-in, he and his driver attempted to pry it open

2. Lucia Whalen, who works at nearby Harvard Magazine, walked by and saw this. She then called the police and reported a possible break-in.

3. Sargeant Crowley arrived at the scene. An argument ensued. Not surprisingly, there are two sides to this part of the story.

4. Once asked to bring the discussion outside, Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct

5. The charges were dropped upon the recommendation of the city of Cambridge and the Cambridge Police Department.

6. Barack began practicing yoga so he could properly jam his foot into his mouth.

Plenty of people have commented on this event. And I think most out there realize that this wasn't racial profiling, or racially motivated. Some still think it was, but these clowns also think that the criticism around Barry Bonds was racially motivated, or that everyone who voted for McCain is a racist, or that a term like "Africanized killer bees" is a racially based way to describe overly aggressive bees that come from Africa.



I'm more interested in the aftermath of this fiasco. I think the media's overreaction was a priceless example of how crappy news coverage truly is. I think watching a hyperactive overly sensitive nut like Al Sharpton jump to conclusions further discredits him, if that were possible. And then there was Barack's conclusion jumping, and his inability to apologize for doing so.



Barack assumed this was a racial profiling case. He saw what a lot of people saw: a man being arrested, apparently for breaking into his own home. Normally this would be a cop gone mad with power, unless the guy arrested was black, and the cop was white. Then it's racism. And this is my favorite assumption of all. There was no room for doubt that this was racially motivated. It couldn't just be a dickhead cop on a power trip, it HAD to be racially motivated.



Then Barack was asked some questions, admitted to not knowing the facts, then opined anyway. Imagine not watching a baseball game, not even looking at the boxscore, then answering a question about how the pitcher did.

Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here... The police are doing what they should ...There’s a call. They go investigate. What happens? My understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct. I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that...But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by police disproportionately. That’s just a fact

Two things piss me off the most. #1, calling the police "stupid." That word is completely demeaning. Even if you think the arrest was wrong or a mistake, that doesn't mean that the entire Department is stupid, nor does it mean that Crowley is stupid. Smart people make mistakes too.



#2, that thing at the end about cops. Yes, there are countless incidents of racial profiling, and other racist practices by cops, both in the past and in the present. BUT, it's an unfortunate generalization that Barack is participating in. He's criticizing cops for judging people based on color, and in doing so is a hypocrite because he's discriminating based on a group. Racial profiling is abhorrent, but so is being prejudiced against the color Blue.



Here's Michael Moore criticizing the entire NYPD, which boasts over 37,000 officers, for what 4 dumb, trigger happy, scared shitless morons did. Could you imagine judging 37,000 people (about the size of Norwood, MA or a full Fenway Park) for what 4 people did? Hmmmmm, judging people by the group. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, PREJUDICE!

And Barack did a similar thing. He mentions racial profiling and its unfortunate place in our history. But what does that have to do with anything in this matter? Because racial profiling HAS HAPPENED, it means that when a white officer arrests a black man, it's probably because of racial profiling? Isn't coming to such a conclusion a form of profiling? Because cops have done it in the past, they'll probably do it again. Those cops can't help themselves. It's in their nature to profile.

There are around 700,000 police officers in the US. Not all of them are profilers. I'd venture to say that an overwhelming majority are not.

Then there was Barack's non-apologetic apology:

Because this has been ratcheting up -- and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up -- I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think, I unfortunately... gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department or Sergeant Crowley specifically. And I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sergeant Crowley. I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved [...] There are some who say that as President I shouldn’t have stepped into this at all because it’s a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive — as opposed to negative — understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio

He can't just say that he was wrong? He makes it seem like by calling the Cambridge PD "stupid" he didn't intend to say anything bad about them. He could have "calibrated those words differently?" How the fuck do you calibrate words? What the fuck does that even mean? He can't even say that he used the wrong word, it was just improperly calibrated.

A politician refusing to admit he was wrong, dodging mistakes, not taking responsibility, falling on his face and pretending to have done it on purpose. Does that sound familiar?

And for all you change loving, hope mongering Obamanauts out there, this is your so-called different kind of President. He's a flim-flam man, a con artist, a politician just like every other politician. You may still think he's the best in breed among politicians, but his breed is the same as everyone else in Washington.