About Me

Name: applebutter
Email: apple_butter@usa.net
Loading...

Orwell is popping up all over

From the UK Daily Express:
The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 – a potential total bill of £400million.
When medicine is socialized, the state gets a lot of the authority that parents in healthy families tend to believe belongs to them. And since the targeted families have been classified as "problem families" it fits into the column of "other people's problems" for most. I wonder, when the US attempts this sort of program, whether "problem families" will be able to argue with the classification, or will they just be fitted with headband cameras.
 
On the government end, what kind of pervert of a bureaucrat is going to sit around all day and watch pasty-skinned english women in shabby underwear feeding government approved oatmeal to kids with bad teeth? Well, at least the hours might be good.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Duck, or not?

If I look at a living animal with feathers and a flat bill and yellow webbed feet, making quacking noises and wearing a bright blue nametag with "DUCK" engraved on it, I'm going to begin to suspect that I see a duck.

In fact, since everything I see fairly shouts that what I'm looking at is an embodiment of the very concept of duckness, I will crawl way out on a limb and in my mind and I'll file what I see under the heading "Animal/Spinal cord/Warm blood/Birds/Waterfowl/Duck". Because I live in a world where conservation of energy and conservation of mass hold, a world where I can expect that an object at rest tends to remain at rest, I build an expectation that the aforementioned duck will stay a duck until it dies, and at that point it will become a dead duck.

Let's say that somehow I'm introduced to a self identified duck in a non-traditional way; during a phone conversation, or maybe on facebook. I dip into my file and get a mental picture to use, and all I've ever learned about ducks is at my fingertips. I know what to expect.

But this duck persists in making non-waterfoul noises, noises of a kind that I've come to expect from carnivores. And I'm faced with the oddness of a duck exclaiming that the taste of freshly killed chickens is to die for, that howling at the moon is as good as foreplay gets, and other coyote-like noises.

I'm not going to file this in my Duck slot just yet. In fact, since all the clues are based on what my "duck" claims, and there is a conflict in my recognition circuitry, I am forced to evaluate each and every clue until I can decide which parts of the conflict can be explained or rejected to allow the whole animal to make sense. Until all my uncertainties are resolved, this duck goes into my Odd Duck file.

This is very much the mode of operation on forums considering posters who claim to be moderate in all things, and then insist on making decidedly left-wing pronouncements. If a self-proclaimed moderate or even a conservative says that a single payer government program is the only way to solve our healthcare "crisis", or supports fully the government takeover of General Motors and the gift of Chrysler to the President's cronies in the UAW, that poster gets kicked into my Odd Duck file.

It's not that I don't want to believe what the poster claims, it's that I can't believe what the poster claims without a little more understanding.

It may be that the poster was scared badly by a for-profit health insurance salesman as a child. Or maybe he owns a lot of Ford stock and wants GM and Chrysler to founder in a sea of clueless management, leaving the way clear for Ford to prosper. Or, it could be that the poster has absorbed the MSM line or believes in his union and hasn't realized that some amount of critical thought just might be required.

There may be perfectly good reasons for my duck to make coyote noises. But, come to think of it, there may be good reasons for a coyote to claim to be a duck.

I guess there's always the possibility that ducks have been hiding these tendencies all along, and I just need to update my file.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wrongful denial of coverage

Yesterday I heard a podcast from a center-right radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt. He happens to be a practicing lawyer, and a Constitutional Law professor. He brought up a point that I hadn't heard anywhere else.

One of the really juicy torts that exists in this country is when an insurance company takes money for a service, then denies that service to it's customer.

Say Giant Consolidated Insurance Company (GCIC, I made it up) takes my premiums for health care insurance, and then I come down with leukemia. My doctor recommends radiation and then a bone marrow transplant. GCIC denies my claim, or at least, delays it for "review" until after I'm dead. My family would have a great case for wrongful denial of coverage.

Mr. Hewitt claims that insurance companies live in constant fear that a customer will show up with a valid claim of this type. I saw a movie (The Rainmaker) with that as the main plot feature, and wrongful denial in this case stirs surprisingly deep emotion, even though the film stars the stupidest actor known to man.

When the government is the insurer, and as the insurer denies claims, or delays a claim for "review", or rations the care they allow, what recourse does the patient have?

Because of a little feature that all governments require to stay solvent, the patient gets to pound sand. Governments, you see, can hide behind "sovereign immunity", a necessary feature of government that keeps a country from being sued into poverty by it's own citizens. You can sue the government only if the government gives you permission. The patient has no recourse at all.

President Obama claims that we're being held hostage by "unaccountable" insurance companies, and he claims that we'll be much better off when our benevolent state is in charge. Since he claims to be a law professor, I have to assume he understands this feature of tort law. And I have to conclude that the man is lying through his teeth, knowingly, and with malice aforethought.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's take on medical ethics

From the President's press conference last night:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.


How can this be interpreted in a way that doesn't shout; "Doctors treat patients only to maximize profits"?

I'm sure that at some point, treatment has been put off or cancelled because insurance or government has refused to pay for something. But to suggest that doctors are so greedy that they would choose a procedure that could endanger a patient to maximize profit is a smear on the whole profession. And it just isn't reasonable or respectful for a profession he's attempting to destroy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The murder of an abortionist, the revelation of an attitude

A post copied from www.liberalforum.org. Yes, I'm a member. The subject is the murder of late term abortion specialist George Tiller.
QUOTE (Password @ Jun 9 2009, 07:38 PM)
Pro-life people have murdered one of our own!

Let's be frank. I'm pro-choice because I like sex. Let's face it, we all like sex. Abortion is the only way I can keep my liberal lifestyle. Condoms and birth control don't always work. We can abort babies and keep on with our crazy sex lives. Those pro-life people don't understand that abortion lets us slice and dice away the consequences. They can enjoy a wild sex life too if they'd embrace abortion. I swear pro lifers are people who've never had good sex. Why would we limit ourselves but not aborting those little money wasters.

Pro-lifers shouldn't care that we're ending someone's life. They haven't been born, they'll never know what they're missing! It's not murder if they can't fight back.

If ending a life can give us an advantage and not send us to jail, why wouldn't we do that? Children waste your money and waste your time. Let the conservatives make babies for us. We control the schools, we can turn all their children into liberals so it's no loss to us. People can continue to have wild sex without being burdened by reproduction. Sex isn't for baby making, It's for pleasure. Everyone should have an equal opportunity for pleasure unrestricted by biology!

I just don't understand why anyone would not be pro choice.

To be fair, this is almost certainly not for real. It is, though, a very good illustration of how we radical right-wing extremists see those on the left that defend the indefensible .

Of course, there were several apparently conflicted pro-abortion types trying not to agree while they scolded Password for being stupid.
 
The responses are very instructive. There is nothing so reasonable as a progressive attempting to disown an obvious overstep to the left.

Al Franken's site is still a good site to find the very worst of America. With the recent violence, all the Soviet flag "American Left- Armed, Trained and Dangerous" signatures, complete with hammer and sickle, and silouette of an AK47 have been taken down, but the nutters are still around.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A humble question for the "Shut UP!" crowd

6/14/2009

United States Congressman Mike Rogers, Republican, from Michigan, reported last week that he witnessed American soldiers Mirandizing foreign combatants. Apparently, the Obama administration very quietly ordered this change in the rules of engagement.

This fairly shocking report has been met by intense media silence. A quick google news search for "Miranda" and "Afghanistan" shows a story on Fox, a story on the Washington Examiner, a story in the Australian, an interview with General Petraeus in the Washington Independent, a non-denial by the sharpest Press Secretary ever, Robert Gibbs, related on rushlimbaugh.com, another Fox story, a Weekly Standard report, and a HotAir.com report on the Weekly Standard piece. As nearly as I can tell, no broadcast television network or major newspaper has even mentioned this report in passing.

I can think of two scenarios for the initial report.

Scenario one; Mike Rogers has completely flipped out. Although Congressmen have flipped out in the past, and some are in a continuous state of flip-out even as I write this, it's unusual enough to warrant some reporting by the establishment press, especially since Rogers is a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. Newspapers like the Washington Post or New York Times have been known to come unglued at a simple text message, a covert toe tap, or a undecipherable word like "macaca" when they come from Republicans.

Scenario two; Soldiers are actually being ordered to Mirandize enemy foreign combatants in Afghanistan. Why this wouldn't be news is beyond me. Telling enemies captured on the battlefield that they have the right to remain silent is a pretty interesting way to prosecute even an "Overseas Contingency Operation". This is counter to actions by any and all in any battle of any war in the history of mankind. It makes victory in warfare highly unlikely, and directly threatens American interests in the long run, even after the end of this Overseas Contingency Operation.

Why isn't this this being covered? Are the alphabet networks just toeing the party line? Are the New York Times and Washington Post only interested in a scandal if it involves Republicans? Certainly the mainstream press is doing the heavy lifting for the Obama administration, but are they doing it at the request of the Obama administration?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »