Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Humor, Progressivism, Statism
From Economist Daniel Mitchell, government bureaucracies everywhere. A young woman seeks a permit from a government bureaucracy.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Entertainment, Humor, Media Bias, Movies, Progressivism, Television
Meryl Streep was honored at the Golden Globes award ceremony with some sort of lifetime award from the movie industry to which she responded with a lengthy but somewhat incoherent rant against Donald Trump. She seemed to believe that any celebrity who was not born in this country would be subject to deportation under the Trump administration. Nobody, including Mr. Trump, objects to people born in other countries, even Canada and/or Israel. Where did she get that silly idea? There are objections to illegal aliens—that is people who have evaded our laws by entering the country illegally. An alien is someone who’s a citizen of another country and owes allegiance to that country, or people who have illegally overstayed their visas. It’s one of those matters of law.
In his anxiety to create a larger share of Democrat voters in U.S. elections, Mr. Obama has overridden our immigration laws with executive orders, because he assumes that illegals who vote will vote Democratic because they got into this country with his help.
Ms Streep seemed to include reporters, or the press, in her rant, but as far as I know no one has ever suggested deporting reporters. However Ms. Streep gave a plug for the Committee to Protect Journalists. The advocacy director at CPJ said their mission was defending the right of journalists to report the news. (If they would actually do that, they would please everybody). As of yesterday afternoon, the Committee had received about 1.000 donations totaling more than $80,000. How they protect Journalists remains a mystery.
There is no other industry in the entire world that so celebrates itself with award shows, and festivals, and a whole season dedicated to awards they give themselves—from October through February— and each has its own little statuette. The awards for movies are • the Academy Awards • The Golden Globe Awards • the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards (S.A.G.) • the Emmys • the People’s Choice • Hollywood Film Awards • MTV Music Awards • Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards. There are as many or more music awards. There are other awards for each of the categories of film workers, like makeup artists. Then there are the film festivals which number in the thousands, from Cannes and Sundance across almost every country in the world. Even Turkey has about ten. It’s a wonder they have any time to actually make movies.
Ms Streep’s rant concerned movie actors, reporters, and celebrities in general. Celebrities are people who are famous for being well known. It helps a lot if they are young and pretty, but the young isn’t important if they are well-known. Apparently a lot of actors appear at the awards shows to be seen in the Red Carpet photos which show a lot of often unbecoming gowns in various states of undress. If you show enough boobs in an unusual display, you may eventually become “well known.” Here are 148 shots from the Red Carpet at the Golden Globes. Way more interesting than the awards, or aging actresses rants.
ADDENDUM: The Hollywood Reporter reports that the California Legislature has passed a law requiring reporters to omit or remove age or birth date of actors’ profiles on request. They added that it is probably unconstitutional anyway.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Russia, The United States | Tags: Lies and Condesension, Obama's Temper Tantrum, Russian Hacking
It’s quite clear that President Obama is having a temper tantrum in his final days as president. He seems to be doing absolutely everything he can think of to cause problems for the incoming administration and the American people. Talk about a graceless exit!
Most importantly, Obama wants the American people to believe that Hillary lost the election and the opportunity to retain all of his policies, because of Russian hacking. Not just that, Trump, you see, said he wants to try to get along with President Putin, and Trump even said that Putin is a “strong leader.” And Trump has named as his Secretary of State, one Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil. Besides being head of a world renowned evil OIL company, Mr. Tillerson actually knows Vladimir Putin, and has a friendly relation with him. Obviously Mr Trump is planning to turn America over to the Russians, or something like that.
The reason why it is so important that you blame Hillary’s loss on the Russians, is because she was going to extend Obama’s wonderful policies, otherwise people might think that the Democrats’ loss of the election was somehow a rejection of the Obama administration. And the American people could not possibly have meant that. Obama said that if he could run for a third term, the American people would vote for him.
It is clear that if there was any Russian hacking, it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election, unless millions of citizens read that the Russians had possibly hacked the Democratic National Committee, and John Podesta’s email, and suddenly decided that because of that they had to change their vote and vote for Trump. Sound likely? Didn’t think so. There was no hacking that affected the electoral vote whatsoever. Didn’t happen.
Here’s Investor Business Daily’s take on the Russian Election Hacking case.
Here’s fearless reporter Sharyl Attkisson with Eight Facts on the”Russian Hacks.”
Here’s John Hinderaker at Powerline “Today’s Intelligence Report Proves Nothing (Updated)
David Harsanyi at The Federalist: “Russia Isn’t our Friend, But That Doesn’t Make the Left’s Conspiracy Theories True.”
Here’s Victor Davis Hanson, who sums up the whole flap in “Obama’s Legacy of Deceit”
Why does the Obama administration contort reality and mask the consequences of its initiatives?
Two reasons come to mind. One, Obama advanced an agenda to the left of that shared by most past presidents. Obamacare, the Benghazi catastrophe, the Iran deal, his strange stance toward radical Islam, and the Bergdahl swap were unpopular measures that required politically-driven recalibrations to escape American scrutiny.
Second, Obama’s team believes that the goals of fairness and egalitarianism more than justify the means of dissimulation by more sophisticated elites. Thus Gruber (“the stupidity of the American voter”) and Rhodes (“They literally know nothing”) employ deception on our behalf. Central to this worldview is that the American people are naive and easily manipulated, and thus need to be brought up to speed by a paternal administration that knows what is best for its vulnerable and clueless citizenry.
Such condescension is also why the administration never believes it has done anything wrong by hiding the facts of these controversies. Its players believe that because they did it all for us, the ensuing distasteful means will be forgotten once we finally progress enough to appreciate their enlightened ends.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Election 2016, Free Markets, Freedom, Health Care, History, Media Bias, Politics, Progressives, Science/Technology | Tags: Free Market Miracles, Private Enterprise, Repealing ObamaCare
Republicans are planning to repeal ObamaCare immediately.
They have a lot of good ideas about how to make a health care program more effective and less costly, like allowing health insurance to be sold across state borders. As it stands, each state has an insurance commissioner who approves or disapproves insurance policies for their particular state, so you get 50 different kinds of regulations.
An increase in competition always makes things cheaper and more efficient, because bad ideas get weeded out because they cannot compete. Freedom to solve problems and the promise of reward for solving them has resulted an an astonishing rise in the standard of living in the whole world.
All sorts of scholars have been working for 8 years to come up with better ideas for doing health insurance. The best idea, however, came from Thomas Sowell, and he stated it very simply:
If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs. in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government run medical system?
The federal government has no business putting a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of American’s healthcare. The federal government has demonstrated over and over that they do not know how to do healthcare, with the VA, with Medicare, with Medicaid, and with the Indian Health Service.We don’t need top-down central planning.
ObamaCare wanted national records of healthcare practices so at they would have more knowledge about how to make healthcare more efficient.They ordered hospitals to computerize, get rid of the handwritten notes of patient encounters. Medical centers spent enormous sums of money buying computer systems for each office and examining room. The basic idea was totally wasted because the computer systems can’t talk to each other. They were all different setups.
Patients weren’t all that happy about their private health records being available to anybody who could log onto the system. It also meant that doctors were spending their time interacting with computers instead of patients. Doctors hired scribes to take notes on the computer while the doctor actually interacted with the patient. Think about how much all that added to the cost of doing healthcare.
I think it was Medicare that ordered their physicians to limit patient encounters to 7½ minutes. Great way to cut costs, except the encounters are with real human beings with very different reasons for going to the doctor. Stupid.
Bureaucrats decided that the place to cut costs was in what medical professionals were charging for their services. You’ve seen your insurance records, the medical establishment charged $150 for the encounter, the insurance company allowed $47, and you paid half that in your co-pay. So, quite naturally, a good many physicians will not see people on Medicaid, Medicare, or the Indian Health Service, and so far veterans are stuck with the VA. You’re left hunting for someone who will see you, and are they the less accomplished doctors?
Bureaucrats think all doctors are rich, and some of them are. However, they spent a long time studying to be able to get into medical school, after that studying for their specialty, and interning. Most have huge school loans to pay off, and their offices have medical assistants, lab technicians, receptionists, nurses, a respectable office with all sorts of equipment and several examining rooms with all sorts of equipment. Doctors have years and years of training compared to ordinary bureaucrats, and at some point they expect to reach a point where they can live fairly well. Bureaucrats see them as the part of medical care that can be slashed to save money.
It’s not the doctors that cannot be afforded, it’s the bureaucrats. The federal government needs to get out of the business of running health care. They don’t know how to do it, they are no good at it. Turn it over to private enterprise, to find ways to provide care that the country can afford. The Left does not believe in private enterprise, they think competition is a bad thing, they believe that they are the smartest and most able people around, and they cannot understand why a heart surgeon should make more money than they do.
Consider the outcry against Trump’s nomination of Dr. Ben Carson to HUD because he had no experience in government. That’s a revealing, and typical, Leftist response.
Here’s a post from 2012 about the Oklahoma Surgical Center which would seem to suggest that there are real possibilities out there. I have not followed up to see if it is still as successful.
I am afraid that Republicans in Congress will just devise another government-run program that will have some better ideas, will not solve the problem of escalating costs, and when the Democrats return to power, as they will at some point in the distant future, we’ll do it all over.
Republicans believe in private enterprise, and freedom. When people are free and encouraged to find better ways and rewarded for so doing, miracles happen every day. How did you think Dr, Leonard McCoy got those amazing instruments that he used on the Enterprise?
Filed under: Afghanistan, Africa, Asia, Bureaucracy, China, Cuba, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Latin America, Mexico, Middle East, National Security, Politics | Tags: Deep Knowledge, Most Renowned Leaders, Mr. Trump's Generals
A blog called “Breaking Defense” has written well on Trump’s Generals. The Left, constantly looking for something horrible in Trump’s plans, finds the naming of so many retired military men to top positions will possibly undermine the principal of civilian control—as if Constitutional niceties are of enormous concern to the Left—who have been ignoring that ancient document at their convenience for the last eight years. I’m getting really tired of the Left and their antics.
Donald Trump’s decision to lean heavily on generals in building his national security team has been received with sighs of relief by many foreign policy and national security experts. By the nature of their profession, senior military leaders tend to be pragmatic internationalists who know how to run large organizations. They understand from experience how the world works. They are generally disciplined and well-read. Having come of age on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, these generals are also intimately familiar with the horrors of war, and the second- and third-order consequences of firing the first shot. …
Indeed, the generals likely to form the top ranks of a Trump administration are among the most renowned wartime commanders of their generation. As the presumptive Secretary of Defense, retired Marine Corps General Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis will have as his chief military adviser Marine Corps General Joseph “Fighting Joe” Dunford, appointed by Obama as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both flag officers earned their nicknames the old fashioned way during multiple combat tours. They are also close to retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, another combat veteran and the former commander of US Southern Command, who will reportedly serve as Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security. According to a knowledgeable source, it was Mattis who took upon himself the heartbreaking task of telling John Kelly that his son, 1st Lieutenant Robert Michael Kelly, had been killed in Afghanistan in 2010.
Trump’s Generals, Part 2: Jim Mattis vs. Iran
Trump’s Generals, Part 3: Mike Flynn vs. Al Qaeda
Trump’s Generals, Part4: John Kelly vs. The Narco-Terrorists
Like many Republicans, when President Elect Trump announced his first nominees for cabinet positions, I was reassured that Mr. Trump knew what he was doing and was getting excellent advice. After 8 years of an administration that assured us that they were completely in control of foreign policy, but could not manage to call the enemy by name or even admit that it was an enemy (junior varsity?) I was delighted. It’s a pretty impressive national security lineup. Get acquainted.