Wednesday, 29 December 2010

WHAT LEGS! AND WHAT A BEARD TOO!

Ken Berwitz

I can't vouch for the legitimacy of this story, which comes to us from something called www.monstersandcritics.com.  But it's too good to pass up, so here it is:

Beauty contest for goats begins in Saudi Arabia

Riyadh - A beauty competition for goats began on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, as part of an auction bringing together traders and herders in the holy Muslim city of Mecca.

Auction supervisor Fawzi al-Subhi said that over 170 animals are competing for the coveted title 'most beautiful goat.' He expects the winner to be sold for at least 18,000 dollars.

According to al-Shams newspaper, the four-legged contestants are purebred Hijazi goats, a distinct breed named after the province in which Mecca is located.

Pastoralists and their flocks still roam the Hijaz region and other parts of the oil-rich Arabian kingdom.

The purpose of the competition is to raise awareness about the breed, said al-Subhi.

A goat beauty contest?  Hooboy.

Do they wear sashes?  Do they have to demonstrate some kind of talent - maybe how many tin cans they can eat in 10 minutes?  Is there a swimsuit competition?

I bet that if they asked last year's runner-up if she minded coming in second, she'd say "naaaaaahhhhhhh".  But, then again, so would the winner and the last place finisher.

Come to think of it, how ugly would a goat have to be to finish last in a beauty contest against nothing but other goats?  Verrrrry ugly....

OK, enough.  Back to politics.

free` Now we know why so many men from Arab countries really "love" there goats. ;) (12/29/10)


TIME AND TIME AGAIN

Ken Berwitz

From Doug Powers' blog at www.michellemalkin.com:

 

Time Magazine:  April, 1977:

null

Time Magazine this week:

null

When will Time magazine stop looking ridiculous?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Zeke ..... ..... ..... I have a much deeper appreciation of George Orwell, having experience Obama, MSM, Liberalism. ..... ..... Animal Farm, 1984 --- and "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. ..... ..... ...... Wait until Obama brings us the "civilian army" that will be "as well funded as the military" ---- and watch what that "civilian army" puts on their brown shirts and gets to work. (12/30/10)


WHAT IS AND IS NOT A "DEATH PANEL"

Ken Berwitz

This is exasperating. 

I was going to write about the difference between quietly slipping end-of-life counseling into the Medicare legislation, and ObamaCare decisions regarding whether or not to provide potentially life-saving treatment to older patients.  But the Wall Street Journal has beaten me to the punch by publishing an opinion piece which exactly parallels my position.

Here is a key excerpt:

On Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will enact the same policy through regulation.

The office of Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer, the author of the original rider who then lobbied Medicare to cover the service, sent an email to supporters cheering this "victory" but asked that they not tell anyone for fear of perpetuating "the 'death panel' myth." The email added that "Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch."

The regulatory process isn't supposed to be a black-ops exercise, but expect many more such nontransparent improvisations under the vast powers ObamaCare handed the executive branch. In July, the White House bypassed the Senate to recess appoint Dr. Berwick, who has since testified before Congress for all of two hours, and now he promulgates by fiat a reimbursement policy that Congress explicitly rejected, all while scheming with his political patrons to duck any public scrutiny.

But if Dr. Berwick's methods are troubling, the substance is more than defensible. Certain quarters on the political right are following the media's imagination and blasting Dr. Berwick's decision as the tangible institution of death panels. But the rule-making is not coercive and gives seniors more autonomy, not less.

In this case, fully a fifth of the U.S. population will be over age 65 inside of two decades, and whatever the other marvels of modern medicine, the mortality rate remains 100%. Advance care planning lays out the options and allows patients, in consultation with their providers and family members, to ensure that their future treatment is consistent with their wishes and moral values should they become too sick to decide for themselves.

The real death panel myth is that the term ever had anything to do with something so potentially beneficial. We wrote at the time that Sarah Palin's coinage was sensationalistic, but it was meant to illustrate a larger truth about a world of finite resources and infinite entitlement wants.

Under highly centralized national health care, the government inevitably makes cost-minded judgments about what types of care are "best" for society at large, and the standardized treatments it prescribes inevitably steal life-saving options from individual patients. This is precisely why many liberals like former White House budget director Peter Orszag support government-run health care to control costs: Technocrats in government can then decide who gets Avastin for cancer, say, and who doesn't.

Democrats and the press corps accused Mrs. Palin of misrepresentation to avoid reckoning with this inexorable rationing reality that President Obama has himself implicitly acknowledged. In a 2009 interview with ObamaCare advocate David Leonhardt of the New York Times, he called for "a very difficult democratic conversation" about the costs that are incurred in the last six months of life. The President even mused about whether his own grandmother's hip replacement following a terminal cancer diagnosis represented "a sustainable model."

Bingo.  I could not agree more.  Providing end-of-life counseling is perfectly reasonable and, as described, has nothing whatsoever to do with "death panels". 

However:

-It was removed from ObamaCare by congress earlier this year, but has now been slipped into Medicare legislation with the express intent to hide its existence from the public.  If you are not suspicious of that, you are the most trusting and/or naive soul around;

-This was not - repeat, not - what Sarah Palin was talking about when she invoked the term "death panels".  Her reference was to the decisions which inevitably must be made on whether older patients will or will not be afforded treatment for potentially life-ending conditions.  The WSJ's reference to Avastin is a perfect example (and, in fairness to me, one that I blogged about a week ago).

-Given that ObamaCare puts tens of millions more people into the health care mix, without any concomitant increase in doctors, nurses, hospitals or medical equipment, such "death panels" are inevitable.  The term itself may have been Sarah Palin's attempt at sensationalism (that's for you to decide) but, dammit, she was right.

-And Donald Berwick, who President Obama appointed without any congressional approval (i.e. rammed down our throats), will be more than happy to provide those "death panels".  This man is a 2012 campaign issue on legs.

Bottom line:  ObamaCare is a monstrosity; one of the most significant reasons (arguably the single most significant) Democrats got their clocks cleaned last month.

But 2010 is just the preliminary. 

You think Democrats suffered consequences in the midterm elections?  Watch what happens if Republicans hold firm against ObamaCare and Democrats keep justifying it for the next two years.  Then you'll see consequences.


DOES WATCHING FOX NEWS MAKE YOU STUPID?

Ken Berwitz

Please pardon the imbecilic title.  It is not mine at all, it is derived from an equally imbecilic proposition which emanates from a fraudulent "political poll".

Brent Bozell of the Media Research Association, using nothing more than common sense and simple mathematics, tears this utterly asinine claim to shreds.  Here is the first part of his commentary (but read it all by clicking here).  Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I have put in bold print: 

There is nothing the Left believes in more robotically than the stupidity of conservatives. Otherwise, they would not be conservatives. When liberals get routed in an election, they do not question themselves. The first, and for most, only verdict is that the American people were disastrously flooded by a tsunami of stupidity and misinformation.

So its not surprising that left-wing bloggers would rejoice when they can write the headline New Study Proves That Fox News Makes You Stupid. Thats the Daily Kos headline. According to them, Fox News is deliberately misinforming their viewers to help Republicans, who benefited from the ignorance Fox News helped to proliferate, as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information.

The liberal pranksters masquerading as pollsters at the University of Marylands Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) are at it again. In a new survey, they claim that those who watched Fox News Channel on a daily basis were significantly more likely to believe in misinformation. But how is that word defined? Look at the details and you will be floored by the misinformation coming from the pollsters themselves.

Heres Exhibit A: Fox viewers were more likely to believe Among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, more think it will increase the deficit.

That is misinformation? This question is not about facts at all. Its about the opinions of economists looking into a crystal ball, and PIPAs economists estimate that herding 35 million uninsured Americans into a new federal entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit. This assertion by liberals that ObamaCare would cut deficits isnt technically a lie -- yet. It is merely a patently ridiculous claim that doesnt acknowledge the real world.. But somehow, Fox News viewers are tagged as the misinformed dummies, because their opinions are grounded in logic.

Heres Exhibit B: Fox viewers were more likely to believe Most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created a few jobs or caused job losses. Once again, this isnt about facts, but about economists and their estimation. The idea that there is misinformation afoot, and its not about the incredibly nebulous and politicized notion of saving or creating jobs something so nebulous it can never be factually verified shows you the bias of the PIPA pollsters.

Lets go all the way back to the drawing board on this poll. Is it fair whether the pollsters are liberals or conservatives to expect the American people to identify correctly the estimates made by a panel of economists organized by news editors of The Wall Street Journal? In a random polling sample, how many memorizing Journal subscribers are you going to find?

There is a more serious polling problem here for PIPA. The poll was done from November 6 to 15, 2010 with a sample size of 848 respondents, for a margin of error of 3.4 percent. Given that an average primetime audience of Fox News is 2.2 million out of a nation of more than 300 million people, that's 0.7 percent. Out of 848 poll respondents, 0.7 percent would give us total of about six Fox viewers. In their own polling breakdown, PIPA says 17 percent said they were almost-daily Fox viewers, or about 145 people. Even that is simply not high enough to test in a serious poll.

This, folks, is how these geniuses contort reality to come to the conclusion they clearly desire.

I wonder how brilliant they figure the MSNBC audience is, given that a preponderance of its guests are left of center (olbermann virtually never has a right of center guest, schultz announced he does not want them there, and Matthews, O'Donnell and Maddow have relatively few compared to their leftward guests). 

Compare MSNBC's balance of left and right to that of Fox, and Fox wins by a country mile.

But, then again, what's the difference?  Doesn't a massive diet of leftward thought make MSNBC viewers smarter?  I'll bet those merry polltakers at the University of Maryland think so....

How sad that, in some quarters, this is what passes for information.  And how doubly sad for the naive, indoctrinated people who believe it.

=========================================================================

Oh, one other thing:  if Fox News has a national rating of 0.7%, in order for 17% (i.e. 145 respondents) to be Fox viewers (assuming a random sample), PIPA had to contact over 23 times the number of respondents necessary to get to its total sample of 848. 

If so, it would mean PIPA made 19,500 contacts and, presumably, just tossed out the non-Fox overage of about 18,600.  Do you believe PIPA did that?  Me neither.

The only realistic way for PIPA to have found this many Fox viewers out of 848, was by using a database which included information about peoples' viewing patterns.  And if PIPA had access to such a database, thus the abilty to cherry-pick Fox viewers, it could have interviewed enough of them to have something approaching a projectable sample - which 145 is not.

And they're telling us that other people are stupid?????


TWO PRESIDENTS, TWO MEDIA REACTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY

Ken Berwitz

For the eight years that George Bush was President, much of our wonderful "neutral" media sneered at his obviously sincere Christian faith. 

Mr. Bush was called a religious nut.  He was called a liar for saying that it helped him kick a drinking habit (though no one ever saw him take a drink).  There were even claims from so-called medical professionals that his Christianity was some kind of mental perversion, etc. etc. etc. 

With that in mind, here is an excerpt from Carol E. Lee's blog at politico.com, about Barack Obama's Christian faith:

HONOLULU  President Obamas trip to church Sunday followed a steady rebirth over the past three months in public expressions of his Christianity.

 

Obama has publicly mentioned his Christian faith more times in the past three months than he has over the past year. He has more frequently cited passages of the Bible, including repeated references to the spirit of Genesis 4:9  I am my brothers keeper; I am my sisters keeper which was a mainstay of Obamas 2010 campaign stump speech. And hes taken his family to church twice, a shift for a president who has preferred to worship privately since the end of the 2008 campaign.

 

The White House says nothing has changed in Obamas public remarks. The president has consistently talked about his Christian faith, and the role of faith in America, over the course of his public life, deputy press secretary Bill Burton said.

 

Indeed, Obama has spoken about his religion at various prayer breakfasts and in a 2009 commencement address at Notre Dame. And earlier this year, he held the first Easter prayer breakfast at the White House for Christian pastors, welcoming them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

But one key difference between the way Obama is now referencing his Christian faith and how he has in the past is in the types of events.

 

In the early months of his time in office in particular, Obamas speeches were dotted with religious references  but those were mostly in front of religious audiences. Before September, for example, Obamas use of Christian faith had appeared during videotaped remarks at the start of Ramadan in August 2009, a statement on the feast of the Nativity last January and a February speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.

 

Lately hes been dropping the phrase in more secular settings, such as a town hall event and a news conference.

I have a question - and you already know what it is, but I'm going to ask it anyway:  What would our media have said about this if it were President Bush?  What did our media say about this when it was President Bush?

But try and find any attacks on Mr. Obama for openly declaring his Christianity - even from the same people who skewered Mr. Bush for it.  The double standard is right there for you to see.

Unbelievable?  No, just our media - the same media that squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH CLAIMS

Ken Berwitz

When it comes to questionning the legal validity of President Obama's Presidency, no one has provided a more complete case than Jerome R. Corsi at wnd.com (World Net Daily).

And since Hawaii's new Governor, neil abercrombie, inexplicably has decided to push this issue to a front burner position, Mr. Corsi has written an article which fully lays out the reasons he doubts the Obama "party line".

The Corsi article is far too long to post here.  So I will provide a link for you to read it.

This is not to say I do or do not agree with Mr. Corsi's findings.  It is to make sure that, along with the media barrage of disdain, ridicule and condemnation for anyone who dares to question a thing about the Obama account of his birth, you have a chance to see the other side as well.

Zeke .... .... Claim: Barack Obama is an illegal Alien. .... .... He was born on Mars, and that is where his birth certificate is. .... .... Now, let's watch him spend a few million bucks in lawyers fees preventing us from seeing birth (hatching ?) certificates issued by the 4th planet from the Sun. .... .... Several million has already been spent by Obama (much of it taxpayer money) preventing anyone from seeing the documentation of his birth. ..... ..... No One has provided a credible explanation as to why Obama is not forthcoming on this simple piece of background documentation. (12/29/10)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!