Massachusetts to Have Special Election to Decide Which Kennedy to Appoint

Massachusetts is mired in a debate on how to fill the late Senator Kennedy's place in the U.S. Senate.

By the current law, the state is to have a special election to replace a senator who leaves his seat before his term expires. However, the good senator lobbied to have the law changed to allow the governor to appoint someone to the seat.

Ironically, Kennedy was one of the loudest voices to change the law in 2004 to prevent the governor from appointing someone to a vacated senate seat when a Republican governor might have a chance to replace Senator Kerry, should he have won the presidency.

Who gets that seat - and how he or she or perhaps they get it - became the week's unanswerable riddle. If you're a Massachusetts Democrat, it's pretty tough to vote against Ted Kennedy's deathbed wish, even when it's asking you to rewrite state law to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator for five months, even when you voted five years ago to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing an interim for the same period.

Well, here is a compromise position to consider, have a special election to decide which Kennedy should get the Kennedy seat in congress.

The ballot could look like this:

• There is Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the second wife of the late Ted, whose primary qualification appears to be the ability to say I do.
  
• There is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, some nature of relation, who proved to stupid and ill-informed to get Hillary's seat in New York (she would be prefect for MA, if that is the case)
• Don't forget ol' Joe Kennedy, one time U.S. Rep, without whom we are all suffering.
• And, the genius of Patrick "Patches" Kennedy, whose addictions and rehab visits make a perfect replacement for ol' Ted.
• Or, Judy Flanagan Kennedy, a city councilor in Lynn, MA who is not related to Ted in any way, but is running under the slogan JFK for mayor.
  

This simple solution would solve the problem of changing the law to benefit one family by both allowing the special election and by ensuring some nature of Kennedy keeps the family seat. It is a lose-lose solution for the state of Kennedy-chusetts.

The U.S. Federal Government Wants YOUR Computer

A bill in the U.S. Senate, written by Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), would -- says CNET.com -- "permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency"

Declan McCullagh writes that:

...the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Sounds innocuous, on the surface.

But, McCullagh quotes Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, this proposal is being pushed through "before the legal review is finished."

As most things from the Liberals these days, details are lacking and undefined.

"It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector," McCaullagh quoted Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance.

What constitutes an emergency is undefined; when they can seize which systems is undescribed. The bill is, apparently, a open offer for Obama to take over whichever systems he wants for whatever reason he deems "necessary for the national defense and security."

The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it," says Tein.

"Translation," summizes McCullagh, "if your company is deemed critical, a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

Pretty scary stuff, indeed.

Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

"Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in the Mission Hill section of Boston. "

Boy, that's rich.

The man who built a career on developing government programs that never go away and don't solve the problems they are intended to help is being memorialized at a church called "Perpetual Help."

The nation's 30-year five trillion-dollar anti-poverty campaign should be evaluated primarily in terms of the extent to which it has facilitated the efforts of low-income people to achieve independence. Outcome-based analyses of the facts show that the current approach to poverty has been a dismal failure. Although welfare spending (in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars) has skyrocketed, there has been no significant reduction in America's poverty rate since the War on Poverty was launched.

Kennedy has been fighting his entire career for increasing dependency on government, whether it is expanding the welfare state, exponentially increasing illegal immigration, keeping kids trapped in failing public school (while sending his to private schools), and voting for higher taxes and against balanced budgets.

We, as a nation, are losing little with Kennedy's passing. He was just another silver-spoon Liberal pushing destructive policies. I am only saddened to not have the chance to vote against him again next year.

Obama: WIll Vacation Be Spoiled by Bill??

President Obama plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

Wouldn't that be great if Hurricane Bill -- as in Bill Clinton -- ruined Obama's first presidential vacation. A delicious irony.

One would think that the president would stay in some fancy digs while on holiday. But, apparently, that is not the case, suggested White House spokeman PC Guy (aka Robert Gibbs):

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Somehow, PC Guy, I don't think "millions and millions of Americans" will get to vacation at "a private 28-acre estate that rents for $35,000 a week."

Does anyone else find it odd that the same guy who bemoans "fat-cat" Wall Street tycoons decides to stay in a vacation home whose weekly rent is only slightly less than the average American makes in a year?

While on the Vineyard, rumor has it that Obama will visit the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in near-by Hyannis, MA.

I wonder if -- in honor of good friend Kennedy -- Obama will pay a visit to Chappaquiddick, a mere 14 miles away.

Obama: Vacation to be Spoiled by Bill??

President Obama plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

Wouldn't that be great if Hurricane Bill -- as in Bill Clinton -- ruined Obama's first presidential vacation. A delicious irony.

One would think that the president would stay in some fancy digs while on holiday. But, apparently, that is not the case, suggested White House spokeman PC Guy (aka Robert Gibbs):

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Somehow, PC Guy, I don't think "millions and millions of Americans" will get to vacation at "a private 28-acre estate that rents for $35,000 a week."

Does anyone else find it odd that the same guy who bemoans "fat-cat" Wall Street tycoons decides to stay in a vacation home whose weekly rent is only slightly less than the average American makes in a year?

While on the Vineyard, rumor has it that Obama will visit the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in near-by Hyannis, MA.

I wonder if -- in honor of good friend Kennedy -- Obama will pay a visit to Chappaquiddick, a mere 14 miles away.

Obama: Health Reform is Like "Belts and Suspenders"

For the best speaker in the history of the World, President Obama has had more than his share of unintentional laughers in the past several days.

On a conference call and video forum to "200,000 of his most loyal supporters," Barack told the crowd that health care reform is like a "belt" and "suspenders."

"This is sort of like the belt-and-suspenders concept to keep up your pants," (Obama) said. "You know, the insurance reforms are the belt. The public option can be the suspenders.

Does that mean that the two are redundant? We can do with one and not the other, but don't need both? Does anybody know what that means?

Not that I am going to get all "wee-wee'd up" about a verbal gaffe or two. After all, maybe he's just "having problems" like the U.S. Postal Service.

Well, the one good thing is that it is the Jewish New Year, and maybe Obama can make a resolution to stop making these phonetic faux-pas.

...the Jewish New Year won’t take place until September 18th. In fact, today marks the beginning of the month of Elul, the last month before the New Year begins. And yet (during in his conference call with 1,000 rabbis) the president said “shanah tovah [happy new year] to all of you.” This is kind of like wishing people “Merry Christmas” on Thanksgiving.

Maybe, Obama just needs a vacation. He plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

I am sure that I will turn on Letterman tonight and hear ol' Dave start a new segment of Great Moments in Presidential Speeches, as he did for every minor blip in President Bush's verbiage.

Can't wait to get my Obama-isms calendar next year, too.

Boston Globe: At Least Obama's Health Care is Better than North Korea

The Boston Globe's Metro newspaper, a freebie hand-out tabloid hawked on subway platforms, gives feint praise to President Obama and his health care "reform" plans:

Health care is far from the only issue driving critics to chide Obama for wanting to turn America into a socialist nation. Since the beginning of the 2008 election, Republicans have been warning that Obama plans to institute über-liberal policies. Here’s a look at the policies of some of the world’s countries most rooted in socialism. The United States is a far cry from them.

In short: We'll, it ain't Cuba!

Under one of the more ludicrous headlines of all time, the paper compares the United States favorably to such "Socialist" countries as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea.

China: The Government oversees private business entities, mandating that they conform to the state's economic interests.

Setting aside that these countries are avowed Communist regimes, I am grateful that the Obama administration doesn't control any private entities in this country, or want to meddle in their business affairs or affect the course of any business in the U.S.

If the best thing you can say about Obama's health care plan is that it is better than North Korea's health care, you had better revisit your talking points.

You think Obama's policies are liberal? America, you haven’t even begun to taste true liberalism...

Perhaps that is true; but we don't want a taste of "true liberalism" (aka Communism). It tastes bitter going down and leaves a real sour aftertaste, from what I hear.

Obama's Aide: If You Are Not Adolescent or Middle Age, Forget About Getting Medical Care.

As the Obama Administration works on details of the proposed health care overhaul, President Obama is getting advice from someone with some very unsettling views on who should be allowed to receive medical care.

After a nationwide search, Obama hired Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, as a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy.

Writing in the Lancet journal (free subscription required for article), Emanuel and two colleagues examined various means for the "allocation of scarce medical interventions." A cynic might call this an article on how to best ration health care.

This article on how to best ration health care contains some chilling conclusions on the part of Obama's right-hand man on health care policy.

Emanuel favors what he calls the Complete Lives System, which give priority to "younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid." Meaning, that young people between ages 15 and 40 will become the most likely to receive these "scarce medical interventions." Leaving children and the elderly to take a back seat.

Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.

The basic theory is, if a 25-year-old person and a 60-year-old person both require the same medical treatment at the same time, the 20 something will get the care long before his elder, simply because he -- in theory -- has longer to live.

...why give an extra year to a person who has lived for many when it could be given to someone who would otherwise die having had few?

As for giving the 25-year old preference over an infant, Emanuel speculates:

It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does...

Excuse me? This is a shocking and clearly ignorant piece of filth, coming -- I am certain -- from someone who has not lost a child. This is a grotesque insult, bred from pure ignorance; and to base an entire health care philosophy on this bit of hate is contemptible at best. Sick and disturbed at worst.

However, if you are a sickly or disabled young person, you might be out of luck, too:

A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.

Combine this notion with a finding in an Emanuel article from 10 years ago (PDF), and the future for the disabled seems even more in question:

(S)ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

If there is anyone out there with a disabled child, know that Obama's main man on health care does not want to give medical care to your child because he will never become a fully "participating citizen."

As for the elderly, it seems that they are no better off:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance (at receiving medical treatment), whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...

But, these are just a few thoughts from the man whom Barack Obama has entrusted with YOUR medical care -- assuming you are among the select people who will be allowed to receive it.

And to think, we were afraid that Obama would limit medical care access to the elderly, shuttling them off to hospices instead. It seems his top adviser also wants to allow infants in children to die, rather than give them life saving treatment, even if that life is necessarily short.

This is some of the most twisted thinking from so-called respected ethicist I have ever heard. This is the stuff of bad science fiction movies. And if we don't act, it may become part-and-parcel of YOUR health care.

Click on Image to view larger size

President Obama: I Will Pass Health Care Overhaul Unilaterally

President Obama plans to pass massive health care legislation that will affect every single American citizen without considering the opinions of legislators opposing the measure:

"Sometime in September we're going to have to make an assessment" about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, President Obama told MSNBC.

Well, so much for the new tone in Washington under Obama. Another broken campaign promise.

Like the planning and execution of the "stimulus" bill before, Republicans Need Not Apply.

We will just have to get him to break that promise about taking over the health care system.

I Turned Myself in to the White House Disinformation Line

Feeling horribly guilty about trying to spread the truth about the Obama health care take-over plans, I turned myself in to the White House Health Reform Office.

Dear Leader --

I feel I must turn myself in. I have been trading in disinformation about President Obama's health care plans.

On a nearly daily basis, I have been posting things to my FaceBook account and to my blog when I can.

http://redboyinabluestate.blogspot.com/

I have used actual facts, direct quotes from the president, and opinions of experts in my missives. In short, I have been speaking the truth about how this plan will hurt nearly all Americans.

I know I should be toeing the Obama line about how he can add 50 million people to the health care rolls without causing any changes in the way I receive health care. I know that I should be saying that the president's plans will not just say money, but will actually earn a multi-billion dollar profit.

I am sorry. I will try to do better from now on, Amen.

Phew. I feel better. I turned myself in because I just know that Obama doesn't really want Americans to turn their fellow citizens for having an opinion and expressing their freedom of speech.

That would be un-American.

Boston Globe: All Health Care Opponents are Now "GOP Activists"

The Democrats and Liberals have been out the past few days insulting an demeaning anyone who actually has opinions against the Obama health care plans. We have been called a mob, Brooks Brothers protesters, insurance company flunkies, and even astro-turf.

Now, the Boston Globe is calling us all "GOP activists."

Scenes like this are playing out across America. As Congress returns home for its summer break, conservative activists are packing community halls and school cafeterias to protest the healthcare legislation, hoping to derail President Obama’s top domestic priority. In Texas, Representative Lloyd Doggett was confronted by a crowd chanting “Just say no!’’

Shocking! A U.S. representative was "confronted" by people saying "No." I can see why this could be so traumatic. No one should say "No" to a legislator, unless he is a Republican, of course.

Strange that the Globe has changed the headline of the story to a use a less divisive term, from "GOP activists" to "Foes."

While I have yet to attend a town hall on health care, I have not been called by the GOP, any insurance company, Brooks Brothers, or any other organization purported to be "packing" these forums. Maybe, just maybe, these folks are just normal, everyday Americans who are angry; scared about losing control of one of the most basic services that they rely on every day.

Nah!

Keep it up, Libs. The more you insult and demean us, the angrier we will get and the stronger we will be.

No wonder why the Boston Globe is on the brink of going out of business.

**Thanks to WTKK-FMs Michael Graham for pointing out this story.

Study: Global Warming is Your Kids' Fault

Tell me again how people in the global-warming crowd are not completely nuts.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Global warming is your fault for having the audacity to have children.

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But, have no fear, the study authors say, the length of a child's lifespan will directly affect his "overall impact on the global carbon equation."

The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption.

So, if your child dies young, you can take some solace in the fact that his negative impact on the environment will be so much less. A comforting thought, indeed.

And, implies the study, we should all be grateful for those kids in China that have been killed over the one-child-per-family rule and third world poverty that kills children across this fever-riddled globe of ours.

The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

Who the heck thinks like this? Who could get a birth announcement in the mail and think "Oh my God! The environment!!"

The tax-payer supported professors at OSU, and their Liberal kook friends, that's who.

Well, thank goodness that someone is doing something about global warming. Even though it doesn't exist.