Opinionated Fool

It’s a US political pass-time to mock the healthcare system of their northern neighbours. Often times, without having much of a clue what they’re talking about. This time, the microphone was handed to republican Dick Morris, who most asuredly didn’t disappoint.

Of course, it started out with the proclamation that–oh my god–Canada’s a disaster. Organized chaos, perhaps, eh Dick? Oh, and let’s not forget their favourite line–it almost always appears in a healthcare versus profit margins argument. Canada’s healthcare system allows at least 20%, or one in five, people to die as a result of it. Gee, now where’ve we heard that before? Can I get some proof with that?

No one’s saying the universal healthcare system’s absolutely perfect. And if you are, well then you’re just about as much an idiot as Dick Morris is. But Canada spends less per capita on its healthcare, in spite of a smaller population than the US–and despite Morris’s asertions to the contrary. Canada doesn’t have the problem the US has of many people preferring to wait until they literally can’t breathe before finally, grudgingly, giving in and going to the emergency room–where they promptly yes, get treatment, and also walk out of the said emergency room with a bill often times larger than most people’s anual incomes. And, you don’t hear of folks declaring bankrupsy in Canada, or remortgaging their homes, for the sole purpose of being able to aford treatment. Well, that is, unless your name’s Shona Holmes and you like the idea of headlines. Or is it that we’re all just stuck on a waiting list and haven’t gotten in yet to see the doctor who will most asuredly tell us we’re about to die from inadequate care?

No, no one’s saying there aren’t problems. But the biggest problem is misinformation. Or just plain ignorance. And unfortunately, it’s originating from inside offices that at one time were occupied by perfectly reasonable, well-educated people who claim to know everything there is to know about Canada’s healthcare system. Unfortunately, if that were true, there wouldn’t need to be such a ridiculous stand on something that even the governing party has stated they aren’t even looking at. And Dick Morris wouldn’t be deserving of the moron of the year award. Well, maybe he would. But not for this.

Why else, after all, would he offer his official congratulations for receiving a Nobel Peace Prise, on behalf of Canada? Oh, the statement says on behalf of the liberal party of Canada, but anyone with half a shot at paying attention will know that was submitted with the same apparent opinion that he represents the majority of Canadians he’s been sharing with Canadians.

Neverminding the fact he hasn’t really produced anything concrete yet, he’s been in office nine months. His troops are still in Afghanistan. His troops are still in Iraq. And his last attempt at peace talks didn’t go so well, so on Israel grounds it’s shockingly premature. I’m ignoring the Iran thing for obvious reasons.

Even prime minister Stephen Harper acknowledges the prise’s award is for what he hopes to do, not what he’s done already, in his congratulations to Obama. Congratulations that, and rightfully so, are on behalf of Canada. What does Michael Ignatieff have to gain from issuing his own, also smacking of being on behalf of Canadians? Folks, I have no idea.

This time, though, Canada gets the blame for the high drug prices in the US. Republican senator Bob Corker accuses Canada of intentionally setting prices for drugs lower than those in the US. Because, you know, Canada has a say in what the drug companies charge to do business in the US.

The U.S. is the world leader in medical innovations and technological breakthroughs, Republican Sen. Bob Corker charged, yet Canada gets all the financial
benefit by selling drugs and medical devices at prices irresistible to Americans.

Yeah, let’s run with that. It’s all Canada’s fault previous US governments, and health insurance providers, are in bed with the drug companies to collectively screw folks out of getting what they need. That sounds good. He frames the US Canada relationship, at least in that industry, as parasitic in nature–and even goes so far as to say it’s the same with France and other countries.

“One of the things that has troubled me greatly about our system is the fact that we pay more for pharmaceuticals and devices than other countries, and
yet it’s not really our country so much that’s the problem, it’s the parasitic relationship that Canada and France and other countries have towards us,”
the Tennessee lawmaker told Carolyn Bennett.

Way to take responsibility for your own situation, senator. All the innovation happens in the US and Canada mooches off it for nothing. Okay, that works. We’ll ignore all the evidence that says otherwise just to suit your reality, Bob. Because folks on both sides of the border are just that polite. You can let anti-government propoganda get in the way of actual facts any old time, sir. The rest of us who possess common sense don’t mind. Really.

One of the major things Obama’s been criticised for of late is being a little too soft on Iran. It would seem that’s now starting to change. Obama’s had enough, and has now issued a warning that Iran either cooperate or end up in a world of UN hurt–something that sounds just fine to Stephen Harper. Harper’s always held the position that Iran should be taken out back and soundly beaten for its nuclear efforts–more so after it was learned they had a second plant no one knew about. Of course, it was also that revelation that caused Obama to have the slight change of heart he ended up having. At least one university smart liberal’s starting to come around to Harper’s way of thinking on something. Now, if only it benefitted Canada–or, better yet, happened to the university smart liberal currently residing in Canada. Ah well, small steps. At least we know it’s possible.

Why else, after all, would the democrats, or at least a small handful of them, have the nerve to inform insurance companies that there was going to be an investigation into money spent on executive compensation among other things? To read the article, you’d think it couldn’t be for any other reason than because they’re not backing Obama’s healthcare proposal. One insurance executive has even gone on the record comparing it to a reprisal audit by the IRS.

There’s just no way it could possibly be that someone might actually be looking to prove the insurance structure in the United States has actually gone out of controll, is there? I mean, surely not–the idea’s being floated by the democrats, after all. Here’s the catch, though. They’re going after insurance companies who’ve received 2 billion dollars or more in premiums, who’s employees received 1 million dollars or more per year between 2003 and 2008. Yep, definitely yet another democrat attempt to stick it to the insurance companies. Really. Because you shouldn’t expect that if you’re making that much money and doing anything that deals with people’s health, folks are going to want answers.

Fox News is shaking their heads and wondering, though, why it is they’re not telling the republicans about it. Well, I wouldn’t either. Since the election of Barack Obama, they’ve taken the insanity that was George W. Bush and turned it into something that even Canada’s conservative party, who’s seen as being on their equivalent of the political right, won’t even touch with a 10-foot poll. Losing to Obama? That’s okay, just claim he’s not eligible to be president. Don’t like his healthcare plan? That’s okay, just scream disaster and point north (it works quite well, by the way). That’ll get things done.

The amusing part in all this is, none of this has anything to do with a supposed conspiracy theory or anything like that. It’s no secret, even to bloggers that are obviously on the right of the political line, that healthcare costs in the US are less than tolerable–the article even goes so far as to point out that of the 47 million supposedly without insurance, 18 million of them make $50000 a year or more and have still not elected to purchase insurance. That article sort of halfway hints at the actual problem with the healthcare system as it stands now–healthcare may be afordable, but at what other costs? Do you not send your kids to college so you can aford to pay for the insurance?

And that’s the kicker. That’s the point behind the notice served to 52 insurance companies nation-wide–the same companies the republicans would be perfectly fine with allowing to continue to raise prices for service who’s quality doesn’t actually go up along with them. Because, you know, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? But if the system wasn’t broken, it wouldn’t be at least a small part of the election platform on the US side of the border every 4 years–at least on one side of the battlefield, anyway–and, most noteably, Obama wouldn’t have won on it in this past election. And now, the democrats want to find out exactly how broken is broken. And, let’s be honest here. If you have employees making over a million dollars a year from money that’s being paid out by people expecting you to provide them with medical coverage rather than spend your time looking for reasons not to do same, it’s broken. But, since it was a democrat behind the push, it can be little more than a conspiracy to obliterate the US economy. Because, you know, that fits much more easily into fox news’s tiny little ideological box. And, at the end of the day, that’s clearly all that matters.

Fortunately, Orrin Johnson isn’t an actual politician–he just tries to be one. He’s taken up the fight against healthcare, and as usual, is dragging the Canadian system into the middle of it–and very badly misunderstanding it.

What’s set him off is an interview (video) on ABC, in which prime minister Stephen Harper correctly stated the issues of wait time that Canada’s healthcare system deals with are a provincial, and not a federal, matter. When asked by the reporter on more than one occasion in the interview if wait times were a concern and what he planned to do about it, Harper continued to tell him it’s a provincial matter.

I’m not entirely sure the reporter understood it after the second or third time Stephen Harper said it. He almost seemed a tiny bit disappointed that Harper wouldn’t jump into that debate–wonder which of the wingnut club paid him to try that out. Johnson apparently was quite disappointed with it. So, he decided to create one

Apparently, if you happen to be a republican, “I don’t want to get involved” somehow translates to “I don’t know”. From somewhere in that interview, and I for the life of me can’t see where, Orrin managed to grab on to the idea that Stephen Harper just doesn’t understand exactly how Canada’s healthcare system actually works. Well, to put Orrin and his supporters at ease, it works very well, thank you.

I’ve said it once, but I wouldn’t mind saying it again. Canadians can take criticism. Quite well, actually. But it may be a good idea to perhaps learn a thing or two before doing so. Just a thought. I mean, it might actually help your case a little better, I’d think. Of course, I could also be wrong–that’s not unheard of.

At a town hall meeting yesterday, US president Barack Obama made the mistake of saying the AARP was a supporter of the currently before congress healthcare proposals as they relate to seniors. What Obama didn’t do though, apparently, is fact check that statement ahead of time. The AARP came out in contradiction to him, saying escentially if the bill took away from medicare benefits for seniors it wouldn’t be supported.

Clearly, the group is more than a little cautious where this bill’s concerned–and who wouldn’t be? It’s pretty well larger than life right now. And, clearly, Barack Obama’s going through a tiny bit of an overconfidence phase. Sorry, Barack. Apparently you don’t get to guarantee support for something just by opening your mouth. Next time, before you declare an organization’s intent to support something, maybe you aught to make sure that organization actually supports the said something. Just a thought, of which the opinionated fool has plenty.

That’s what he’s saying this week, anyway, as he gets together with Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president this week. There’s just one problem. Everyone who’s not in Barack Obama’s employ tends to disagree with him–including Sir Flipsalot Michael Ignatieff himself, who criticised the legislation as it was introduced in Obama’s stimulous package. At the same time, Ignatieff was–and rightly so–criticising prime minister Stephen Harper for not getting on the US president over this sooner.

Now, of course, Obama points out to the reporter writing the article Harper brings it up to him every time they get together–he calls it representing the concerns of his nation. And, he’s right. When Canada’s own liberal party, who many believe to be more to the left than their US counterparts, balks at the measure as it stands right now, you know it has to be a little iffy. But, Obama says it’s nothing serious–said he needed the stimulous bill passed and passed now, so there wasn’t time to debate the issue. And we’re all supposed to just smile and nod, because that must be how it goes.

Barack, I liked your other idea better. Stick to that. You can at least pretend to know what you’re talking about with that–although, you could probably take some lessons on that from north of the border as well. Not that you will, of course, but even an average blogger can have a fantasyland. The only difference is it doesn’t make headlines.

In the latest episode of republicans from left field, two Kansas senators have decided that if Barack Obama doesn’t back off on his plans to relocate terrorism detainees, or provide them with specific details on his relocation plans, they won’t allow him to fill vacant positions in his administration. This from the same party who was perfectly fine with sending suspects that were supposed to be under their own jurisdiction to Cuba–who they never really trusted all that much in the first place.

So basicly, if Obama tries to do his job, they’re going to make it rather difficult for him to get anything really accomplished. Including, apparently, blocking two members of their own party among others from being appointed to positions in the pentagon and department of justice respectively. She may be in the opinionated deadpool, but apparently her party has learned to adopt the Palin style political touch–shoot yourself in the foot if you don’t get your own way then see what happens.

In other news, republican members of the house of representatives released a joint statement this morning. Effective immediately, they are resigning to pursue other avenues. In the statement, they said could better serve their country by quitting.

Seems everyone had a suggestion when it came down to beer day at the whitehouse. Most of them, not unexpectedly, with pro-American suggestions for the peace offering. And now, just like was predicted before the little get-together happened, after the smoke cleared and the guests were sober, everyone became a critic.

Folks are scratching their heads now on just why it is Obama, Gates and Crowley would dare to even think about drinking a beer made by a company not owned by Americans. Of course, they toss around the theory that it was just a mistake–they were under the impression, due to the presence Budweiser has in the US, that it was an American company. I can buy that. Of course it might just be that they drank what happens to be their preference. He may be the president of the united states, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have semi-decent taste in beer.

Note to the American-owned breweries. If the president won’t buy your product, it’s not a political statement. He just doesn’t like your beer. Live with it.

The encouragement comes from a Mass. congressman, who goes so far as to offer a suggestion as to what it is they should drink when he, professor Gates, and Sgt. Crowley have themselves a sit down to let bygones be bygones in what amounted to a 911 call turned racial. The congressman suggested–and was ultimately rejected–they should sit down to a bottle or 3 of American-owned Sam Adams. For Obama’s part, though, he’s a Bud Light man, it appears. The other two are apparently fans of foreign-owned beer as well. I fully expect today’s or tomorrow’s headline to read something to the effect of “Obama is anti-American; elects to support foreign breweries”. Hey, as long as he stays the hell away from Molson, he’s alright in my book–you can leave that sludge to Crowley. He’ll take it.

And, just like every other government entity who’s ever been called to account for spending practices on both sides of the border, GM and Chrysler are saying a big fat I don’t wanna to the idea of actually telling the citizens of both countries, who’s tax dollars are keeping them afloat post-recession, exactly where their money’s being spent. For all the positive that can still come out of Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, if this ends up going where it looks like it’s going now, it could be more than cancelled out real fast. And, of course, Canada’s liberals twisted prime minister Stephen Harper’s arm into bailing the manufacturers out north of the border as well–thanks for that, by the way, Michael Ignatieff. The Canadian Tax Payers Federation’s not entirely too pleased with the auto makers at this stage of the game. I don’t imagine the US equivalent if they have one is jumping for joy either. As a tax payer, I can easily say I’m most definitely not. Say, Mikey, can I have my refund now?

It might even be crazily awesome enough to actually manage to work. See, I was thinking–which could in and of itself be dangerous, rather than simply passing a resolution in the house that both recognises it’s been 50 years since Hawaii was made a state and declares that Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years later, why not just, let’s say, show his birth certificate? Then, the so-called birthers will shut up about it and find something else to rake you over the coals about, and you won’t have anything more to worry about–at least on the citizenship front. You *are* a legal US citizen, aren’t you? If the local whackjobs from left field really have nothing on you, then prove it. And I don’t mean in the form of a resolution passed in the house. Of course if you can’t prove it, I hope you can run better than you can pitch.

Not even a month after Obama told Russia’s president and prime minister he wanted to reset relations with them, Biden comes out with yet another social gem. This one, escentially stating the Russians are a failing nation. Naturally, the comments–which cast a less than thrilling light over Russia–made front page on just about every newspaper in the country. Among claims made by the vice president, be they true or not, he predicted Russia’s banking sector likely wouldn’t last another 15 years. Maybe it’s just common sense, and politicians are more often than not devoid of common sense, but one would think when your boss is trying to play nice with a former cold war adversary, you might want to either back him up or shut up. Mister Biden’s doing neither–and if it doesn’t hurt Obama, it’ll probably hurt him. Here’s a tip, Joe. If they fix Obama’s teleprompter, ask him if you can borrow it for a week or two. Or just go buy your own. You don’t do this off the cuff commenting thing very well.

Not literally, of course. But effective today, her career most asuredly is. She resigned as governor today, with still absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what she plans to do post-politics. The hopeful–or, as some would say, delusional–are still trying to encourage her to run for president in 2012. Beyond that, she may write a book, host a talk show, become a full-time mom, disappear off the face of the earth, or do something completely and totally unheard of in the Palin household–get an education. No one has a clue, including the one person who probably should. Until she figures it out, she can take a nice, relaxing swim in the opinionated deadpool. Gonna miss ya, Sarah.

Sarah Palin surprises me again. Though it probably shouldn’t. Her pre-governor life consisted of driving home the point that there was corruption at the state government level by the then republican governor and his associates. She went through her pre-election days doing, well, exactly what she’s now criticising others for doing. When she believed there to be an issue of state laws being violated, not only did she pressure the Attorney General to investigate, but she went public with those investigations–again, much as she’s now criticising others for doing.

When she was elected, she championed the new, and now current, ethics law in Alaska which gives citizens the right to launch inquiries of their own into the activities of the government in the name of accountability. Then, she slipped up. She pressured a state commissioner to fire her former brother-in-law. When he wouldn’t, she fired him. She started claiming expenses normally reserved for one’s time living in the governor’s mansion while she spent that time at her regular, usual family home. She used private, Yahoo email addresses for the conducting of state business. She CC’d her husband on some of those emails, in spite of the fact he was not a state employee or politician. And of course, most recently, there is the small matter of her illegal defense fund. And she’s now being nailed to the wall on all of those, plus probably more.

The fun doesn’t stop there, though. Palin ended up resigning, using the various ethics complaints against her as an apparently large part of the reason she couldn’t remain in politics. Still clinging to the notion that they’re costing the state millions of dollars, in spite of the fact that’s been refuted already. She ended up saying the best thing she could do for the state of Alaska was resign to minimise the amount of money being spent on these complaints–some of which are still on-going, and some of which have already been ruled against her.

Now, though, is where it gets just a little bit confusing. She resigned her position under fire for supposed ethics violations, under a law she enacted during her time as governor. She’s still taking heat for some of those complaints, and may or may not–she still hasn’t really given us any indication of that yeet–be running for president in 2012, which would lead to about 50 billion other varieties of ethics complaints against her, among other types of criticism, I’m sure. Only now, she says she’ll be reviving her image as a champion of ethics. Maybe before you go out and start trying to educate others on that whole ethics thing, you might want to consider getting a little education for you. Quitting in the middle of your term, when people are making full use of a law you wanted to make sure you’re not doing anything naughty, isn’t exactly going to be very inspirational if you do actually intend to get back into the ethics fight. No one likes it when the rules are set against you. But they were Palin’s rules. Palin set them up. And Palin broke them. And now she wants to lead the charge for ethics reform nationally. Well, I guess anything to stay in the spotlight a little longer. Maybe we won’t have to miss her after all.

Let me be the millionth person to congratulate you. You have singlehandedly proven to us all that yes, indeed, anyone can run a government when it’s coasting on oil profits that come off a price tag above $100. You have proven that facts are optional when you’re an elected official. But most importantly, you’ve proven that you really don’t have a clue when it comes to anything outside of Alaska. Which begs the question of whether or not you really knew anything about what goes on inside Alaska.

I give you as an example, your claim that rather than look for ways to decrease your reliance on energy resources that have a tendancy to be priced well above $100, the US government should simply order that more oil be produced locally. Because, you know, there’s just such an abundance of the very things God gave us and all that. There’s just one niggling little problem with your claim, Sarah. The US uses more oil in an average year than it has locally available. In any way, shape or form. You increase oil production, you dry it up faster. You dry it up faster, you need to import more. You need to import more, the price goes right back above $100. But you knew that already, didn’t you Sarah? Sure you did. You’d have to be an idiot not to.

So, let’s ignore this whole global warming thing for about 30 seconds. Pretend like it never existed. You never heard that term. Now, let’s focus on the fact there’s probably a metric ton of proof available to you, and all you’d have to do is read, that says sooner or later, the world is going to run out of oil–it’s not water, Sarah. It’s not a renewable resource. But you knew that too, didn’t you? Sure you did. Again, you’d have to be an idiot not to.

I’m left scratching my head, then, Sarah. What’s your major problem with the idea that the government actually has the nerve to try and encourage companies, by any means necessary, to lay off the oil and such? Obviously it’s not an environmental one. And you’re no longer running Alaska so it’s not really a state issue for you. Or are you just one of those “say no because it’s an Obama proposal” type politicians? That can’t be it, though–that would be un-Amarican, wouldn’t it? Inquiring minds really would like to know. Of course, since I doubt you’ll actually read this, I’ll simply just choose to be content with the fact that mother Sarah knows best. Enjoy your break from politics, Sarah. We’ll all miss you.

Or rather, on Canada’s healthcare system. Rudy giuliani has officially joined the crowd saying that a vote for Barack Obama’s healthcare system will be as much of a disaster for the US as it has been in Canada. Except there are a few very noticeable problems with that statement–not the least of which is the fact he’s getting some support from another used-to-be, in former house speaker Newt Gingrich.

Giuliani continues to trumpet the idea that Canada’s healthcare system just plain doesn’t work. But, like most politicians and people south of the border, he does so without any real idea as to exactly how Canada’s system *does* work. Mind you, the jurry on whether or not Obama understands how systems like that actually work is still out, but that’s a point for another opinion. A few things to take into account when looking at the issue of healthcare, particularly north of the Canada/US border.

Healthcare in Canada is not nationalized. Yes, the regulation is national. However, that’s about the extent of it. Provinces do have the option of obtaining additional funding from the federal government, but it is the individual provinces that handle the actual delivery of health insurance. As such, while the Canada Health Act does lay out a definition of services that must be offered by each province/territory, it leaves the interpretation of those definitions up to the individual provinces.

In a document released in May of 2005 by Canada’s parliament, it explains the reasons for the current healthcare system as it stands right now, and as it stood when the Canada Health Act was initially created in 1984. The release highlights many of the reasons the pro-healthcare advocates south of the border hang onto when pushing for what it believes is a similar system.

Critics are quick to point out the common myth that Canada runs a socialised medical system, when in reality, it’s no more socialised than our education system–which the US has already to a large extent adopted. As stated above, funding does come from the government for various initiatives, but the hospitals, clinnics etc are run privately, by entities out to make a profit–just as they are in the US. In addition, Canadians still have the option of taking up private health insurance for items not covered under the public plan–in other words, things not considered by the regulatory body to be medically necessary. The only difference? If you can’t aford the private insurance option, or your employer doesn’t provide same, you’re not completely screwed.

Someone should ask mister giuliani, and those who would support his view on Canada’s healthcare system, one very important–and, I’ll wager, very difficult to answer–question. If Canada’s healthcare system is indeed such a disaster, why is it in the 40 to 50 years since it was in some way, shape or form adopted federally no one on either side of the political spectrum has tried to overturn it? If he can provide even a partial answer to that question, perhaps I’ll be able to take him without the for now requisit few grains of sault. But somehow, I doubt it.

Update: The US anti-healthcare crowd has a shill from Canada, who has no problem with their healthcare system now that she might get something out of them financially. Shona Holmes reportedly went to the US to receive treatment for what she says was a life threatening brain tumour that would have taken months before she could be treated here. Except, well, it was neither life threatening, nor a brain tumour, as reported by the Ottawa citizen. Yet, Shona still thinks she can sue her way into compensation from the healthcare provider in Ontario in compensation for her having decided to pay 100000 dollars to jump the queue. Her testimonial, which established that she was, in fact, in no danger of dying–contrary to her claim on just about every US TV station lately, was very promptly removed from the Mayo Clinic website, instead replaced with this. So, the clinic dodges a publicity bullet, Shona gets to sue for compensation for treatment she would have received had she waited, and the American population gets misinformed. Everybody wins.

Update 2: Apparently, they’ve put her success story back where it was supposed to be. Guess they didn’t want to be caught defending the wingnuts. Too late.

Instead, it would appear Sarah Palin’s illegal defense fund may have been a case of her abusing her position. The investigation, for which there was found probable cause to continue, claims that due to her position as a public official, Palin had an advantage on the fund raising front when it came to paying for her legal bills–bills she still says she’s collected to the tune of 500000 dollars. The investigating officer went on to say she should refuse payment from her defense fund, particularly until such time as it can be decided whether or not she actually did abuse her position in order to milk 250000 dollars out of her supporters for her defense against the supposedly unwarranted ethics complaints–one of which she filed against herself. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when an attempt to defend against ethics complaints results in a potential violation of your own ethics law, you may want to think about a strategy change. Or, at least, a career change.

Sarah Palin seems to be an awefully tormented person, to hear her lawyer go on and on about how she’s having to deal with yet another ethics complaint–now totaling 20–against her. This one, according to the article–of course, the article comes from Fox News, so apply sault as needed–says that this particular complaint claims Palin received a salary as Alaska’s governor, and had members of her staff with her, during the campaign run for vice president in 2008. The complaint goes on to say this constitutes an abuse of her position as governor of Alaska.

Palin’s lawyer claims this is no different, really, than anything then Senator Obama did during his own campaign run. He also is rather insistant that she hasn’t undertaken any kind of stress or frustration over this whole mess–I believe the expression used was water off a duck’s back. Wasn’t 3 days ago that camp, mostly her plus a few friends, were crying a different tune. The one thing the two of them can seem to agree on, though, is the outrageous amount of money the state’s had to put forth to review the ethics complaints, and how much money she’s had to put forth defending against them–things that, oh yeah, she already got caught exagerating. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but she and her lackies really aught to get back on their collective medication. This cry for pity’s only really working with Fox News. And they seem a little out in left field anyway.

Major Stefan Fredrick Cook, of the US Army Reserve, is taking his millitary pledge to a new level–defending his country from terrorists, extremists, and elected presidents. His claim, which is apparently not the first of its kind, is that Obama was not born in the US and is therefore not eligible to lead the country and command its millitary. He’s therefore taken the issue to the US District Court in an attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order, preventing him from being deployed to Afghanistan–which, in fact, was supposed to happen effective tomorrow. There was at least one previous claim asserting that issue, dating before Obama received the nomination for US president from the democratic party. That claim didn’t actually end up getting anywhere, as evidenced by the fact Obama is–much to the disappointment of detractors like Cook–the currently serving US president, in spite of that. One therefore has to wonder, since this path was repeatedly taken and repeatedly didn’t lead anywhere, what the soldier’s motives actually are. Is it an opposition to the war? Does he just want to make the news? Whatever the reason, this can’t be good for his millitary career. I see a court martial in your future, Major Cook.

Update 7/15/2009: He got out of it, too. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an Afghanistan opponent’s favourite excuse. As of now.

I could have swore Sarah Palin had said not all that long ago she was going to concentrate on her book deal. Of course, then she said she’d be getting back into the national scene by running for… well… whoever. And now, her supporters have managed to throw together a fund raising campaign, to the tune of $733000 so far. For someone who may or may not bother with running for president 3 years from now. I’m curious, though, about just one thing. Just what do these people think the chances of a redneck from nowhere land are of actually getting into the whitehouse? Have people not learned from that other republican redneck they were foolish enough to elect–twice? Well, whether you agree with Obama’s policies or not, assuming Palin actually manages to secure herself a nomination for 2012–and, of course, assuming that’s her intention to begin with–she might just serve to be the best, if not only, reason to reelect him. Of course, if she’s not planning to run for office, what the hell’s with all the early fund raising? Does she have another ethics complaint she needs to pay for?

That’s Sarah Palin’s latest claim, which was reportedly posted today on her Twitter account. The post in question referenced what she calls a statement by her chief of staff escentially calling those who filed complaints against her a bunch of meanies–only done slightly more professionally. That statement also reasserts Palin’s claim that significant amounts of money are being poured into these ethics complaints–something that’s already been proven as false. Without beating this thing to death, I’ll just make one suggestion. Rather than rewrite the rules, how about people in charge start following them? Since this current ethics policy was a Sarah Palin idea, one would think she’d be a little more inclined to stay within it. But then, we’re talking about Sarah Palin. Rule, meet exception.

Apparently the model for politics south of the border has become one of maybe, maybe not. And this episode of maybe, maybe not still focuses in on the soon to be former Alaska governor. The claim now is she may or may not have resigned for the money, and that she may or may not plan to run for president. Or, that she may or may not have decided to resign not for the good of Alaska, but for the good of Sarah Palin.

The latest person to say she resigned for the money is Levi Johnston, also known as the former fiance to Palin’s oldest daughter–who, for whatever reason I could care less about, was given the royal boot from the Palin household after her attempt at the vice presidencial job got shot in the rear end. Of course, Palin–or rather, Palin’s spokesperson–is insisting that’s not it at all. Rather, that camp’s continuing to trumpet the fact that ethics complaints–one of which she filed on her self–were sucking up millions of dollars in state funds–also proven to be false. But, they’re clinging to that claim, false or not.

For my sake, the only thing I can really come up with to respond to it is who cares? Palin resigned. Or, rather, is resigning. She’s reaching for every last crum of media attention she can get pre-resignation. And they’re giving it to her. Hell, she’s not even out of office yet and the Palin faithful, assisted by Fox News, are already preparing her 2012 nomination speech. The only thing the reasonable majority can hope for, and it may be a stretch to do even that, is that after her end of July resignation the spotlight that seems to be permanently above her head gets switched off. Of course, in the event it doesn’t, the second best thing we can hope for is she gives us yet more soundbites with which to spend the next 3 days mocking her. I wouldn’t complain about that, either.

Update: The maybe maybe not approach seems to be just perfect for the governor of Texas, who wants Palin to campaign with him for reelection. Anyone feel like placing bets?

That’s what state senator Sylvia Allen must have been telling herself when she decided to declare the earth to be no more than 6000 years old, thus flying in the face of several years of rather obvious evidence to the contrary. The excuse that’s being offered up for it is that she’s a Christian, and doesn’t really believe in the science that’s pretty much calling her a liar for her assertion. The article rightly points out as well that it’s for the same reason Allen’s attempting to get around environmental protection laws regarding radioactive Uranium. Honestly, I’m having a hard time figuring out which of the two situations here is more frightening–the fact that she actually managed to get into office, or the fact that there are actually enough vote-eligible people that putting her in office is actually considered doable. In either event, someone really aught to consider reversing that decision. Or at least giving Sylvia an education on the difference between religion and stupidity.