How Romney is Helping HillaryCare

(This post by Chris first appeared on HE's Right Angle.)

My friend Michael Cannon has a great piece on NRO today that reminds conservatives of why Mitt Romney's healthcare plan for Massachusetts is not something they should be praising and promoting as a reason to support Romney.

As he campaigns for the White House, Mitt Romney has had to tap dance around the health-care reforms he enacted while governor of Massachusetts. The first bit of bad news was that the plan’s cost was higher than predicted. Then it reneged on its commitment to cover the uninsured. But the latest bit of news about “RomneyCare” may require even fancier footwork.

The Left is now thanking Romney for making HillaryCare respectable again.

Those on the right who are promoting RomneyCare, including the Heritage Foundation, ought to think again. Their support of Romney's government planning undermines their conservative principles. More from Cannon:

...[T]he aspect of RomneyCare that most resembles HillaryCare is its very centerpiece, which Romney borrowed from the conservative Heritage Foundation: the health insurance "Connector."

Cohn is essentially correct. The objective of the "Connector" bureaucracy, as described by Heritage Foundation scholars, reads like an exercise in government planning. The "Connector" is supposed to "reorganize[e]…a large part of the state's private insurance system into a 'single market' structure with uniform rules and a central 'clearinghouse' for administering coverage."

Why, exactly, do we need a new layer of government bureaucracy to do these things? So we will have someplace to buy health insurance? We're getting along just fine without layering more bureaucracy on our auto insurance. In fact, we already have a connector for both health and auto insurance. It's called the Internet. Has anyone ever heard of eHealthInsurance.com?

Why do we need a "Connector" to tell health insurers what to sell and at what price? Those sorts of price controls and mandated benefits are exactly the kind of government planning that is making health insurance so unaffordable. Shouldn’t conservatives be trying to repeal those laws, instead of creating new bureaucracies that will propose, enforce, and defend them?

Middle East Update From Nay

Iraq has big spiders.

Apparently, camel spiders (this one's a baby) can jump and run very fast.

This is why God made sidearms.

This Is Not For Dogs

Sanka's going to have a real shock to her system when the baby arrives. This has been her kingdom for some time. Now is the time to get her used to all the gear that will be invading her space.

Baby's New Quarters

We finally have the nursery ready -- at least the furniture. Jayci's been slacking on the decorations.

As you can see by how nice it looks, Chris had no part in picking the colors or decor of the room.

Here are a few pics so that the grandthings can see how their favorite grandchild will be living (and so y'all can get her a few things to go with the room).

Hot Mama

The belly keeps growing and growing.

Media Spins Va.-Tech Tragedy for Gun Control

(This piece from Chris first appeared at HumanEvents.com)

Gun-control advocates at the New York Times and in Congress moved immediately to use the tragedy of the Monday, April 16, shooting massacre on the campus of Virginia Tech as a way to push their liberal agenda.

In the New York Times lead editorial last Tuesday, which was likely written mere hours after one of the nation’s worst gun rampages in history and before the bodies had cooled, the paper called for more gun control. (Actually, the editorial was probably written a long time ago and held for just the right moment when they had the “where,” “when” and number of victims.)

Tasteless Move

The Times didn’t have the good taste to wait even 24 hours before calling for more gun control. Here’s part of the editorial titled (not surprisingly) “Eight Years After Columbine”:

Yesterday’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech -- the worst in American history -- is another horrifying reminder that some of the gravest dangers Americans face come from killers at home armed with guns that are frighteningly easy to obtain.

Not much is known about the gunman, who killed himself, or about his motives or how he got his weapons, so it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy. But it seems a safe bet that in one way or another, this will turn out to be another instance in which an unstable or criminally minded individual had no trouble arming himself and harming defenseless people. [...]

Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

Besides the grotesqueness of using this tragedy to immediately push their liberal agenda, the Times editorialists failed to mentioned that there is a complete gun ban on the campus of Virginia Tech, and that ban didn’t stop the shooter.

In fact, the VT gun ban was the subject of an excellent op-ed by Bradford Wiles, a Virginia Tech graduate student, in the Roanoke Times last year. Wiles, who had been evacuated Aug. 21, 2006, from the VT Squires Student Center with several other students when the campus was shut down as police searched for an escaped inmate who had reportedly killed a sheriff’s deputy and a hospital guard, pleaded with readers “to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.”

And lest you think the New York Times is the only perpetrator of this offense, Seth Stern of Congressional Quarterly reported -- the night of the shootings -- on gun-control proponents in Congress who see this tragedy as their chance: “Gun control advocates in Congress quickly cited the Virginia Tech shootings as evidence of the need for tighter firearm restrictions. ‘I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation,’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D.-Calif.] said Monday. The California Democrat has led efforts to renew the expired ban on so-called assault weapons (PL 103-322).”

Liberals Optimistic

Stern also reported that “even Congress’s leading gun-control advocate, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D.-N.Y.) conceded that efforts to renew the assault weapons ban and limit high-capacity ammunition clips stood little chance of passage,” but Stern went on to say that “on Monday, McCarthy and her staff were more optimistic.”

The CQ article further reported: “‘We’re going to be stepping it up in light of this,’ said George Burke, a spokesman for McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son was severely wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. McCarthy introduced legislation in February (HR 1022) that would reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

“‘It has been more than a decade since meaningful legislation that would prevent gun violence has been signed into law,’ McCarthy said in a statement Monday. ‘This pattern must change. For too long Congress has stood idle while gun violence continues to take its toll. The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby.’”

There’s time for these debates the in days and weeks to come -- and rest assured, those debates will happen. But the anti-gun crowd in the media and the Democratic Party should not be “more optimistic” in the wake of such a tragedy.

They ought to be heartbroken like the rest of America they claim to represent.

Shower Time

Jenny, Roni and a few friends put together a shower for Jayci today. The food was great, the host house was beautiful, and the friends were wonderful.

Happy 29th, Jayci!

Jayci celebrated her 29th birthday with some of the kids at The House.

Sumner Redstone Has Imus Fired but Keeps MTV and BET on the Air

(A follow-up from Chris on the Imus circus. Originally on RA.)

Sumner Redstone, chairman of CBS Corp., saw to it that Don Imus was fired yesterday for his comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

Did Redstone do the firing? No. He had his man Leslie Moonves drop the ax after saying he expected that Moonves “would do the right thing.”

Of course, the controversy surrounding Imus’s comments has ignited the debate over who can say what when. (See this post on NBC’s Ice-T.) Many commentators are rightly outraged over not just the Imus comments but the coarseness of the rap culture, generally, and its degradation of black women (all women) specifically.

Why is this note about Redstone important?

Redstone is also the Executive Chairman of the Board and Founder of Viacom. Viacom owns the frequently trash-peddling MTV, BET and VH1. Viacom also owns Comedy Central, which airs the crass cartoon South Park -- a show well-known for not being politically correct -- and a number of other “offensive” shows.

Will Redstone “do the right thing” and pull the plug on these often misogynistic, black-insulting cable channels? Or will he be the typical hypocrite we've come to expect from the entertainment industry?

NBC’s Selective Outrage Over Its Own Employees

(This post from Chris first appeared on the Right Angle.)

NBC News decided to “fire” Imus from MSNBC for his calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” Fine. It’s their company, they can hire and fire whomever they please.

But don’t act like you’re making some sort of righteous move.

NBC News President Steve Capus said this in an interview Wednesday night with NBC’s David Gregory:

GREGORY: What was the tipping point, though, Steve? Because people will look at what’s happened in the past day—General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, American Express, Ditech.com, Procter & Gamble, companies—Staples—pulling their advertising from MSNBC. And the obvious question that is going to come up that, you know, we’re feeling the heat and we’re reacting to dollars.

CAPUS: Look, I understand the people are going to view it that way, and I only say that that—that is not why this decision was made. This decision was made after listening to the people who work for NBC News, who have placed a trust and respect the trust that America has given us.

I ask you, what price do you put on your reputation? And the reputation of this news division means more to me than advertising dollars.

Because if you lose your reputation, you lose everything.

And so yesterday, I found out after the fact that some of the advertisers had started to pull their money away. Those types of reports don’t land on my desk immediately. And honestly, that is not what is behind this.

This is about trust. It’s about reputation. It’s about doing what’s right.

Reputation, huh? I wonder if Mr. Capus could identify which NBC employee said -- and made a lot of money off -- this (and many other items like it):

'96
Ah sh-t
Ice-T back
Representin, ni--a, once again
That real sh-t, ni--a
I thought you knew, b--ch
Better recognize

[ CHORUS ]
Players, check your grip before you get popped
B--ches, get my money before you get dropped
Gotcha - buggin off the words I say
Because this type of pimpin happens every day

[ VERSE 1 ]
Ni--as wanna know my steelo
B--ches wanna get with the baddest
Hustlin apparatus
It's the LA cash flow master-roller
No one gets colder, I used to flip boulders
Of caine, on my brain, it's outta control, crime plot
A dead-ass cop and muthaf--kas get got
In the game it ain't safe for the weak or the timid
Known to break a b--ch but barely rarely slide up in it
So you see me in a club, grab your woman like you wanna
Blink your eyes and the freak is out there freezin on the corner
She got caught by the curls and the jewels
Lookin for a ni--a that is quick to pull tools
Now she's breakin herself, makin herself
Respect my technique of pimpin, minus all simpin
Check it b--ches, it ain't nothin nice
You're gonna seal or sell p--sy if you roll with the Ice

[ CHORUS ]

[ VERSE 2 ]
Oh my God, the ni--a rolls hard..
Every player mentions me
The hustler of the century
(Ice, that ni--a ain't nothin nice!)
I got more freaks than Heff', my bankroll's off vice
Commandin straight pimp tactics
None of y'all can match this
Meet a freak in a week, her workplace a mattress
Really though, recognize the pimp type flow
I don't smoke endo, I count cash on my patio
So much love on the streets, don't need no bodyguard
Big up to my homies with the pimp type nod
I'm off the hook, checkin traps in Vegas [Name]
Full link mink with the matchin borsalino
I change cars like you change drawers, b--ch
I got a stable full of thoroughbreds that make me rich
Ni--as hate me, cause they can't control they roll
They see that fat old ass and start givin me cash

[ CHORUS ]

[ VERSE 3 ]
My mind's blown off fine champagne
So bent on currency, got green in my vein
So damn smooth that every woman wanna touch me
So much sexuality that nuns wanna f--k me
I kick back with my pimpin ballin brothers
Stand over the bed, dump the cash on the covers
The game's got me, I'm a slave to the roll
Hoes belong on the track and I belong in gold
Silk and satin, I deserve a pimpin pattin
Been in the life so long cause I stomp b--ches who start rattin
Mostly friendly, but do got that gorilla in me
Save it for the player-hater ni--as with the envy
Lot of ni--as talk it, but they can't hold a hooker
Ice took her, she was too long a looker
It's strictly straight-lace hustlin on mine
I been pimpin all my life and I don't mind dyin

Those are the lyrics to the gangsta rap song “Pimp Anthem” -- the work of Ice-T, one of the stars of NBC’s “Law & Order: SVU.” And lest you think that’s his only disgusting work, check out this lyrics page for some more of his garbage.

Now, before you claim that it’s “different” because Imus is paid for his political views and Ice-T is paid to play a cop, allow for me to quote further from the Gregory-Capus interview:

GREGORY: As the president of the news division, and as a media figure, what do you think the lesson is going to be of this?

CAPUS: Well, look, I’ll tell you what I don’t—what I hope doesn’t happen. I hope we don’t squander this remarkable opportunity that we have to continue this dialogue that has taken place, to continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech, to continue the dialogue about what is happening in America.

I think we have, as broadcasters, a responsibility to address those matters.

This -- for the people who were involved in this, from the Rutgers team, this isn’t a situation, this isn’t an incident. This is life. And that’s why when you listen to Vivian Stringer speak yesterday, and the members of that team speak, you understand why those comments came from the heart.

This is not some incident that has happened. This is someone’s life that we’re talking about here. And so when you get—when you touch something that deeply, we have a responsibility in our reporting to continue this remarkable national dialogue that has begun.

See, even Capus doesn’t believe this is about the Imus “incident.” He recognizes it as a bigger issue -- that an NBC employee impacted the lives of the Rutgers women specifically and the black community generally. If this holds for one NBC employee, why shouldn’t it apply to others, such as Ice-T?

Others will claim that Imus said his stupid comment on the air but Ice-T wrote, sang, recorded, and made millions of dollars of his rap on his own time, in his other career.

What if Imus had not said it on the air? What if he had said the exact same distasteful, unfunny “joke” in an interview with Sports Illustrated on his own time, what would have happened then? Do you really believe no one would have been outraged? Would Imus have kept his MSNBC gig?

John Rocker make his controversial comments about New York not on the pitcher’s mound but in a Sports Illustrated interview. Remember that?

What if Imus hadn’t said the “nappy-headed hos” comment at all, but instead some reporter had discovered that Imus had once attended Ku Klux Klan meetings on his own time? Would no one have been outraged? Would Imus still be at MSNBC?

It does matter what you do when the cameras are off, when you think no one’s watching. Your integrity, your character do matter -- and they impact more than just you.

Remember, as NBC News President Steve Capus rhetorically asked: “What price do you put on your reputation?”

The overall point is not that we shouldn’t be outraged when someone like Imus or Ice-T makes an offensive remark, but that we should not be hypocritically outraged.

Nor should we be surprised.

Jenny and Heidi Wander Into Town

Jenna and her buddy Heidi came to D.C. for their spring break, so we took them where we take all our guests -- Dixie Bones.

If you ever come visit this area, you have to get to Dixie Bones -- true, down-home Southern cooking.

Chirsty Jo Is Gettin' Hitched

Look who got engaged.

Congrats, Christy.

Upset Over Fox Appointment, Kerry Claims Bush 'Changed the Rules' on Appointments

(This post from Chris first appeared on HE's Right Angle.)

Still smarting from his 2004 loss, delivered with the help of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the book "Unfit for Command" written by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) accused the White House of "changing the rules" by recess-appointing Sam Fox to the post of ambassador to Belgium.

From the AP:

U.S. President George W. Bush bypassed Democratic critics and appointed Sam Fox ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday during the congressional recess in a move that avoided requiring Senate approval.

The appointment came a week after the White House withdrew the nomination when it became apparent that the Democratic-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not vote to approve Fox, a Republican fund-raiser.

Democrats had complained about a $50,000 donation Fox made to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that questioned Sen. John Kerry's war record during the Massachusetts Democrat's 2004 presidential campaign.

"It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate," Kerry said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," he said.

Not only do Democrats believe that free speech in the form of donations to 527 groups they don't like such as the Swift Boat Veterans should disqualify someone from serving in a federal position, they now claim -- at least their 2004 standard-bearer claims -- that a recess appointment is a "changing of the rules," despite the fact that Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution permits the President to make such appointments.

Former Justice O'Connor Blames Criticism of Judicial Activism -- Not Activism -- for 'Loss of Faith' in Judicial System

(This post from Chris first appeared on HE's Right Angle.)

At a conference at Southern Methodist University yesterday, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her concern about partisan attacks on judges "coming out of the halls of Congress and out of state legislatures across the country."

Neat trick: Blaming Americans' distrust of the Judicial Branch on criticism of judicial activism instead of blaming judicial activism.

From an AP report on Fox News:

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday that she has grown weary of partisan attacks on judges, criticisms that she believes are causing citizens to lose faith in the judicial system.

O'Connor detailed plans to establish a Web site to teach schoolchildren about the judicial branch of government during a speech to law students, lawyers and fellow judges at a judicial conference at Southern Methodist University.

O'Connor, 77, said she finds troubling the "increased number of attack on judges that are coming out of the halls of Congress and out of state legislatures across the country." Single-issue advocacy groups are tagging judges with labels such as "activist judges" or "godless, secular humanists" to win passage of propositions or amendments to state constitutions, she said.

"The founders of our country did not intend that Congress or the legislative branch dictate results in specific cases," O'Connor said. "I think we're hearing more criticisms about judges than I've heard in my very long lifetime."

When Is Movie Gore Good? Just Ask Roger Friedman

(This post from Chris first appeared on HE's Right Angle.)

Fox News entertainment columnist Roger Friedman has a review of the new Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double-feature "Grindhouse" in today's Fox411 column. In it, Friedman says of the movie's blood and violence, which is a common trait in Tarantino movies:

The film often sputters and jumps on purpose to give the impression that it's a really cheap production. Indeed, the double bill presentation even carries a warning that some reels may be missing and, in fact, they are.

All of this is very, very cool, as is the music, the locales ("Planet Terror" is set in Austin, Texas; "Death Proof" shot in Central California masquerading as the Tennessee countryside) and the makeup (there's blood spurting everywhere). [...]

The package may not be for everyone. The first film is quite bloody and gory, and not for the faint of heart, that's for sure. There's one sequence of torture in the beginning that will send many scurrying under their seats. But all the violence in "Grindhouse" is broadly comic and so over the top that it's aimed at a teenage mentality.

But that's the pleasure of it, too. You can tell that both Rodriguez and Tarantino just had a ball (or balls, it's an inside joke from "Planet Terror") making these movies, and the audience has one watching them.

What makes Friedman's review and praise interesting is not his love of the movie(s) -- Tarantino is definitely very talented -- but it is his praise of the "over the top" gore that makes the movie a "pleasure." And this praise is not interesting by itself -- it's a movie review of a probably well-done, typically gory Tarantino flick, after all. It's interesting when contrasted to Friedman's ripping of Mel Gibson's "The Passion," in large part, for it's gore.

[T]he real problem with "The Passion" is that it is graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. How anyone will be able to sit through this thing is the real mystery. There is blood, blood, everywhere. The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque. Basically, the entire second half of the film is spent watching Jesus endure physical torture never before seen in a movie. By the time it's done, actor James Caviezel's body is a map of bloody rivers and lakes with craters of flesh excised from his torso.

Is this disgusting? You bet. It's also puzzling, because what Gibson hasn't done in "The Passion" is explain his love of Christ or his own passion or devotion. We have no idea why Christ is so reviled by the Jews, what he's done to earn their anger, or what he's done to earn Gibson's respect. From the moment the film begins, Jesus is simply a target for unbridled, unrestrained bloodlust. Yes, we get to see the nails driven through him, blood spurting in every direction, skin being torn in the process.

Is there anything that's learned by witnessing this enactment? I wish I could say there was, but there isn't. It's simple brutality, with a hard rock music track playing in the background. I'm not sure that it's so different from Gibson's character dislocating his shoulder on purpose in one of the "Lethal Weapon" movies.

[...] My question is, How will the Hollywood cognoscenti respond to "The Passion"? Will they remain silent and hope it goes away? Or will someone speak out? There is no end of voices when it comes to sex and violence in mainstream movies. Where are those voices now?

In fact, Friedman's bias against "The Passion" is even more obvious when contrasted to his praise of Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" and "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" -- both of which were very well known for their blood-letting.

So, what did this movie critic who was so worried about the violence of "The Passion" have to say about Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies?

From Friedman's Sept. 25, 2003, review of "Vol. 1":

[T]hese were the impressions I was left with after the screening: that it rocked, that the violence and spurting blood was cartoon-like fun. . .

From Friedman's April 8, 2004, review off "Vol. 2":

Fans of the first "Kill Bill," myself included, probably thought "Vol. 2" would be more of what was in "Vol. 1" — comic violence, sparse dialogue, and lots of groovy choreography and cinematography. It turns out that "Vol. 1" was merely a tasty appetizer for a gourmet main course. [...]

Now, all this praise doesn't mean I've recanted my feelings for "Vol. 1." That film was a visual explosion, with so much style and energy I could have seen it over and over. ... [I]n "Vol. 2" he crosses all the T's, dots the I's, and makes the audience smile even while the violence rains down.

The difference, this time, is that it's much wittier and fresher. There are some sequences, like one in which Hannah loses an eye, that are so brilliant they will never be forgotten. [...]

Have a happy Easter.

It looks like Friedman's real objection to gore is not its appearing on the screen or its seeming pointlessness. (How else do you explain his praise of Tarantino's gore?)

Though I don't believe Friedman did it on purpose (he wishes us all a "happy Easter," remember), he, like so many other Hollywood celebrators and celebrities, has revealed an all-too-common bias against the Christian message in Tinseltown.