www.mlgoodell.webs.com

An observer less given to post-partisan politics might call the $849 billion Senate health care bill, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday, a colossal fraud perpetrated upon the American people. He might call it a disgraceful display of contempt for the American people, even a slap in the face. He might describe the estimates that the bill would cut federal deficits by $127 billion over the next decade an example of criminal sleight-of-hand, a manifestation of the sort of fiscal legerdemain which recently landed Bernie Madoff in jail.

He might do that. However, I have long been a firm supporter of the hope and change which impelled Barack Obama (D-Chi.) to the White House. I celebrate the President’s commitment to bringing people together, and finding a happy middle ground. I certainly agree that once we agree on the problems, it will be easy to come up with the solutions. Which is why I am ecstatic that the latest version of health care overhaul will cut the deficit by $36 billion more than the Baucus bill promised.

That more churlish observer, having already pointed out that the Baucus bill numbers were a sham, based as they were on ten years’ worth of revenue covering seven years’ worth of expenditures, will no doubt call Reid’s version, calling for just six years’ worth of expenditures covered by the same ten years’ worth of revenues, an even more egregious offense to common sense and fiscal probity.

But I, willing to unclench my fist at the first sight of a hand extended in friendship, view this latest bill as a good start. It may not be perfect, but, as Rahm Emanuel and his boss both like to say, we should never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Rather than dwell on the negatives, rather than keep harping on the fact that every version of health care reform seems designed to increase the cost and reduce the effectiveness of health care for 80% of the population to ensure that the remaining 20% can continue receiving the same shoddy health care they do today, let’s look at the potential benefits.

If pushing the onset of expenditures further into the future increases the amount by which the deficit is reduced, then it is possible to eliminate the deficit. What if we don’t start implementing the expensive parts of the bill for a full ten years, or even twenty? Why, the deficit will be a thing of the past.

In fact, we might even have a surplus. If so, we can use part of the surplus to fund another stimulus bill. Given the success of the first one, in which more than 640,000 jobs were either created or saved, at the cost of a paltry $176,000 per job, then think how much more effective a second stimulus bill will be. Why, the last one was so successful that the innovative folks over at recovery.org are already having to make up places to put all the new jobs. (Incidentally, ACORN has announced a new voter registration drive in Arizona’s 15th Congressional District).

With the next stimulus bill, funded by the remarkably cost-effective health care bill, the Obama Administration might have to start creating jobs in other countries, or even out in space. Guess now we know why NASA was so intent on finding water on the moon.

During yesterday’s Memorial Service for the thirteen soldiers murdered by a homegrown, US Government Issue Islamist terrorist, Army Chief of Staff George Casey gave further proof of why he is President Barack Obama’s idea of the perfect General. Casey had previously displayed his skills as a linguistic contortionist by repeatedly and publicly downplaying Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Muslim faith. “We are a diverse army,” Casey crooned. “This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity became a casualty.”

Actually, this terrible event became an even greater tragedy when the Army leadership’s sense of justice became a casualty of diversity. In today’s pluralistic America, there is no harm in having a military whose makeup reflects the diversity of the nation it exists to defend. Yet there are limits to how representative the military should strive to be.

There are Americans who wish to sublimate their nation’s interests to those of the United Nations, who long for the day when the concept of American Exceptionalism is relegated to the “ash heap of history.” Yet it would be a disservice to the nation for the armed services to include a representative percentage of them in their ranks. Having one of those Americans as their Commander in Chief is more than sufficient.

During his Ft. Hood address, Gen. Casey referred to the thirteen who “laid down their lives for their country.” This was an outrage. It was an insult to the victims; it was tantamount to dancing on their graves. They didn’t “lay down their lives.” They were murdered. They were shot in the back by an outspokenly anti-American officer. Worse, they were stabbed in the back by an officer class who chose to ignore Hasan’s progressively more radical behavior because they didn’t want to tarnish their self-image of a kinder, gentler, more inclusive, more Muslim-friendly establishment.
    
Perhaps it is time for the Armed Forces to place diversity on the back burner. Perhaps it is time for the top brass to place a higher emphasis on the security of the nation, and the safety of their employees, than on winning gold stars from diversity counselors.

Perhaps it is time to take a good, long look at the motives behind Muslims’ enlistment. If a recruit identifies more strongly with his coreligionists than he does his country or his service, then he should be regarded as unfit to serve. There is something repellent, insidious, and inherently evil about a religion whose followers, as they grow more “devout,” become more likely to commit wanton, indiscriminate murder.

www.mlgoodell.webs.com

When I do watch television, "Monk" and "House" are two shows I enjoy. In "House," Bertie Wooster plays a doctor who manages to unearth rare diseases in every patient who catches a cold. He and his team of intrepid researchers manage, over the course of just one hour, to subject their hapless patient to MRI’s, Cat Scans, brain surgery, catheterization and amputation before concluding, moments before the poor sod expires, that the guy has a cold. The show usually ends with Dr. House telling him to "take two aspirin and call me in the morning," while fending off hugs from the grateful family and ignoring admiring gazes from his star-struck acolytes.

"Monk," on the other hand, is a joyous affirmation of my tendency to want things to be just so. Despite his obsessive compulsion disorder, Monk manages to solve crimes that no one even knows were committed. He does this in the face of countless dangers, usually managing to find himself immersed in slime, bugs or total chaos.

Both shows offer decent entertainment, however implausible their premise. They both stand in direct contrast to that perversity known as "Reality TV," in which ordinary people subject themselves to public humiliation for the sake of a brush with celebrity.

With certain people this brush with celebrity engenders a desire to replicate the sensation of having people look them and recognize them on the street. This compulsive search for attention is reminiscent of the disorder known as Munchausen Syndrome, in which sufferers repeatedly return to the hospital citing phantom maladies. A related disease, called Munchausen By Proxy involves parents, usually mothers, who bring their children to the hospital, complaining of imagined or even real illnesses and injuries.

The Reality TV disorder, which we shall call the Monk-House Syndrome, requires otherwise merely embarrassing people to repeatedly subject themselves to public humiliation in order to return to their erstwhile status as laughingstocks. Richard Heene is the latest victim of Monk-House syndrome. A former participant on "Wife Swap" and longing to return to the limelight, he is alleged to have concocted a hoax involving a homemade hot air balloon, a missing child, hundreds of would-be rescuers and the attention of millions (so one hears) of television viewers. That the linchpin of this stunt involved his six-year-old son, Falcon, who was supposedly on the balloon, means that Heene has introduced a new Reality TV related disorder to the world of abnormal psychology, called Monk-House By Proxy.

The upside of this disorder is that Heene’s desperate need for attention will probably land him in jail. The recourse taken by a rational society to the scourge of Monk-House syndrome would be to ban Reality TV from the air waves. Short of that, however, I propose a solution. This involves instituting a new Reality TV show for all those whose first bout of public self-abasement wasn’t sufficient.

Each former Bachelor, Bachelorette, Great Racer, Wife Swapper, or Nanny Abuser who wants a little bit more, should be invited to appear on an exciting new Reality TV show called "Survivor: Waziristan." This collection of zany contestants will be dropped off in the wilds of northwest Pakistan, to compete for a million dollar prize.

The new show will have some similarities to the already televised abomination called "Survivor." For example, there will be competing tribes. Unlike "Survivor," however, the contestants won’t be split into two tribes, they will all be in the same tribe, competing against the tribes already occupying the rugged landscape. While contestants will be removed from the show each week, their number won’t be limited to one, and they won’t be "voted off the island." Rather, avid viewers can watch the losers get beheaded on Al Jazeera. Should help the network during Sweeps Week.

At the end of the series, the lone survivor, having managed to remain hidden beneath a pile of moldy sheep skins in the back of a musty cave, will be airlifted out in the company of a squad of Special Forces, to receive his check. If the show works as designed, having spent the last six months doing everything in his power to avoid being noticed, he should be cured of Monk-House Syndrome, and the public will never have to look at him again.

Fresh off his surprising win on the hit new show, "International Idol," President Barack Obama (D-Chi) announced a plan to provide a one-time $250 payment to Social Security beneficiaries. This gift, which will also be paid to Supplemental Security Income recipients, veterans, railroad retirees and government retirees, is slated to cost $13 billion. The President gave no indication of how he would pay for this act of largesse, though White House officials said it would not harm the solvency of the Social Security fund. "How could it?" asked one administration official who requested that his name not be used as he was not authorized to tell the truth. "The fund’s already bankrupt, so what’s another $13 billion?"

The payment will replace the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA), which is designed to insulate Social Security beneficiaries from the ravages of inflation. This year marks the first time since COLA was enacted in 1975 that an adjustment hasn’t been granted. Because the Consumer Price Index actually declined last year, there was no statutory justification for increasing benefits. However, since by law benefits cannot be reduced, in theory at least, receiving the same benefits should constitute an increase in disposable income.

This happy turn of events is not sufficient for the President. "Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," he declared. Strange, one would have thought the 10% of the workforce who have lost their jobs would have been hit harder that those on a fixed income during a deflationary period. But then again, one has not won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Nor has The One, yet, though this act of benevolent legerdemain may well secure him next year’s award.

Still, one who has garnered not a single Nobel Prize, not even the Peace Prize, which one understands they’re just handing out like candy on Halloween, suspects benevolence may not be the prime motivating factor in this "gift." It is entirely possible that, as the Administration proceeds in its efforts to foist an unwanted "health care reform" on the American people, it is not unaware of the fact that, aside from various tin foil hat brigades, also known as fiscal conservatives, senior citizens constitute the bloc most uniformly opposed to the President’s objectives.

Thus, in the style of the stereotypical Chicago Ward Heeler, Obama has come up with a plan to buy senior citizens’ support. While there is no word yet on how effective this ploy might be with individual seniors, lobbyist groups such as Alliance for Retired Americans have already endorsed it.

Still, one wonders how to determine the current market value of an old woman’s vote. Is it just $250? Or will she want more? Hmm, this may require some research. Perhaps if one can assemble a well-researched, well-reasoned abstract on the subject by year end, one might be able to wrest next year’s Nobel Economics Prize away from the International Idol.

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested for "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place" the other day. When asked about the incident during his prime time press conference last night, President Barack Obama said, "I don’t know all the facts," but stated that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly." Calling someone’s actions stupid without knowing all the facts is an exquisitely apt example of the timeworn adage, "The pot calling the kettle black."

The facts as we know them are this: Upon returning home from a trip to China, Gates found his front door jammed. He went around to the back, opened that door with his key, and tried to assist his cab driver in forcing the front door open. Apparently the driver tried to force it open with his shoulder. Lucia Whalen, who witnessed the incident from her office at "Harvard Magazine" next door, called the police. Sgt. James Crowley was dispatched to the scene. He informed Gates that he was investigating an attempted break in. Gates responded, "Why, because I’m a black man in America?"

 

Gates refused initially to provide identification, apparently feeling it unnecessary to have to prove who he was. Crowley later said he was "surprised and confused" by Gates’ reaction. No doubt he thought Gates would be grateful that the police were looking out for him. But he had picked the wrong man to expect to act reasonably. Gates, confronted with a white police officer, immediately began viewing this as a racial confrontation.

Not just any racial confrontation, but one involving a good deal of disrespect. "You don’t know who you’re messing with," he shouted. Crowley, who was at that time in the house, (Gates claimed he forced his way in), was unable to report to the station over his radio because Gates was shouting so loudly. He stepped outside, and asked Gates to step outside, too. Gates refused at first, but then came outside, continuing to shout at the officer. "You don’t know who I am, you’ll be sorry for messing with me."

Crowley was trying to deal with an angry man who was screaming at him and threatening him. He warned Gates twice that he was becoming disorderly, and eventually arrested him. National Public Radio’s "Morning Edition," in reporting Obama’s press conference remarks, described the underlying incident as Gates being arrested in his home for breaking and entering "even after he had shown his id." Obviously, that’s not the way it happened.

In addition to calling the Cambridge police stupid, Obama also made references to racial profiling. One has to wonder, what about this incident could possibly fall under that category? Does the President honestly think the witness would have ignored the incident if it were a white man trying to break down a door? Should the police have ignored the call once they learned it was a black man trying to break down the door? This was, to put it in the best possible light, unfortunate rhetoric from the nation’s President. If nothing else, it was further proof that he should never, ever speak without a Teleprompter.

We can give Gates the benefit of the doubt for his behavior. Having just flown all the way from China, he was no doubt exhausted, and so not in the best of moods. Returning home and finding his door jammed shut would only have exacerbated his frustration. He was justified in being upset. Especially since this was housing provided by Harvard University, where he was supposed to be regarded as a prominent member of the faculty. Frustrated, angry, indignant, and tired, it is easy to understand why he got so upset when he was then accused of breaking into his own home.

Basically, Gates threw a temper tantrum. It’s completely understandable, under the circumstances. Perhaps Crowley could have been more understanding, though, like the President, he didn’t have all the facts. No doubt he responded a bit more aggressively than his report suggested. A lot of cops don’t like it when people get in their faces. A lot of cops don’t like it when civilians start making threats at them.

Maybe there was a lot of stupid behavior going around. Another example might be the fact that the question was asked at all. Was it necessary to ask the President’s opinion on the matter? Would the question have been asked if the Professor in question had been white? Or, to look at it from another angle, if George Bush were still in the White House when Gates was arrested, would any reporter have asked him for his opinion?

Obviously, Obama is right, we still have a lot of work to do on the subject of race, but from this vantage point, it’s not good citizen neighbors reporting suspicious incidents, or the police who respond to the reports as their job requires who have the most work to do. It’s reporters and self-inflated Black Studies Professors who view every incident solely through the prism of race, and Presidents who instinctively take the side of African Americans over the police who arrested them.