Media Abuse

Rick Perry Needs a Miracle – Businessweek

“Here is what you need to impress upon your readers,” Rick Perry said, putting down his barbecue to jab a finger at me.

You know what? I don’t think Joshua Green, the author of this Business Week profile, likes Governor Perry. Maybe he’s got a lawyer in the family.

Perry has also taken advantage of the steady erosion of the Texas Democratic Party to protect business. In 2002, after Republicans captured the statehouse, he steamrolled the trial bar, a pillar of the Democratic Party  throughout the South, capping lawsuit damage awards. This year he added a “loser pays” provision on lawsuits.

By now much of his power in Texas derives simply from his having been around for so long. Nearly every agency and commission, the state supreme court, and the university boards of regents are stocked with his loyalists, and he’s built up a network of rich donors.

via Rick Perry Needs a Miracle – Businessweek.

While it’s false that, as stated in this article, Perry hasn’t had much opposition from within the state, it’s true that he has been in office a while, and has appointed and reappointed every position that comes under the Executive Branch. However, he has earned the support that he has, as shown by BW’s own graphics.

Who’s surprised that the successful businesses support Governor Perry or vice versa?

Our state revenues and GDP are up, our debt and spending is decreasing per the US Debt clock.  All without an income tax. Our population is growing from both US and foreign sources and our jobs grow both from within the State and from a little bit of raiding other states. 

Texas has the top two high schools in the nation per the Washington Post   and 6 schools in the top 15. Our students do quite well and our minority students do better than those of other states, according to this RAND report.

Ann Coulter: still picking losers for President

Ann Coulter never seems to pick a winner in Presidential elections. This year is no different. The problem may be that she is not as conscientious about research as I thought.

I’ve read all her books, and have been impressed with her research. She can certainly say “Lexus-Nexus” faster than anyone I know.

She’s obviously not done her homework on Rick Perry and the law in Texas.   In this video interview at the Wall Street Journal, she says that Romney lied about Global Warming because he was attacked, but that we should believe that he won’t support the same people if we elect him President. She’s sure that he’s learned his lesson on Romneycare, too.

In contrast, in the case of Rick Perry,

His position on illegal immigration is a killer. . .
You can’t repeal the citizenship.
We have a path to amnesty for illegal immigrants that’s a policy can never be changed.

There is no such thing as a path to amnesty in Texas Law, and the Governor has never endorsed amnesty.

We have already been burned once by false promises of border security in exchange for tying security to other aspects of the immigration debate. President Regan, in 1986, signed the immigration reform and control act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today an estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, compared with 1.1 million in 2000. In ten years, that represents an increase of 54 percent or 70,000 persons each year coming to our state illegally. Today, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates than about one in ten people born in Mexico live in the United States. And all of this has occurred outside the system and to the disadvantage of others who have been waiting in line for many years. There are literally millions of people waiting to get into the country legally.  (pp.118-119)

Perry, Rick (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle PC Edition.

Wallace attacks Santorum (says homosexuality is same as race)

On today’s Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace went on the attack against GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum for his belief that ending the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is a social experiment within the armed services.

With frequent interruptions, Wallace told Santorum that  “All of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the repeal of it does is say that they are given the same rights as everybody else has had forever,” and that people,  “used exactly the same arguments you use to argue against racial integration in the military in the 1940s.”

First of all, the Senator tried to answer the question about the difference between homosexuals as a special class and homosexuals as a special class. Even in uniform, it’s usually possible to tell the race or sex of the soldier. In contrast, the identification of homosexuals is not based on appearance or any objective measurement other than their self-identification.

Now, let’s ask the Arizona State Legislature whether or not there will be special privileges for self-declared homosexuals. Or look at the new policy allowing chaplains in the military to perform same sex marriages, in direct contradiction to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Wallace’s attack:

WALLACE: Senator, if I may follow up and we are running out of the time and continuing on this conversation. You say don’t inject social policy into the military. Their job is to fight and defend. They’re not a social experiment.

I want to put up a quote for you. “The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in time of war would pose a danger to efficiency, disciple and moral and would result in ultimate defeat.” Does that sound about right, sir?

SANTORUM: Roughly yes.

WALLACE: That’s a quote from Colonel Eugene Householder who is in the Army Adjutant General’s Office in 1941, arguing against racial integration in the military.

SANTORUM: I figured. I’ve heard similar quotes. It’s very, very different. I mean, we are talking about people who are, you know, simply different because of the color of their skin, not because of activities that would cause problems for people living in those close quarters.

WALLACE: Senator, Colonel Householders and I read — Senator, I read Colonel Householders’ comments yesterday. Everything that you said, living in close proximity, sharing bunks and showers, being in close proximity, what — he used exactly the same arguments you use to argue against racial integration in the military in the 1940s.

SANTORUM: Yes, I understand that, and I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new Civil Rights Act. It’s not. It’s not the same.

You are black by the color of your skin. You are not homosexual necessarily by — obviously by the color of your skin or anything — it’s by a variety of things.

WALLACE: I mean, it is a fact that your biology — obviously, it’s one thing if somebody is coming on to somebody in a room, but the sheer fact that somebody is a homosexual, are you saying — I mean, these are all volunteers. They are all defending to protect our country, sir.

SANTORUM: That’s exactly the point, Chris. They are all volunteers, and they don’t have to join in a place where they don’t feel comfort serving with people because of that issue. And that is the problem, Chris.

And look, the idea that somehow or another, that this is the equivalent, that being black and being gay is simply not true. There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary, and there are people who were gay and lived a gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t know if that’s a similar situation — I don’t think that’s the case with anybody that is black.

So it’s not the same. And I know people try to make it the same, but it is not. It is a behavioral issue, as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that makes all the difference when it comes to serving in the military

WALLACE: We’re going to have to leave it there, Senator Santorum.

via Darrell Issa Talks Fast and Furious Fallout; Rick Santorum on Challenging GOP Presidential Frontrunners – Interviews – Fox News Sunday – Fox News.

“Tea Party” Presses Perry on Immigration

You may hear about a media event held yesterday, when some self-proclaimed and self-promoting “Tea Party leaders” held a press conference.

Don’t forget that there really are no “Tea Party leaders.” We in the Tea Party are a very loose group, organized around the theme that we are “Taxed Enough Already.”  I seriously question whether this theme is consistent with a call for an expensive special session for a single issue.

In addition, there are no “sanctuary cities” in Texas. We have individual police chiefs and city officials who discourage law enforcement checks for citizenship status. Is it appropriate for those of us who believe in local, small government to over-ride local officials by an Executive Order or even legislative action that can’t garner wide spread support??

In this case, Governor Rick Perry put the “sanctuary cities” legislation on the emergency list for the Regular Session that began in January and then he brought it back during the Special Session called in June for the Budget Bill. During both the Regular and Special Sessions, the Governor brought pressure to bear on the Senate and the House to pass legislation. He called attention to the widow of the Houston police officer who was killed by an illegal alien. The Senate passed the Bill during the Special Session, but the House did not.

Another problem is that the so-called “leaders” can’t get their act together. During the Special Session, the “leaders” sent conflicting messages, with disagreement on the language in the Bill that had been cleared by Attorney General Greg Abbott. Take a look at this article from the same publication, “Sanctuary Cities Cause Rift.”

One more time: Perry, Gardasil and the facts

Governor Sarah Palin and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann went on Greta Van Sustern’s “On the Record” show on Fox News to accuse Governor Rick Perry of “crony capitalism” because of his Executive Order RP65, which would have mandated Gardasil and which did make it much easier for parents to opt out of all mandatory vaccines.

None of the players explain one very pertinent point: Merck was the only company making the only approved vaccine against the viruses that cause the changes that cause abnormal Pap smears and which lead to cervical cancer. (The only reason to get a pap smear is to check for changes from HPV. Gardasil provides immunity to the specific strains that cause nearly 3/4 of all cervical cancer.)

The Gardasil vaccine (more, here ) was recommended the FDA’s vaccine approval committee, more than 6 months before Governor Perry’s Executive Order. All girls who qualified for the Federal Vaccines for Children program were eligible to receive the vaccine free of charge: Medicaid, CHIPs, and uninsured or those with insurance that won’t pay for vaccines. The Texas Legislature had previously delegated unconditional authority to mandate new vaccines to the Department of State Health Services, which is under Governor Perry and the Executive Branch.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann showed her profound ignorance about the germ theory and modern medicine in general, and the Human Papilloma vaccine, Gardasil, in particular. She seems ignorant of the fact that newborns (little, innocent newborns) receive a shot against the STD, Hepatitis B, on the first or second day of their lives, before they go home from the hospital. They get 2 more of the shots by the time they are 6 months old. And (little, innocent) 12 year old boys and girls get a (measles/mumps/rubella) MMR and a tetanus and diphtheria booster (Td)  about the same time. Tetanus, or “lock jaw” is not a communicable disease.

in her zeal to attack Governor Rick Perry, Bachmann did even worse in her post-debate interview with Greta Van Sustern on Fox News. Her emotional, anti-vaccine remarks should be an embarrassment to her.

She told Greta about a conversation with a crying mom who came up to her after the debate, saying that the woman’s daughter suffered from “mental retardation” after receiving the vaccine. “Mental retardation” would not be diagnosed at 9-12 years old. In fact, in over 10 years more than 50 million doses of Gardasil have been given in the United States. There has been more than the usual scrutiny and surveillance for adverse effects. The Center for Disease Control, the FDA and the Institute of Medicine have all reached the conclusion that even with this heightened awareness and concern, there have been no adverse effects from this vaccine other than fainting and allergic reactions that can happen with any medical procedure or treatment.

At the time, Gardasil had over 5 years of history of study in boys and girls, with an official “Four Year Follow Up” article published in the British Medical Journal. To learn more, please see “A Dose of Reason.”

Rick Perry

Here’s what the Governor said (emphasis is mine and I corrected the lack of capitalization on the name of the Lord):
Perry: “Well, you wouldn’t be bleeping if it was appropriate. The bottom line is the people I’m more interested in are out here on these fire lines. They’re hard working men and women. There is probably union firefighters out there and (G)od bless them for helping save Texas lives and Texas homes.

The Governor directly connected his concerns and ties to union members who are putting their own lives on the line for us, rather than making threats to the lives of others. He identified the men and women and the issues, he is focusing on. He refused to be dragged into political differences at such a solemn time.
Yes, this is the high road, and appropriate for the time and situation.

GOP presidential front-runner and Texas Governor Rick Perry appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to bring attention to the deadly brush fires currently sweeping his home state. While his clear focus was to apprise viewers of the dire situation and bring warning to those potentially in danger, Brian Kilmeade tried to slip in an opportunity for Perry to condemn the controversy du jour: the inflammatory speech made yesterday by union leader Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. in which he called on voters to “take the son of a bitches out.” Perry did not take the bait, refusing to condemn the comments.

via Rick Perry on Jimmy Hoffa Comment | Fox and Friends Video | Mediaite.

AP MISLEADS READERS ON RICK PERRY: Cherry-Picks His Statement on Border Security & Lies About Audience Reaction | The Gateway Pundit

The AP deleleted the part of Perry’s speech that including using “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops on the border.

via AP MISLEADS READERS ON RICK PERRY: Cherry-Picks His Statement on Border Security & Lies About Audience Reaction | The Gateway Pundit.

Blogger Gateway Pundit tells us about more completel reports that tell the whole story, including “Weasel Zippers” and WHIO TV.

Kicking Rick: “Texas Cowboy” vs. “Last Responder”

Columnist Jack Kelly writes about the expected media treatment of Governor Rick Perry as the 2012 Presidential campaign heats up.

So expect lots of name calling. That may not work either. The “Texas cowboy” frightens Eastern liberals, but other Americans may find Gov. Perry’s decisiveness a refreshing change from the wuss in the White House who’s been described — cruelly but accurately — by New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader as “the Last Responder.”

via Kicking Rick.

WILLisms.com

The next time someone claims Texas ranks “near the bottom” in education, ask them to read this post and get back with you.

The Heritage Foundation mocks Duncan’s “crocodile tears” and explains how mediocrity has become the name of the game in the national education discussion:

68 percent of districts across the United States are below the 50th percentile in mathematics achievement. In more than half of states, no more than three districts have average student math performance that would place students in the upper third of math achievement in international comparisons.

Indeed, while beating national averages is not necessarily anything to write home about, it is still critical to acknowledge that the Texas model, far from perfect, has

via WILLisms.com.

Herald-Zeitung (Gesundheit!) and the AP: Dumb and Dumber

I was shocked to see that this morning’s  printed version of my own hometown paper, the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, featured a front-page article, “Texas to appeal judge’s ruling,” stating that Texas’ ultrasound law would force women to “undergo an invasive vaginal ultrasound.” This is a lie. Perhaps the problem is that the author only quoted  a lawyer for the New York firm that sued the State of Texas.

(The piece isn’t on the website, but it’s a reprint of the article by April Castro, available at the Houston Chronicle .)

As Federal Judge Sam Sparks wrote when denying the plaintiff’s claim that the law did not provide equal protection under the law because it only applied to women, “This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

The State of Texas regulates physicians, not patients and HB 15 is a set of conditions that a physician must meet before performing abortions. The Supreme Court has acknowledged (along with other thinking human beings) that States (We the People, the rest of us) have a legitimate interest in promoting the life and health of both the woman and her unborn child and in protecting them from fraud and coercion. Nothing in the wording of the law would force anyone to undergo an “invasive vaginal ultrasound.”

Regardless of the oft-repeated claim that an ultrasound is not medically necessary, it is standard of care prior to all abortions. The website of one of the plaintiffs, Alan Braid, MD’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio, informs potential patients that an ultrasound is included in the abortion fee  and “to determine the length of your pregnancy.” It is also standard of care to use the Ultrasound to guide instruments being introduced into the vagina and uterus.

Sparks objected to the mandate that physicians must describe any cardiac activity or development of limbs and internal organs. This is medical information that belongs to the woman, not ideology.

Sparks also claimed that the State intends to “brand” women by having them sign an informed consent paper and the inclusion of that paper in what he called “semi-private, at best” medical records. He is afraid that the record might be used in the future in lawsuits against the doctor, ignoring the fact that this would only happen if the woman who owns the medical information is the one suing the doctor.

(Edited for better sentences, 10:15 AM. BBN)

Spin on Spin (What Sarah Palin’s supporters are saying about Rick Perry)

I could be writing funny jokes about President Obama missing the bus under which he intends to throw America.

Instead, I got side tracked by a tweet claiming that Governor Perry is not honest.

“A Time for Choosing” is a pro-Sarah Palin blog that published an August 29, 2011 post titled, “Perry Campaign: Everything in “Fed Up!” Was Meaningless BS,”

Needless to say, no Perry staffer said such a thing. Instead, the author takes a mish mash of articles from the Los Angeles Times, the Hill, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal  and builds himself a strawman.

He claims the Governor lies because he repeatedly told us he had no desire to run for President, ignoring the fact that the Governor told us that conversations with his wife in June of this year led him to have a change of heart.

As for the rest of the piece, A Time for Choosing’s author, who claims to have read the Governor’s book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, echoes the claims that the Perry campaign is denying the book has any relevance, and that the Governor is “walking back” or has “tempered” his stand  on the strong views expressed in it.

Perry told a Wall Street Journal reporter to read the book when the reporter repeatedly insisted that Perry

 “. . . suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

However bad it is for SS to be “at the expense of respect for the Constitution,” nowhere in the book does it say that Social Security violates the Constitution.The reporter suggests that the Governor “suggests.”

The author quotes the Hill referring to the Washington Post’s comments on an email from Perry staffer, Mark Miner:

The 16th Amendment instituting a federal income tax starting at one percent has exploded into onerous, complex and confusing tax rates and rules for American workers over the last century. The need for job creation in the wake of the explosion of federal debt and costly entitlement programs, mean the best course of action in the near future is a simpler, flatter and broader tax system that unleashes production, creates jobs, and creates more taxpayers. We can’t undo more than 70 years of progressive taxation and worsening debt obligations overnight.

Here’s what the book actually proposes:

“Second, we should restrict the unlimited source of revenue that the federal government has used to grow beyond its constitutionally prescribed powers. One option would be to totally scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax, and thereby make taxation much simpler, easier to follow, and harder to manipulate. Another option would be to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (providing the power for the income tax) altogether, and then pursue an alternative model of taxation such as a national sales tax or the Fair Tax. The time has come to stop talking about fixing the broken and burdensome tax code and to take bold action to replace it with one that is not a burden for the taxpayer and that provides only the modest revenue needed to perform the basic constitutional functions of the federal government. America needs a fairer, flatter, and simpler system, one which working families can complete without having to hire a bevy of professionals to assist them.”   Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington (pp. 182-183). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle PC Edition. (accessed 8/29/11)

I want to believe that the bloggers’ problem is using interpretations/spins from several reporters, on a book they evidently either didn’t read or didn’t understand to build your premise on. If that is the case, though, why would he a headline that appears to be a quote from a staff member when it’s an obvious, biased interpretation by the blogger?

Doctors wary of Perry’s stem cell treatment – The Boston Globe

Yeah, Daley destroys human embryos to harvest stem cells, even made a few designer embryos with the intention of destroying them. The International Stem Cell Research group fawned all over the faux Korean cloner.

These people to be have no business talking about ethics or “wise decisions.”

[S]ome scientists are questioning the safety and wisdom of Perry’s treatment, especially because it was not part of a clinical trial in which unproven therapies are tested in a way that helps protect patients and advances medical knowledge.

Perry “exercised poor judgment’’ to try it, said Dr. George Q. Daley of Children’s Hospital Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. “As a highly influential person of power, Perry’s actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks’’ who are selling unproven treatments “for everything from Alzheimer’s to autism.’’

Daley is past president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, a group of 3,000 scientists and others in the field. He favors stem cell research. But of Perry’s treatment he said: “I would never in a million years accept for one of my family members to undergo this.’’

via Doctors wary of Perry’s stem cell treatment – The Boston Globe.

The Facts on Gardasil and Perry: Right Wing vs. WingRight

Do you really want to frustrate me? Publish an opinion piece online, but restrict comments so that I can’t tell you where you’re wrong. Sure, it’s your site, and you make the rules. Well! Since I have my own blog  . . .

The mainstream media has rediscovered Executive Order RP65 that Governor Perry issued in February, 2007. I wrote a “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil” to answer some of the gobbledygook in the media.

Unfortunately, some of the pundits we normally consider conservative are just as mixed up and fail just as miserably in their research and conclusions.

Michelle Malkin (michellemalkin.com ) won’t take new subscribers or comments from the public at all. She has written a disorganized rant calling Governor Perry “Obama-like.”  She claimed that the Governor went over the heads of the Legislature, calls the opt-out clause “bogus,” without researching what it was before the Governor’s EO, and is evidently completely unaware of the funding of vaccines in the US.  I was able to comment at the column’s syndication site, Creators.com,   copying and pasting my coverage of these concerns in “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil.”

RedState’s  Bill Streiff and Erick Ericson have posted their own articles That site won’t take comments from new subscribers. Ericson reposted his 2007 missive that compared the Executive Order to eugenics and focused on the possibility of corruption due to Merck’s lobbying.

Streiff’s two pieces, here , and  here,  cover the de-bunked corruption charges and provide a succinct list of ethical objections that are less subjective and a bit more organized. Here’s my reply:

1. The recommendation did not include males, though males can carry and transmit HPV. This oversight made the creation of “herd immunity” impossible. This, definitionally, means the vaccine could have only a limited effect in combatting HPV.

The vaccine had not been recommended for boys at the time. The reasoning is that the vaccine prevented cancer. Society was not ready to talk about anal sex and males having sex with males, so there was a delay in adding boys. Since that time, the recommendations have changed to include boys.

2. Not all strains of HPV linked to cancer were affected by the vaccine. While doing something is better than doing nothing… generally… no one knows what the impact will be of creating a better evolutionary environment for the others strains by eliminating competing versions of the virus.

We knew at the time that the vaccines covered the viruses that caused 70% of cervical cancers (16 and 18) and 90% of the strains that cause genital warts (6 and 11). The preventive effect for these strains was 96% to 100%. according to the British Journal of Cancer article on the 5 year follow-up, published in December, 2006. (It was on-line November, 2006 and I accessed it for review today, August 18, 2011.)

We already had evidence, since confirmed, that there might be some cross-immunity for other strains.

3.Requiring people to receive a vaccine against diseases which they may very well never encounter is a very queasy ethical area. Unlike diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc., HPV is not spread through casual contact.

True. But 50% of people will be infected at sometime in their lives. The true cost is all of those abnormal pap smears – the cellular changes are all – 99.7% due to HPV.  It’s also true that we vaccinate for tetanus – what we used to call “lock jaw” – even though it’s not contagious, and for Hepatitis B, which is only spread through blood and body fluids.

4. Clinical trials were conducted on women aged 16-26 leaving everyone to presume that Gardasil was safe and efficacious in 10 year-olds even though there was zero data pertaining to that age group.

Completely false. Both the 2007 Gardasil insert (no longer available online, but I saved a copy on my computer) and the current insert contain information about early testing on boys and girls 9-15. 1122 girls ages 9-15 received the vaccine during trials to test the immunogenicity, demonstrating the production of antibodies.
There. I feel better, don’t you?

Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth

Please read the whole column at CounterContempt. Note that the whole fuss began at lefty Salon.com as a (successful) attempt to bring out criticism of Governor Perry and to get inflamed people to make inflammatory remarks about Islam.

Much of the curriculum centers on very dry materials, presented with no editorializing – historical timelines, glossaries, the basic tenets of Islam (presented without either endorsement and praise, or denunciation and criticism), etc. Of interest to us, however, is the lesson plan that deals with Islam and the West, past and present. This is the lesson plan that mentions Sharia, al-Qaeda, Israel, Hamas, etc.

The lesson plan was written by Ronald Wiltse. Mr. Wiltse is a retired history teacher in San Antonio. He graduated from Pepperdine University in 1966, and received his MA from Middlebury College in 1982. For several decades, he taught world history at Edison High School, in San Antonio.

He is a Christian, and an ardent and vocal supporter of Israel.

via CounterContempt Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth.

Marriage – it really is a beautiful thing

from Fox’s Steven Crowder:

What’s not a matter of opinion, however, is that when it comes to marriage, we’ve all been lied to. Far from the miserable, broke, sexless life that it’s made out to be, the life of today’s married man is more fulfilling than any lonely, self-pleasing, single guy could hope for. So to all of you cads and good-time gals out there, read on and take note.

Ann Coulter on Civility

Ann Coulter at the Daily Caller on civility and the relative safety of liberals in the public compared to that of Conservatives.

Debt ceiling: never lowered

That should be enough to make the people who holler, “The debt ceiling has been raised dozens of times over the decades,” reconsider.  But probably not.

The problem is not revenue. Revenue is high, but spending is higher!

US Rumor and Hospital Report | The Health Care Blog

“US News needs to stop relying on unsupported and unsupportable reputation, often influenced by anecdote, personal relationships and self-serving public appearances, and work on real — and more recent — data. Maybe that will also cause hospitals to be more willing to report their data so they can be named to the “Honor Roll.” As it is, you are better off keeping things opaque to protect your reputation.

“I think it is time to acknowledge that this ranking offers very little in the way of valuable information. It is mainly a vehicle for advertisements from the pharmaceutical industry, who know that this issue of the magazine gets a lot of attention and high circulation. As you flip through to each specialty, you are blasted with ads for drugs related to syndromes within that specialty.”

via US Rumor and Hospital Report | The Health Care Blog.

(What the NYTimes.com really means)

Tonight, we saw the Senate Democrats table (without a vote) the debt ceiling Bill passed in the House because it cut spending, did not add taxes, and included a requirement to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the debt ceiling again.

(NO to #compromise.)Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Utah) (who hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 3 years, even one sent from the President) along with Senator Schumer (D-NY), then held a press conference to tell us that he’s upset with Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Senate Republican Minority want a “filibuster” (they won’t vote to vote on it without a debate).

Then tonight, New York Times had the nerve to print the following in an editorial (parentheses comments are my explanations):

Instead of worsening the bill,

(That means: he wouldn’t agree to more fewer cuts in spending or any increases in taxes.)

Mr. Boehner could have negotiated with Democrats to construct one with a chance of resolving the standoff and passing in the Senate.

(That means he could have agreed to increase taxes so the Dems would agree.)

But concerned largely with preserving his position,

(That means: Republican voters and our Representatives are very serious about cutting spending without raising taxes and we want some sort of Balanced Budget Amendment.)

he gave in to the very lawmakers who have been insisting for weeks that the Obama administration is lying about the coming default. That argument alone should have given him pause about giving in to their demands.

The Senate quickly tabled the revised House bill.

(The Democrat majority refused to vote on the House Bill, so they voiced a decision to “table” it, effectively killing the Bill so it can’t be considered without a majority of votes to bring it back to the floor.)

The legislation being prepared by Harry Reid, the majority leader, would raise the debt ceiling through March 2013. That avoids another showdown, and potential meltdown, in the middle of the crucial retail shopping period and at the start of the presidential campaign cycle, when Washington will be even less open to rational compromise.

What this means: the Dems absolutely do not want to debate the debt ceiling issue to be debated when people are deciding who to vote for in the Primary and in next November’s Presidential election. The NYT and the Dems evidently believe that raising the debt ceiling, increasing spending or taxes will not be popular with those voters.)

via It’s Up to the Senate – NYTimes.com.

Franken got it wrong

Al Franken, (See the Politico story, here) the nominal Senator from Minnesota, attacked the representative of Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, claiming that Mr. Minnery is unreliable because of the way he read a report on statistics on marriage and the health of children. Mr. Minnery’s testimony is here.

Franken claimed that Minnery was wrong in assuming that the families in question were composed of one husband and one wife. Hamming it up, pausing for laughter, Franken claimed to have read the study from the “Department of Health and Human Services” and to understand it better than Mr. Minnery. Franken’s claim was that Mr. Minnery had no reason to assume that the definition of “nuclear family” used in the study (“A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.”) did not include same-sex married couples.

Franken was wrong. See the original CDC study, “Family Structure and Children’s Health, in pdf, here.

The CDC paper Franken waved around about specifically mentions – on Page 12 – that it is referring to the “‘traditional” nuclear families” and further confirms that “spouse” is defined as “husband/wife.” The data came from 2001 to 2007, and Massachusetts became the first State to legalize homosexual marriage in 2004. There were evidently not enough same sex married parents to cause a bump in their years-long process. The definitions and clarifications in question are on page 12.

Regardless of your personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. First same sex legal marriage in the States was less than 10 years ago. There have always been legal interracial marriages throughout history, with evidence that the marriages produce stable families. There’s more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples.

The social eugenics are bad enough, but in the litigious United States, the problem then becomes, if you don’t want a church that preaches homosexual acts are a sin and won’t bless their marriages, don’t go to one. Or, if you don’t want an Inn that refuses to host same-sex weddings, don’t own one. Sure —- The problem becomes lawsuit here a lawsuit there, etc.

First Amendment: excuse for lawsuits or freedom?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Texas Tribune, that NPR/University of Texas online news organization that accepted $150,000 from George Soro’s “Open Society,” (whose url is “soros.org”), reports that atheists backed by an organization from Wisconsin, have filed suit to stop Governor Rick Perry’s participation in the prayer gathering in Houston next month. They claim that the 1st Amendment prohibits State Governors from public religious expression. It doesn’t seem odd to to them that the same Government should defend their right to not be religious while forcing others to refrain.
Forget for a moment that the Constitution is talking about the Federal Congress and not a State Legislature or Governor – look at the rest of the Amendment.

“… shall make no law” – no law for and no law against
“. . . the free exercise thereof . . . “
“ . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”
“. . . right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .”

The comments on TT  concerning the lawsuit are the typical Austin liberal screed, with an added anti-religious hatefulness and the obligatory hair comments thrown in. Knowing the type of readers who comment on these pages, I’m still surprised at the prejudice and lack of knowledge displayed. So, here’s my answer to their questions and doubts:

Yes, Christians do believe that the Lord chooses our Governors and other leaders. And, yes, Christians do have a need and “Commission” to testify about our faith and blessings. And many of us do not believe that we can abdicate our own private duty to Christ to care for the sick, poor or children to government, which hasn’t proven a good steward. And, no, you don’t have the right to be free from knowledge and tolerance of our free exercise of religion, speech, and assembly.

God bless their little hearts.

I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin (a golden oldie)

Do not forget. We must learn and develop our own brand of “Rules for Radicals,” without the obscenities. We must act accordingly.

I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin – David Kahane – National Review Online.

Partisan about partisanship (media bias)

Democrats are “Liberal/moderate” rather than simply “liberal” in this Texas Tribune piece on “partisanship” among Texas House members. And, yet, the Republicans are definitely called “conservative,” without any added qualifier.

How partisan does this make Dr. Mark P. Jones (chair of the political science department at Rice University) and the Texas Tribune?

The Tribune has published an interactive chart placing House members on either side of the “Centrist” line, according to their votes and statistics, with ‘0’ being “centrist.”  The more negative the number, the more liberal (/moderate)the legislator is and the more positive the number, the more conservative he is. The most conservative Democrat, Tracy King D-Batesville, scores a – 0.63, while 31 – 1/3 – of the Republicans are below 0.50. Another 1/2 of the Republicans hover right around 0.50, and 1/3 are greater than 0.61 or demonstrate the same level of partisanship that the least partisan of the Democrats.

Jones carefully states that none of the Republicans are Liberal, only more “moderate” than others.  (more data and charts, here.)

On the other hand, Jones and the Tribune confirm that when politicians are called or urged to be “moderate”by the press and academia, we should understand that  we are really talking about becoming more like the left.

(edited 7/9/11 AM to add more data and the graphic, BBN)

Let’s see: Life or Toll Roads?

Every 30 minutes, today, the “news” on the radio claimed that Governor Rick Perry can’t count on Texas Christian Conservatives.

Well, he sure could in November, 2010! (and 2006 and 2002, too!)

The San Antonio radio station, WOAI 1200 AM, is the local talk-show leader, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and our own Joe “Pags” (I’m not even going to try to spell it – that’s what he calls himself). The Station has played harsh sound bites all day on the news, accusing Governor Perry of having “corporate slush funds.”(Money the Legislature has appropriated specifically for a specific purpose is not a “slush fund.”)

I admire the woman in question and believe that I agree with her on 98% of the issues. Terri Hall is the founder of San Antonio Toll Roads and Texans United for Reform and Freedom. I’ve held her baby while she lobbied, and testified with her against the expansion of toll roads and selling our infrastructure to foreign private interests this year.

I just don’t agree with her way of deciding which politicians to support. Matters of life and traditional marriage and family are enough to make me turn off on a politician – and they will also win my loyalty when there are some issues on which we disagree. (There’s a hierarchy: Life trumps Liberty, Liberty trumps Property and these all trump purely political divisions like how to pay for roads.)

The trouble is that Terri is as close to a one-issue person as I’ve seen, applauding pro-abortion Democrats in the same pages where she condemned those like State Rep Frank Corte. in his Republican Primary  a few years ago because he didn’t vote the way she demanded on toll roads. Never mind that Rep. Corte is one of the most conservative men in Texas and the author of dozens of pro-life and pro-family Bills that became law. Never mind that while in office, he was constantly attacked from the Left (called “Frank ‘the Fetus'”), and that her opposition fed their glee.

And yet, I can still join her in those fights we agree on.

We Conservatives can split hairs finer than Baptists – or the Galatians and Ephesians to whom the Apostle Paul wrote 2000 years ago. Whether you’re a Christian or not, Paul had gave good advice when he admonished us to edify one another and to gently correct our opponents.

Edited for grammar, 18:20, 7-7-11, BBN)

Death Penalty in Texas Internationally Criticized

Is it the concern of President Obama that if Texas executes a murderer, other nations will hold us accountable to their laws concerning murder? In the mean time, we’ll be in more danger from every murderer among us, especially illegal aliens like today’s killer.

(I’m trying to write this article without mentioning the name of the murderer, only the name of his victim. She was a child, and her killer has been in jail more years than she was alive.)

First, few realize that the Governor of Texas cannot pardon people about to be executed. Because Democrat Governor James “Pa” Ferguson, 1915 – 1917, was so corrupt that the Legislature took the power to commute and pardon away from all Governors. The Governor may only approve or reject the recommendation of the Board of Grants and Pardons. If he rejects the recommendation of the Board, he can only grant a 30-day reprieve, and that, only once.

Second, Adria Sauceda was 16 and her killer was 23, when her naked body was found because the accused’s brother had raised the alarm when the man came home saying he had killed a girl.  Her body was found on the side of a road nearby.(See transcript, and/or the excerpt below from Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.)

(And did I mention that she was 16? Adria had gone to  a party where there was beer.  She shouldn’t have.  However, she did not deserve to be gang raped or to have the man who falsely claimed to know her take her away from the party then brutally abuse and kill her. She was 16. A decent 23 year old man would have protected her.)

Third, the killer had been in the US since he was 2 years old. There’s no evidence that he told the police that he was an alien – and asking that question would have been complicated in San Antonio in 1994. (And still would be – notice all the fuss and bother over sanctuary cities in Texas.) He did not seek help during his trial. His lawyers brought up the Mexican Consulate angle on appeal.

Many of my pro-life and Catholic readers may be upset with me about my support of the death penalty. I will admit to being conflicted about the killing of people by my State. However, I do believe in punishment and I do believe that a man like this would be a real danger to the lives of other people unless he could be kept in solitary confinement.

I remember the prison break from maximum security in Kenedy, Texas, back in 2000, which ended in the death of a policeman on Christmas Eve. The seven men were serving anywhere from 5 years sentences for burglary to 50 and even 99-life for rapes and murders. One had been given a life sentence for a capital murder.  This story was probably the main reason that I became less ambivalent about the death sentence: when proven killers have nothing to lose, they have nothing to lose by killing again.

From one of the many appellant decisions filed by Adria’s killer’s lawyers:

The evidence presented at trial shows that on May 20, 1994, the intoxicated sixteen-year-old victim was at a party. The twenty-three-year-old appellant also was at the party. At some point the intoxicated but conscious victim was placed in appellant’s car. Appellant and the victim left together in appellant’s car.

About thirty minutes later, appellant’s brother arrived at the party in a car which came to a screeching halt. Appellant’s brother was very excited or hysterical. Appellant’s brother started yelling to the people left at the party, “What the hell happened!” Appellant’s brother was yelling that appellant came home with blood on him saying he had killed a girl. Witnesses Torres and Ortega were present when appellant’s brother made these statements. Shortly thereafter appellant’s brother left in a rush.

Several of the party members went looking for the victim in the same area where the party was. They found her nude body lying face-up on a dirt road. They noticed the victim’s head had been bashed in and it was bleeding. Her head was flinching or jerking. These party members called the police.

When the police arrived, they saw the nude victim lying on her back. There was a 30 to 40 pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim’s skull lying partially on the victim’s left arm. Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim’s right thigh. There was a gaping hole from the corner of the victim’s right eye extending to the center of her head from which blood was oozing. The victim’s head was splattered with blood.

There was a bloody and broken stick approximately 14 to 16 inches long with a screw at the end of it protruding from the victim’s vagina. Another 4 to 5 inch piece of the stick was lying to the left side of the victim’s skull. The police made a videotape of the crime scene[,] portions of which were admitted into evidence.

Later that day, the police questioned appellant. Appellant gave two voluntary statements. In appellant’s first statement he said he was with the victim in his car when she began hitting him and the steering wheel causing him to hit a curb. Appellant attempted to calm her down but the victim leaped from appellant’s car and ran away. Appellant claimed he sat in his car and waited about ten or fifteen minutes to see if the victim would return and when she did not he went home.

After giving this statement, appellant was informed that his brother had also given a statement. Appellant then gave another statement. In this statement, appellant claimed he followed the victim when she got out of his car and ran away. Appellant claimed the victim attacked him. Appellant pushed her and she fell to the ground. When she did not get up appellant attempted to wake her but could not. He then looked at her nose and saw bubbles. Appellant stated he got scared, went home, prayed on the side of his mom’s bed and told family members what had happened, claiming it was just an accident. After giving this statement an officer gave appellant a ride home.

Republicans: we eat our own

Can you imagine the grief of fighting the Progressives AND the Conservatives from the right, all the time? Do you ever send approval to our elected officials when they do the right thing? Do you ever offer constructive ideas, or do you bounce around like a ping pong ball, from one sound bite presented by the the lame stream media to another, with no control over your own direction?

Case in point:  I’ve been following the blogs and the rants and reactions to what they perceive as compromise on the part of Republicans, according to reports in the New York Times‘ and the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of yesterday’s interview with Senator John Cornyn of Texas on Fox News Sunday.  It seems very few people look for the original video, which is on-line, here,  at Fox News.

Senator Cornyn flatly stated that the Republicans will not support and the American People do not want tax increases. From a more balanced article on the interview at the Wall Street Journal:

Republicans want major spending cuts before they agree to increase the debt cap. Many insist the budget deal can’t include any tax increase. But like Mr. Cornyn, some have opened the window to raising federal revenue. That could pave the way for an agreement.

Mr. Cornyn said Sunday he wanted any broad revamp of the tax code to be revenue neutral, meaning it shouldn’t bring in more cash than the current system. There may not be enough time to strike such a tax deal before Aug. 2, he said.

“But it ought to be the first thing we turn to, to make our tax code more rational. We could bring down rates, eliminate a lot of the tax expenditures and loopholes,” he said.

If the sides don’t reach a long-term budget accord this month, Mr. Cornyn said Congress may have to approve a short-term deal.

“The big problems aren’t going to go away if you cut a mini-deal, all it does is delay the moment of truth. So I’d say better now than then, but if we can’t, we’ll take the savings we can get now and we will re-litigate this as we get closer to the election,” he said.

The Dems WANT the government to shut down. They can’t wait to blame it on the unyielding, “political” Republicans. Worse, they’re floating the idea that Obama can ignore Congress’ will on the debt ceiling. And somehow, the far left always manages to control one another and stay on the same page while revving up the mob that wants to redistribute wealth, secure abortion on demand and declare war on our family values and children’s innocence but not on terrorists from a culture that would kill them in a minute for the very things they support.

The media, the Left, and our own reactionary mob will convince the rest of the country that the Republican leadership’s attempts at solutions are worthless political posturing. Our mob will be worse: making the perfect the enemy of good and dredging up old slights and rivalries.

I’ve been writing about Senator Cornyn and the ceiling debt, but could just as well be discussing Governor Perry or any number of State and Federal politicians and issues. If you’re at all able, look for the original source and/or two reports before making up your mind when you hear or read anything our Republican leaders in the media.

Woman Seated Near Beck at Movie Claims Innocence…But What Does Twitter Tell Us…(With UPDATES!) | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

If you tweet it, it exists. I often think that if more people had learned to live under – and write under – the threat of something like medical malpractice, the ‘Net would be a kinder, gentler place.

Woman Seated Near Beck at Movie Claims Innocence…But What Does Twitter Tell Us…(With UPDATES!) | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze.

S.A. coffee co. starts national brouhaha over tweet – San Antonio Express-News

S.A. coffee co. starts national brouhaha over tweet – San Antonio Express-News.

The “Tweet” in question? “No human law can ever legitimatize what natural law precludes” #SorryFolks #NotEqual #WhyBother #ChasingAfterTheWind #SelfEvident

This very generic statement was interpreted as “intolerant” “homophobic” and “hate speech.” That tacky, foul-mouthed food critic even stuck his nose into the fuss: ” Anthony Bourdain, the host of the Travel Channel‘s “No Reservations,” chimed in Tuesday when he tweeted, “Dear Brown Coffee: God called. He said you suck.””

In other words, nation-wide psychological projection.