Obama claims that it would be "unprecedented" if the Court overturns a law passed by Congress. Well that is wrong.
The man is a well qualified Dope but is rapidly earning major idiot status. When he was running 4 years ago, the media liked to call him a constitutional law professor. He was actually a senior lecturer who apparently was unqualified for any position related to constitutional law. As President, he has consistently opined about active cases and interfered with due process (asking the racist law professor from Harvard and the cop over for a beer; Treyvon Martin; this one; lecturing the Court from the State of the Union Podium) which no President should do.
A supposed "constitutional law Professor" who is not familiar with Marbury v. Madison is a bigger Dope/Idiot that anyone ever realized - not even considering that everything else he said in this article is absolutely incorrect. Not knowing what is in the Constitution might be an impeachable offense for a President sworn to uphold it. Exactly what does he think is in the document that he is sworn to uphold?
The real mystery is how anyone can support this guy.
PS: Really great job by the mainstream press in keeping the idiot's stupid statements out of the discussion. Romney should be shouting this from the mountain top. Santorum should go away.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Dodd/Frank won't go away
Newsday reports that Dodd/Frank has made accounts with less than $100,000 unprofitable. They are outraged that the banks are raising prices and discouraging people with less than $100,000. The writer says it is a pracitial problem for consumers.
It is also a practical problem for the banks. What is a rational business supposed to do? Maybe the writer thinks they should lose money on the majority of its customers and make it up in volume. Of course they look to alternative sources of income through higher fees. Exactly who does Dodd/Frank help? The protections needed had nothing to do with credit card fees and other consumer account fees. Dodd/Frank just limited the fees on people who overdraw their accounts. So the banks raised fees on everyone. Another great job by two guys who ran away from the results of their social experiments. Laughable.
It is also a practical problem for the banks. What is a rational business supposed to do? Maybe the writer thinks they should lose money on the majority of its customers and make it up in volume. Of course they look to alternative sources of income through higher fees. Exactly who does Dodd/Frank help? The protections needed had nothing to do with credit card fees and other consumer account fees. Dodd/Frank just limited the fees on people who overdraw their accounts. So the banks raised fees on everyone. Another great job by two guys who ran away from the results of their social experiments. Laughable.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Obama-rithmetic
President Obama announced yesterday that employers premiums would be reduced 3,000% under his health care plan. Immediately after that he said that this would enable employers to give everyone a raise. The immediate corrective action by the WH was that he actually meant that employer premiums would go down $3,000 and he simply misspoke. There was no mention in the correction about the raise comment.
The hand picked crowd of KoolAid drinkers was delirious with joy. Whatever Obama meant, he said 3,000% and the crowd applauded wildly. People with a third grade education are aware that when a price decreases 100% it becomes free (at least they were at one time). But this group of geniuses bought it blindly. To be charitable, they had no time for the in depth analysis that 3rd grade arithmetic requires. Suppose they really knew somehow that he meant that premiums would decrease $3000 per employee and had time for reasoned analysis. They would then know that since the employer costs are about $10,000 each, the President projects that this bill would result in a 30% reduction in premiums. This fantasy is not projections made by anyone. Even the WH correction does not make what he said accurate.
So we have the President making wild promises; a group of people buying whatever bilge the President says because he says it; the White House making corrections that don’t correct anything; and the ever obedient media not bothering to report anything. This is not mispronouncing a word which was once covered extensively. This – by any interpretation – is a self-serving lie.
The hand picked crowd of KoolAid drinkers was delirious with joy. Whatever Obama meant, he said 3,000% and the crowd applauded wildly. People with a third grade education are aware that when a price decreases 100% it becomes free (at least they were at one time). But this group of geniuses bought it blindly. To be charitable, they had no time for the in depth analysis that 3rd grade arithmetic requires. Suppose they really knew somehow that he meant that premiums would decrease $3000 per employee and had time for reasoned analysis. They would then know that since the employer costs are about $10,000 each, the President projects that this bill would result in a 30% reduction in premiums. This fantasy is not projections made by anyone. Even the WH correction does not make what he said accurate.
So we have the President making wild promises; a group of people buying whatever bilge the President says because he says it; the White House making corrections that don’t correct anything; and the ever obedient media not bothering to report anything. This is not mispronouncing a word which was once covered extensively. This – by any interpretation – is a self-serving lie.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Quitting smoking
NY State is sponsoring a gross commercial to get people to stop smoking. It was certainly stomach turning but turning my stomach at dinner time will do nothing to make me stop smoking since I never started. So the state
I had this exchange with the state agency that produced the effort.
Me:
First, I do not smoke and never have. I write in strong opposition to your TV commercial. I refer to the one that shows I guy with an oxygen mask wheezing and gasping for air. It is gross and disgusting. That is presumably your aim and you have succeeded. However, most of the people subjected to this atrocity do not smoke. Imagine the effect that "successful" commercial had upon me while I was eating dinner and watching the Met game. In case your imagination is weak, it made me sick. There is no opportunity to change the station, the commercial breaks into full gross out immediately. This is in poor taste. What is the next media crusade? Pictures of manged bodies aimed at drunk drivers? Aborted embryos? We agree that people should not smoke. We should also be able to agree that there are limits to how offensive commercials should be. Sincerely, Bill Lau
Them:
Dear Bill:
We regret the advertisement was personally upsetting to you. The approval process for our ads includes testing with NYS smokers and extensive review at the Health Department. Potential ads are pre-tested with smokers and ads that test well in terms of motivating smokers to quit are recommended for approval by the Health Department. While the majority of citizens in New York State are non-smokers, smoking has a tremendous impact on everyone in our society. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in New York State and smoking-related illnesses cost the state over 8 billion in medical costs alone each year. To put this in perspective, every pack of cigarettes sold in NYS costs taxpayers $10 in smoking-related medical costs. The ads we run are tested to ensure that they have a strong impact on public health by encouraging current smokers to quit and discouraging young people from ever starting. Evocative ads, such as the ones currently airing, have contributed to reductions in adult and youth smoking which are both at their lowest levels on record in our state.
Thank you for sharing your feelings. I will be happy to log your complaint stating you feel this commercial is too graphic and offensive. While you agree for the need for people to quit smoking, you object to how our message was presented.
The New York State Smokers’ QuitLine
Me:
You tested this on smokers and the true believers in the Health Department. So you put out a campaign to the general population that is was tested against the small percentage of people that you are trying to reach but not against the majority of people - people who do not smoke and never will – even if this commercial is never shown. It makes no sense.
It is a given that other people smoking costs billions in health bills and that costs all of us money. But your solution costs all of us more money for these ads to get other people to stop. How about directing your campaign at the people who are smoking and leave the rest of us to be able to have a peaceful dinner?
Even better, if you are going to hit the entire population, do it to enlist everyone in your cause. Get people do not smoke (the majority) to realize what smokers are costing them; then you will have the majority on the bandwagon. Start a campaign to move the health care costs to the smokers: If someone gets cancer or another disease from smoking, why should their insurance cover them (and rates go up because of it)?
Your information about testing its effectiveness is unconvincing. Does anyone ever follow with all those motivated smokers in the test base to see if they stopped? Did they just say what they thought you wanted to hear? Were they motivated to quit before seeing this ad? Or were they motivated to stop was it expensive and stupid?
In the meantime, please pull this nauseating commercial.
The good news is that they no longer run the commercial. Must have run out of money.
I had this exchange with the state agency that produced the effort.
Me:
First, I do not smoke and never have. I write in strong opposition to your TV commercial. I refer to the one that shows I guy with an oxygen mask wheezing and gasping for air. It is gross and disgusting. That is presumably your aim and you have succeeded. However, most of the people subjected to this atrocity do not smoke. Imagine the effect that "successful" commercial had upon me while I was eating dinner and watching the Met game. In case your imagination is weak, it made me sick. There is no opportunity to change the station, the commercial breaks into full gross out immediately. This is in poor taste. What is the next media crusade? Pictures of manged bodies aimed at drunk drivers? Aborted embryos? We agree that people should not smoke. We should also be able to agree that there are limits to how offensive commercials should be. Sincerely, Bill Lau
Them:
Dear Bill:
We regret the advertisement was personally upsetting to you. The approval process for our ads includes testing with NYS smokers and extensive review at the Health Department. Potential ads are pre-tested with smokers and ads that test well in terms of motivating smokers to quit are recommended for approval by the Health Department. While the majority of citizens in New York State are non-smokers, smoking has a tremendous impact on everyone in our society. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in New York State and smoking-related illnesses cost the state over 8 billion in medical costs alone each year. To put this in perspective, every pack of cigarettes sold in NYS costs taxpayers $10 in smoking-related medical costs. The ads we run are tested to ensure that they have a strong impact on public health by encouraging current smokers to quit and discouraging young people from ever starting. Evocative ads, such as the ones currently airing, have contributed to reductions in adult and youth smoking which are both at their lowest levels on record in our state.
Thank you for sharing your feelings. I will be happy to log your complaint stating you feel this commercial is too graphic and offensive. While you agree for the need for people to quit smoking, you object to how our message was presented.
The New York State Smokers’ QuitLine
Me:
You tested this on smokers and the true believers in the Health Department. So you put out a campaign to the general population that is was tested against the small percentage of people that you are trying to reach but not against the majority of people - people who do not smoke and never will – even if this commercial is never shown. It makes no sense.
It is a given that other people smoking costs billions in health bills and that costs all of us money. But your solution costs all of us more money for these ads to get other people to stop. How about directing your campaign at the people who are smoking and leave the rest of us to be able to have a peaceful dinner?
Even better, if you are going to hit the entire population, do it to enlist everyone in your cause. Get people do not smoke (the majority) to realize what smokers are costing them; then you will have the majority on the bandwagon. Start a campaign to move the health care costs to the smokers: If someone gets cancer or another disease from smoking, why should their insurance cover them (and rates go up because of it)?
Your information about testing its effectiveness is unconvincing. Does anyone ever follow with all those motivated smokers in the test base to see if they stopped? Did they just say what they thought you wanted to hear? Were they motivated to quit before seeing this ad? Or were they motivated to stop was it expensive and stupid?
In the meantime, please pull this nauseating commercial.
The good news is that they no longer run the commercial. Must have run out of money.
The wrong Debate
The current debate on contraceptive coverage has been deliberately misrepresented. Both sides are appealing to their supporters for transparent political reasons. This should not be framed either in religious or woman's rights terms. The basic issue is whether the Federal government can dictate - to any employer - the extent of the medical benefits that the company offers. If the Feds can mandate contraceptive coverage, they also have the right to mandate coverage for breast and penile enlargements, tattoos, veterinary services and or any thing else that the bureaucracy thinks people should have. Our medical insurance system is messed up enough. The debate should be about making it better not worse.
Retire Rush
Tell me again what a wonderful job Rush & Co do helping to convince people that the Democrats are wrong. His latest round of name calling just chased more people away and he gave Obama a few more points in the polls. Good job, Rush.
Question:
Mr. Independent voter is looking around to determine who to support; reads some headlines; and even watches some news shows. He learns that Rush supports Republicans/Conservatives and that Rush thinks Democrats are stupid. Mr. Independent also quickly determines that Rush is an idiot. The obvious reaction is that the independent guy will not want to be on the same side as Rush since Rush must be wrong. Think about it; it is a perfectly natural reaction: Don't you automatically not believe anything Pelosi says?
This is my latest letter to Newsday:
First, let's stipulate that Limbaugh is a jerk. Second, here is another analogy. I want to play golf. I can't play golf without golf balls. I want someone else to pay for them. Show of hands - who wants to pay for my golf balls? Same situation.
There is no question that Limbaugh's name calling was moronic. Like all the Republican blabber about values, it moves the discussion from where it should be to issues that are not properly things that the Federal government, political parties and voters should have at the top of their lists.
The sad thing is that he was right but now the story is how he said what he said - not what he was trying to say. Way past time for him to retire and go back (?) to taking drugs. He has zero ability to express himself as other than a complete moron and now has even less chance to help elect to convince anyone that Obama should not be re-elected. I congratulate the advertisers who dropped him and only hope more will do so. My next campaign will be getting people who listen to him to stop so his ratings plummet. Only good things will ensue.
Question:
Mr. Independent voter is looking around to determine who to support; reads some headlines; and even watches some news shows. He learns that Rush supports Republicans/Conservatives and that Rush thinks Democrats are stupid. Mr. Independent also quickly determines that Rush is an idiot. The obvious reaction is that the independent guy will not want to be on the same side as Rush since Rush must be wrong. Think about it; it is a perfectly natural reaction: Don't you automatically not believe anything Pelosi says?
This is my latest letter to Newsday:
First, let's stipulate that Limbaugh is a jerk. Second, here is another analogy. I want to play golf. I can't play golf without golf balls. I want someone else to pay for them. Show of hands - who wants to pay for my golf balls? Same situation.
There is no question that Limbaugh's name calling was moronic. Like all the Republican blabber about values, it moves the discussion from where it should be to issues that are not properly things that the Federal government, political parties and voters should have at the top of their lists.
The sad thing is that he was right but now the story is how he said what he said - not what he was trying to say. Way past time for him to retire and go back (?) to taking drugs. He has zero ability to express himself as other than a complete moron and now has even less chance to help elect to convince anyone that Obama should not be re-elected. I congratulate the advertisers who dropped him and only hope more will do so. My next campaign will be getting people who listen to him to stop so his ratings plummet. Only good things will ensue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
