We need more sensibile advertisements like this one.

Note that it never attacks a group of people or says "the other side is stupid."  It is nothing but common sense FACTS, spoken by a non-politician who has a ton of experience with the exact topic being spoken about.

THIS is what civil debate is all about.

From the web site rethinkreform.com.

Here's 1,000 words for ya...

...and here's another 1,000 words...

O ... M ... G !!!

By the way, here's how the greetings SHOULD be done:

Last Edited: November 14, 2009, 10:37 pm

From today's Chicago Tribune.

"V" starts tonight on ABC at 8:00 Eastern (7:00 Central).

'V' aims at Obamamania

By Glenn Garvin McClatchy/Tribune News
November 3, 2009

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait — did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

The bandwagon in this case is conspicuously saucer-shaped. "V" starts with the arrival of a couple of dozen ships from outer space, piloted by creatures who look like humans except a lot prettier. "Don't be frightened," says their luminously beautiful leader Anna (Morena Baccarin, "Serenity"). "We mean no harm."

The aliens — who become known as V's, for visitors — quickly enthrall their wide-eyed human hosts.

A handful of dissidents hold out against the rapturous reception given the V's. Some are simply uneasy, such as the youthful priest Father Jack (Joel Gretsch, "The 4400"), who sharply criticizes the Vatican's embrace of the V's as divine creations: "Rattlesnakes are God's creatures too."

With or without the political sheen, "V" is sweeping television storytelling at its best. Whether you choose to view it as a blood-and-guts war story, a spy thriller (unlike the original show, these V's are perfect replicas of humans, so you never really know who might be sitting beside you at the bar), a high-stakes family drama (as households divide over the intentions of the V's), a religious allegory (the V's make a crippled man walk, filling up churches again) or just a sci-fi throwback to the days of "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" and "The Thing," "V" is irresistible. This bandwagon is definitely worth jumping on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tc-tvcolumn-v-1102-1103nov03,0,7062976.story

The article posted by Konane in July actually understates Michelle Obama's apparent need to raise an army in the White House.

The Canada Free Press apparently posted a follow-up article that raises the size of Michelle Obama's army of staff/servants to 26.

Why in the world would any first lady need 26 people?  This is ludicrous.  Why are the Obamas going around saying how they are concerned with government spending when the first lady alone has more employees than most small businesses?  It's a crock, and everyone knows it — even if they won't admit it.

This is angering.  Here's the article.

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,"— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for "change" would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D'Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama's press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady's staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants — more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

Sample comments from the hundreds of letters that poured into Canada Free Press are as follows:

Alan from Utah:

"The sad part is that after billions spent "stimulating" the economy, the list of new staffers for the wife of our pretend president represents the only new jobs that have been created. We're screwed."

Laurie from Texas:

"....and not a one of those attendants can help her find something decent to wear...pathetic waste of taxpayer money....."

Terry from Colorado:

"This is from the family that supports a government run health care system. If they can't control the spending inside the White House, how can we believe they can save money elsewhere?"

Lanette from California:

"This is OBAMANABLY!!!! I've been laid off....wonder if she will hire me?"

Bobby from Shanksville:

"I didn't see anyone listed who wipes her ####."

Lyle from Ilinois:

"This is a crime. I am sure not one of those aides comes close to earning what they are paid. How could they? What is there for them to do? I can't believe Michelle will end up being a great first lady regardless how many aides she has. How will she ever survive at the end of his four-year term when she has to go back to being a civilian again. No way will the government pay for all these lackies for a civilian, no matter how hard she may try to make it happen. I recall a high school English teacher saying "like begets like" and it sure shows up with the Obama couple. They're both in it for as much as they can get for themselves."

Michelle from Michigan:

How can my nephew, who has been out of work for almost a year, get a job on Michelle's staff? The pay is better than anything available here and he is colleged educated.

Betty from Pennsylvania:

My husband and I have worked hard all our lives. We are people of integrity. And yet when I read of spending like this my blood boils. How dare she use my hard-earned money like this. How dare she take advantage of her position. She did not earn her position because of who she is or how hard she has worked. I don't know how she can sleep at night. Somehow, we need to get this President out of office before we lose all our rights.

The allegations within the July 7 article seemed so outrageous that many readers questioned their accuracy.

Does Mrs. Obama have an unprecedented number of staffers in a time when 34 million Americans — a record number — rely on food stamps to feed their families?

The answer, as D'Angelo Gore of factcheck.org discovered, is yes.

When questioned by Mr. Gore, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama's press secretary, said that the First Lady does retain a staff of more than twenty who remain at her beck and call. But the actual number is 24, not 22, as the article reported.

Mrs. Lelyyeld failed to provide the names of the two additional attendants to Mrs. Obama. But she did confirm that six staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the First Lady's office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, who bears the title "Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary," and Natalie Bookey, who is listed as a "staff assistant."

What's more, even a list of 24 would be incomplete since it would fail to include the names of makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travel aboard Air Force One and provide Mrs. Obama with daily attention.

This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn't include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama's Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama's attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.

For comparison, let's remember that poor Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salaries for 5 of their personal secretaries from their own pocketbooks. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, says that Jacqueline Kennedy's office was "headed" by one person who supervised a staff of approximately nine full and part time workers (including the White House cooks and chambermaids).

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, says that it is difficult to nail down a precise count of staff because "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she points out that a White House telephone directory indicates that Hillary Clinton had a staff of thirteen in 1993 — this is telling since Mrs. Clinton intended to serve as a co-executive in the Oval Office by spearheading a health care reform program.

Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush's staff attendants is as follows:

1. McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00
2. Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00
3. Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00
4. Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00
5. Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00
6. Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00
7. Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00
8. Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00
9. Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00
10. King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00
11. Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00
12. Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00
13. Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00
14. Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00
15. Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00

This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00. Laura was no piker when it came to spending. But she pales in comparison with Miz Michelle, who requires eight to ten additional attendants at an extra cost to taxpayers of $700,000 and change — the only change American taxpayers can believe in.

Windows 7 will be officially released in a couple weeks, so lots of articles and books are starting to get published.

One of the best such articles I have ready is 77 Windows 7 Tips.  It contains lots of tips aimed at users who are comfortable with technology, but also has tips for anyone, regardless of proficiency level.

I have been using Windows 7 since July, and I must say it's an absolutely wonderful operating system.  It has been rock-solid stable, and I love the various changes they have made to Vista.

This arrived in e-mail today.  It's a wonderful little story that describes in clear terms how we got to where we are today.

An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets
(OR: How We Got Here)

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in the city. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.

She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in the city.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS, and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA-secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics, they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations, she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS, and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations. Her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses, and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion, no-strings-attached cash infusion from the Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers.

Now, instead of "unemployed alcoholics", think "people who were allowed to get mortgages even though they couldn't afford to pay them" and you've got it.

Last Edited: September 22, 2009, 8:13 am

These videos arrived in my e-mail inbox today.

The videos are in 2 parts, both shown below.  After Part 1 is complete, you can click right onto Part 2.

This senior citizen and his wife made the tape from their ranch in south-central Texas.

At their own expense, they made 1,000 copies and sent one to every single congressman and senator and some media outlets.

Let's hope that each and every one of them watched and LISTENED!!!

• • • • • • • • • • •

PART 1

PART 2

This video was put together by the BBC.  It demonstrates how a small amount of liquid explosives can rip apart a plane.

Look at the tiny amount used (maybe the size of a 20 oz. Coke bottle), and how harmless it looks.

And look at the damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm

THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY FORCEABLY REMOVED FROM THEIR KEYBOARDS BECAUSE OF HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO SEE EVERYTHING THEY WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.  THOSE PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK IT IS EASIER TO READ THEIR TEXT WHEN THEY TYPE IT LIKE THIS.

But should someone be fired for it?  Heck, maybe.  At least that's what one company thought.  Check it out:

Woman fired for USING ALL CAPS IN E-MAIL

Vicki Walker, an Auckland (New Zealand) accountant, was sacked for sending supposedly confrontational emails with words in red, in bold and in CAPITAL LETTERS.

The Employment Relations Authority in New Zealand ruled that Walker was not fairly terminated from her position after sending the emails to co-workers. Her previous employers, ProCare, have now been ordered to pay New Zealand dollars $17,000 (US$11,500/€8000) for unfair dismissal.

Fired in December 2007, after two years with the company, ProCare claim Walker had "caused disharmony in the workplace by using block capitals, bold typeface and red text in her emails."

Walker claims that the one email used in evidence was in regard to how her team should fill claim forms, and specifies a time and date highlighted in bold red, and a sentence written in capitals and highlighted in bold blue. It reads: "To ensure your staff claim is processed and paid, please do follow the below checklist."

Walker plans to seek further compensation.

Source

Last Edited: September 1, 2009, 10:24 am

This is pasted from a Dick Morris e-mail i received this morning, and is good news for those who want a Seniors organization that truly represents the interest of Seniors.

• • • • • • • • • 

A MESSAGE FROM THE AMERICAN SENIORS ASSOCIATION

Dear Subscriber,

I have gotten madder and madder at the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) for claiming to represent America's elderly when, in fact, it is just a vendor seeking to get revenue under the Obama health care plan. It was just such a conflict of interest that impelled the AARP to endorse Bush's prescription drug plan. The AARP has morphed from a group that speaks for seniors to one that tries to make money from them.

My wife, Eileen, and I were thrilled to learn of a rival to the AARP that has sprung up -- The American Seniors Association (ASA) -- which opposes Obamacare and is willing to be an independent, disinterested voice speaking up for the elderly. We reached out to Stuart Barton, its President, and suggested that we send a letter from him to our readers (this is not a paid mailing; we are sending it around because we deeply believe in fashioning an alternative to AARP).

We both suggest that you do as we are doing -- join ASA -- as a way of showing AARP that they do not speak for America's seniors. Obama's proposals represent a wholesale transfer of medical services away from the elderly and will force government rationing and denials of care for the very old and very ill. We need to fight against them and that is what ASA is doing and AARP is not!

The letter from ASA's President, Stuart Barton, is below.

Thanks,

Dick Morris
________________________________________________________________

Dear DickMorrisReports Subscriber,

The American Seniors Association (ASA) invites any members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to mail us your torn AARP card in order to receive a 2-year-for-1-year ASA membership. Indeed, anyone of any age can become an ASA member -- especially since young people, baby boomers, seniors, and just about all Americans are now under assault by various Obama healthcare proposals and by the sell-out AARP leadership.

ASA is fighting congressional healthcare proposals that could cost perhaps $1.8 trillion or more over the next 10 years, to be accompanied by cuts in Medicare of $500 billion. ASA opposes a government-run plan that increase taxes and limit doctor-patient choice. We object to one House bill that would actually force individuals or their employers who do not have approved health insurance plans to pay a fine. Furthermore, none of these congressional proposals have a provision that people enjoying healthcare benefits must have their citizenship and legal residency status verified by all 50 states. That opens the door for citizen taxpayers to be gouged for the healthcare coverage of possibly 15-20 million illegal aliens!

Please visit our website at AmericanSeniors.org and consider joining our important crusade. We are for targeted healthcare reforms, but Obamacare and a dismantling of our private enterprise system is not the cure! Also check out the rich variety of membership benefits that ASA provides.

With kindest regards,

Stuart Barton

There is a CD you buy that will take you to another place — a place of wonderful, harmonious music.

Philip Glass is one of the great classical piano composers and performers, and his Solo Piano album continues to be one of the single-greatest works of his.

It is perfect for when you want to listen to music — not just background music while you use the computer, read a book, or do some work — I'm talking about those times when you want to sit with your eyes closed and allow the music to take you wherever it goes.

Solo Piano is a succession of music that builds around a theme, and like most Philip Glass music it builds on the concept of repetition.  It is a meditative miracle.

If you have never listened to classical piano, there could be no better introduction.

You won't want it to end, and it leaves you in a contemplative mood.

(Click for more info)

It turns out that flipping a coin has all sorts of non-randomness:

Here are the broad strokes of their research:

1. If the coin is tossed and caught, it has about a 51% chance of landing on the same face it was launched. (If it starts out as heads, there's a 51% chance it will end as heads).
2. If the coin is spun, rather than tossed, it can have a much-larger-than-50% chance of ending with the heavier side down. Spun coins can exhibit "huge bias" (some spun coins will fall tails-up 80% of the time).
3. If the coin is tossed and allowed to clatter to the floor, this probably adds randomness.
4. If the coin is tossed and allowed to clatter to the floor where it spins, as will sometimes happen, the above spinning bias probably comes into play.
5. A coin will land on its edge around 1 in 6000 throws, creating a flipistic singularity.
6. The same initial coin-flipping conditions produce the same coin flip result. That is, there's a certain amount of determinism to the coin flip.
7. A more robust coin toss (more revolutions) decreases the bias.

The paper.

Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office

by Caroline Baum

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) — "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." —Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

No institution has been the butt of more government-inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care — the Government Accountability Office's list of "high risk" cases — last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn't cashed in on TARP!)

That didn't stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?

What's more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?

Obama Unscripted

These are just two of the questions someone listening to the president's health-insurance reform roadshow might want to ask.

Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president's touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.

For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:

"If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete."

Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?

Capitalism Explained

Government programs aren't self-sustaining by definition. They're subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we'd be off the hook.

Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com, put it this way in an Aug. 13 commentary on Mises.org:

"The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government's involvement at all."

Rockwell sees no "economic reason for a government postal system" and would abolish it.

Of course, there's the small matter of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power "to establish Post Offices and Post Roads." A series of subsequent statutes gave the USPS a monopoly in the delivery of first-class mail. Congress thought that without such protection, private carriers would cherry-pick the high-profit routes and leave money-losing deliveries in remote areas to the post office. (In those days, the USPS covered most of its expenses with revenue.)

Less Bad Option

It was only through exemptions in the law that private carriers, such as UPS and FedEx, were allowed to compete in the delivery of overnight mail.

Short of a constitutional amendment or a waiver from Congress, we are stuck with the USPS.

But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.

The proliferation of Obama's gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won't lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn't understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

Source