Joust The Facts

Freedom As A Relative Term

The public plan option in the health care reform bill was designed, according to the Obama administration, to offer "competition" to private sector insurance options, to make them perform better.  Investor's Business Daily had a look at the Democratic Health Care Reform bill, and found that the bill's authors don't want to compete without rigging the outcome.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

You have individual freedom, and America is a free-market economy.  Except for looking out for your own best interests regarding your health.  Sure you can keep your current plan, but don't ever find yourself considering changing to your own insurance plan.  It'll be illegal, and you'll be forced into the government plan.  I wonder what threat is contained in the bill to deal with insurers and individuals who try to voluntarily enter into private economic agreements?

7/16/09 1600: Karl at Patterico's Pontifications tells it like it is.

When discussing his proposed government takeover of the US healthcare system, Pres. Obama always hastens to assure people that if you like your current coverage (as the overwhelming majority of people routinely tell pollsters they do), you will be able to keep it. However, if you lose your individual coverage, you will be unable to buy new insurance. And the mentality that outlaws new individual insurance may be inclined to do the same for employer-provided insurance in the future. Not that the Left will have to resort to that. If Obamacare passes, insurance will generally become a function of government. And any “public option” that passes will unfairly compete with private insurers — bypassing the laws that apply to private insurers, sticking taxpayers with hidden administrative costs, paying below-market Medicare rates (which in turn inflate private costs), and so on, until they have crowded competition out of the market.

And over at Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is concerned.  He's reassured by a reader that, oh, you still can go buy your own insurance, but only if the insurance is run through "The Exchange."  Which isn't all that reassuring, as it still means it would be illegal to contract consumer to insurance company directly.  In other words, private companies will have to have their programs reviewed and approved by the government before being allowed to establish a government-supervised relationship with a consumer.  Yecch!

The Piranha Brothers Presidency

Is this any way to run a White House?  The Obama Administration, I've noticed, seems to issue an awful lot of threats to get what they want, much like the schoolyard bully ... or the Chicago machine pol.  Well, the whole Al Capone history can be a teaching point from one perspective or another.  Yesterday Arizona was threatened with denial of "stimulus" funds after Senator John Kyl publicly questioned the results of said "stimulus."  (Easy enough to question - with Innocent Bystanders' now-famous graph.)

Via Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, with the meat coming from Jake Tapper at ABC.

Kyl said that “It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings. Instead, they have resorted to coordinated political attacks with the Democratic National Committee and the politicization of departments of government by using cabinet secretaries to issue thinly veiled threats to the governor and the people of Arizona."

Added the governor's spokesman, "the governor is hopeful that these federal Cabinet officials are not threatening to deny Arizona citizens the portion of federal stimulus funds to which they are entitled. She believes that would be a tremendous mistake by the administration. And the governor is grateful for the strong leadership and representation that Arizonans enjoy in the United States Senate."

So what else is or has been "threatened." Well ...

• TV stations that thought about running a campaign ad during the election run-up.
• TV stations that thought about running another campaign ad during the election run-up.
• The Tennessee GOP over a campaign ad.
• California, in an effort to protect California's unions, again using denial of "stimulus" funds
• Bankers, offering "protection" from the "pitchforks" of angry consumers. (great photoshop by Slublog at the link)
• Israel's ability to defend herself and deter attacks.
• His own congressional Democrats
• The job of CEO at GM for Rick Wagoner.
• Chrysler's creditors, before transferring 55% ownership to the UAW.
• Honduras, to restore Zelaya, but not Iran, to clean up a rigged election.
• Unilateral action in sovereign Pakistan.
• Remember, "I won."
• And with direct reference to the Chicago way, Pres. Obama threatened to "bring a gun."

But he's only practicing what he's learned.  After all, Democrats as a group threaten all the time.

• AIG, over bonuses that one of their own added to the bill at the behest of Pres. Obama
• ABC's broadcast license over their 9/11 two part docudrama, The Path to 9/11, which still hasn't been released on DVD.
• Dick Cheney
• Columbia, over trade, for the benefit of unions
• The tax-exempt status of a group for the temerity to allow a vice-Presidential candidate to speak.
• Former Pres. Bush, over signing statements
• Saudi Arabia's arms contracts, for more oil.
• The GOP over earmarks
• Lobbyists who might look to work with both sides of the aisle.

among others. 

Dissent in the era of La Cosa Obama is not only no longer patriotic, it's punishable.  I guess the only other question is, who's Doug, and who's Dinsdale.

(editors note: henceforth the word "stimulus," when it's used to reference the $787B of government borrowing that was allegedly going to keep unemployment under 8% will always appear on this blog in scare quotes.)

Politico Misleads On Support For Health Care Reform

Politico reports that President Obama will have a public statement on health care from the Rose Garden this afternoon at about 1 PM.  They mention in an update that

At 1:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden, THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks on health care reform surrounded by AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, which represents the nation's 2.9 million registered nurses [ed: my emphasis]. The nurses are there to show their strong support for health reform. Nurses are on the front lines of the battle against rising health-care costs and the anguish of health-care insecurity. They see the people in the emergency rooms who don’t have enough money to pay for health care, and throw themselves on the mercy of hospital, and people who didn’t get care until it was too late, because they couldn’t afford it.

No.  The American Nurses Association doesn't represent fully the interests of the nation's 2.9 million registered nurses, at least not the non-union ones.  (I work primarily at a non-union hospital).  The ANA is, rather, an umbrella organization for various state nurses unions.

Gee, I can't imagine why an organization that represents primarily unionized workers might support the socialized medicine aims of the Democratic president the unions helped to elect, can you?  And doesn't this Politico report read like it was written by the ANA themselves?

JTF Quote Of The Day

From the Wall Street Journal this morning, psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz on "health care" reform:

Our national conversation about curbing the cost of health care is crippled by the vocabulary in which we conduct it. We must stop talking about "health care" as if it were some kind of collective public service, like fire protection, provided equally to everyone who needs it. No government can provide the same high quality body repair services to everyone. Not all doctors are equally good physicians, and not all sick persons are equally good patients.

If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a "compassionate" government that will provide the same low quality health care to everyone.

Except, of course, for the congress-folk (the aristocracy) who pass such a system for the common-folk (you and me).

I Would Hope So

From this morning's Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

Back in the day "they" hoped so too.  Who are "they?"  Let's have a look at a few examples.

• Former Senator Tom Daschle: 
  
  Now, addressing the "Where's Osama?" question, Daschle (D-S.D.) wonders "whether or not we are winning the war" on terror.
  
  "We can't find Bin Laden" and "we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of Al Qaeda [either]," Daschle said yesterday.

• 2004 Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry:
  
  Kerry has asserted throughout the campaign that U.S. forces could have run down bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 if they had gone after him on the ground, and he has blamed Bush for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase.
  
  "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden," Kerry said in an interview with WISN in Milwaukee. "He outsourced the job."

• Senator Harry Reid:
  

  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House denied on Wednesday that the U.S. hunt for Osama bin Laden has been downgraded after the CIA disbanded a unit set up in the 1990s to oversee the search for the al Qaeda leader.

  Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had cited the disbanding of the CIA unit as an example of what he called misplaced priorities in the Bush administration.

  Democrats are trying to raise questions about President George W. Bush's national security policies in a bid to overturn Republican control of the U.S. Congress in November elections.

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
  
  "The fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still at large, able to taunt and instill fear," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said Sunday on ABC. "That is a failure of the Bush administration.["]
• Oh, and also then-Senator and candidate-for-President Barack Obama:
  

  So how he describes the toughest security struggle he will face is important.

  "I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al-Qaeda once and for all," Obama told "60 Minutes" recently. "And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaeda. He is not just a symbol; he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets."

  This warning followed Obama's pledge in the Oct. 7 presidential debate: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national-security priority."

Congressional Democrats are up in arms because they hadn't been fully informed of the program.  But here's the key phrase, from paragraph three in the first excerpt:

The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

That's CIA director Leon Panetta, who became director in 2009.  Also, there's this:

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

So, as I understand it, congressional Democrats are upset at not being fully informed about a secret CIA program that was not operational and which was designed to do exactly what almost all of them publicly espoused.

Have I got that right?

7/13/09 1235: DrewM. at Ace of Spades -

This seems like nothing more than a minor skirmish in the ongoing war between CIA and people like Nancy Pelosi. The thing is by over playing this, it seems like Panetta is taking Pelosi's side.

CIA spend a lot of time and energy warring with the Bush administration. Now it looks like they are going to be fighting it out with the Democrats and their own director.

Good think we aren't at war or facing a terrorist threat or anything so we have time for this crap.

How Evil Are Democrats?

This evil.

*  Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the "terrorist surveillance program" (i.e., the NSA's warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as "domestic spying").  In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.

*  When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn't lying — but they also knew he couldn't discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.

There's more from Andy McCarthy at the link, including information about the false Democrat/media presentation of Mr. Gonzales' famous visit to AG John Ashcroft's bedside.  To summarize, congressional Democrats smeared the Attorney General of the United States as a liar, suggesting that he be prosecuted for perjury, when they knew full well that he was telling the truth, simply because they also knew that he couldn't defend himself against the charges, as the information that would do so was classified.

That is, given the choice between accepting truth that Mr. Gonzales gave them or beating up a handcuffed man by lying about him for political gain they chose the latter.  Harming national security?  Hey, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an Obamalet, right?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration thinks bloggers need adult supervision.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Guess which side of the political spectrum would use such a law most aggressively?  One might suggest that a far more necessary use for such supervision would be to address the falsehoods and smears coming from the mouths of our illustrious congressfolk.

Why I Don't Read Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish'

Exhibit 1:  The Palin-hating Trig-truther puts together a compendium of "The lies of Sarah Palin," and the first one he lists, the very first one, the one which should be his strongest, turns out to be false.  Mr. Sullivan writes:

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Interestingly, the link he uses is to his own blog post on the topic.  Had he chosen to go outside of his own writing, he might have found this.

The report says Palin failed to reign in her husband's inappropriate efforts to use the governor's office to contact trooper employees in his attempts to have Wooten fired.

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ... to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower's report says.

"Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."

In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a "contributing factor." Still, he said, Palin's firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority.

So there was a finding by a partisan investigator in an ethics complaint lodged to influence a presidential election, and even with that backdrop the finding is of a "proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority in the firing of Mr. Monegan.

Still, you could claim that Gov. Palin was still found to have violated the code of ethics, and was found to have placed "impermissable pressure" on subordinates.  And you might be right, as of Oct. 10, 2008 when this story was written.  But as of Nov. 4, 2008 not so much.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was cleared on Monday of wrongdoing in an abuse-of-power investigation into the firing of the state's public safety commissioner.

The Alaska Personnel Board report, issued on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, ran contrary to findings from a legislative inquiry that concluded in October that Palin had abused the power of her office by pressuring subordinates to fire a state trooper involved in a feud with her family.

Palin, who is Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, brought the issue to the personnel board herself after complaining the legislative probe was a partisan effort led by Democrats.

The board, a three-member panel under Palin's authority, was responsible for determining if she had broken any laws.

The investigation concluded there was no "probable cause" that Palin violated the state's executive ethics act in dismissing Walt Monegan as public safety commissioner.

It also cleared her of ethics violations in respect to her dealings regarding Michael Wooten, the trooper involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister.

This isn't a lie, simply a matter of who Mr. Sullivan chooses to believe.  Given his obsession with the origins of her youngest son this take is unsurprising.  So why bother to read the rest.  You'd think Mr. Sullivan would lead with a winner.  You'd be wrong.

Hmmmm.   She was exonerated on November 4th ... something else happened on that day, I think.  And although the complaints were dismissed as without merit, the damage was done.

Rest Assured, Many Of Us Had Little Doubt

Members of the mainstream press, however, have not seen any flaws to this point, though it's not due to the absence of such flaws.  "57 States?"

Husbands of the world rejoice!

President Barack Obama, who has seemed to set an impossibly high bar for many men when it comes to dealing with their wives, has finally stumbled — and in a very public way.

“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

Obama seemed to be playing off an introduction that referred to him meeting his future wife, Michelle Robinson, while he was a student. But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989.

The reverence is palpable, isn't it?  Mr. Gerstein is certainly full of ... something.  "Impossibly high bar for many men?"  Not for this blogger.  I doubt Gwendolyn is in such awe of their relationship.  Maybe we should coin a neologism to signify such worship?  Call it an "Obasm."

Someone Finally Read The Bill

None of the 219 Representatives who voted for Waxman-Markey actually read the bill before the vote, as it was still being assembled - with its 300 page last minute amendment - at the podium as the debate and vote were occurring.  The fine folks at National Review have gone through it now, however, in advance of Senate debate on the measure, and have discovered 50 things wrong with the bill.  Some are amusing, most are sad, and all are worth a look.  By the way, I think it's likely that the number 50 is a low estimate.  Here's a taste.

5. In addition to the permits, the bill also allows for the creation of “offsets” — the medieval-style indulgences of the carbon-footprint world. In fact, nearly all of Waxman-Markey’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement.

This is, in fact, the best evidence yet that CO2 producing a large global warming effect is nonsense.  For if it were the case then this bill, as onerous as it is in terms of cost yet doing nothing to reduce emissions, would be howled at, not lauded, by the administration and other true believers.  Mr. Krugman instead took the opportunity to attack those who voted against it.  And if that wasn't enough evidence,

9. Waxman-Markey directs the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The gigantic subsidies lavished on the farm lobby through the ethanol program encourage farmers to clear forest land to plant corn — a net environmental loss that the use of ethanol does nothing to offset.

It wouldn't be a Democrat-authored bill without union protectionism.  Here are two items that do just that.

12. Waxman-Markey provides an excuse for trade protectionism. The bill will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not had the poor sense to enact similar legislation, meaning that it invites both politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures from abroad in the service of an empty green dream.

14. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages.

The former increase the cost of foreign competition once these green tariffs are applied, the latter increases the cost of doing business for non-union businesses by unilaterally ordering pay raises.  And if those cost increases weren't enough, there's this.

18. The legislation calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to steer $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. Hear that? It’s the sound of another charge being added to your bill.

And, of course, ACORN gets a cut.  Another payoff to loyal Democrats.

42. Another Obama constituency, the community-organizing gang — i.e., ACORN — will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Think federally subsidized consultants paid $55 an hour to tell businesses to turn down their AC in the summer.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.  Have a look at the whole list for the complete picture.  Then call your senator, particularly those of you in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  My own senators (NH), unfortunately, are set on this.  One will vote for, one against.

7/3/09 0910:  Meanwhile, why so afraid of dissenting views?  And "the largest corporate welfare program" ever?

Why ABC's John Stossel Wasn't Invited To Participate In ABC's ObamaCare Infomercial

No, I don't have inside information.  But it should be obvious.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls.

[...]

We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology -- CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn't have to wait.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn't been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

Mr. Stossel's absence from the program is the biggest sign that the Obama White House and not ABC was calling the shots.  And despite that Mr. Obama tanked on a number of the questions, including this one:

DR. ORRIN DEVINSKY, EPILEPSY SPECIALIST: Yes, in the past, politicians who have sought to reform health care have tried to limit costs by reducing tests, access to specialists, but they've not been good at taking their own medicine. When they or their family members get sick, they often get extremely expensive evaluations and expert care.

If a national health plan was approved and your family participated, and, President Obama, if your wife or your doctor became seriously ill, and things were not going well, and the plan physicians told you they were doing everything that reasonably could be done, and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders and major centers, and they said there's another option that you should -- should pursue, but it was not covered in the plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions? Or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Doctor, I think it's a terrific question, and it's something that touches us all personally, especially when you start talking about end-of-life care. As some of you know, my grandmother recently passed away, which was a very painful thing for me. She's somebody who helped raise me.

But she's somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer. There was unanimity about that. They expected that she'd have six to nine months to live. She fell and broke her hip. And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren't sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery. I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.

But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.

Note that Mr. Obama transformed a straightforward question about whether he and his family should be subjected to the same restrictions as the ones he would impose on America into a question of complex medical decision making.  The question wasn't whether surgery was the correct care for his grandmother.  The question was, what would he want if it was the right thing to do but disallowed by the government. 

The folks at the libertarian Cato Institute have some responses for Mr. Obama.

As Aretha sang, you better think.

7/2/09 0900: Speaking of infomercials ... (more details here)

Change In The Air

Amid all the Hope 'n Change* now taking place in Washington, there's been a steady increase in change of another kind.  Kimberley Strassel writes about it today in the Wall Street Journal as the U.S. House prepares to make another naked power and money grab under the guise of protecting the earth.  As if.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

Australia is considering their own Cap & Tax bill, and some after kicking the tires are walking away.

Mr. [Steve] Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

Earlier we learned that the administration that was going to raise science to its rightful place in this debate is doing nothing of the kind.  (Originally in the NY Times Science blog.)

You can check out Dr. Pielke’s blog or a detailed rebuttal of how the report presents science in his area of expertise, the study of trends in natural disasters and their relation to climate change. While the new federal report (prepared by 13 agencies and the White House) paints a dire picture of climate change’s impacts, Dr. Pielke says that the authors of this new report, like those of previous reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Stern Review, cherrypick weak evidence that fits their own policy preferences. He faults all these reports for all relying on “non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer-reviewed literature” and for “featuring non-peer-reviewed work conducted by the authors.”

Which is, of course, exactly what Mr. Obama (while in the Senate) and his fellow Democrat senators previously accused Mr. Bush of doing.

The Cap & Tax program will raise prices for Americans on all goods and services.  The costs will be passed on to the consumer at every step of the production chain, and all in the name of cutting CO2 emissions, something that Mr. Obama calls a "contaminant," speaking of not understanding the science.  This is about government central control of economic activity, and about increasing tax receipts.  The one thing it's not about is protecting the environment.

The best evidence that this is nonsense hasn't yet been mentioned.  The fact that Al Gore is it's prime spokesman is the biggest red flag of all.

6/26/09 1600: Christopher Monckton takes apart the aforementioned administration report here (note: pdf format).

6/26/09 1625: Ooh, it looks like the environmental gestapo does not tolerate dissent.  But I thought that was the highest form of patriotism? Found at Wizbang.

*Hope 'n Change = increase in government control of, well, everything, including our lives

Gallows Humor And ObamaCare

With the specter of ObamaCare on the horizon, even the patients are starting to notice.

Exhibit A yesterday - a woman with a shoulder problem, immigrant from Poland

Her: "I had enough of government care in Poland.  You waited for everything.  Here now you can see a doctor when you need one.  There it was wait to be seen, wait for tests, wait for treatment.  Awful.  I hope it doesn't end up like that."

Me: "Why do you think they're pushing for it?"

Her: "Because they're ... (hesitates) ... stupid.  There, I said it."

Exhibit B today - a man, union member, who had a knee arthroscopy.

Me: "You've got some arthritis in your knee.  It'll feel better now that the torn cartilage is out, but over time the arthritis may worsen."

Him: "And then?"

Me:  "Well, if it gets bad enough ultimately we can solve it with a knee replacement."

Him: "Nah.  The government will probably say I ain't worth it by then."

$313B "Saved Or Created?"

President Barack Obama's health care proposal is running into road blocks.  Today he attempts to get past one of them, the costs of government healthcare, by "saving or creating" $313B in money to fund the overhaul.

Obama on Saturday is announcing an additional $313 billion in new proposed savings that he says would bring the total funding available for his top-priority health insurance reform to nearly $950 billion over 10 years.

White House officials insisted the new savings were rock-solid, but also acknowledged they had yet to settle on a specific mechanism to achieve lower prescription drug costs that make up nearly one-quarter of the new savings....

White House was moving aggressively to counter public criticism that funding plans for the health reform effort are unrealistic, particularly in the face of an expected 10-year pricetag of $1 trillion or more. Some analysts have faulted the White House for being overly optimistic about savings and tone-deaf to which tax-raising proposals are likely to fly in Congress.

Tax and spend, baby.  And this latest salvo is even more overly optimistic.  This strikes me as just as believable a proposal as the claim that 600,000 more jobs will be "saved or created" next quarter.  Shouldn't Mr. Obama have to produce the savings first to justify spending those savings on nationalizing healthcare?  My favorite line in the article is this.

The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors, [OMB Director Peter] Orszag said.

Don't kid yourself.  Cuts in government healthcare spending have always targeted physicians in one way or another, to the point that many physicians now lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.  And some have opted out.

For more on why nationalizing healthcare is a bad idea, see David Gratzer in the WSJ, Karl Rove in the WSJ, and Tevi Troy in the WSJ, the latter on why it's a bad idea to force prices down aggressively in prescription drugs.  And then there is the whole "public option" thing, which is really designed to force private insurance out of business.

Hat Tip: Hot Air/Ed Morrissey for the video, originally at Verum Serum.

And, by the way, heres the jobs graph that puts the lie to the "saved or created" nonsense.  Or at least to any belief in the Obama team's predictions of future economic conditions.

The Words Speak For Themselves

Mr. Obama has the right to fight for his appointee.  But nobody is distorting anything.

"I am certain that she is the right choice," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address in which he scolded critics who he said were trying to distort her record and past statements. Those include her 2001 comment that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.

He derided "some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor's record."

Those comments weren't pulled "out of context."  Rather, they speak for themselves.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Prior to the highlighted section she advises that "there can never be a universal definition of wise."  Perhaps.  But it would have to be a very broad definition to allow that highlighted quote to fit..

What's The Difference?

In Oregon, you can request the administration of medication to terminate your life if you are terminally ill.

On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires the Oregon Department of Human Services to collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in the Act, and publish an annual statistical report.

In Minnesota you are not allowed to refuse treatment if you are afflicted with cancer.

Minneapolis (AP) — A 13-year-old boy's vow to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind. ...

Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but likely fatal without it. ...

"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."

Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg said Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him. Rodenberg said if a new X-ray shows a good prognosis for Daniel, chemotherapy and possible radiation appear to be in his best interest, Rodenberg said.

Yes, I understand that in Oregon the process depends on certification that the illness is terminal, and that Hodgkins Lymphoma in a young man is very treatable.  In the Oregon situation, though, the state has granted the individual to make informed decisions about their own life; in Minnesota, that ability and responsibility has been taken away by the state simply because the state disagrees with the decision.

My opinion?  I think that physician assisted suicide is absolutely wrong, and that in this case the state of Minnesota is likely correct in ordering treatment.  In both cases I come down on the side of the physicians not being a party to the hastening of death.