Generosity is Awesome!

Scott Baio (yes, that Scott Baio) could really use donations for his non-profit charitable organization, Baily Baio Angel Foundation. It's a great organization that works at making life better for families and children dealing with GA1 and other organic acidemia metabolic disorders. I don't want to speak for him, so don't hold me to this one, but Scott has also suggested that he would "follow" on Twitter those who donate.

You can find out more about OA disorders here and here. Please give generously. And not just because "Happy Days" and "Charles in Charge" are awesome. Do it because generosity is awesome!

No Rants. No Funny.

My good friend Ken Wheaton is running in a half-marathon to help stop leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloma from taking more lives. Please help him raise money for this excellent cause! You can donate any amount, and I'm sure he'll be appreciative for even a $5 donation. You can read more (and donate) at his Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's (LLS) Team In Training page.

If They Had Only Read It First

Well, as Nancy Pelosi said, they passed it so we could see what's in it. From the Washington Examiner: Five things we learned about Obamacare after it passed. Check out this gem:

Despite all of Obama's promises and talking points, Obamacare as passed by Congress does not require insurers to cover children with expensive pre-existing medical conditions.

Best Headline Of The Week

Man sues airline for not looking at his scrotum

I wasn't even aware that was an option. Let's just say that I could have been a very rich man.

(Apparently, airports have all these "rules" about having to actually be traveling somewhere to get a strip search.)

I Like Will Ferrell, But...

I have to take issue with his latest video, which sarcastically attacks health insurance company executives, in part by highlighting how much money they make.

Really?

Will Ferrel's salary for Talledaga Nights was $20 million dollars. The film's U.S. gross was just over $148 million. That means Will got about 13.5% of the money the film made. His salary for Bewitched was also $20 million. That film wasn't quite as successful, and only grossed about $63 million. In that case, will got about 32% of the film's money. I wonder how that compares with your average insurance executive?

Let's take a look at everyone's favorite villain: AIG. According to their 2006 Annual Report, AIG got about $14 billion (that's net, not gross, by the way). Now, I could look up the CEO's salary, I suppose, but as you'll see in a moment, there's no real need to, to make my point.

Now, if one of those big, bad insurance executives was to make those same percentages that Will Ferrell makes?

13.5% of $14 billion=$1.89 billion
32% of $14 billion=$4.48 billion

I couldn't find one single CEO who makes that much. And because I do like Will, and I didn't want to be unnecessarily cruel, I didn't even bring up the percentage he make from Kicking and Screaming (about 38%). I suppose you could crunch those numbers yourself, if you were so inclined.

Look, I don't have much sympathy for these high-paid executives, but...celebrities? Celebrities who are making $20 million a movie? They should shut the fuck up.

P.S. I looked it up. AIG's CEO made about $14 million (or about a tenth of one percent of the company's net) in 2007.

Maybe THIS Guy Should Be President...

Dr. Brian Forrest, from Apex, North Carolina, has been in his current practice since 2002. That may not seem all that surprising, until you consider that he's done it without accepting insurance. "People that come here that are uninsured save about 80 to 90 percent over what they traditionally would."

Sometimes the answer is so simple, no?

Quad Erat Demonstrandum, Beeyatch

Defending Joe Wilson's outburst (content, at least) in a syllogism:

1) Obama said "the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

2) Obama's proposal, from his own website, states: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will guarantee affordable, accessible health care coverage for all Americans. Currently, there are over 45 million Americans lacking health insurance."

3) The U.S. Census Bureau report on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 lists 45.6 million Americans without health insurance, including illegal immigrants. (This is the report that the Obama document references, by the way.)

4) Looking at the numbers, it is clear that illegal immigrants are counted under Obama's definition of "Americans."

So....

Obama promises health care coverage for all Americans.

Those who are here illegally are considered Americans.

Therefore, Obama promises health care coverage for those who are here illegally.

Do I Smell "Mom Jeans" on Fire?

I'm no fan of insurance companies, but there are any number of reasons to trash them. Why resort to lies of omission?

From Jim Hoft:

Obama said the evil insurance company canceled her policy for failing to report a pre-existing "acne" condition. But, Barack Obama forgot to mention a couple of things. The woman, Robin Beaton, had her insurance canceled not because of her acne condition. She also had a heart condition she knew about and hid this from her insurance company

That's like saying "I got arrested for driving 57 in a 55 zone," and not mentioning that you were driving on the sidewalk.

There's more. Read it.

Healthcare "Downfall"

There's a crapload of these things, but this one made me laugh a couple of times.

Here Come De Judge

Judge Andrew Napolitano just made the point that the Constitution indicates that if the government provides benefits (such as healthcare) for all citizens, it must also provide those same benefits for illegal immigrants, even if the language of the healthcare bill directly prohibits it. This has been ruled on in two federal courts, apparently. You'd think that a Constitutional law specialist-turned-president would know that, wouldn't you?

Unless he was...lying?

So Many Pants, So Many Fires

I'm Johnny-come-lately on this, I know, but I've been turning it over in my mind, and reading what else is out there, and I think I have something to add. Joe Wilson yelled "you lie" after President Obama made a statement about illegal immigrants and healthcare during last night's speech. Apparently, this was the main event of the speech, and if you listen to the Democrats, as a result of Wilson's outburst, grown men wept openly and grown women fainted. The entire fabric of reality was nearly torn asunder.

Now, a lot of folks out there have pointed out a number of events that make the Democrats seem....shall we say "hypocritical"?

• Bush is "boo"ed at Obama's inauguration
• Bush is "boo"ed at a 2005 State of the Union address
• The 'ol standby "Bush lied; people died" cry
• Harry Reid calls Bush a liar
• Van Jones call Republicans "assholes"
• Numerous Democrats calling the Republican populace "terrorists," etc.
• And so on....

Apart from the fact that Obama's statement was a lie (or at least a half-truth), the thing that really irritated me was that--literally--mere sentences before that, Obama had called talk-radio hosts, cable talk-show hosts, AND politicians...wait for it...LIARS!

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

 I initially thought that Wilson's outburst was disrespectful, but the more I thought about it, and thought about Obama's own accusations, the more I came to think that the latter was worse. Not only was it a thought-out accusation, but unlike Wilson's statement, it left no chance to respond. That is, the president carefully crafted a statement accusing many people of lying, knowing that he had a captive audience, and knowing those accused could do nothing by way of response. Contrast that with Wilson, who--by his own admission--acted on emotion (and apologized quickly). Did he do anything worse than Obama himself did? As Michelle Malkin points out, Obama issued the challenge “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.” Why are we shocked when someone actually does what he promises will be done?

Frankly, I'm surprised that these things are as peaceful as they are. In other countries, they sometimes come to blows. Just between you and me, it actually might be worthwhile to see our politicians go at it. Instead of voting for bills, you could use best two out of three falls. Maybe even make C-Span pay-per-view, and help pay off the deficit.  The Combat in the Capitol! The Beat-down in the Beltway! The Altercation over Education!

I'd pay.

By The Numbers

The best breakdown I've seen regarding the "46 million uninsured" number we keep hearing about.

Full disclosure: Hennessey was the senior economic advisor for the George W. Bush administration.

Can You Hear Us Now?

Just noticed a Rasmussen poll that shows that 54% of voters polled said that passing no healthcare plan would be better than passing the congressional one. This is a higher percentage than voted for our current president (52.9%) and much higher than voted for his opponent (45.7%). I'm not a big believer in polls, but I think that this one makes it clear that opposition to this one is not just partisan politics. It doesn't seem to be an economic issue, either, as those who make under $20,000--who would likely "benefit" from the plan--are "evenly divided"* over the issue. What it does seem to be is an age issue, with the majority of those over 30 against the congressional plan. I'm not sure that bodes well for congress and the president should they continue to push this agenda.

*The actual numbers for the breakdown are only available for premium members.

Because People And Economies Are So Much Alike?

Christina Romer, chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, today compared the economy to a sick patient.

"Suppose that you go to your doctor for a strep throat. And he or she prescribes an antibiotic. Sometime after you get the prescription and maybe even after you've taken the first pill, your fever spikes. Do you decide that the medicine is useless? Do you conclude that the antibiotic caused the infection to get worse? Surely not. You probably conclude that the illness was more serious than you and the doctor thought and are very glad you saw the doctor and started taking the medicine when you did."

I wish people would stop trying to use logic when they don't know what they're doing. What we have here is a mixture of two fallacies: a false analogy and begging the question. A false analogy results when you attempt to compare two things that have only a superficial similarity. Here, Romer tries to compare a prescription's effect on an illness to the stimulus's effect on the economy. To be fair, I suppose the analogy is not so much false, as it is incomplete. After all, if we really want to examine the analogy, we might point out that there are a number of reasons your fever might spike after taking a pill. The medicine might have some serious side effects (some of which might be worse than the original illness). The patient might also be allergic to the medication, in which case the patient would certainly have been better off not taking it in the first place. A good doctor might take those possibilities into account.

The bigger problem is the "begging the question" falacy, which results when one assumes that the very point being argued has already been proved. For example, arguing that women should not be allowed into men's clubs because they're for men only. Isn't the question being argued whether or not the clubs should be for men only? And that's essentially what Romer does. You'll notice she says the doctor prescribes "an antibiotic." Since we all know that antibiotics are an accepted and effective treatment for strep throat, of course we might not conclude that the antibiotic is useless or harmful (barring the conditions in the previous paragraph). But isn't the question at hand whether or not the antibiotic (the stimulus) is an effective treatment for the strep throat (bad economy)? To initially equate the stimulus with an acknowledged successful treatment is a clear "begging the question" fallacy. A more accurate analogy would have been to compare a doctor giving a patient a prescription that is untested, or that other doctors have speculated to be potentially harmful. In that case, I think a fever spike after taking that first pill would have caused our patient a great deal of alarm, and in fact may have been the result of the medication. In that case, a good doctor might very well take the patient off of that medication and try another one. I only hope others out there can spot the flaws in her logic.

One last thought: If I took a pill and afterwards my fever spiked, or any other symptom showed up, I very well might be justified in thinking the pill is the cause. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the idea as "surely" as Romer does because I care about my health. Perhaps Romer's flawed medical analogy should actually give us important insight into the administration's views on health care...

You Go, Golden Girl!

I really never thought I'd be cheering on Helen Thomas, but I'm glad to admit I was wrong. I've said a couple of times on here that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is an incompetent bumbler (at least in press secretary terms). I have to admit, though, that I felt the slightest bit of pity for the guy as he was figuratively bitch-slapped by Helen Thomas and Chip Reid.

First Reid asked why the questions for Wednesday’s town hall on healthcare were being preselected. After Gibbs tried to dodge that question a few times, Thomas became involved, saying, “We have never had that in the White House. I’m amazed that you people … call for openness and transparency."

Gibbs' nervous laughter is almost as embarrassing as the spectacle at President Obama's town hall meeting when he hugged Debby Smith, an audience member with cancer, who said she couldn't afford treatment. Not only is it shameless (jeez, couldn't he find a baby to kiss?) and borderline inappropriate (I don't know where you work, but hugging strangers is frowned upon where I work), it turns out that Ms. Smith, rather than being a random audience member, actually "volunteer[s] for the political arm of the President's Democratic National Committee Organizing for America," and was there at the invitation of the White House. So, if the audience is hand-selected, and the questions are pre-approved, where's the debate?

I certainly don't want to downplay Ms. Smith's situation. It's a terrible illness. But let's be frank. The White House used her. She became a prop in one more dog and pony show by this administration. Another attempt at emotional manipulation because they know that the facts and logic just don't support their position. My god, Obama even referred to her as "exhibit A" for what's wrong with the current health care system...because that's what she is to a practiced lawyer like Obama--an exhibit. Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I can guess who won't be appearing as "exhibit B."

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas’ community exploded after a young boy covered by Medicaid was turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams’ mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics, and Tylenol and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I’ll guarantee you this: You’ll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the First Lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the health care system.

If that's how Obamas handle health care, I think many people are going to be in for a rude awakening...

Maybe There Are No Accidents...

President Obama, in explaining his decision to reverse (or as the NY Times says "lift the limits of") President Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research, said: "Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident." Unless, of course, you're talking about Quinine, Smallpox vaccine/vaccinations, X-rays, Insulin, the Pap smear, LSD (once used to treat schizophrenia), discovery of allergies, Viagra, bromide treatment for epilepsy, Botox, Librium, Valium, anti-depressants, anesthesia (Ether/Nitrous Oxide), a virus in the Polio vaccine that led to the p53 gene (which may lead to a breakthrough in cancer discovery and treatment), Medical Marijuana, Interferon, and perhaps the most important medical "miracle" of all: Penicillin.

Think what you want about the issue, but I'm getting tired of the tripe that this man throws out there, and which passes for insightful dialogue.

Hold the Pickle, the Lettuce, and Whatever Else You Got!

I don't suppose I'm giving anyone any new information when I tell you that those "healthy" (or otherwise) meals you're ordering at your local restaurants aren't quite living up to their claims, but you might be surprised at just how far off that nutritional information is:

Chili's Guiltless Chicken Sandwich has a published total of 490 calories and 8 grams of fat. The lab-tested sandwich had 566 calories (not too bad) but a whopping 23.3 grams of fat.

Applebee's Italian Chicken & Portobello Sandwich advertised 360 calories and only 6 grams of fat. Once again, the lab results were fairly close in calories (395) but three times the amount of fat grams (18.6)

I'm not sure if you're that worried about the nutritional content of food that you should be eating at these restaurants, but still...there's something to be said for truth in advertising.

Those Clever, Evil, Bastards...

Full disclosure: I used to be a pack-a-day-plus smoker. I'm glad I quit. It's a nasty habit.

That said, smokers are not evil. And while Cigarette companies may be evil, let's face it--they're no more evil than other groups that keep pushing products that they know will be harmful--Pharmaceutical companies, McDonalds, Burger King, Hostess, etc. But you wouldn't know that from the commercials that have been on lately.

Now I agree, the anti-smoking brigade had a point about the Joe Camel character. But even so, smoking has always been portrayed as "cool," ever since Bogie, James Dean, Charles Boyer, etc. dangled smokes from their respective lips. It hardly took a cartoon character to tell kids that.

But now I feel like the anti-smoking message has gone a little too far, and that those behind it are making statements every bit as untruthful as the ones made by big tobacco. The most recent one I saw claims to prove that cigarette companies are still marketing to kids because when they hang their signs on a store counter "it just happens" to be at a child's eye level. Do I even need to point out that it also "just happens" to be at that level because the counter is the optimum height for exchanging money, placing purchases, bagging purchases, etc?

At this point, anyone, even a young anyone, who still thinks smoking is good for you is either stupid or a supermodel. This new claim just makes no logical sense at all. It's like saying that God supports pedophelia becuase He cleverly made adult genitalia at a child's eye level. It's called a doubtful cause fallacy, which is what happens when you try to establish a causal relationship between things that don't necessarily have one.

Why do I even care? Well, I guess because I'm a libertarian, and I'm getting tired of borderline-fanatical groups who, when they can't reach their agenda through legislation, often go to extremes to demonize any person/corporation that disagrees with them. (And while I'm at it, the legislators themselves are often pussies becuase they'll tax the things into oblivion, but they won't have the guts to change the law.) Hey, anti-smoking dickwads...right now, cigarettes are legal. You want to put out commercials that show pictures of diseased lungs, I'm with ya. You want to send out scratch and sniff cards that let smokers know what their clothes smell like, I'm with ya. You want to talk about the diseases caused by smoking (although I think you're full of shit with your second-hand smoke claims), I'm with ya. But c'mon...don't insult my intelligence. What have YOU been smoking?