Thursday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Stalin, a topic that generates heated discussions.
  2. Abortion related to collectivization.
  3. Giving up on the latest round of healthcare reform … for myself I have difficulty even with his first paragraph. How can anyone honestly regard HR3200 as moving toward a more “free market” approach to healthcare?
  4. State aid is not stimulus.
  5. Overstating the case? Perhaps but “greatest senator of the age” is a really really low bar in this particular age.
  6. New “rather” damning information in the Rathergate story.
  7. If you think liberalism is on the rise … you stand in a small crowd, according to one cricket race.
  8. A liberal who is conveniently forgetting it was a liberal the last time that brought “guns to a town hall” … and the liberal violence in last election cycle.
  9. That stinking feeling … one fix is to, well, ride. After all once your moving that stink is behind you. An yes, That Sinking Feeling was in my recollection a sublime (and hilarious) film.
  10. The advantages of public run healthcare, giving birth in elevators.
  11. Dress, casual or not.
  12. Concern over Russia … my “canary test” hasn’t registered much change … but then I haven’t been doing that for very long yet.
  13. One prediction of a second (bigger) crash.
  14. A gulag to change its stripes.
  15. An astonishing number, 5%. Related remarks here.
  16. For myself, I have not seen any “fat” people running sub-3 marathons, fast iron-men or in the cycling grand tours .. have you
  17. Frogs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. I don’t view HR3200 as moving towards a more free market approach and am an opponent of HR3200. Wyden-Bennett, however, is a much different story. My post was about Wyden-Bennett.

  2. Boonton says:

    A liberal who is conveniently forgetting it was a liberal the last time that brought “guns to a town hall” … and the liberal violence in last election cycle.

    What liberal violence in the last election cycle? Is this that nonsense again about the chicago radio station that had a call in show with an anti-Obama author and so many Obama supporters called in that the phone lines got jammed?

  3. Mark says:

    I guess I don’t know the sponsors of HR3200 … Thanks for the heads up, I’ll educate myself as to the particulars of the second bill.


  4. Mark says:

    It was my understanding that windows were smashed and some other similar occurrences occurred at some GOP local campaign sites.

  5. Boonton says:

    Hmp, you might also recall the McCain worker who got mugged at the ATM by a crazy Obama supporter who used a knife to carve a ‘B’ on her face.

    Ohhh wait, it turned out that she faked her attack for attention. So you have an ‘understanding’ that some local campaign sites discovered broken windows. From this you conclude it was:

    1. violence – as opposed to say vandalism or just carelessness (drunk partiers at night throwing beer bottles around, kids playing ball etc.)

    2. violence by liberals as opposed to say Ron Paul supporters, radical animal rights groups, wacko cults or just hooligans who like to smash windows (I notice that many campaign offices are located in the more run down areas of cities….probably because its easier to find cheap short term store front rentals there).

    Are you standards for committing slander and bearing false witness always so liberal?

  6. Boonton says:

    More to the point I still recall right wingers who spread the story (with disapproval) of Black Panthers who were supposedly hanging out at a polling place with clubs. Whether that actually happened or if its just an urban legend for the right wingers it does seem like a double standard here. Show up at an anti-Obama rally with a gun and its freedom in action. Show up at a polling place in a Black Panther uniform and its intimidation. Don’t Black Panthers have a right to bear arms too?

    Look I think both are cases of either intimidation or a dangerous situation. Protests can easily get roudy. Showing up with guns may make for a nice publicity stunt but it doesn’t take a genius to see how this opens the door to either avoidable violence or to a wacko who will use a gun. Why do you think most localities will not allow a large group to, say, drink beer in public? Isn’t it a fact that the huge majority of people who drink beer are law abiding people with no criminal records? Sure, but it’s also a known fact that beer drinking and large public groups often leads to riots and public disturbance….hence public drinking is tightly controlled and often banned outright.

    I would be reluctant to protest against a group of people who I don’t know who are visibly toting weapons. The purpose of the ‘stunt’ is not to advance debate but to intimidate.

  7. Mark says:

    Yet the CNN/MSNBC person at the town hall highlighted with a gun was a Democrat.

    Are there more than one example of this or is everyone assuming that because he’s got a gun he has to be on the right?

  8. Mark says:

    You mock my usage of the term “understanding”. What I meant is that is what I remember. I’m not sure why you need to resort to snark.

    Weren’t some GOP bus tires slashed too?

  9. Boonton says:

    Yet the CNN/MSNBC person at the town hall highlighted with a gun was a Democrat.

    From what I understand he was participating in a stunt by a local libertarian radio show host. Was he attending the event to show support for Obama’s health care plan? My point is that it shouldn’t matter. Showing up at public debates armed with weapons is not good form and not, IMO, condusive to a free airing of differences. Now I understand in some cultures where a huge number of people carry guns this may be no big deal. But this stunt was done not out of cultural misunderstanding but because those doing it knew they were in a culture where public displays of being armed is not the norm and they were seeking that reaction. If the Black Panther story is true, I would agree that too is wrong and should not be tolerated. What’s amazing is how bankrupt the right is here. We all know this love of freedom to bear arms will disappear the moment a Black Panther type outfit does a stunt of their own. What’s irresponsible is how tone deaf the right is to the actual danger this creates. It’s all stunts until either a wacko takes advantage of the situation or a public argument escalates into a brawl and something bad happens.

    But we know from the ‘old news’ about the terrorist alert level being gamed for election purposes that many on the right have absolutely no concern at all for being responsible citizens.

    You mock my usage of the term “understanding”. What I meant is that is what I remember. I’m not sure why you need to resort to snark.

    So a vague half remembered story about a window being broken turns into ‘bringing guns to town hall’ and ‘liberal violence’?

  10. Boonton says:

    Yet the CNN/MSNBC person at the town hall highlighted with a gun was a Democrat.

    OK I think I mixed up the gun toters here. This one claimed to be a pro-healthcare reform Democrat but he wanted to protest any infringement on his right to bear arms. I was thinking of that other story about the gun toting protestor that MSNBC edited so it was hard to see he was black.

    I feel about gun toting in protests about the same as I feel about drinking beer in public. In the right circumstances I can be OK with it but I wouldn’t make a point of encouraging it.

  11. Boonton says:

    New “rather” damning information in the Rathergate story

    Kind of interesting, supposedly Bush ‘volunteered’ to go to Vietnam but was turned down because he didn’t have enough hours to qualify as a pilot there.

    But if he knew how many hours it took to qualify and if he knew he didn’t have them then why not get the additional hours needed to qualify and then volunteer? Unless the volunteering was an empty gesture, maybe to placate superiors who were getting annoyed with his slacking off or maybe even to avoid actually going to Vietnam. As in….

    “No I can’t serve in Vietnam on the ground crew(s), I’m training to be a pilot. I just need a few more hours then I can qualify as one and be much more useful in Vietnam”

  12. Mark says:

    Can you serve up a link showing that he needed more hours? The pieces I’ve ilnked and seen use the term “in favor of more inexperienced pilots” and not “pilots with enough hours to qualify” (implying Bush did not have the hours to qualify).

    And that begs the question … in time of need it in WWII and likely Korea … a pilot for a type of plane that was needed did not always fill out his qualifying hours before being vetted for service, need sometimes trumped hours especially if one volunteered.

  13. Boonton says:

    From the comments several insights:

    1. The plane he was training on was best designed for taking on incoming Soviet long range bombers. Hence had limited use in Vietnam.

    1.a Only a few of these planes were used in Vietnam leaving only a few slots for pilots qualified to fly them.

    2. The war was already winding down when he joined TANG with few people going to Vietnam.

    This IMO reinforces the hypothesis that his ‘volunteering’ was superficial….kind of like someone volunteering to invade Japan the day after Hiroshima.