Civility=Shut up! So we Can continue SPENDING!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Democrats are now the Civility Police. The Liberal Media will run you down if you’re “uncivil”.

Mind you, being “uncivil” is disagreeing with a Liberal.

“The GOP’s War Against the Poor and Sick.”  This is a story by Andrew Leonard, Salon.com, Republicans want the poor to die on the street like they used to.

“I’m sure there are plenty of conservatives who want to get rid of Medicaid altogether. If poor old people can’t pay for nursing home care then let them die in the street, like they used to.The Tea Party version of government apparently just doesn’t believe in helping people who can’t help themselves. For the modern Republican Party, it’s far far more important to ensure that those who will never need Medicaid — the richest 1 percent of Americans, the people who are already doing quite fine as their market portfolios swell — get their big fat tax cuts, adding up to $700 billion over the next 10 years, than that the poorest Americans get another $15 billion a year so that they can die in a manner that befits a nation that dares considers itself civilized.” (salon.com)

Another Leftist blogger said before the State of Union speech it was Obama’s audition piece to be a REPUBLICAN!

And if you point out that Obama’s speech was more about spending and his leftist Agenda you’re “uncivil”.

But saying people are going to die in the streets is ok, as long as your a liberal.

It’s ok to talk about “investments” (aka spending) on high-speed rail and alternative energy (“green”).

But not where the F*CK is the money going to come from!!

Political Cartoon

“We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” Mr. Obama said in tones that resembled a halftime pep talk. “We have to make America the best place on earth to do business.”

Then you look at the last few years of anti-business rhetoric, Class and race Warfare , regulations (EPA, FCC,FTC, etc) and tax nightmares and you wonder what has this guy been smoking or is he just high on his own  happy juice!

And you F*cking kidding me!

Among other proposals, Mr. Obama called on the nation to prepare 100,000 new math, science and engineering teachers.

Yeah, that’s what we need, more Union members to teach Socialism in the classroom and collect massive over-the-top pensions and benefits we can’t pay for now!

“We’re going to have to out-educate other countries,” President Obama urged this week. How? By out-spending them, of course! It’s the same old quack cure for America’s fat and failing government-run schools monopoly. The one-trick ponies at the White House call their academic improvement agenda “targeted investing” for “winning the future.” Truth in advertising: Get ready to fork over more Cash for Education Clunkers. (michelle malkin)

And where the F*ck is the money going to come from??

But that was “uncivil” wasn’t it? 🙂

And he laid down a series of goals: By 2035, he said 80% of America’s electricity should come from clean energy sources. Within 25 years, 80% of Americans should have access to high-speed rail. Within five years, communications businesses should be able to deploy high-speed wireless to 98% of all Americans. He did little to explain how those goals would be reached beyond pledges to boost federal spending on infrastructure and basic research.

Sounds like SPENDING to me! And the liberal “green” agenda. Screw the fact that technology isn’t viable yet. It FELLS GOOD.

And he wants you out of your Oil guzzing  environmentally-unfriendly Car!

And let’s not even talk about evil Coal. <shutter>

It’s all solar panels, wind farms , biofuels, and algae.

Political CartoonSo Where is the Money coming from? China??

“Our nation is approaching a tipping point,” said Mr. Ryan. “We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.)

Screw the hammock, the Left wants a f*cking Sleep Number Bed set on 1!!!

But a liberal on MSNBC (shocking!) got it:

By the time you finish reading this column, the United States government will be $10 million deeper in debt.

In the time it takes the president to deliver his State of the Union address, America will be $120 million deeper in debt.

When you wake up tomorrow morning, Washington’s reckless ways will have put us an additional $1 billion in the hole.

Before you know it, America will add another $1 trillion to its $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt.

And yet neither party has the guts to tell voters the truth about just how bad things have become and what sacrifice is required to avoid disaster.

So the next time you wonder whether a Republican or a Democrat is lying when he says he’s serious about tackling America’s debt, just ask that politician whether he is ready to cut Pentagon spending, along with Social Security and Medicare benefits to future recipients. If not, then that politician is either a coward or a fool. (Joe Scarborough)

OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate. (Reuters)

The “party of no” anyone? And the Trial Lawyers will be visiting him today to remind him that he’s their bitch, not the other way around.

But all this is very uncivil. 🙂

THE NEW FIFTH ORWELLIAN PRECEPT

Political Cartoon

We should all be familiar with the 3 classic slogans of Orwell’s 1984. If not, you’re missing a big chunk of what I say.

“War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.”

The Fourth being my own: “FEAR IS HOPE”

(see https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

Now we have the Fifth:

“Spending is Investment.”

But it’s still spending. And where in the $14 Trillion debt are we going to get all this money, pre tell?

Orwell pointed out that “political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

The “investment” the president touted Tuesday night is the opposite of true investment. It is Uncle Sam maxing out all of his unborn nieces’ and nephews’ credit cards in exchange for a one-way ticket to the poorhouse, a destination that is getting closer. (IBD)

But that’s just being uncivil so I better just sing Kumbuya and just accept it.

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Yeah, right… 🙂

The Constitution 2010 Edition

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

The following apparently has been around for about 10 years and I may have used it in the past but I still love it. (Which means a liberal would hate it-which is another reason to love it).

So, not for the first time ever, What I’m Calling the The Constitution Update 2010 is presented with full editorial comments along the way. 🙂

“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”

Class Warfare Liberals are tedious,evil, and need to be stopped.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

Addendum: Nor a house with a cheap mortgage just because you want one and the liberals want you to have it, health care paid by someone else, A mandated “penalty” tax if you don’t agree, or a vacation in Fiji every year.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave t he room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

Addendum:  That includes Islamophobia, Homophobia, and any other phobia the liberal Politically Correct can come up with to try and make you as guilt-ridden and as cowed they want you to be.

It also means that you’re not a racist if you disagree with a Liberal.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy..

Addendum: Tort Reform is not evil. And if you spill your hot coffee, don’t go looking for a lawyer to sue someone almost immediately.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes …

Addendum: 99 weeks of unemployment is ok. But not raising taxes in a recession is evil. Now that’s a liberal for you.
Illegal Immigration still means ILLEGAL. Period.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

Addendum: See NHS.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Addendum: But if you’re a minority and your the perp, Call The US DOJ, ask for Eric Holder, I’m sure he can get you off.

If Illegally here in the first place: Call Gloria Alred. She use you for her own ego stroke , but everyone will know who you are.

And if that doesn’t work, Hilda Solis wants to hear from you.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Addendum: Unless you get elected to Congress that is…then it’s practically a pre-requisite that you lie, cheat and steal.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

Addendum: 99 weeks of unemployment? Turning down job offers because unemployment pays better? WTF!

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Addendum: But boy will the Liberal try to spend your way to happiness with your money. It will be a colossal failure. But don’t worry, it won’t be their fault. After all, they are perpetual victims even if they are the perpetrator!

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly….)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution.

Addendum: The Classroom is not a socialist test kitchen where you indoctrinate kids to your political philosophy so that when they reach voting age they have no idea what the real history and traditions of this country are and are easily manipulated into doing their Master’s bidding.

Addendum:  Christianity is basically good. Unlike what Liberals think (unless they are trying to convince you that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim then they are useful).

Blowing people up if you disagree with them seems to be tolerable to Liberals as long as it’s not them.

The separation of church and state works for liberals only in destroying God, because their God is Government. We the People, disagree.

And I’m an agnostic to boot! So there! 🙂

 

 

Incestuous Narcissism Part 3

The difference between a catfish and a lawyer. One is a bottom feeding, mudsucker and the other one is a fish.

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.  <rimshot>

There are a million of them, literally.

Like a swarm of Piranha, if they smell blood in the water boy will there be a feeding frenzy.

Is it any wonder that a large segment, possibly even a majority, of Congress is made up of lawyers.

Really.

No, Not really.

Ever tried to read the Health Care Bill?

I know I did, which is more than Congress, especially the Senate Chairman Max Baucus did.

At Over 2000 pages it would turn any mind to mush to try. Which is why Speaker Pelosi wanted you to pass it first and read it later.

You don’t need to know all the details. Trust us. We have your best interests at heart. 🙂

We are the Insufferably Morally and Intellectually Superior.

I just saw a segment on this website: http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/

Fascinating stuff. You have all the makings of a good horror movie, except for the bikini clad teenage virgin. But give them time, I’m sure there’s a lawsuit involving that somehow.

I would also recommend my blog from Sept 3rd this year: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-lawsuit-lottery/

Trial Lawyers and their lawsuits that have driven up the cost of everything, including Health Care, was specifically and deliberately (with extreme prejudice) left out of the Health Care Bill because they are a important component of the Democratic Party base. They are also Congressman to begin with as well.

Jon “Baby Man” Edwards was Trial Lawyer.

Three-quarters of all small business owners in America are concerned they might be the target of a frivolous or unfair lawsuit. Of those who are most concerned, six in ten say the fear of lawsuits makes them feel more constrained in making business decisions generally, and 54 percent say lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits forced them to make decisions they otherwise would not have made.

Small businesses paid $105.4 billion in tort liability costs in 2008.

Tort, fancy word for lawsuit, BTW.

Small businesses are responsible for 64 percent of all new jobs created in the U.S economy. (facesoflawsuitabuse.org)

But faced with massive lawsuits, a massive tax increase on 1/1/11 that Democrats are too cowardly to address, Health care Mandates and fines, financial regulation that choke off productivity, is it any wonder that job creation is in the tank?

Yes, the President did pass what he called a “Small Business” jobs bill, aka yet another Stimulus, but it will be ineffective and is there largely as a PR tool as he is now in 100% campaign mode and nothing else matters.

And banks aren’t really lending the money to begin with. So if you can’t get the loan how can you expand??

America’s civil justice system is the world’s most expensive, with a direct cost in 2008 of $254.7 billion, or 1.79 percent of the U.S. GDP.

The cost of the U.S. tort liability system as a percentage of GDP is more than double the average cost of any other industrialized nation.

Tort costs were $838 per U.S. citizen in 2008, meaning a family of four paid a “litigation tax” of $3,352 for the U.S. civil justice system, a cost driven up due to increased costs from lawsuits and other liability expenses that force businesses to raise the price of products and services.

But Congress won’t do anything about it, especially not Democrats, as they as incestuously parasitic of each other and the Piranhas in Pinstripes in Congress wouldn’t want to reign in their brethren after all, they might be them again some day.

You wouldn’t wont want be nice to evil Corporate America that just rapes and pillages itself across the land unchecked now would you? 🙂

One of my favorites from the website Face of Lawsuit Abuse (run by The US Chamber of Commerce that was barred and banned from Health Care debate because they dared to disagree with the Almighty Ones) was the landlord who was sued because a tenant claimed that the legally required notices of entry for repair and the like were harassment and caused emotional distress.

Vytas Juskys and his small business manage apartment buildings and are committed to constantly upgrading and making repairs to the homes of the tenants. He thought that improving their apartments and the common areas would help his residents love where they lived; he never expected that one of them would thank him with a lawsuit.

Juskys was in the process of improving an apartment complex he had just acquired when he learned he was being sued. He had been making a variety of repairs to the building and the surrounding facilities, and he was posting regular repair notices on the tenants’ doors, as is required by law.

But one tenant claimed that these notices caused her emotional distress, and she sued Juskys for $500,000. The irony, Juskys says, is that the plaintiff had personally been requesting improvements and then sued him for notifying her that he was planning to make them.

“There’s no way to avoid it,” Juskys says. “At some point, if you’re into real estate, you’re going to get sued. We’re easy prey.” The lawsuit not only took away from Juskys’ ability to focus on his tenants and the properties he manages, it also prevented him from initiating new projects, hiring extra employees and creating jobs.

On the day of the trial, Juskys’ insurance company decided to settle the case, and he was required to pay thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.

Juskys now understands why businesses settle even the most frivolous of lawsuits. Small businesses like his can’t win, he says. Even if he had gone to trial and the jury had ruled in his favor, his only winnings would have been a legal bill, higher insurance rates, and lost time.

“You try to do everything right,” Juskys says, “and it’s just not good enough.”

So his costs go up, your costs go up, the lawyers profits go up.

Why would Congress, full of lawyers, ever want to put a stop to such a thing? 🙂

OR

KALISPELL – A Kalispell girl charged with two counts of deliberate homicide after police say she attempted suicide by driving her car into oncoming traffic has filed a lawsuit against the estate of the woman who died.

The lawsuit filed in Flathead County District Court names the estate of 35-year-old Erin Thompson of Columbia Falls as well as the construction company that built the U.S. 93 overpass at Church Drive where the collision took place near Kalispell on March 19, 2009. The girl is seeking unspecified damages.

The girl and her father filed the lawsuit on July 15 contending Thompson, four months pregnant, caused the crash. Her 13-year-old son, Caden Odell, also died.

Thompson’s husband, Jason Thompson, is listed in the lawsuit as the representative of the estate.

Also named in the lawsuit are Knife River Corp., Western Traffic Control Inc. and Mountain West Holding Co.

Police say the girl was traveling southbound when she crossed the centerline at a speed of 85 mph.

Investigators believe the girl was trying to commit suicide after arguing with her boyfriend earlier in the day. Shortly before the crash, authorities say, she sent him several text messages, including one that said, “Good bye … My last words …” and one that said, “If I won. I would have you. And I wouldn’t crash my car.”

IBD:  Medicare dictates the prices it pays clinicians, facilities, medical suppliers and private health plans through more than a dozen different price-control schemes. Efforts to reduce those prices typically fail because of what Tom Daschle calls the “patient-provider pincer movement”: Medicare enrollees and health care providers join forces to undo those cuts.

Each producer that depends on Medicare for its income faces an enormous incentive to lobby for higher prices. The prices for, say, hospital services could make or break a lot of hospitals. And if the hospitals don’t lobby to increase those prices, who will? Enrollees like the easy access to medical care that comes with higher Medicare spending.

So when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reduces the prices Medicare pays physicians (through the “sustainable growth rate” formula), or ObamaCare reduces the prices for hospital services, home health care and Medicare Advantage plans, we can predict — and experience has shown — that intense lobbying by enrollees and the affected producers will thwart these measures.

Now if that isn’t incestuous narcissism what is? Deliberately raising the prices to what you know will be unsustainable levels just because the alternative doesn’t doesn’t benefit you personally.

And if you object you’ll get the “grandma using a dead person’s teeth” story like you did during the Health Care debacle.

And as was mentioned numerous times in this blog the cuts that the Health Care law proposed were to Medicare Advantage, a program that was showing some promise.

And without those cuts, half of the projected “savings” for the Health Care monster evaporate.

So, given the track record of narcissism what do think will happen?

And if they do try and cut them don’t you expect there will be a veritable plague of locusts…I mean Lawyers…all over it and it will be litigated until you’re already dead. But the Lawyers will make millions of it.

In the end the Lawyers win.

And if that isn’t incest at it’s best, what is?

Lawyers are necessary to a point, but the over lawyering lawsuit lottery job killing psycho need for the quick buck frivolous drop of any hat lawsuit is not.

But don’t expect Congress, especially this one, or even a Republican one, to do much about it because that’s asking the wolf to stop playing with the chickens.

And the chickens are going to sue you for  emotional distress for not protecting them from the wolves. And hire a wolf to do it!

Isn’t that just peachy. 🙂

The Lawsuit Lottery

__________________

Overlawyered: Fearing lawsuits over injuries, a West Virginia county is removing swing sets from elementary schools. A minor, local issue? No. America’s litigious society has changed the way kids play.

Roughly a year after a child broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman and his parents are settling a lawsuit for $20,000, Cabell County, W.V., schools are yanking swing sets from school playgrounds. The lawsuit was one of two filed in the last year against Cabell County schools over swing set injuries, the West Virginia Record reported Thursday. School safety manager Tim Stewart, who is overseeing the removal, said he sees “a high potential when it comes to swings and lawsuits.”

What’s happening in Cabell County is not an isolated case. Local governments, fearful of lawsuits, have been for years closing pools, stripping playgrounds of equipment and banning outdoor games.

A Massachusetts elementary school has told students they can’t play tag. One Boston school forbids handstands while another in Needham, Mass., doesn’t allow students to hang upside down from the monkey bars. A pool in Hazleton, Pa., closed some years ago after a swimmer sued for $100,000 because he cut his foot running and jumping into the pool, though he’d been warned not to.

“There is nothing left in playgrounds that would attract the interest of a child over the age of four,” Philip K. Howard, lawyer and author, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2008.

“Exercise in schools is carefully programmed, when it exists at all. … Broward County, Fla., banned running at recess. .. . Little Leagues forbid sliding into base. Some towns ban sledding. High diving boards are history, and it’s only a matter of time before all diving boards disappear.”

Olga Jarrett, a Georgia State University professor who prepares students to teach, told the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: “Many schools don’t have playgrounds at all, they don’t have recess. They’ve been built without playgrounds with the idea that this is not something we do at school.”

She blames “a fear of lawsuits that makes some school systems and cities design playgrounds that are completely uninteresting to kids.”

Howard, who wrote “The Death Of Common Sense” and “Life Without Lawyers,” has been warning the country for years that our fear of litigation is changing American culture.

He has preached the importance of placing reasonable limits on lawsuits and restoring reliability and justice to our legal system.

While we’ve seen enough progress to be hopeful, we don’t expect civil law reform to move as fast as it should as long as so many of our policymakers are owned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys lobby.(IBD)

Then consider all the Lawyer adds on TV. You can’t have a commercial break without one…or two…or three…

Or the whacko who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was too hot!

Or the fact that Tort Reform (aka Trial Lawyers) were explicitly ignored by ObamaCare. Why, Trial Lawyers are one of the Democrats main source of cash!!

You have 43 warnings on a Step ladder, like do not stand on top of this ladder!

Duh!

For example, does a Superman costume really need a warning label to tell people that it doesn’t cause super-strength or the ability to fly?

Really? No Kidding. Does that mean I sell my kryptonite on E-Bay then? 🙂

A teenage boy was hit by a runaway bat . His family sued the maker of the bat and got $850,000 in a products liability suit because the company failed to adequately warn about the dangers that the product can pose.

So now, baseball bats are required to post warning labels? What should the labels say?

“Caution: Getting hit in the head by this product might cause death.” (findlaw.com)

The family of Brandon Patch argued that aluminum baseball bats are dangerous because they cause the baseball to travel at a greater speed. They contended that their 18-year-old son did not have enough time to react to the ball being struck before it hit him in the head while he was pitching in an American Legion baseball game in Helena in 2003. (USA Today)

There was a mother who wants to sue Sea World because her precious 10 year old was at the performance where the whale drowned the trainer. That was Sea World’s fault! And she wants the cash!!

I see one more “Mesothelioma” ad I think I will chuck something at my TV!!

And the Congress is made up predominately of Lawyers. The President is a Lawyer.

See: http://overlawyered.com/

I want also shed some light on the state of California’s up-to-$4,000-a-violation bounty system for freelancers who identify ADA violations in Main Street businesses, and the case for at least requiring complainants to give business owners notice and an opportunity to fix an ADA violation before suing. (The disabled-rights lobby has managed to stifle that proposal in Congress for years.)

So it’s the adult version of I-Spy, only you get $4,000 for hunting them down and killing them. Sounds more lucative than my day job.

Become a Professional ADA Violation Spotter and become rich! 😦

You own a business, maybe a restaurant. You’ve got a lot to worry about. You have to make sure the food is safe and tastes good, that the place is clean and appealing, that workers are friendly and paid according to a hundred Labor Department and IRS rules. (and soon ObamaCare, Cap & Trade,and Tax Increases!)

On top of that, there are rules you might have no idea about.

The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren’t right — say, if your mirror is just one inch too high — you could be sued for thousands of dollars.

And be careful. If you fail to let a customer bring a large snake, which he calls his “service animal,” into your restaurant, you could be in trouble.

The ADA was supposed to help more disabled people find jobs. But did it?

Strangely, no. An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39.

How could employment among the disabled have declined?

Because the law turns “protected” people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.

Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the blog, Overlawyered.com, says that the law was unnecessary. Many “hire the handicapped” programs existed before the ADA passed. Sadly, now most have been quietly discontinued, probably because of the threat of legal consequences if an employee doesn’t work out.

Under the ADA, Olson notes, fairness does not mean treating disabled people the same as non-disabled people. Rather it means accommodating them. In other words, the law requires that people be treated unequally.

The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by “professional litigants” who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money from the businesses.

Some disabled people have benefited from changes effected by the ADA, but the costs are rarely accounted for. If a small business has to lay off an employee to afford the added expense of accommodating the disabled, is that a good thing — especially if, say, customers in wheelchairs are rare? Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA. And since ADA modification requirements are triggered by renovation, the law could actually discourage businesses from making needed renovations as a way of avoiding the expense.

A few disabled people speak up against the law. Greg Perry, author of “Disabling America: The Unintended Consequences of the Government’s Protection of the Handicapped,” says that because the disabled now represent an added expense to businesses, many resent them.

Finally, the ADA has led to some truly bizarre results. Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab.

Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it — employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their “right” to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

More money for the parasites. (John Stossel)

Stossel: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/

Lawyers do have their place, but how much of this is too much and how much of this is the cart before the horse (trough)??

Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

By John Stossel

Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We’d be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that’s a myth. It’s easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious — but just as real — are the things we’d all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

Monsanto once developed a substitute for asbestos — a new fire-resistant form of insulation that might save thousands of lives. But Monsanto decided not to sell it for fear of liability. Richard F. Mahoney, the CEO at the time, said, “There may well have been a safe, effective asbestos replacement on the market, and now there isn’t.”

//

Why do we have to worry about shortages of flu vaccine? Because only a handful of companies still make it. And why is that? Because when you vaccinate millions of people, some get sick and sue. Between 1980 and 1986, personal-injury lawyers demanded billions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers. That scared many American drug companies out of the business.

In 1986, Congress stepped in. To help curb the lawsuits that discouraged vaccine production, the government established a fund called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It would pay victims’ families directly so they wouldn’t have to hire lawyers and suffer the delays of litigation. This was supposed to entice vaccine makers back into production, but drug companies were still leery, fearing that plaintiffs’ lawyers would sue them anyway.

They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children’s vaccines. Plaintiffs’ lawyers jumped on scaremongers’ claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Even when new vaccines are discovered, drug companies are sometimes afraid to sell them. The FDA has approved a vaccine against Lyme disease. Want some? Forget about it. No company wants to take the risk.

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

After scientifically groundless lawsuits against breast-implant makers bankrupted Dow Corning, Japanese silicone makers stopped producing a pain-reducing silicone coating for hypodermic needles. A company director said, “We’re sure our product is safe, but we don’t want to risk a lawsuit.”

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won’t sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can’t buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, “Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged.”

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America’s peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion — like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

You can’t even look cross-eyed at a kid if you’re a teacher and you can never ever be alone with one under any circumstance whatsoever.

Why?

Because if you are, you could be on the sex-offender registry and working at McDonald’s being sued for your coffee being to hot in a nanosecond.

Thanks to Lawyers and the Lawsuit Lottery.

This lottery is similar to the regular one, you gamble that your ticket (the lawsuit) will pay you mega-millions and set you up for life. And the nice Lawyer who gets as much as 40% of it is right there to cheer you on. For there own benefit, of course.

Everyone wins, Everybody else loses. 😦

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/29/safety-caution-product-liability-entrepreneurs-law-warning-labels_slide.html

http://www.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560

The author of the above book: “Predatory lawyers know they can file ridiculous lawsuits against innocent product makers and blackmail them into cash settlements — even in cases in which a user has ignored common sense,” said Dorigo Jones. “The real issue is not the obvious warning labels, but the billions of dollars in litigation costs passed on to consumers — a kind of a “lawsuit tax” we all pay. That is why M-LAW (http://www.mlaw.org/index.html) urges judges and policy makers to support civil justice reform.”

But don’t you feel better. You’ve taken responsibilities for the risks of being alive secure in the knowledge that if you do something stupid there’s always a lawyer there to make you the potential millionaire “victim”. Meanwhile, actual cases that are very legitimate could be overlooked because there isn’t enough will or money for anyone to care.

Sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite! 🙂

And if they do, I’m sure we can find someone to sue! 🙂

The Fakevoer

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Our dear President is out on the Campaign trail yet again, touting how great he is. And he saved America! Rejoice!

It’s Hope 2.0!

<<barf bag on standby>>

They passed a sweeping Financial Reform bill. But like the Health Care bill where one the biggest problems was totally ignored for political reasons, Tort Reform, in the Financial Reform bill, Fannie & Freddie and the shadow of the subprime mortgages still out there, was ignored.

The Democrats, who created this mess, want to ignore the 800 lb Gorilla Cancer in the body.

With good reason, they were the main force behind creating it!

You can’t talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you’re Tim Geithner.

The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.

Geithner vowed to fundamentally “change” the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn’t offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here’s a refresher:

• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage financing go to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.

• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.

• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.

• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.

• By 2008, HUD’s target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren’t to blame. “We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience,” he said, “and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit.”

This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet “HUD goals.”

But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of “affordable housing” are running the show.

Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton’s beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the “flexible” underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.

You can’t talk about the housing crisis or reforms without talking about the affordable-housing goals HUD slapped on Fannie and Freddie. That is, unless you’re Tim Geithner.

The Treasury secretary hosted a summit Tuesday to discuss redesigning the mortgage-finance system — 75% of which is still controlled by Fannie and Freddie, which are still bleeding billions at taxpayer expense.

Geithner vowed to fundamentally “change” the failed government-sponsored mortgage giants. Yet, suspiciously, he didn’t offer how. Nor did he explain why they lowered their underwriting standards and collapsed under the weight of subprime loans and securities. So here’s a refresher:

• In 1996, as part of Clinton housing policy, HUD required that 42% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage financing go to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit.

• To help them meet that goal, HUD, their regulator, authorized them to relax their lending criteria.

• HUD also authorized them to buy subprime securities that included loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.

• Unhappy with the results — despite Fannie and Freddie committing trillions in risky low-income loans — HUD in 2000 raised its affordable-housing target again, this time to 50%.

• By 2008, HUD’s target had topped out at 56%. And Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan insists that affordable-housing goals aren’t to blame. “We should be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from this experience,” he said, “and sacrifice an important feature of the current system: wide access to mortgage credit.”

This is revisionist history. Fannie and Freddie e-mails confirm that executives then were under huge pressure to meet “HUD goals.”

But as Orwell warned, whoever controls the present controls the past. And right now, the people who pushed Fannie and Freddie — along with our entire financial system — off the cliff in the name of “affordable housing” are running the show.

Just look at some of the experts Geithner invited to his Potemkin summit. Like ex-Clinton aide Ellen Seidman, who became head of the Office of Thrift Supervision. She aggressively enforced Clinton’s beefed-up Community Reinvestment Act, which codified the “flexible” underwriting that Fannie and Freddie adopted.

Seidman argued that Fannie’s and Freddie’s support for “low-income and minority communities” — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is “absolutely critical.” She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for “underserved markets.”

The “underserved” were the poor, and minorities, that couldn’t pay them anyhow. But what the hell, if you can get a million dollar house with a multi-thousand dollar mortgage and a job at 7-11 for nothing down, why not. 🙂

Let’s buy some votes. Then when it all blows up in our face, blame it on “the rich” and George W. Bush!!

Yeah, that’s the ticket!! 🙂

Comment on the article: It’s simple! Underserved means undeserved but we will give it to you anyway in exchange for your vote. Problem is it works, for the short term but with h*** to pay in the long term.

Seidman argued that Fannie’s and Freddie’s support for “low-income and minority communities” — especially now amid a wave of foreclosures — is “absolutely critical.” She wants government to take an even larger role in pushing housing for “underserved markets.”

“The private sector will not do it on its own,” Seidman said, “and we should just stop having that debate.”

Excuse us, but homes aren’t a right. People who lost their homes can go back to renting. There’s no shame in that. The shame came when government pushed them into homes they couldn’t afford. And the housing bubble it created hurt everybody in the end.

Echoing Seidman, Geithner asserted that whatever replaces Fannie and Freddie must continue to “provide access to affordable housing for lower-income Americans” and to guarantee loans.

In other words, Fannie and Freddie aren’t going anywhere. They’ll just be absorbed into the government, most likely Treasury or HUD, or both.

Why must taxpayers continue subsidizing homeownership through a government-guaranteed secondary mortgage market run by a government-protected duopoly?

Within the proper framework, we’re confident that private firms can originate and securitize mortgages more efficiently — and do so without the politically injected risk or taxpayer liability.

Wells Fargo, for one, would gradually replace Freddie and Fannie with private “mortgage conduits” that buy loans on the primary market and roll them into a common mortgage-backed security.

They’d assume the risk on the underlying mortgages, while the government would guarantee only the MBSes. To protect taxpayers, the conduits would pay into an insurance fund.

The plan maximizes the use of private capital while limiting Washington’s role to assuming catastrophic risk.

Other charter privileges enjoyed by Fannie and Freddie would be eliminated, including their Treasury line of credit, state and local tax exemptions, and weak capital requirements.

Above all, the plan would curb HUD’s interference in the mortgage market. No more unrealistically high affordable-housing goals. No more NINJA — no income, no job or assets — loans.

After years of dissembling and denial, Rep. Barney Frank has finally come out. He now says bankrupt government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “should be abolished.” Better late than never.

‘There were people in this society who for economic and, frankly, social reasons can’t and shouldn’t be homeowners,” Frank said in an interview with the Fox Business Network and sounding a lot more like an elephant than a donkey. “I think we should, particularly, stop this assumption that you put everybody into homeownership.”

After years of blaming heartless Republicans and Wall Street for the crisis caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — and their predominantly Democratic supporters in Congress — it’s refreshing to hear a member of the Democratic Party admit his mistakes.

It’s especially true of Frank, who, more than any other elected official, championed the cause of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Indeed, Frank is most responsible for stopping GSE reform in the early 2000s, at a time when such a move might have prevented the financial meltdown.

Maybe Frank, like so many others in his party, is feeling the heat in this November’s election. Democrats’ popularity is plunging after years of economic incompetence that has left America’s once-thriving economy a shambles.

But give him his due: Frank’s comments mark a major departure.

In 2000, when Rep. Richard Baker proposed more oversight for the GSEs, Frank called concerns about Fannie and Freddie “overblown,” claiming there was “no federal liability whatsoever.”

In 2002, again, Frank said: “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems. I regard them as assets.”

In 2003, he repeated himself in opposing reform, saying he did not “regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems.”

Even after a multibillion dollar accounting scandal hit Freddie Mac just a month after those remarks, Frank insisted nothing was wrong. “I do not think we are facing any kind of crisis,” he said.

By 2004, Fannie had its own accounting scandal. Frank again insisted it posed no threat to the U.S. Treasury. Even if the two went belly-up, he said, “I think Wall Street will get over it.”

Of course, he had it exactly backward. We’ve already spent $148 billion of taxpayer money on the two losers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will ultimately cost taxpayers $389 billion to bail them out. Even that may be too little; at least one private estimate put the final toll at $1 trillion.

No surprise here. Even today, more than half of all mortgages are funded or underwritten by Fannie and Freddie. They hold more than $5 trillion of the $10.7 trillion or so in total U.S. mortgages.

We’ve spent a lot of money for Barney Frank’s education in financial reality. Today, he’s basically saying he and his party were wrong all along.

That’s a good start. But how about an apology? Or even a frank admission that his party’s indefatigable support of Fannie and Freddie — which, prodded by the Community Reinvestment Act, created and funded the massive subprime market that later collapsed — was to blame for our multitrillion dollar meltdown and the loss of millions of jobs?

Others are edging in that direction. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner this week held a conference on Fannie’s and Freddie’s future, and he too seems chastened. “We will not support returning Fannie and Freddie to the role they played before conservatorship, where they fought to take market share from private competitors while enjoying the privilege of government support,” he said.

That, too, is good to hear. As we have advocated for years — since 1996, to be exact — Fannie and Freddie should be dismantled or privatized.

We hope actions match the rhetoric — that Geithner’s “conference” on Fannie and Freddie wasn’t just political window dressing before November’s midterm elections.

Let’s get government out of the business of encouraging homeownership, an undertaking at which it has failed miserably.

Now that the idea is dead, let’s bury it once and for all.

As late as 2008, after the tide of losses and foreclosures washed away Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining capital, Frank was adamant that it was all Wall Street’s fault: “The private sector got us into this mess … the government has to get us out of it.” (IBD)

But dear, Barney, it was thy.

“Slowly but surely, we are moving in the right direction. We’re on the right track,” Obama told a group of about 40 in the backyard of Rhonda and Joe Weithman’s home, a Cape Cod on quiet E. Kanawha Avenue in Clintonville,OH. “After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction,” Obama said.

Rasmussen:  Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, August 15.

While down slightly from the last two weeks, confidence in the nation’s current course has ranged from 27% to 35% since last July. Following Congress’ passage of the national health care bill in late March, the number of voters who said the country was heading in the right direction peaked at 35%, the highest level of optimism measured since early September 2009.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats feel the country is heading in the right direction. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 77% of voters not affiliated with either political party feel the country is heading down the wrong track.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all voters say the country is heading down the wrong track, up two points from last week.

So let’s review: 60+% are against the Health Care Bill. 60+% are for a secure border. 60+% are against the Ground Zero Mosque. 60+% are saying we are on the “wrong track”.

Sixty percent (60%) of U.S. voters say most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

So that’s why Democrats think they are doing a good job! 🙂

After all, your alternative is…<cue evil organ music> REPUBLICANS! <<dramatic music sting>> and we all know that is the way to Hell itself! 🙂

Personally, I’d rather just have Conservatives. Which leaves out Democrats anyhow but also leaves out the RINOs.

What we don’t need now is to go from a Progressive Cancer to a RINO Virus.

But we really don’t need is more government “involvement”. 😦

Transparency

Mr. Obama also insisted that Democrats had been receptive to many Republican ideas on health care and had included some of them in the legislation, and he suggested that a failure to sufficiently explain the merits of the bill to the American public was a main obstacle to moving forward.

This was yesterday in the New York Times.

He’s still on the line that he didn’t explain it well enouugh. That we are just too stupid to understand what he and his Socialist buddies want.

And that they accommodated the Republicans and it’s their fault it’s dragged on this long.

And that completely shutting out the Republicans totally is including their ideas.

Ah, the ways of the Ideologue.

Completely uninterested in reality, only interested in their own arrogant ideology.

They are right and we are wrong.

That’s it.

And if they hammer enough, long enough, we’ll give in.

“I’m reminded that when it came to the health insurance reform in particular, I sought out and supported Republican ideas from the start. So did you,” Mr. Obama said, singling out the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who spent months working with a small bipartisan group struggling to draft a compromise health measure.

“Max Baucus — where’s Max? I think he can testify to spending a little time listening to Republican ideas,” Mr. Obama said. “You considered hundreds of Republican amendments and incorporated many of their ideas into the legislation that passed the Senate. So when I start hearing that we should accept Republican ideas, let’s be clear: we have. What hasn’t happened is the other side accepting our ideas.”

So where’s the Portability?

Where’s the Tort Reform?

These were “Republican ideas”.

Oh, right, the Democrats voted every single thing the Republicans offered, especially these two, down  REPEATEDLY and with extreme partisan prejudice.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for the Health Care bill having a near fatal heart attack.

“I would just suggest to this caucus, if anybody’s searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing,” he said. “The American people are out of patience with business-as-usual. They’re fed up with a Washington that has become so absorbed with who’s up and who’s down that we’ve lost sight of how they’re doing. They want us to start worrying less about keeping our jobs and more about helping them keep their jobs. And they want to see their business done in an open and transparent way.”

And the last months of the last Health care debate were anything but that. It was the most partisan, least “transparent” debate in living memory.

But that’s still not their fault.

Rasmussen 1/22/10: Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

Last week, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote: “Who is Barack Obama? Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park. … Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.” (Tony Blankley)

President Obama again in NY Times: “If the Republicans say that they can insure every American for free, which is what was claimed the other day, at no cost, I’d want to know…”

There’s that extremist condescension again.

No one has suggested it could be done for free, but let’s be snotty  and childish about it, like most Liberals.

This one sentence shows he’s not really serious about anything he’s said about “transparency” or “republican ideas”.

Which is ultimately true.

The Agenda is the Agenda.

And they want to infect the whole economy with it, heedless and regardless.

That’s very Transparent, Mr. President.

“You know, maybe I’m naive — I’m still counting, Evan (Byah-D IN), on the notion that good policy over the long term is good politics,” the president said. “If — if you do the right thing, and you explain it clearly and you do it openly, I’m confident that the American people — you can have an adult conversation and say, ‘This is not going to be easy, this is not going to be painless, we’re going to be struggling for a while. But our future is bright.’”

The American People have spoken. You just didn’t like what we said, so you treat us like children and say if we badger and hammer them enough and pull enough parliamentary tricks along the way eventually they’ll have to love us.

Or Else. 😦

Ity’s kind of like your mother badgering you to eat your vegetables.

Mama Government wants you to swallow their Health Care.

It’s for your own good. 😦

We’ll just wear you down, like the relentless erosion of a cliff by a stream. Eventually we will get you to bend to our will.

That’s very Transparent, Mr. President.

And if they don’t, oh well, we will win somehow, anyhow, in the long run.

Anyone feel like celebrating?

Adams vs Freud

Before we get to today’s blog. I thought I would share this nugget of wisdom from the Far Left.

And they don’t get too much farther left than MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

Last Night he said  that when white men call Obama “flippant” or “arrogant,” that is a racist code word.

Isn’t that fascinating…. 😦

Now on with the Show…

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.” — President Obama in the State of the Union Speech.

Gee, didn’t we hear this last year and then Democrats shut down and shut out the Republicans completely?

Even Obama said at a picnic for the AFL-CIO that they had “no ideas”.

Yet every time they were presented them they were shot down with extreme prejudice.

So is this the sequel?

I think the Republican should charge forward and say, “here they are” so the Democrats can nuke them again.

Just to show The People just how uninterested the Democrats really are in anything anyone says to them.

Ideas Like Portability (buying insurance across state lines) and Tort Reform.

But since Tort Reform means the Democrats would have to piss off their lobbyist buddies in the Trial Lawyers that’s not happening.

So Republicans should push it.

That should make the Democrats squirm.

George Will:

Barack Obama tiptoed Wednesday night along the seam that bifurcates the Democratic Party’s brain. The seam separates that brain’s John Quincy Adams lobe from its Sigmund Freud lobe.

The dominant liberal lobe favors Adams’ dictum that politicians should not be “palsied by the will of our constituents.” It exhorts Democrats to smack Americans with what is good for them — health care reform, carbon rationing, etc. — even if the dimwits do not desire it.

The other lobe whispers Freud’s reality principle: Restrain your id — the pleasure principle and the impulse toward immediate gratification. Settle for deferred and diminished but achievable results.

Obama was mostly in Adams’ mode Wednesday. His nods to reality were, however, notable.

Such speeches must be listened to with a third ear that hears what is not said.

Unmentioned was organized labor’s “card check” legislation to abolish workers’ rights to secret ballots in unionization elections. Obama’s perfunctory request for a “climate bill” — the term “cap-and-trade” was as absent as the noun “Guantanamo” — was not commensurate with his certitude that life on Earth may drown in rising seas.

Last Feb. 24, when unemployment was 8.2%, Obama said in the second sentence of his speech to Congress that the economy “is a concern that rises above all others” and later that his agenda “begins with jobs.” After 11 months of health care monomania, he said Wednesday that “jobs must be our No. 1 focus.” Unemployment is 10%.

He called Wednesday for a third stimulus (the first was his predecessor’s, in February 2008) although the S-word has been banished in favor of “jobs bill.” It will inject into the economy money that government siphons from the economy, thereby somehow creating jobs. And you thought alchemy was strange.

Not until the 33rd minute of Wednesday’s 70-minute address did Obama mention health care. The weirdness of what he said made it worth the wait.

Dim Americans

Acknowledging that the longer the public has looked at the legislation the less the public has liked it, he blamed himself for not “explaining it more clearly.” But his faux contrition actually blames the public: The problem is not the legislation’s substance but the presentation of it to slow learners.

He urged them to take “another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” The plan? The differences between the House and Senate plans are not trivial; they concern how to pay for the enormous new entitlement.

Last Feb. 24, with a grandiosity with which the nation has become wearily familiar, he said, “Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last 30 days than we have in the last decade.”

He was referring to the expansion of eligibility to an existing entitlement — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. But that expansion was minor compared with the enormous new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs created under Obama’s predecessor. Before the Massachusetts nuisance, this year’s speech was to be a self-coronation of the “last” president to deal with health care.

Last Feb. 24, he said he had an activist agenda because of the recession, “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” Ninety-seven days later, he bought General Motors.

Truth Deficit

Wednesday night’s debut of Obama as avenging angel of populism featured one of those opaque phrases — the “weight of our politics” — that third-rate speechwriters slip past drowsy editors. Obama seems to regret the existence in Washington of … everyone else.

He seems to feel entitled to have his way without tiresome interventions in the political process by the many interests affected by his agenda for radical expansion of the regulatory state. Speaking of slow learners, liberals do not notice the connection between expansion of government and expansion of (often defensive) activities referred to under the rubric of “lobbying.”

Lamenting Washington’s “deficit of trust,” Obama gave an example of the reason for it when he brassily declared: “We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.” This flagrant falsehood enlarges Washington’s deficit of truth: He proposes freezing some discretionary spending — about one-eighth of government spending.

Obama’s leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily it is toxic — yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.

****

Obama: “I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change — or that I can deliver it.”

It’s the Change you want to bring that scares the crap out me, Mr. President!!

It’s the economy, stupid!

Not your pet liberal fantasies.

But I don’t think they want to hear that. 🙂