Friday, April 05, 2013

Cruising the Web

Rich Lowry notes how the President's push for new gun laws seems to be a big fizzle. Perhaps that is what happens when politicians strive to pretend to be providing some sort of solution to whatever crisis there is.
Gun control always founders on the paradox that it is possible to write new laws for the law-abiding but difficult or impossible to reach criminals who don’t care about laws. Michigan has required a permit to purchase a handgun since 1927. The rule has evidently made no impression on those bent on doing harm to others in Detroit or Flint.

The gun-control debate has subtly shifted away from Newtown even though the president keeps bringing his case back to that atrocity. Nothing that happened in Newtown had anything to do with background checks. No background-check law will ever prevent someone like the mother of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza from buying guns unless the parents of children with autism-like symptoms are to be banned from owning firearms.

The president’s push for new gun laws looks, at this juncture, like a complete fizzle. He has failed to sway red-state Democrats and failed to maintain the heightened public support for new gun-control laws. The most concrete effect of his advocacy has been, if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, to stoke increased gun purchases on fear that the government wants to ban guns. He set out to lead a great crusade for gun control and ended up the best friend the gun industry ever had.
As seems increasingly common for this president, Obama appears to want an issue rather a solution to immigration. Why else would he be so resistant to efforts to secure the border in exchange for everything he purports to want in a bill? Now the proposal is to grant "near-instant legalization" just when Homeland Security submits their plan to secure the border. So a "plan" alone is supposed to be enough of a trigger? As always, "to seem" trumps "to be."

George Will is excellent as he ridicules the efforts in our public schools to make white children feel guilty about being white. And Linda Chavez takes a whack of what has become of so-called liberal education in college.

Matthew Continetti casts doubt on the inevitability of Hillary Clinton.

I wish that my students and former students who are so eager to vote for Democrats would have some idea of how those policies are both torpedoing their job opportunities while saddling them with more and more debt to pay off from the meager earnings they can hope to have.

Mayor Bloomberg's mandates lack the scientific data that he pretends they have.

Even Democrats are suspicious of Obamacare.

Guess what happens when a state bill is declared unconstitutional? Sometimes, such laws just remain, unenforced, on the books forever.

Why it is such a waste of time to get a Ph.D in literature.

Another month and another bad jobs report. Time for the Chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers to trot out the same phrases that "more work remains to be done" that he's said over and over and over again.


equitus said...

I remember back in 2006 when Hillary Clinton seemed inevitable.

About your students and former students, and of so many others in their generation: Once they realize how Obama and the Democrats have totally screwed them over, perhaps many of them will become hard-core anti-Statists for the rest of their lives.

Hope and change.

mark said...

Unfortunately, it's always easier to state why to vote against a party, and much harder to support voting for a party.

Why would young people vote against repubs?

1.Blame for the Iraq war mostly lays with repubs. And the refusal to acknowledge it was a mistake is cowardly and dangerous.

2. Bush 43. He was a failure, and everyone knows it. Evidence: He has been shunned by the party since he left office, and he is the biggest obstacle to Jeb becoming president.

3. Most repubs are on the wrong side of marriage equality, immigration, women's rights and climate change. And you make embarrassingly stupid statements about all three.

4. Obamacare has a lot of problems, but many young people think providing health care to all is admirable, and not a commie plot.

I've seen a number of statements here that everyone who supports Obama want govt. handouts. That is just a moronic lie. I know those people exist, but I know many Obama supporters, young and old, who have no desire to be dependent on the govt. It's just a convenient lie to help you feel better about your pettiness.

Dr Weevil said...

At least Republicans know that "marriage equality, immigration, women's rights and climate change" are four things, not three. Or is 'mark' or his subconscious implying that one of the four is so fraudulent that it only exists as a leftie talking point with no reality behind it? If so, which one? There's more than one possibility.

mark said...

Good one, weevil, you caught me. I added "immigration" to the list and forgot to change the number to four. That you think any of those issues is "fraudulent" is unfortunate.

Don't you and Stephen have a play date, or something?

Dr Weevil said...

Thank you for confirming once again what a loathsome and contemptible person you are, 'mark'.

By the way, your 4th point is a bald-faced lie: the U.S. is already "providing health care to all". An unemployed friend had $27,000 worth of dental work done for free at the county dental clinic, and could as easily done the same at the county medical clinic if she had had a medical problem instead of a dental one. You don't even have to go to the county center for free care. My last bill from the (nationally-ranked) local medical center said they would write off 100% of what I owed if I made less than $17,000 / year, 80% if I made less than $21,000 (I think it was) and so on up to quite a high salary, at least for this area. The idea that uninsured Americans are dying in the streets after being turned away from hospitals is a European fantasy, with no basis in fact. The idea that Obamacare is going to provide better health care to more Americans cheaper is a fantasy for some, a lie for others.

mark said...


You're welcome.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

Is that county clinic you mentioned funded by donations? If not, the $27,000 in work wasn't "free", it was paid for with taxpayer money. Was the dental work due to an emergency? If not, perhaps your friend was taking advantage of a government program.
Who do you think pays or subsidizes the bills for unemployed/low-income folks? I guess when it's you or someone you know, it's fine. But a stranger? Must be one of those 47% "parasites".
I'm not sure if it is hypocrisy in your case, or just complete, utter ignorance.

equitus said...

Admittedly, some people (whom I won't name) will always be prefer a big-government top-down solution.

To such people, any other solution is clearly "on the wrong side" and "moronic."

mark said...

I work very hard for a modest salary, and just laid out $1100 of my own money for a dental crown. Weevil brags about his unemployed friend sticking taxpayers with a $27,000 bill. It was likely for services she delayed for a number of years, and/or for work she could have had done when she was in a position to pay for them herself (go ahead and prove me wrong, weevil). Instead, she took advantage of her bad situation and milked the system. Exactly the type of parasitic behavior conservatives supposedly bemoan.
But I get it: weevil and others ignored your embarrassing two-week Menendez meltdown that had to be an affront to anyone who respects our Constitution. And now you (and others)ignore the fool who brags about he and his friends taking government handouts while preaching about personal responsibility.

Dr Weevil said...

Anyone else wonder whether dork needed a crown because he made the mistake of speaking to someone in person the way he writes here?

Nothing of what he writes here about me or my friend is in any way true, and he knows it. He's just trying to divert attention from my refutation of his lie in the second comment.

What feelings of inadequacy lie behind the seething rage expressed in every one of his comments here is something probably best left unexplored. Ugh.

mark said...

Please feel free to elaborate on how your unemployed friend received $27,000 of "free" dental care. Obviously, "free" denotes no cost. Unless the materials and services were donated, taxpayers paid for your friend's care. Do you really not understand that?

I made a reasonable response as to why young people would vote for Obama and dems over repubs. You decided to put in your two-cents. Fine. But you falsely accused me of lying. I have never said that Americans "are dying in the streets after being turned away from hospitals". However, I do know that people have been denied care for different reasons. Sometimes with fatal results. That is just a fact. You have falsely accused me of lying.
I've never claimed to know your friend's situation. That's why I asked (and you've so far refused to answer). It certainly sounds as if your friend is the recipient of the type of governmental largesse that has drawn the scorn of many conservatives.
"Seething rage"? Hardly.

Dr Weevil said...

Just for the record, my friend had been entirely unemployed for 5 years when she had her dental work done at no charge to her (that's one definition of "free") by a county medical clinic. I believe the dentists there contribute their time and skills to those in need one day a week, but it hardly matters. I have never argued that the government should not provide medical or dental care to those truly unable to pay for it, nor have I ever argued that it is wrong for those in need to take charity, or for those not in need to provide it. dork apparently has some little fantasy in his mind about what Republicans are supposed to believe that has noathing to do with the facts and everything to do with his little fantasy that anyone who disagrees with him must be a hypocrite. Now that she has a job, my friend pays her own medical and dental bills. She would have had medical insurance through her job by now, but the cost keeps going up due to Obamacare and the idiots who voted for the man who shoved it through, so her employer has been unable to finance it yet.

dork's assertion that she could have had her dental work "done when she was in a position to pay for them herself" is another lie: the serious deteriation in her teeth took place while she was unemployed through no fault of her own, when the industry in which she worked collapsed, and she was stuck for years in a smallish town with no car. His assertion that "she took advantage of her bad situation and milked the system" is another contemptible lie.

Of course dork's original "reasonable response" is full of such lies, though those are at least not aimed at individuals. Just to take one example of many, it is simply and obviously false that "everyone knows" that G. W. Bush was a failure. I do not "know" that, I'm pretty sure most readers of this comment section do not "know" it, and I suspect that any poll of the general public would find that those who "know" it are on the average far more ignorant of basic political facts than those who do not "know" it.

mark said...

"one definition of free"
How does an educated man not understand that government services are not free? By any definition. Whether it's medical services, unemployment checks, or any other programs your friend might have availed herself to, hardworking taxpayers footed the expense.
I suppose when a situation becomes personal, we can try to justify anything.

Dr Weevil said...

How does even an ill-educated dork not understand that a free clinic is not necessarily a government service, even when he has already been told that? Here's the website of the clinic my friend went to. It appears to be supported entirely by voluntary donations of time, services, and money. So any "hardworking taxpayers" who "footed the expense" of treating my friend did so voluntarily. Does dork object to that? That would put him beyond even Ayn Rand in heartless contempt for the less fortunate, in a class with Ebenezer Scrooge before his conversion.

My friend is a "hardworking taxpayer" herself, and has been most of her life, though she has had some very rough patches. In fact, I can say from personal knowledge of both that she works quite a bit harder than dork does, and for a lot less money, and has paid far more in taxes than she has ever gotten back in government services.

equitus said...

Good luck trying to reason with mark, Dr Weevil. In my experience, his ignorance and bigotry are simple inpenetrable.

mark said...

Not bad. It took you only 24 hours to come up with that clinic.
You do understand, I assume, that many voluntary organizations and clinics also rely on local, state and federal assistance.
I work with a Catholic foodbank that is staffed entirely by volunteers (save one paid director). Besides many donations of time, money and food, they rely on govt. assistance, and are still scrambling to replace a $100,000 reduction in aid.
Given that the clinic follows federal poverty guidelines for providing assistance, I suspect they get federal funds.
BTW: in their annual report, they write of Obamacare as an opportunity to help through medicaid enrollments. Not the evil threat conservatives pretend.
The clinic sounds like a great program. Even knowing that some people abuse the system (as some do at the foodbank, I certainly support them.
Your beef regarding this is with others here, not me. Repubs would like to slice the aid that goes to such clinics. People here have made blanket statements about "takers", calling them "undeserving" and "parasites", to name a few. How did it feel to see all those comments directed at your friend? I guess putting a face to the people who are denigrated here changes things, no?

Dr Weevil said...

Stupid dork now only 'suspects' something he has asserted as fact in previous comments, for which he can adduce no evidence at all, because if he didn't 'suspect' it he would have to admit that he was shamefully wrong in his assumptions and accusations. All the charities I know that get government grants - like the theater where I spent Sunday afternoon instead of promptly refuting dork's stupid and boring lies - make a point of explicitly thanking the government agencies that give them money: it makes repeated grants much more likely. The fact that the Augusta Regional Free Clinic thanks hundreds of individuals for their financial and other help in their annual report, while not thanking any government agency, strongly suggests that they don't get federal, state, or local government subsidies. Not that it matters to anything except dork's character - I have never suggested that the government should not help pay for medical or dental care for those who genuinely need it, so dork is arguing against a phantom of his own imagination.

dork claims to 'know' that some people "abuse the program" at the ARFC and again implies that my friend is one of them. She could not have abused the program if she had wanted to, because (unlike dork's alleged charity) they do not provide free medical services to those who do not actually need them. She had to bring in all her financial information for the previous several years to prove that she was eligible before they would fix her teeth.

Of course, no one here except dork has called my friend "undeserving" or a "parasite", and "Repubs" (isn't dork the guy who gets upset when people refer to the "Democrat party"?) can't "slice" government aid to a clinic if it isn't getting any. On the other hand, Obama's utterly disastrous economic policies can and will harm the clinic by leaving charitably-inclined locals with less and less money every year to give to those in need. What a bitter, nasty, crooked little man he is!

mark said...

The only "assumption" I have made about your friend is that for, at least awhile, she was dependent on others (unemployment, dental care, etc). People here have lumped all people like her and labeled them "undeserving" and "freeloaders". Have you forgotten Romney's 47% comment? I have criticized that attitude. Where have you been?
Your anecdote about her would have been very appropriate to counter those that have called people in your friends situation "parasites". Why didn't you speak out then? Apparently, my not addressing you as "Dr." is far worse than republicans calling your friend a freeloader.
You used your anecdote thinking it would undermine my comment that but "many young people think providing health care to all is admirable", for which you somehow called me a liar.
Your quote:
You don't even have to go to the county center for free care. My last bill from the (nationally-ranked) local medical center said they would write off 100% of what I owed if I made less than $17,000 / year, 80% if I made less than $21,000 (I think it was) and so on up to quite a high salary, at least for this area.

Again, you brag about free care, except it's not. Sorry you still don't understand that.

BTW: I've never cared about people referring to the "democrat party". I don't even care that you continue to call me a very crude, immature euphemism for penis.

Dr Weevil said...

I was unaware that 'dork' had any obscene meaning until this dork - who demands respect while repeatedly refusing it to others - pointed it out a week or two ago. I certainly never intended to compare him to anything so useful and indeed necessary as a penis. In contemporary English, the primary and near-universal meaning is perfectly clean: it means something like 'jerk' or 'geek', only less intelligent. (Hmmm: 'jerk', like hundreds of other English words, also has secondary obscene meanings, but calling someone a jerk has never been as rude as calling someone an actual obscenity. You'd think a language teacher would know how languages actually work.) This dork has repeatedly demonstrated his claim to the name.

Why he continues to spout obvious lies I do not know. I did not "brag" about my friend's case: I used her as an example to demonstrate that dork was utterly wrong in implying that Americans without medical insurance do not have medical care. He can't refute that, so he insults me and my friend, like the bitter little dork he is.

Of course, no one here has ever asserted that anyone who ever accepts any help from the government in any circumstances is a "freeloader" or a "parasite". (Would that make dork a parasite? His salary comes from a government job.) Nor has dork admitted that the dental clinic my friend went to does not appear to receive any government subsidy, so it wouldn't apply to her in any case. Why does he tell such transparent lies? Because he's like a geek or a jerk, only much much stupider: in short, a dork.

mark said...

Nor has dork admitted that the dental clinic my friend went to does not appear to receive any government subsidy

Actually, you're wrong, weevil. The dental clinic does accept funds. From a letter from the board of directors:

The Augusta Regional
Dental Clinic operates under an existing hybrid model, serving both Medicaid-eligible
children and adults, and uninsured adults.

Dr Weevil said...

So dork quotes a "letter" to unnamed persons with no URL so we can read the whole thing, a letter which does not seem to be available to anyone except him. (Results of a Bing search: "No results found for 'The Augusta Regional Dental Clinic operates under an existing hybrid model'.")

Even if (if!) dork's letter is genuine, that would only show that the clinic is reimbursed by the Medicaid program when those eligible for Medicaid are treated. My friend is not on Medicaid. dork previously stated as if it were a fact (8th comment) that her dental care was "paid for with taxpayer money". That is still a lie, even if (if!) his letter is genuine. Her dental care was provided by volunteers and didn't cost dork a penny.

mark said...

Come on, weevil, the letter is on the website you linked to above. Did you not look it over yourself? Click on annual report. It's very easy:

You're being dishonest about my quote. This is what I wrote:

Is that county clinic you mentioned funded by donations? If not, the $27,000 in work wasn't "free", it was paid for with taxpayer money.

I qualified my statement, and you intentionally twisted it.

I have no ill-will towards your friend (or towards you). In the future, I hope that you'll use your anecdote about your friend the next time conservatives, here or elsewhere, denigrate the unemployed and "takers" as lazy, shiftless parasites. I'm sure that sometimes it's true, but the vast majority of times it is not.