The Damage We Can't Measure

By now we've had enough time to go through all the stages of grief over the Obamacare ruling. We have seen what the tax increases are going to look like once this abomination is implemented but what isn't being talked about are the unquantifiable costs that are bound to follow. There is the obvious cost of conservatives feeling more and more alienated by the professional left that sees us as nothing more than backwards folks who live in flyover-land but there is a much more serious consequence that must be considered; that of young people considering becoming doctors.

I have been talking to a few friends of mine who are thinking about going to medical school in the coming years and all of them are rightfully very concerned with what the ACA will mean for that profession. Most of them are not very political but, when it comes to this one issue, they are forced to be. This law affects every single person who is currently in or thinking about med school as it is a huge investment of both time and money. What the ACA has effectively done is introduce a huge element of uncertainty to the medical community, it has politicized medicine. I don't know about you but I want our best and brightest to enroll in med school but now the smartest people considering medical school are balking at making the investment because the prospect of being a doctor just got a whole lot hazier thanks to this law. Quoting one of my friends considering medical school: 

I love love love medicine. I would love to do surgery...but is it worth it? I don't want the government dictating how I run my practice. It will be a cold day in hell before I go to school for an additional 9 years to have that sh*t happen.  

Now you can try to argue the point of the author here about "the ACA doesn't dictate how doctors run their practices" but that would be missing the point which is that any intelligent person considering med school is trying to make a wise financial investment. The ACA has essentially raised the risk element of that investment to a high enough level that bright potential doctors-to-be are opting for more certain career choices and who can blame them? The effect of this won't be felt in 2013 or 2014 but much further down the line. The end result is a smaller pool of doctors, an overall lower quality of care, and generally less available healthcare for ALL Americans. This runs completely counter to the intentions behind the ACA, which was to provide healthcare to more Americans. I think a certain Milton Friedman quote sums it up:

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

I understand the good intent behind the law and I think conservatives embrace the good intentions (despite the left characterizing us as heartless) but we understand that there are better ways than using the sledgehammer that is the federal government to do the job of a scalpel.

I truly hope that the mistake that is the ACA is realized by those on both sides of the aisle who are rational enough to realize that this was not the way to achieve this goal. I fear, however, that too many folks are happy to blindly say that because the ACA is a victory for the political left that it is good policy. I fear that kind of stubborn political pride is going to keep this policy in place long enough to cause the American medical commnity irreparable damage. 

As they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions....


And a final thought, here is an apt quote considering recent events: 
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Reagan

How the Administration Hoodwinked Us

This segment sums up how the President lied to all of us by selling us a bill of goods (the bill is not a tax, not a tax, I REPEAT, NOT A TAX) and then turning around and called it what it really was in court. It does it better than I ever could:

The Only Positive Message To Conservatives Today

Today is a rough day in the world of conservative politics. The Affordable Care Act has just been upheld as a Constitutional tax even though the Obama administration has stated repeatedly that it isn't a tax and the bulk of the House Democrats walked out on the the Holder contempt vote. 

But, if I may be cliché for a moment, remember that the night is darkest right before the dawn.... and our dawn is coming. Now it seems that the march towards bigger and bigger government has been in full swing for quite some time now and that lately it has accelerated exponentially. But, with that being said, us true conservatives can look at the extreme version of government control that has been championed by the Obama administration and see a silver lining. Bear with me here...

As the federal government starts doing things that are increasingly distasteful and unpalatable to the average American (who tends to be center-right), more and more of those average folks sit up and pay attention. If we look at what has happened just in the past year or so, we have seen the Obama care spectacle, the Fast and Furious insanity, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Justice refusing to enforce federal immigration law in AZ, the Dept. of Homeland Security cutting ties to AZ law enforcement after the SCOTUS ruling about the AZ immigration law, the awful solar company investments, the Gibson guitar raids, SOPA and PIPA, Obama having a private "kill list", and the list continues on. If we just look at those few stories, we can see a steady march towards centralized government control that involves armed raids, turning assault weapons over to foreign criminals, detention of Americans by the military, and a standoff between a state and the federal government. These are all incredibly divisive stories for anyone keeping up with politics.     

But let's remember that elections are not decided by those of us who have our homepages set to Drudge, FreeRepublic, or DailyKos (shudder). Elections are decided by cabinetmakers in Indiana, farmers in Iowa, factory workers in Ohio, web-designers in CA, and little old ladies in Florida. These folks generally don't give a damn about what the DoJ is doing or how many rounds of golf the President has played during his term (its up to 101 as of today) but they do care when they hear about the head of the nation's law enforcement has been held in contempt by Congress. They do care when they hear that their money is being wasted on junk investments. And they REALLY care when they are forced to purchase something or face a penalty.

So what we have in the year or so behind us are a ton of instances of average folks hearing more and more about how far left the federal government has gotten. For those of us who have lived and worked in DC, we know how bad it has been for quite some time but now that has risen to the "in your face" level. These kinds of stories are covered on nightly news and in local papers. They are impossible to ignore. 

So let's get back to today. Everyone was watching DC today and the liberals certainly didn't disappoint. Between gloating over the SC decision (and some more gloating) over the ACA and the House Democrats creating a circus featuring race as its main attraction, those on the left of the aisle look like bullies who are spiking the proverbial football after scoring a touchdown. (Side note: I always say that you can judge a group who competes by how graciously they win. If you look all over Twitter and Facebook today, you'll see how gracious the winners today are.) This won't sit right with the average folks. For the most part, people do not agree with Obamacare so they lost today. When people lose, they don't like their noses rubbed in it and that is exactly what is happening here. This drives people away from the message of the President and the DNC and the only other game in town? Romney. (I gagged while writing that)

Before today, I said I would vote for Ron Paul come hell or high water but today has changed my tune and I imagine I am not alone in this. Today has turned the November election into more aggressive Left leaning policies versus ?. I say ? because that is what Romney is, he is a giant question mark, an enigma. He flip flops, changes his tune, and avoids taking a position like it’s his job (oh wait, it is his job). But more and more folks (you can include me as of today) are willing to role the dice and vote for the unknown over the known commodity of Barrack Obama. The logic is something along the lines of "I know I can't stand what Obama has done while in office and there is no possible way Romney could be worse than this." I, for one, am willing to roll those dice and take that bet. I know that in his first term, Barrack has made giant strides towards "fundamentally transforming" America. We have to keep in mind that Obama, who always has campaigning on the brain, championed all of the above while still worried about being re-elected (kinda). So what is going to happen when he isn't concerned about re-election? That is what scares me and that is why I have changed my tune and have decided not only to vote for Romney but also to donate to his campaign. I saw a quote today along the lines of "donate to the Romney like your future depends on it..... because it does." After the exhibition of today, I can not think of a more appropriate sentiment on which to end.

Thank you for reading and I HOPE things begin to CHANGE.

Well I've been "off the air" for awhile and there's a very good reason for that. I've had a quasi-epiphany when it comes to politics. There is little to no point in me getting all huffy about these issues like I have in the past. Quoting Jeremy Clarkson, arguing politics is "like blowing on an oil rig fire". It does no good for, even before I open my mouth, people already agree with what I'm about to say or they disagree. I sincerely doubt I have even changed someone's mind about an issue. What it boils down to is people either believe that the government should assume all responsibility or they believe the government is an overgrown bully who takes your lunch money (as I and my family and friends believe). The latter already agree with me so my rants do no good there and the former refuse to change their beliefs (or, more typically, don't read my postings at all). It is rare to find any audience member with an open enough mind to be critical of their own views and beliefs (I consider myself to have this ability most of the time). So what good am I doing if I am just supporting already held beliefs and not enlightening anyone?

I have to admit that I do enjoy writing about societal issues. It allows me to think things through better than if I just do it in my own head (it's a scary place, trust me). So, right now, I am considering if I should even continue writing at all. If I do, there will be a drastic change in subject matter. I will write more about entertainment, cars (including British car television shows), issues that my generation face, and random crap that happens to me. So we shall see if anything comes from this. In any event, I feel I am a more informed individual for keeping this site up and running. Thanks for reading and stay tuned next week to see if I'm back.

Cheers

Classless Eco-Mentalists

The caption at the top reads "The Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11".

Really classy WWF. Whoever made this ad should be fired and then hunted down by an angry mob (led by me)

Tomorrow

The Most Essential Skill of Any President

I think everyone, no matter what political party they aspire to, can agree that the most crucial skill for any President is to surround themselves with intelligent advisers who will guide them to the best decisions. Kennedy did this with McNamara and his own brother (who did deserve the job). Bush "did" this with Rove and Cheney (good choices? probably not). But I see this as Obama's serious downfall. I know I don't agree with any of his policies, but, barring that little detail, he can't seem to appoint an adviser that hasn't evaded taxes or done something extremely reckless politically.

Back in March of last year, Samantha Power (Obama's foreign policy advisor) called Hillary Clinton a "monster" (forget for a minute that she was right, you still can't say that and hope to have a job under the President of the United States). Also, last March, it came to light another foreign policy adviser Rob Mailey, had been meeting continually with the terrorist group Hamas. And then we have Tim Geithner who evaded large amounts of taxes. Then we have Bill Richardson (corruption), Nancy Killefer (payroll tax evasion), Hilda Solis (tax evasion), and Tom Daschle (more tax evasion). You starting to get the picture yet?

The latest in this trend of poorly thought through and piss poorly vetted advisers (or czars if you prefer the Soviet term like Obama does) is that of Van Jones (read about him here and here), the Green Jobs Czar. He came out last week with all guns blazing and called all Republicans "assholes" (they generally are but you can't say that on the record and hope to hold a political office). He also signed the 9/11 Truth petition arguing that the Bush administration either turned a blind eye to 9/11 or perpetrated the attack themselves (which could be the case but you don't want a special adviser to the President holding that belief). He also founded the ColorofChange.org which "addressed black issues" (aka he's a racist).

Now, I am torn over the "assholes" comment. I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want and if that was Jones's only slip up, I would have wanted to keep him around. But he's a racist and a conspiracy theorist, good riddance.

But this highlights a bigger problem. Obama cannot choose staff intelligently (a simple Google or Wikipedia search would have told him all he needed to know about Van Jones). This scares me more than his socialist-leaning policies. I think the ability to choose your comrades is the most important ability a President has to have....... and Boh'Rock ain't got it.

A parting thought: Maybe Obama needs a Czar for Appointments of Czars

The GM Volt Revisited

Awhile back I wrote about GM's new hybrid, The Volt (here's my write up: http://daily-cynic.blogspot.com/2009/08/getting-away-from-politics-for-minute.html)

As those who know me personally know, I am a huge car guy and, more specifically, an avid Audi enthusiast (have been since I was 16 with my first A4 which was followed by my father's S6 and now my new S4). The reason I mention Audi in relation to GM's Volt is that Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen just came out with a prediction that the Volt will "fall flat" and "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." See the entire article here: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=1247701 .
You know what? He's 100% right. I pointed out in my article on the subject that the Volt had no advantage over existing hybrids like the Prius or Honda Insight. I didn't really go into why hybrids are terrible investments and not the best choice if you are a true environmentalist but de Nysschen goes as far as saying people who buy hybrids over more fuel efficient, practical, and powerful diesels are "the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are" (as Jay Leno says "here in America, we like to make known the good deeds we are doing annonymously"). He hit the nail on the head again. The big draw to hybrids is PR. People value the appearance of being environmentally friendly over actually being environmentally friendly. Hypocrites, all of em.

The question for the Volt is are the faux environmentalists willing to pay up to $15k over the price of Japanese hybrids for an American product? My answer: No. Japanese cars usually have a higher snob appeal than American cars. The hierarchy of snob appeal for cars goes like this: Italian>German>British>Japanese>American, at least in my book. So I sincerely doubt the Volt will take any significant market share away from Toyota or Honda with the Volt. If there were charging a lower price than the Japs, then it might, but definitely not when GM is selling at a premium.

The final question brought up by de Nysschen is that of "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." I think this will make or break the Volt because it will effectively price the Volt below its Japanese rivals and that is probably enough to shift sales to GM. Judging by our government's recent actions (and the fact that Boh'Rock feels he has the right to run GM), this subsidy is a pretty safe bet so you can expect to see some solid sales numbers as a result.

The Volt is already a failure in my book even if it does sell well as a result of government intervention.

You People Make Me Sick

Remind you of anything?



Anyone that pledges to a single person (outside of marriage) is no more than a drone.

Now I understand that most of what was said in the first video were things we can agree on about being nicer and all that feel good stuff, but there were quite a few things in there that are political in nature. And that is how this crap starts, make everyone feel good about following a leader (this is EXACTLY what the Nazis did in Germany, got everyone to feel good about being German and following Hitler). After the people are following the leader, the leader starts to make bolder and bolder policies and without anyone to challenge those policies and decisions, he is free to do pretty much whatever he wants (no one really protested Hitler's international belligerence or treatment of the Jews). So the question is, where does Obama want to take this?

Gay Marriage in DC (or anywhere for that matter)

For those of you living in and around the District, you most likely already know a lot about this. Back in late April, DC Council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions (AKA if you get gay married in Massachusetts, Vermont, NH, Connecticut, Iowa, or Maine, you can move to DC and still be considered married). The April decision said nothing about actual gay marriages being allowed or forbidden in DC.

Now it has come out that a group of various religious figures in the DC area (Bishop Harry Jackson, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, Robert King, and others) organized under "Stand4MarriageDC" to put together a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. This would strike down the previous ruling that recognized gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Now, being a straight, conservative male, I usually don't side with the gay community on any issue but, this time, I am. The DC Council has already decided to accept marriages from elsewhere and now these religious leaders want to revisit and reverse that choice. What gives these guys the right to impose their subjective beliefs and values onto others? I will grant you that the largest religion in the US is Christianity of one form or another (and that means the rampant homophobia that comes with it), but, even so, that doesn't give the religious right the power to impose their completely and totally subjective beliefs onto an entire city. There is a major difference between voting on a government policy and standardizing a set of religious values and forcing people to adhere to them.

So, if the religious folks have their way, DC residents will be voting on whether or not to take rights away from people that already have them. Anyone who lives in DC and was married elsewhere will have that marriage actively un-recognized (is that a word?). This is the first instance I can remember where a group is in danger of having their rights actively stripped for no good reason. What do I mean by "for no good reason"? I mean that homosexuals have done nothing dangerous or illegal. They have not endangered our national security or flew planes into buildings (if you can't tell, I am unabashedly in favor of profiling in airports but that is a conversation for another day).

So where's the beef? Why are these people so adamant about taking rights away from a group of people who have done nothing wrong except for being themselves (I think there's a term for this...... discrimination if I am not mistaken)? I can only speculate here. Some say that people who exhibit these staunchly homophobic views are secretly homosexual to some extent and want any reminder of that banished from existence (wouldn't surprise me). My guess is that there are some deep seeded insecurities in these "devoutly religious" folks of one kind or another that forces them to take their anger and frustrations out on others. And now they are using the government as their tool.

An afterthought: There is a lot of talk about civil unions vs. marriage. These two terms mean the EXACT SAME THING. I hate it when the religious camps claim that marriage is a religious term and that it is a union under God. You know what? It's not. It is when two loving people commit to each other for a lifetime. Creed, color, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, tax bracket status, or how fast you can run the 40 have no bearing on if you can get married.

Another afterthought: I hate gay pride parades. Its the same thing as a Black Pride parade or a White Pride parade (which will get you branded as a racist). Amounts to the same thing: looks at us because we are who we are. Get over yourselves.