tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15653360390229796852024-03-12T18:47:58.030-05:00Kah Zoohl List<br><br>politics. technology. faith. whatever i feel like. but, sigh, usually it's mostly politics.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.comBlogger349125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-4864356025930674132010-04-01T14:29:00.005-05:002010-04-01T14:35:11.758-05:00... by replacing cars with low-emission unicorns powered by the renewable energy of rainbows!<div style="text-align:center"><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtxqtBq0uVw&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtxqtBq0uVw&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></div><br /><br />Happy April Fools day <a href="http://www.nrsc.org/nrsc-launches-new-web-ad:-%E2%80%9Cdemocrats%E2%80%99-rainbows-&-unicorns%E2%80%9D-">from the NRSC</a>.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-52247141946285376042010-03-30T22:04:00.004-05:002010-03-30T22:12:16.237-05:00Scott Brown: The health care fight is not overScott Brown has an <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/30/the_health_care_fight_is_not_over/">Op-Ed in today's Boston Globe</a> that's too good to do anything but quote in it's entirety:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />By electing me to the US Senate, the people of Massachusetts sent a clear message: Washington needs to get its priorities straight. Voters believed I would be the best candidate to fight for jobs and a stronger economy, keep our country safe, and serve as the 41st vote against the health care reform legislation debated in the Senate.<br /><br />After my election, Washington politicians began an aggressive push to bend the rules and force their unpopular health care bill on an unwilling nation. They went into secret negotiations to make up their own rules, and eventually found a way to circumvent the will of the people by using the reconciliation process to ram through their health care bill. For the last year, the American people have been shaking their heads at the closed-door meetings, sweetheart deals, and special carve-outs. It has been a very ugly process, and caused many Americans to lose faith in their elected officials in Washington.<br /><br />This bill constitutes a massive increase in spending that our country can’t afford and will result in a huge expansion in the size and reach of the federal government. When this legislation is fully implemented, the real cost to taxpayers is $2.6 trillion over years. Instead of reforming the health care system and bending the cost curve down, we are doing the exact opposite.<br /><br />Everywhere I go, people ask me what can be done about this now — after the president has signed it into law, and Nancy Pelosi and others are taking their victory laps.<br /><br />For starters, we can work in a bipartisan manner to repeal the worst parts of this bill. Americans have been clear that they do not like its $2.6 trillion cost, the higher taxes on families and businesses, the runaway spending, the state mandates, the sweetheart deals, and overcharging students to pay for health care.<br /><br />We should replace the worst parts of this legislation with solutions that would actually lower costs and improve the quality of care — such as allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, measures that will prevent waste, fraud and abuse, support for increased prevention and wellness programs, and reforms to limit costly litigation and defensive medicine.<br /><br />I am working on legislation that would allow states to opt out of this federal health care bill because states need flexibility, not a federal government takeover of health care. Instead, individual states should have the flexibility to solve the health care problems in a way that is best for their specific state, similar to the approach we took in Massachusetts that has resulted in a state-specific plan that covers 98 percent of our citizens without raising taxes.<br /><br />I am also working to repeal the medical device tax. Massachusetts has more than 200 medical device manufacturers who employ tens of thousands of workers. The medical device tax will not only cost our state good-paying jobs when we can least afford it, but it will be passed along to consumers, who will pay more for necessary medical equipment.<br /><br />At a time when unemployment in the Commonwealth is hovering at nearly 10 percent, the last thing we should be doing is slapping businesses and workers with higher taxes. I am leading a charge to take the billions of dollars sitting unused in the stimulus slush funds of federal bureaucracies and give immediate tax relief — as much as $100 a month — to every American worker so that they can support their families now and inject money into the economy rather than let it stagnate in Washington.<br /><br />This disastrous detour of a health care bill has distracted the attention and energy of Congress for the past year. Now, it is time to listen to the people and focus on their top priority: jobs. It would be a mistake for the administration to try to ram through other items on the liberal agenda when so many Americas are struggling. Americans want their government to fully focus its attention on the economy and getting our citizens back to work.<br /><br />Washington is broken. All across the country, people believe that their elected officials are working for themselves and not on behalf of their constituents. Only when we start heeding the will of the American people can we begin to restore faith in government, and it all starts with commonsense, practical solutions that will put Americans back to work and get our economy back on track.<br /></blockquote>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-60547406425209333602010-03-30T11:41:00.004-05:002010-03-30T12:08:54.105-05:00Pants on FireNational Review Online graciously calls it the <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI4MjQ3Mzk4MWJkNDkwNWZlYzcwNDA3NmQyNmIxYmI=">Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates</a>. I'd prefer to invoke a little Rep. Joe Wilson and put it more simply as "President Obama, You Lie!":<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><strong>HEALTH CARE MANDATES</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it.” Barack Obama, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/">speaking at a Democratic presidential debate</a>, February 21, 2008.<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTliYjk5ODUyMDJjMjc2M2RhMjAzZWYwYTQ5ZTNlYTk=">individual mandate</a> into law.<br /><br /><br /><strong>HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1PIWWgDG1k">seven other times</a>.<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obama <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-mccain-campaign-9938356">dismissed the</a> issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”<br /><br /><br /><strong>RAISING TAXES</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NThiMjc2YjRlYTg5MjM2MDkzZDcwNGU2NDRmNTBiYmU=">February 11, 2010</a>: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NThiMjc2YjRlYTg5MjM2MDkzZDcwNGU2NDRmNTBiYmU=">taxes</a> on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”<br /><br /><br /><strong>RECESS APPOINTMENTS</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002415579_bolton02.html">August 25, 2005</a>.<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-recess-appointments-key-administration-positions">March 27, 2010</a>: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”<br /><br /><br /><strong>BORDER SECURITY</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “We need <strong>tougher border security,</strong> and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means <strong>securing our border</strong> and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/2008/05/23/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_68.php">speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008</a>:<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a "<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1565336039022979685#">virtual</a> fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.<br /><br /><br /><strong>GUANTANAMO BAY</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: Executive Order stating, "The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." January 22, 2009.<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY3ZmMyOTEzY2JjMTJiYWQ4NjJlMTZjZjA1ZDcyYWY=">November 19, 2009</a>: "Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed."<br /><br /><br /><strong>MILITARY TRIBUNALS</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021105011.html">Ongoing</a>. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”<br /><br /><br /><strong>RECOVERY.GOV</strong><br /><br />STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMxMTI3ZmE2ODg1ODdhNmRmMzBlMTMwYmI1NjVjODk=">our government</a>, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009<br /><br />EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMxMTI3ZmE2ODg1ODdhNmRmMzBlMTMwYmI1NjVjODk=">funds</a> were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going… The <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1565336039022979685#">government</a> [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn't have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMxMTI3ZmE2ODg1ODdhNmRmMzBlMTMwYmI1NjVjODk=">April 2, 2009</a><br /><br /><br />Eighteen from his first 100 days:<br /><br />1. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTRlYjQ4NjNiODFlZWNjNTViNWE1ZmM4MGE2MTU3OGI=">As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide</a>."<br />2. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODVhMmRjZGE1N2JiYWFiNDI3MWIyOTlmZmViNTM2ZDU=">I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA].</a>"<br />3. Opposed a Colombian Free <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ3MDE3OGUyODU2NGU0OGI2YTc1NjYyMGNlZTc1N2U=">Trade</a> Agreement because advocates ignore that "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2IzMDI3ODU0NDRkOWM3YTc3ODRjNTA1NzI5Nzg2YjQ=">labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis</a>."<br />4. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2QzODlmZGIyN2EzNWViN2M0N2NjNTEzYzdiMTFiNmY=">Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut</a>."<br />5. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODEwZmQ5YmVkZmNkYTI2NzE5NGUxMTg5YmY1ZTcyOGQ=">If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it.</a>"<br />6. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmJiNDU4OTAwYmU1NDc2YTFmNzAyZWNkY2FlMDIyN2I=">Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off</a>."<br />7. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTE5MGUyODEwMDI4MzQ1NGY3ZmMxNDE1ZDM2OTQwMzE=">I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper</a>."<br />8. "[<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGUxMmYzNjI3M2MwM2M2NmI0ODllYTZkNmE4ZjQ2MGE=">My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell</a>."<br />9. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFmMmQ3YzYzNTY1ODIzOTdiMWU2M2E3ZmYwMDcwMzM=">Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online</a>."<br />10."<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFmMmQ3YzYzNTY1ODIzOTdiMWU2M2E3ZmYwMDcwMzM=">We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress's seniority, rather than the merit of the project</a>."<br />11. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE3NWFjY2Y2YzNiZDkwNjNjOWJhNTZlZTU1MmZkN2M=">If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime</a>."<br />12. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM3MzljYTU3YjA3ZmU2YTBjZjg5YTNiN2M3ZjE4OWE=">Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights</a>."<br />13. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDNjYmIzMjk2OTJiMjFhOTk0MjE5OGEzZTYxMDI4OGI=">We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights</a>."<br />14. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI4N2Q3NjQ1MWFiNjBjNmVmZTk2ODM0OWM3NjEyMDM=">Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!</a>"<br />15. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWU2MmRiNzUyYmU4NWEyNTBjNjdiMTE2ZDgyMTBlYjE=">The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result</a>."<br />16. "<a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZmOGQ0M2Q2NDJiYjE2YWY2YjNiMjI2ZTVhMjRhMDA=">I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills</a>."<br />17. "<a href="http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/090413-tk.html">Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days</a>." Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.<br />18. A special one on the 100th day, "<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F04%2F30%2F100-days-presser-the-foca-fade%2F&ei=q9T5Seq7A4OyNKybtbEE&usg=AFQjCNGFPDgCNUnAaU3h7viSpW0YDX-DBw">the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do</a>."<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />NRO goes on to also list "promises that expired during the campaign," but I'll leave off here.<br /><br /><br />Granted, if you've been reading this blog, none of this should come as a surprise. Reaching back to the height of the 2008 campaign:<br /><br /><ul><li>September 16, 2008: <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2008/09/and-i-hate-to-say-that-people-are-lying.html">And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying</a></li><br /><li>October 22, 2008: <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2008/10/for-record-obama-has-no-problem.html">For the record, Obama has no problem breaking his pledges</a></li><br /><li>October 22, 2008: <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2008/10/for-record-obama-regularly-invents.html">For the record, Obama regularly invents false claims</a></li></ul>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-80710584598533287882010-03-25T11:54:00.004-05:002010-03-25T12:23:32.454-05:00Dress RehearsalAs <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q="dress+rehearsal"+site:http://two--four.net&filter=0">Billy Beck has said many times</a> (including last summer over the <a href="http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P4692">Healthcare Townhall Outrage</a>):<br /><br /><strong style="font-size:140%">All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war</strong>...<br /><br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34983.html">Democrats Fear For Families</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/">Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34953.html">Steny Hoyer: Members Are at Risk</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.13wham.com/news/state/story/Vandalism-at-2-western-NY-Democratic-offices/__qRuQaxokyWlq_D4DXIBA.cspx">Vandalism at 2 Western NY Democratic Offices</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100323/NEWS01/3230334/Brick-incident-here-linked-to-Ala.-blogger">Brick Incident (in Western NY) Linked To Alabama Blogger</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/slaughter-threats/">Vandals Hit at Least Five Dem Offices Nationwide, Threaten To ‘Assassinate’ Children Of Pro-Reform Lawmakers</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34982.html">Coffin Placed On Carnahan's Lawn</a></li></ul><br /><br />Let me be clear: I believe violence and destruction of private property is reprehensible. But, is it any surprise that when you screw with people's liberty, <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/">people get upset?</a><br /><br />Particularly if the Democrats keep up this "cram it down their throat" style of governance, to pass unpopular "lurch towards socialism" bills, I expect this type of behavior to accelerate. And not because some pundit is stirring up their passions (as liberals will <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200908070020">undeniably charge</a>). No, it's because: People. Want. To. Be. Free.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-67740550445168374542010-03-22T00:25:00.005-05:002010-03-22T00:39:16.041-05:00Save Us, States!It is a shame the states have to be the ones to ensure the Constitution is followed, but may they succeed in doing so!<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><a href="http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/article/cuccinelli_says_va._will_sue_over_health-care_bill/88143/">Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional</a>, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.<br /><br />Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.<br /><br />“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,“ Cuccinelli said in a statement last night.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />-<br /><br /><blockquote><br />After the U.S. House's historic vote Sunday night passing the health care reform bill, <a href="http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=432844">South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster issued the following statement</a>:<br /><br />"The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />-<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama's health care legislation, <a href="http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/news/local/story/McCollum-to-file-lawsuit-against-health-care-bill/7QhmgA087UqkF2fDKWC8eQ.cspx">Florida's Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.</a><br /><br />Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from <strong>South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota</strong> to file a lawsuit against the federal government.<br /><br />"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />-<br /><br />I'd advise <a href="http://www.ag.ny.gov/">New York</a>, with our massive budget problems, and the additional budget stress ObamaCare will cause our state in unfunded expansions of Medicare and Medicaide, to join in, although I doubt NY AG Andrew Cuomo is any more concerned about our Constitutional rights than Obama or Pelosi. But in case he is, New Yorkers: <a href="http://www.ag.ny.gov/resource_center/complaints/pdfs/piu001_complaint_form.pdf">here's the form to send him</a>.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-29722089615194480112010-03-21T22:32:00.003-05:002010-03-22T00:47:17.883-05:00Intolerable.Dr. Feulner of Heritage lays it out as well as I possibly could:<br /><br /><div style="text-align:center"><object height='350' width='425'><param value='http://youtube.com/v/zU7-G50Xvus' name='movie'/><embed height='350' width='425' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://youtube.com/v/zU7-G50Xvus'></embed></object></div><br /><br />Unconstitutional.<br />Against the clear will of the people.<br /><strong>Intolerable.</strong><br /><br /><br />This must not stand.<br /><br /><br />Additionally:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors?page=2">Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/21/happy-warriors-still/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Happy Warriors Still</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.redstate.com/chuckdevore/2010/03/21/our-mission-repeal-it/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Our Mission: Repeal It.</a></li></ul>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-49321157808595213882010-03-19T00:47:00.004-05:002010-03-19T00:50:30.500-05:00Democracy Denied<h4>Changing How Washington Works, for the Worse</h4><br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/S6MQQ4dXttI/AAAAAAAAAgE/PDBQpGsYcy0/s1600-h/AFP-Democracy-Denied.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 343px; height: 400px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/S6MQQ4dXttI/AAAAAAAAAgE/PDBQpGsYcy0/s400/AFP-Democracy-Denied.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5450217856267957970" /></a><br /><br />Via <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/obamachart.php">Americans For Prosperity</a><br />H/T <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2010/03/18/the-bigger-picture/">Smitty</a>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-66171840120842763812010-03-18T11:14:00.005-05:002010-03-18T11:22:03.297-05:00The Extended Case Against the Healthcare BillThe Heritage Foundation notes: "there is no bill but the Senate bill" and that "a review of just how terrible it really is, is in order".<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/morning-bell-what-the-senate-bill-would-do-to-america/">Their case against</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><strong>New Middle-Class Taxes:</strong> Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.<br /><br /><strong>Increased Health Care Costs:</strong> The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President’s own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.<br /><br /><strong>Increased Health Insurance Premiums:</strong> The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.<br /><br /><strong>Increased Deficits:</strong> Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare’s current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.<br /><br /><strong>Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare:</strong> According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.</p><br /><p>Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America’s future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.<br /><br /><strong>Quick Hits:</strong><br /><ul><li class="first">According to the Treasury Department, the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion over the 421 days since President Obama took office.</li><br /><li class="alt">If the House does pass the Senate bill, dozens of conservative lawmakers and candidates have signed a pledge to back an effort to repeal the measure.</li><br /><li>Yesterday Mark Levin posted the complaint his Landmark Legal Foundation will file in federal court if the House uses the Slaughter Rule to pass the Senate bill.</li><br /><li class="alt">Over half of the Americans who gain health insurance through the Senate bill will not be able to get their drugs from Washington state Walgreens, since they announced yesterday that as of April 16th they will not accept any new Medicaid patients.</li><br /><li class="last">According to Gallup, Americans firmly prioritize the economy over the environment and fewer than half of Democrats now believe environmental protection is the more important goal.</li></ul><br /></blockquote>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-10243347347894747632010-03-17T23:56:00.005-05:002010-03-18T09:47:30.312-05:00Why You Should Oppose the Healthcare Bill (and call your congressperson right now!)The Democrats are poised to try to force the controversial Healthcare bill through by this <strike>Saturday</strike> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35928063/ns/politics-health_care_reform">Sunday</a>, passing the Senate bill plus a number of "fixes" that they'd expect the Senate to pass through reconciliation. They're ready to use the shadiest of political tricks to make this happen -- as the Washington Post headline puts it: "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html">House may try to pass Senate health-care bill <em>without voting on it</em></a>".<br /><br />All this while the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform">majority Americans oppose the bill</a>.<br /><br />My objections to the bill <a href="http://unamerican.tumblr.com/">are many</a>. But I've given a lot of thought to how to boil them down to a single, simple objection.<br /><br />Fundamentally my biggest objection comes back to the principle which eminent economist <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html">F. A. Hayek</a> so brilliantly captured in this bit from his book The Fatal Conceit:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Our country has more than 300 million people. What utter hubris that politicians think they can design a system that will adequately meet all their needs.<br /><br />They can't, because it won't.<br /><br />Healthcare is tremendously complex. Even if the House and Senate were comprised of the very smartest people in the United States, they absolutely can not understand each and every factor influencing all 300 million individuals' healthcare needs, wants, and choices.<br /><br />So, what's the alternative?<br /><br />The alternative is to get government out of the way, and let the free market work.<br /><br />"<em>But the free market has failed!</em>" some object. <strong>No, it hasn't.</strong> <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2009/03/the-unsung-successes-of-the-market.html">We just don't notice when it's working</a>.<br /><br />An arbitrary example: Unlike the experience of most past generations of humanity, I would wager you didn't worry about if you'd be able to eat today. We have an abundance of those willing to exchange food for our money. That's the market at work. Two people, each working to satisfy his own self interest, and through trade they manage to make each other better off. You get food, which you wanted more than the money; they get money, which they wanted more than the food. Win-win.<br /><br />And in a properly functioning market, there's competition, which give you choices. Maybe supermarket A charges a bit more but has fresher produce than supermarket B. That empowers you to decide which you want more - fresher produce or money left in your wallet. It also forces competitors - still acting out of self interest - to take your wants and needs seriously. Not because they altruistically care about you, but because if they don't, you have other options.<br /><br /><br />And the proper functioning of the healthcare market - particularly the health insurance market - is at stake with this bill.<br /><br /><br />Already government interference distorts the market here to our disadvantage. Most of us get our health insurance through our employer because their are <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/03/Health-Care-Reform-Changing-the-Tax-Treatment-of-Health-Insurance">antiquated tax benefits to doing so</a>.<br /><br />What this means is that we have fewer choices. We can only choose the insurance options our employers offer us. This often means you can only choose a plan from a single insurance provider. Imagine if you could only buy groceries from a single store. No longer could you choose preferences like more expensive but fresher fruit; and if the store raised prices, you'd have no where else to go.<br /><br />Incredibly, the healthcare bill wants to take this existing choice-destorying system and double down on it. The bill will require all employers to provide healthcare insurance to their employees, meaning that that minority who actually choose from a larger array of health insurers when they purchasing health insurance in the individual market will no longer do so.<br /><br />Additionally, every single American will have to purchase health insurance or face steep tax penalties and/or jail time. This is like if government told you not only do you only have a single grocery store to shop at, but you you are required to shop there or go to jail.<br /><br />And they are adding new requirements around what must be included in health insurance plans. This is like the government telling you that you'd have to buy certain foods at that grocery store every time you go shopping. You're allergic to milk? Too bad - buying a gallon of milk every month is mandatory. (The country needs strong bones!) You hate the taste of tomatoes? Too bad - 3 tomatoes a month is mandatory. (We have a cancer epidemic! The country needs its lycopene!)<br /><br /><br />There is magic that happens when free people can make free choices in a market. It leads to producers and consumers each getting fair deals. It leads to innovation. It leads to <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2004/06/the_prosperity_.html">prosperity</a>.<br /><br />The proposed legislation wants to takes us in the opposite direction. Fewer consumer choices. More government mandates. The result will be less innovation. Less prosperity. Worse healthcare outcomes.<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#990000">If you care about what your healthcare choices will be, what your family's healthcare choices will be, and what the next generation's healthcare choices will be: <strong>Please, <a href="https://writerep.house.gov/">contact your Representative TODAY</a> and tell them to oppose this proposed legislation!</strong></span><br /><br /><br /><em>Additional resources</em>:<br /><ul><br /><li><a href="http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1113">Cato Daily Podcast - Michael F. Cannon: ObamaCare Threatens Innovation</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/02/roberts_on_smit.html">EconTalk: Roberts on Smith, Ricardo, and Trade</a> - perhaps one of the best primers on the free market / trade out there</li><br /><li><a href="http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6868">Cato Book Forum: From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and the Lasting Triumph over Scarcity</a> - particularly Arnold Kling's comments on what makes prosperity work around the 47 minute mark; his answer: "trial and error" which <em>only</em> works when there are choices</li><br /><li><a href="http://cafehayek.com/health">Healthcare posts on the Cafe Hayek blog</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://unamerican.tumblr.com/">Stop Un-American Healthcare</a> Tumblelog</li><br /><li><a href="http://healthcare.cato.org/">The Cato Institute on Healthcare</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/">Heritage - Fix Health Care Policy</a></li><br /></ul>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-78851569674128524082010-03-17T11:21:00.006-05:002010-03-17T11:42:30.483-05:00Dennis Kucinich Sells Out His PrinciplesIt's not often Rep. Kucinich and I agree on much, but we did in February, when called attention to how the bill passed by the Senate (coming up for a vote now in the House) was essentially a boon to the insurance companies, as it requires every American to buy insurance from them, but does little-to-nothing to actually increase competition between them:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />The entire health care debate was flipped upside down by insurance interests who were able to intervene so that the final product that was offered out of the Senate was nothing more than a sell-out to the insurance industry.<br /></blockquote><br />- <a href="http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28805">Rep. Kucinich, February 4, 2010</a><br /><br /><br />And, as recently as a week ago:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry. $70 billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases.<br /></blockquote><br />- <a href="http://www.alternet.org/health/145973/kucinich_on_the_many_reasons_to_kill_the_current_health_care_bill">Rep. Kucinich, March 9, 2010</a><br /><br /><br />But, after getting worked over by the Whitehouse this week, compare and contrast:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />In the past week it's become clear that the vote on the final health bill will be very close.<br />...<br />If my vote is to be counted, let it count now for passage of the bill.<br /></blockquote><br />- <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/dennis-kucinich-health-care_n_502182.html">Rep. Kucinich, March 17, 2010</a><br /><br /><br />Way to abandon your principles, Rep. Kucinich.<br /><br /><br />Ironically, now it's myself and hyper-liberal <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/liberal-blogger-targets-lieber.html">Jane Hamsher</a> who are agreeing:<br /><blockquote><br />Kucinich is voting for a bill he has repeatedly called corrupt and harmful to the people of his district.<br />...<br />Dennis Kucinich signed a pledge to vote against any bill that does not have a public option. Online supporters donated over $17,000 to him over the past two days as a direct response to his reiteration of that promise this week. It would be deceitful of him to keep that money now, as well as the $8,000 raised after he signed that pledge in July.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />I think Kucinich's original call for, and Hamsher's continued push for, a "public option" is misguided.<br /><br />But they were both right to claim that without a public option, the Senate bill now being considered in the House is a giant sell out to the insurance lobby. What a shame.<br /><br />It's a sad day indeed to see that President Obama has apparently stolen Dennis Kucinich's spine.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-64364427347710696372010-03-03T20:11:00.002-05:002010-03-03T20:13:29.401-05:00Yay for the Micro-ProcessorCheck out this <a href="http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/VIDEOS/fire_control_computer_1.html">Fire Control Computer</a> video from 1953. Crazy stuff - and - my, how things have changed!kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-74425847853435835422010-02-13T23:26:00.002-05:002010-02-13T23:32:17.154-05:00The Human Cost of ProtectionismSteve Landsburg on <a href="http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/02/10/worked-up/">the very high humans-costs of legislating against child labor and in favor of protectionism</a>.<br /><br />(H/T: <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2010/02/landsburg-on-child-labor.html">Don Boudreaux @ Cafe Hayek</a>)kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-80255307576441101052010-02-06T20:18:00.006-05:002010-02-06T20:58:58.274-05:00Fear the Boom and Bust"Fear the Boom and Bust", a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem:<br /><br /><div style="text-align:center"><object width= "512" height="316"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&autoplay=0&rel=0&fs=1&border=0&loop=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&autoplay=0&rel=0&fs=1&border=0&loop=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="316"></embed></object></div><br /><small>(Note: You should really watch it full screen, in 720p)</small><br /><br />When I <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/rap-video-on-keynes-and-hayek.html">first read</a> Russ Roberts was doing a rap video, I was highly skeptical. But this thing turned out to be brilliant.<br /><br />It has the wisdom of Robert's <a href="http://cafehayek.com">Cafe Hayek</a> blog, the down-to-earth accessibility of Robert's <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/">EconTalk</a> podcast, and the high quality production value you'd expect from "award winning director and media executive" <a href="http://www.johnpapola.com/">John Papola</a>.<br /><br /><br />If it's excellence also leave you looking for more, be sure to visit/watch:<br /><br /><ul><li>The <a href="http://econstories.tv/home.html">EconStories.tv website</a><br /></li><br /><li>The Cafe Hayek <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2010/01/keynes-vs-hayek-rap-video.html">post about the video</a><br /></li><br /><li>John Papola's <a href="http://www.johnpapola.com/home/Latest/Entries/2010/1/29_Fear_the_Boom_and_Bust_goes_Viral.html">web page for the video</a><br /></li><br /><li>NPR/All Things Considers's coverage, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122944753">Economists' Rap Battle Gains Cred From Ke$ha's Nod</a><br /></li><br /><li>PBS/NewsHour's coverage, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsjPZgBOdU">Revisiting the Economics of John Maynard Keynes</a><br /></li><br /><li>B-Cast's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_4_nEyf6mw">interview</a> with John Papola<br /></ul>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-41167982795784349342010-02-06T19:11:00.004-05:002010-02-06T20:00:37.525-05:00Jeff Zucker Lies to Congress<blockquote><br />Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): What about Boxee? Mr. Zucker you probably are in a better position to answer that. Did Hulu block the Boxee users from access to the Hulu programs?<br /><br />Zucker (NBC): This was a decision made by the Hulu management to, uh, <strong>what Boxee was doing was illegally taking the content that was on Hulu</strong> without any business deal.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />First of all, deflecting the blame to "Hulu management" is disingenuous. NBC owns 32% of Hulu. And, back on February 20th 2009, when Hulu blocked Boxee, Hulu made it clear their hands were being forced by their content partners (eg. <em>NBC</em>!).<br /><br />And, second of all, what Boxee was doing was in <strong>no way "illegal"</strong>. That's a flat out lie.<br /><br /><br />Here's <a href="http://blog.boxee.tv/2010/02/04/boxee-responds-to-nbcs-jeff-zucker/">Boxee's response to the "illegal" accusation</a>. Their key bit:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Boxee uses a web browser to access Hulu’s content – just like Firefox or Internet Explorer. Boxee users click on a link to Hulu’s website and the video within that page plays. We don’t “take” the video. We don’t copy it. We don’t put ads on top of it. The video and the ads play like they do on other browsers or on Hulu Desktop. And it certainly is legal to do so.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Finally, Harold Feld at Public Knowledge has <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2881">more</a>.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-80246895888019094632010-01-12T00:54:00.008-05:002010-01-12T02:38:07.223-05:00Filibusters and Raaaaacism (the forgotten saga of Trent Lott)<img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;width: 295px; height: 325px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/S0wjDcfM05I/AAAAAAAAAf0/NBlCJcvwxYI/s400/Obama+And+Reid-Hypocrite.png" border="0" alt="Obama is a Hypocrite about Harry Reid" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425750193168241554" />Every day I become more convinced The Left is living in some bizarro world where world history officially begins on January 20, 2009 and nothing prior to that is relevant.<br /><br />In the outrage du jour you've got the <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2010/01/reid-americans-voted-for-obama.html">Harry Reid racist comments</a> thing.<br /><br />If, 8 years ago, a Republican Senator had said something similar, I bet Democrats would have demagogued it for all it's worth. <a href="http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-02-republican-party-itself-has-drive-out-trent-lott">Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened in 2002</a>. Compare and contrast:<br /><br />Obama, 2002:<br /><blockquote><br />The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Obama, 2010:<br /><blockquote><br />This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><img style="float:left; margin:10px 10px 0 0;width: 295px; height: 325px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/S0wjDt-mC_I/AAAAAAAAAf8/wgRqrs4iUlY/s400/Thomas+Geoghegan-Just+Plain+Wrong.png" border="0" alt="Thomas Geoghegan is a Moron" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425750197863320562" />And if I can invoke the suddenly forgotten Trent Lott a second time, let's recall the phrase he introduced in 2005: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option">Nuclear Option</a>".<br /><br />Back in 2005, those days of yesteryear which liberals have somehow forgotten, 1 in 5 of Bush's Appellate Court nominees were being filibustered. The Republicans had a majority of votes in the Senate but not the 60 needed to end debate on these nominees. The "Nuclear Option" would have changed the Senate rules so only a majority would be required to end debate.<br /><br />Fast forward to 2010 and now those 2005-obstructionist-liberals are all howling about how awful the filibuster is.<br /><br />Two weeks ago blogger Uncle Jimbo did a <a href="http://unclejimbo.com/blog1/?p=319">solid fisking</a> of most of these liberal commentators. And after reading his piece, I thought liberals would get their heads back on straight, but apparently not. Today I stumbled upon a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Geoghegan, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html?pagewanted=all">Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution</a>."<br /><br />I didn't know much about Thomas Geoghegan prior to reading his op-ed. Googling him <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Geoghegan">reveals</a> him to be a lawyer, author, and failed political candidate.<br /><br />Allow me to add an item to that bio: Moron.<br /><br />I'm not wild about name calling, but it gets the point across. Here's why: Only a moron makes vast claims about something being unconstitutional without having an inkling of understanding of the Constitution.<br /><br />Had Geoghegan ever read the Constitution, he would have read Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:<br /><blockquote><br />Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />That's as clear cut as it gets. If the Senate wants to have "Rules of its Proceedings" that dictate debate can only be cut off with a 60 (or 80! or 100!) vote super-majority, the Constitution gives that authority to the Senate. Period.<br /><br /><br />Here's the bottom line. Some of us remember 2001-2009. It really did happen. And the disconnect between then and now shows clearly that The Left doesn't care about racist remarks, they just demagogue them for political gain when it's convenient. And it shows they don't actually care about filibusters, they just want to get rid of whatever could possibly be in their way as they try <a href="http://unamerican.tumblr.com/">to jam unpopular bills down the throats of the American people</a>.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-50091743320044231892009-12-20T16:47:00.005-05:002009-12-20T17:02:00.191-05:00Dear Senators: Thanks for Not CaringIn trying to call to voice my opposition to the Great Heathcare Monstrosity:<br /><br />A.) <strike>Senator</strike> <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2009/12/why.html">World Class Scumbag</a> Chuck Schumer wants me <a href="http://www.filedropper.com/schumerdoesnotcare">to call back during normal business hours</a>. Well, I'd <em>love to</em>, but you're the one who's party has decided to schedule votes for freaking ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.<br /><br />B.) Senator Kirsten <small><em>("<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Gillibrand_spox_Nothing_more_to_add.html?showall">Chuck Schumer is soooo polite!</a>")</em></small> Gillibrand is <em>marginally</em> better. <a href="http://www.filedropper.com/gillibranddoesntcare">Her voice-mailbox is just full</a>. Hopefully it's full via the likes of people like me who are expressing our utter disgust with what they are trying to jam down our throats during 1:00 AM votes.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-3651973092758732702009-12-20T15:21:00.004-05:002009-12-20T15:52:26.668-05:00You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward. (Quotes of the Day)Becky Hollibaugh, D.O., to Senator Ben Nelson (<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/20/a-nebraska-doctors-message-for-ben-nelson/">via Michelle Malkin</a>):<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ‘diagnose’ the problem, then charged another $180 to ‘fix’ the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ‘lucrative’ rate for me! Thank you so much for making me–someone with 8 years of education!–make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technichian. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.<br /><br />You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.brideofrove.com/?p=1166">Bride of Rove</a>:<br /><blockquote><br />We are watching the fall of a Republic and I loathe these politicians with the fire of a thousand suns. May they rot in hell for what they are doing to us.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/12/right-wing-leninism.html">R. Stacy McCain</a>:<br /><blockquote><br />Speaking of radical rhetoric, I notice that <strike>King Herod</strike> <a href="http://coldfury.com/?p=20893">Harry Reid plans to kill the babies by Christmas.</a><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Frankly, even considering the strong language, I couldn't agree with them all more.<br /><br />In 9 1/2 hours, at 1:00 AM on Monday morning, the Democrats are going to invoke cloture on this monstrosity of a bill and lurch America onto a path towards bigger and bigger government, bigger and bigger deficits, and less and less freedom & liberty.<br /><br /><br />The mantra of liberals when it comes to abortion has been that health decisions should be between a person and their doctor. Well, that's about to change dramatically. And with the government controlling the terms of our health care, how much liberty still remains? <strong>If they can dictate your health care coverage, what's out of bounds?</strong><br /><br />Likewise, if the Senate version's abortion provisions win out over the House version, my tax dollars - my hard earned tax dollars - will find themselves paying for abortions. My money going to killing the unborn. <strong>How repulsive.</strong><br /><br /><br />Note to Senate Democrats (and any Republicans contemplating joining their betrayal of what made this country great): If you wish to violate my <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence">God-given rights</a>, then you have my disgust and disdain forever and I shall loathe you with the fire of a thousand suns.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-24005873341610122912009-12-19T14:02:00.003-05:002009-12-19T14:18:59.937-05:00No, It's Not.That's my answer to this Cato ad, anyway:<br /><br /><a href="http://healthcare.cato.org/"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 400px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/Sy0kAaeX5II/AAAAAAAAAfg/VbG50jhxh3A/s400/Cato-Feel-Better.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417025516321891458" /></a><br /><br />And, FWIW, both CATO (here: <a href="http://healthcare.cato.org/">http://healthcare.cato.org/</a>) and the Heritage Foundation (here: <a href="http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/">http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/</a>) are excellent references for policy solutions, from a conservative perspective, that really could have a positive impact on health care "reform".<br /><br />One of the things that drives me crazy is when liberals ignorantly blather on about how "conservatives don't have any solutions to these problems". Yeah, we do. And those two sites feature some of the best solutions.<br /><br />Also, Heritage's header graphic neatly summarizes the differences in approaches between individual-empowering conservatives and government-growing liberals:<br /><br /><a href="http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 377px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/Sy0m-TrFjjI/AAAAAAAAAfo/qUjNVy5u9wQ/s400/Heritage-Gov-vs-Indiv-header.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417028778671312434" /></a>kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-72924586048893150442009-12-19T12:59:00.006-05:002009-12-19T14:11:45.468-05:00Trouble. Ben Nelson Sells Out.I'm outraged over the direction our country is headed with "healthcare reform."<br /><br />Both the bill that passed in the House and the one that now looks destined to pass the Senate are direct attacks on your average American's liberty that are going to make health insurance more expensive and add new debt-riddled entitlement programs which will churn out greater and greater deficits at a faster and faster pace.<br /><br />I haven't had time to blog about the issue though. Instead, to have something of a voice but at a lower time-cost, I started a "tumblelog" (mini-blog) at Tumblr to link to healthcare articles / blog posts / videos related to the subject. It can be found here: <a href="http://unamerican.tumblr.com/">Stop Un-American Healthcare</a>.<br /><br />I've linked to a lot of stuff over there. Most of it I think it worth taking the time to review.<br /><br /><br />The bottom line for me is that while I agree with the end goal this legislation supposedly tries to accomplish -- more affordable coverage, broader coverage, etc. -- and stories of people with denied claims, etc. all breaks my heart too -- there is nothing about the legislation that I think will actually help. But there is a great deal it will do that will harm.<br /><br />There will be new layers of government between the private citizen and his doctor as well as new layers of government between the citizen and his insurance. The bill drives decisions away from the individual and into the hands of the government. That pushes things in the wrong direction.<br /><br />And, to boot, both bills are blatantly <a href="http://unamerican.tumblr.com/tagged/unconstitutional">unconstitutional</a>.<br /><br /><br />Today, (formerly?) "pro-life" Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who's hoped-for-opposition was one of the last great hopes in ending the threat to liberty that is the Senate bill, has decided to sell out his pro-life principles and integrity and support the Senate bill.<br /><br />Blogosphere reaction to Nelson's Sell Out is has been apt:<br /><br />Michelle Malkin has the full <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/19/another-sneaky-saturday-in-the-senate/">run down</a> of this morning's Nelson betrayal.<br /><br />Over at Townhall.com, Meredith Jessup points out that the Senate bill's <a href="http://townhall.com/blog/g/07b251fd-5711-429f-83e1-3611e0a7bd3a">"'Concessions' on Abortion = Zero"</a> and asks "<a href="http://townhall.com/blog/g/eef8f480-e328-433d-ad98-e68848a8f127">What Was Nelson's Price?</a>".<br /><br />At RedState, Dan Perrin notes that:<br /><blockquote><br />The question of whether we live in a country ruled by leaders who refuse to listen, but do what they believe is in their own interest, has been answered. <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/12/19/the-left-the-right-and-the-american-public-couldnt-stop-60-votes/">Conservatives hate this bill. Progressives and liberals hate it too. The public is solidly against it.</a> But it does not matter, apparently.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />And also at RedState, Dan Spencer lays out what the Senate vote calendar will look like <a href="http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2009/12/19/dems-schedule-unpopular-obamacare-vote-for-dead-of-night/">for this week</a>, with final passage of the bill pending for 7PM on Christmas Eve. The crazy pace at which they are trying to jam this through should give everyone great pause.<br /><br /><br />Earlier this week President Obama said we "<a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/12/obama-on-the-precipice-of-health-care-reform-though-differences-remain/1">on the precipice</a>" of this government-run healthcare overhaul. It appears, regrettably, that he's right. Both that it looks like this very well may happen and in his unintentional use of a word that means we're about to go through something hazardous.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-6007070677752178682009-12-18T12:35:00.003-05:002009-12-18T13:19:23.010-05:00Louise Slaughter's Ignorant Hubris<a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2009/12/why.html">Speaking of my local and awful representatives</a>, until a few months ago I lived in NY-28, which is currently represented by <a href="http://www.louise.house.gov">Louise Slaughter</a>.<br /><br />There is some buzz today about Slaughter's <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/18/815782/-Cap-Credit-Cards-at-16">post</a> at the Daily Kos (liberal blog/<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/is_daily_kos_really_a_hate_sit.html">hate site</a>) about her introducing HR-4300 which would restrict credit card companies from charging rates higher than 16% APR.<br /><br />That post, and her proposed bill, are an excellent example of the hubris and ignorance it takes to be a liberal.<br /><br /><br />First, you have to believe that voluntary agreements entered into by individuals and credit card companies are somehow the government's business.<br /><br />No one forces someone to get a credit card. Nor does anyone force someone to get a credit card with specific APR terms. If people don't want credit cards with 25% or 30% or 100% or - heck - 200% - or whatever APRs, they don't have to get them.<br /><br />The reality is that credit card agreements are a free and voluntary arrangement and should be none of the government's business.<br /><br /><br />Second, you have to believe that you can set interest rates for credit cards better than the market. Screw supply and demand - Slaughter knows better!<br /><br />It begs the question, why 16%? Why not 12.5%? Why not 3%? Why not 18%? Following along with Slaughter's proposed claims that consumers are better off with 16% APR than 30%, should they be even more better off if rates are capped at 15.5% or 15% or 14% or 10% or 1%? Why not tell those evil credit card companies they can't even chard any interest. And late fees are evil too - no more late fees! Free credit for everyone! <a href="http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5144">And also, free ponies, please</a>.<br /><br />Again, returning to reality, in a free market we have the "<a href="http://cafehayek.com/2008/08/hayek-in-the-cl.html">marvel</a>", as Hayek put it, of the price system which can do a better job of coming up with the right interest rate than any individual ever could.<br /><br /><br />Third, you have to staunchly stay with <a href="http://comanchemarketing.blogspot.com/2009/10/thinking-beyond-stage-one.html">stage-1 thinking</a>. You can't think through things like "oh, if credit card companies can't have the option of charging higher interest rates, maybe they'll turn to higher annual fees or not offering credit to anyone with a moderate to high credit risk."<br /><br />Returning a third time to reality, that's exactly what they'll do. The interest rates on credit cards reflect the cost of the risk of lending -- the risk you won't pay the lender back. If you're a high risk, perhaps because you missed a payment (and thus your rate increased), and the 16% APR doesn't cover the cost of your risk, no lender is going to offer you an unsecured credit line.<br /><br /><br />Finally, you have to think that people's irresponsibility makes the victims who need protected. Too irresponsible to pay off your balance each month? Victim! Too irresponsible to find a card with a lower rate? Victim! Too irresponsible to pay your card on time? Victim!<br /><br />A final return to reality: If you can't manage your own finances, that's not the credit card companies, and it shouldn't be the government's job to nanny you.<br /><br /><br />Here's a much better idea than the Slaughter bill: First, Slaughter (and perhaps everyone in Congress) should be required to read <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html">Hayek</a> (or at least <a href="http://www.invisibleheart.com/HowMarketsUseKnowledge.pdf">Roberts</a>) and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/reader/0465003451?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt#reader_0465003451">Sowell</a>. Then, every American carrying a credit card balance should be required to read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Financial-Fitness/dp/0785289089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261160197&sr=1-1">Ramsey</a>.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-42202015785134744802009-12-17T19:37:00.001-05:002009-12-17T19:38:34.102-05:00Why...... do I have to have this <a href="http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0912/schumer_has_a_flight_to_forget_.html">dirtbag</a> as my senior senator?kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-11958961672116248122009-09-15T19:40:00.004-05:002009-09-15T20:30:08.191-05:00Libertarians for ObamaThere was a moment during the 2008 campaign when there was this giant push that libertarians should seriously look at supporting Obama.<br /><br />At the end of 2006, in the middle of what was that nearly three-year-long primary contest, Cato published Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas's "<a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the-libertarian-democrat/">The Case for the Libertarian Democrat</a>" and accompanying <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=144">Cato Daily podcasts</a>.<br /><br />In early 2008, Cato drew attention to the comments of Scott Flanders, CEO of libertarian publisher R. C. Hoiles, who "<a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/29/libertarians-for-obama/">reasoned that Obama is the best candidate</a> to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act."<br /><br />And not longer after you had stuff happening like the launch of the <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com">Libertarians for Obama</a> blog (tagline: <i>Put aside your skepticism and read on.</i>)<br /><br />By September, you had people like Alex Tabarrok at <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/">Marginal Revolution</a> - a blog which I hold in high regard - <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/why-libertarian.html">making the case for Obama</a> and having their case highlighted by <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/libertarians-for-obama/">The New York Times</a>.<br /><br /><br />Fast forward to today.<br /><br /><strong>I'm posting this blog post as a reminder for the next time libertarians start thinking "you know, voting for the <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2008/10/for-record-obama-is-no-moderate.html">most liberal member of the Senate</a> is starting to make a lot of sense!"</strong><br /><br />Here we are, just shy of 8 months into his Presidency. We've seen the largest growth in government in 50-some years - and that's <em>excluding</em> whatever lurch awaits in his attempt to revamp healthcare via yet-more-government.<br /><br />And, returning to Scott Flanders' laundry list:<br /><br />1) We are still in Iraq<br />2) As the Washington Post reports <i>today</i>, Faith-based initiatives: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403343.html">still goin' strong</a>. (And perhaps even <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401931.html">stronger</a>.)<br />3) And, did you really delude yourself that Obama would change drug policy? Puhleeze. Although, there is that whole <a href="http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2009/09/something-for-sullivan-to-think-about.html">Andrew Sullivan fiasco</a>.<br />4) Which brings us to "Curtailing the Patriot Act." Um, not so much. I'll just quote today's AP headline: "<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PATRIOT_ACT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Obama Supports Extending Patriot Act Provisions</a>."<br /><br />Mr. Flanders: You're oh-for-four. Zero. Out. Of. Four.<br /><br />As Jon Henke rightly put it in July, here's the Obama response to libertarians: <a href="http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/the-end-of-the-libertarian-democrats">Thanks for the votes, now get lost.</a><br /><br /><br />Now, I'm something of a hybrid between a conventional conservative and a libertarian. I can appreciate the libertarian case for John McCain was pretty much nilch, and the case against McCain was tremendously strong. I, too, hate McCain-Feingold, and anyone willing to regulate our Free Speech Rights is no friend of our liberty.<br /><br />However, please learn this lesson: <strong>A liberal is a liberal is a liberal</strong> as long as the day is long.<br /><br />No matter how bad the conservative nominee, it can not justify voting - on a libertarian basis - for the liberal one.<br /><br />And a second lesson: If you elect a liberal president, who has a liberal super-majority in the Congress, the policy they pass will not resemble what you want. Period.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-16621124445552532212009-09-12T15:23:00.005-05:002009-09-12T15:36:46.779-05:00Something for Sullivan to think about during his Mental Health BreakAndrew Sullivan (political commentator/blogger for The Atlantic magazine), <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-bigger-picture.html">April 17th, 2009</a>:<br /><blockquote><br />My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Fast forward a few months. As reported by <a href="http://blogs.masslawyersweekly.com/news/2009/09/10/judge-angered-by-special-treatment-for-andrew-sullivan/">The Docket, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s news blog</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Political commentator, author and writer for The Atlantic magazine Andrew M. Sullivan won’t have to face charges stemming from a recent pot bust at the Cape Cod National Seashore — but a federal judge isn’t happy about it.<br /><br />U. S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings says in his decision that the case is an example of how sometimes “small cases raise issues of fundamental importance in our system of justice.”<br /><br />While marijuana possession may have been decriminalized, Sullivan, who owns a home in Provincetown, made the mistake of being caught by a park ranger with a controlled substance on National Park Service lands, a federal misdemeanor.<br /><br />The ranger issued Sullivan a citation, which required him either to appear in U.S. District Court or, in essence, pay a $125 fine.<br /><br />But the U.S. Attorney’s Office sought to dismiss the case. Both the federal prosecutor and Sullivan’s attorney said it would have resulted in an “adverse effect” on an unspecified “immigration status” that Sullivan, a British citizen, is applying for.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Read the judge's full opinion <a href="http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/09-0476rbcsullivan.pdf">here</a>. It's very much worth a read, particularly in noting that U.S. Attorney’s Office had other pot-bust cases they were going to prosecute before the same judge on the same day.<br /><br />Sullivan's <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/ment-2.html">latest blog post</a> says he's taking a "Mental Health Break." Here's hoping he'll spend some time during said break thinking about the repugnant hypocrisy of this.<br /><br />(H/T <a href="http://internetscofflaw.com/2009/09/11/above-the-law/">Internet Scofflaw</a>)kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-92033495079365127072009-04-15T18:24:00.005-05:002009-04-15T19:29:56.232-05:00A rant: Buy.com won't let me ... buy<img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;width: 400px; height: 96px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/SeZ5IU_Q5bI/AAAAAAAAAfA/OamBnEFdKQE/s400/WontLetMeBuyDotCom.png" border="0" alt="Won't Let Me 'Buy' dot com" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325076793392162226" /><br /><br />So, I'm trying to buy <a href="http://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/ups-systems/browse-by-category/smart-app-ups/rackmount-lcd/OR1500LCDRM1U.html">some</a> <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16842102019">CyberPower</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000N84IRU/interactiveda8239-20">UPSs</a> for my work. I price out various online vendors, and Buy.com happens to have the best pricing when including shipping. So, I try to purchase the UPSs from Buy.com.<br /><br />Problem: I'm using a personal Discover card which has my home address as a billing address, but I don't want these shipped to my home - I want them shipped to my employer's office.<br /><br />Now I make similar purchases. All. The. Time. Places like Dell and Amazon and NewEgg let me purchase things with my personal Discover card and ship them to my office just fine, <em>thankyouverymuch</em>. But, when I try to check out, Buy.com refuses to let me do so because my shipping address doesn't match my billing address. I remember back like 9 years ago when a lot of vendors forced you to ship to your billing address, but then they started just asking for that three digit code on the back of your card and the world returned to normal.<br /><br />So, what to do?<br /><br />Well, I call up Discover. They let me register my office address with them and say that vendors shouldn't have a problem, so I should talk to Buy.com again.<br /><br />Well, instead of calling Buy.com since their website flat out won't let me continue (and they don't actually list a phone number on their website, although it's <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/csr.html">1-800-800-0800</a>, fyi), I I notice Buy.com does offer to let you use PayPal. So - plan B. I check out with PayPal, which is set up to use my Discover card, and in PayPal I tell them to ship to my office address. Order accepted. Yay.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/SeZ5IrNPk5I/AAAAAAAAAfI/b1C1_Nh6wo0/s1600-h/ThanksForYourOrder.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 341px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/SeZ5IrNPk5I/AAAAAAAAAfI/b1C1_Nh6wo0/s400/ThanksForYourOrder.png" border="0" alt="Buy.com order - accepted!" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325076799356375954" /></a><br /><br />But - <em>not so fast</em>. I then get an e-mail stating that my order has been rejected, because the shipping address isn't a confirmed address with PayPal. Super.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/SeZ5I3lzGeI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/1dRhOmoHDMY/s1600-h/OrderRejected.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 175px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SwSt44nfFnA/SeZ5I3lzGeI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/1dRhOmoHDMY/s400/OrderRejected.png" border="0" alt="Buy.com order - denied!" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325076802680592866" /></a><br /><br />So, now, although for a little while I thought I was sailing smoothly, I'm now actually back to square one. I want to buy these, with my personal Discover card, and ship to my office address.<br /><br />So I call up Buy.com. I'm on hold about 15 minutes wondering again again why I'm putting myself through this for give them my money and being told over and over that I'm a "valued customer" - which isn't even true on two accounts. They won't let me be a customer (they won't take my money!), and a 15 minute wait means I'm really not valued. <br /><br />I finally get to talk to someone. Or "talk" to them, because the woman's grasp on English... "naght szo grud." After a first failed attempt she pulls up my (now rejected) order. Then I explain what I'm trying to do.<br /><br />She basically says their system is utterly unable to accept an order where the billing address is different from the shipping address if you're using Discover. It's ambiguous if I could use a different credit card brand and get better results, but she does try to steer me to some Buy.com "no payments for X days" plan. No, sorry, not interested. I tell her if they're unwilling to make this easy for me, I'm going to their competitors. I try to be semi-polite, but I basically hang up on her.<br /><br />Now I'm in the process of ordering from Amazon. It's going to cost a little more, but I like Amazon - they let me ship things I'm buying for my company ... <em>to my company</em>. Scratch that - they <em>let me <strong>buy</strong> things</em>. Unlike <em>Buy</em>.com, which should seriously consider a name change.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1565336039022979685.post-68321558305459521262009-03-30T00:00:00.002-05:002009-03-30T00:06:53.758-05:00Broken. Promises.<div style="text-align:center"><object height='350' width='425'><param value='http://youtube.com/v/EUQI5PzKPPs' name='movie'></param><embed height='350' width='425' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://youtube.com/v/EUQI5PzKPPs'></embed></object></div><br /><br />While I detest the fact all sides seem to playing to the populist AIG outrage, the point remains - President Obama has avoided carrying through with anything he promised but would be difficult to accomplish. No leadership for change on earmarks. Keeping exactly the worst parts of the Bush Stimulus Agenda.<br /><br />At least <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362895">some people</a> seem to be waking up to the fact that this guy promised the world, but if miserably failing to deliver.kazoolisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05904231352522204880noreply@blogger.com0