|Posted by MLGoodell on June 27, 2015 at 12:55 AM||comments (0)|
Over the years I have delighted friends and family alike with my tales of past exploits, heroic deeds, memorable achievements. From scaling Mt. Everest to getting gassed in the trenches at Ypres, I’ve experienced more than most men have, and I willingly share them in what I prefer to call creative reminiscences. While many value learning of my long and illustrious past, some, particularly my wife and daughter lack the ability to appreciate the gift they have been given. They have taken to quashing my creative reminiscences with a harsh and abrupt, “No!”
Do I appreciate this narration truncation? Not at all. In fact, I resent it. I tried to tell myself that it wasn’t me who was suffering, rather my spouse and her daughter, who by declining to hear my tales were condemning themselves to a less lustrous existence. Still, their rejection rankled. It ate at me. It made me less than a fully realized human being. It was as if they were trying to delegitimate me. It hurt.
Then the other day, while contemplating the triumphs and tribulations of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, I wondered why was Caitlyn so courageous as to merit paeans of praise by pop cultural icons from the president on up while Rachel was condemned as the greatest fraud since Rosie Ruiz? One identified as a white woman, the other as a black woman. What was the difference?
It was right then, basically at the point between the and difference that I had my epiphany. I realized that of all my creative reminiscences, the ones I valued the most, and the ones the squelching of which hurt the most, were those pertaining to my experiences in World War II. It was then that I understood that I have always identified as a World War II veteran.
Yes, that is correct. I am a transgenerational American, or a transgenner, as we like to refer to ourselves. Inside this 59-year-old body is a 92-year-old man struggling to be heard. And I explained to my wife that she can no longer prevent me from telling my war stories. That would be a hate crime. It would be wrong on so many levels.
After all, if I identify as a 92-year-old man who’s to say I wasn’t actually in the Battle of the Bulge?
This has been a most liberating experience for me. For the first time in my life I feel comfortable in my own body. Sure, there are those who resent me, like my ex-wife for example, but I don’t mind. I know the courage I have shown in making this announcement has actualized my identity in a breathtaking way.
I’m not looking for the same kind of adulation that Caitlyn got. For instance, you can keep the Vanity Fair spread. I’m just not interested. However, I sure wouldn’t mind getting a slice of that $500 million in endorsements they were talking about. For me, I figure I should be a lock for Depends, reverse mortgages and those bulky electric scooters you see advertised everywhere.
Actually, come to think of it, with the presidential election devolving to a race between a Clinton and a Bush, with the cinematic release of Jurassic World and Mad Max, it may be we are in fact a nation of transgenners.
Wow, I never thought I’d be at the cutting edge of societal change. At least, not in this lifetime. But that’s kind of the whole point, isn’t it?
|Posted by MLGoodell on May 29, 2015 at 8:55 AM||comments (0)|
Bret Stephens devoted his Wall Street Journal column this week to Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent interview with Barack Obama. He discussed Obama’s “Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis,” in which the president believes that Ayatollah Khamanei, (whom Obama insists on calling the supreme leader), is like the little match girl, shivering outside the window, wanting only to bask in the glow that comes from the fond embrace of the international community.
Or as Stephens put it, “Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that a man with an undergraduate’s enthusiasm for moral equivalency . . . would have sophomoric ideas about the nature and history of anti-Semitism.”
Stephens is far too kind to the president. In Obama’s eyes Iranian anti-Semitism is inconsequential, comparable to, say, the racism of those with the temerity to disagree with him. If Obama can work with racist Republicans, how hard would it be to work with anti-Semitic Iranians?
Responding to Goldberg’s concern that ending sanctions could serve as a $150 billion gift to Iran’s terroristic infrastructure, Obama said, “I think it is not at all contradictory to say that there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in . . .”
Of all Obama’s arrogant, anti-American allegations, of which there are legion, this may well be the worst. No, Mr. President, we did not put Iran in this deep economic rut, the supreme leader and his henchmen did. They put themselves in this rut by defying the “international community,” by being so blatant in their disregard for international law; so vocal in their promises to wipe Israel off the map, that even France, even China, even Russia, despite America’s diffident leadership, were moved to establish a regime of strict and painful economic sanctions.
Shame on you, Mr. President, for rushing to the supreme leader’s aid, for overlooking his perfidy, for “having his back.”
More on the subject of Iranian anti-Semitism: “You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism . . . There were a whole lot of European leaders--and there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country--”
This knee jerk moral relativism, this reflexive kick back at what is presumably his native land, this craven eagerness to prove that America is no better, and never has been, than any other nation, is galling to behold. The audacity of giving moral equivalence to Khamanei’s invidious cheerleading, as thousands give voice to their bloodthirsty chant, “Death to Israel, Death to the Jews!” and certain country clubs which refused to allow Jewish members is despicably evil and mind-numbingly ignorant.
Shame on you, Mr. President.
As for those European leaders, you actually got that one right. Some of those European leaders were responsible for the death of six million Jews. Yes, Hitler and the Germans tried to wipe out the Jewish race. It was a despicable act, a dark day in the history of the world. It was that of which the world has resolved Never Again. Well, not the whole world. Ayatollah Khamenei, for instance, refuses to believe the Holocaust ever happened, claiming it was yet another lie hatched by the dastardly Jew.
This, Mr. President, is your prospective BFF, the “core regime,” your highly rational, legitimacy-seeking leadership. This is who you want to do a deal with, whose excesses you forgive, whose transgressions you absolve, whose power you defend and whose supremacy you embrace. Shame on you, Mr. President.
|Posted by MLGoodell on May 13, 2015 at 4:00 PM||comments (0)|
Under the disturbing headline in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, “Sea Levels Rising Faster, Study Says,” we learned “Global sea levels are rising faster than previously thought, though seawaters haven’t climbed as high as scientists estimated, according to a new study.” In other words, the reason seawaters haven’t risen as high as expected is because they are rising faster than expected.
If there is a better example of the tortured casuistry of the zealous Climaterian evangelist, it is likely buried in a footnote on page 2365 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.
The sea level study, which was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, sought to explain why sea levels weren’t rising as fast as environmentalist prophets had hoped they were, or, to put it another way, if the sky was in fact falling, why weren’t bits and pieces of it found floating in the ocean?
Much to the dismay of serious climate science grant writers, despite hundreds of billions of pounds of carbon and other greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere since 1993--nearly half of that emitted by private jets carrying Al Gore, Bill McKibben and other diminutive poultry to climate conferences in exclusive resorts around the world--sea levels have only risen a paltry 3.2 millimeters a year. That translates into a total global sea level rise of--wait for it--2.77 inches.
At this rate, tiny South Pacific islands will be completely underwater within a millennium or two. Obviously, that couldn’t be true. I mean, who’s going to willingly return to the lifestyle and life expectancy of the stone age just to forestall an event not likely to occur within the lifetime of your great-great-great-great grandchildren?
Faced with a fact-based challenge to the One True Faith, Christopher Watson, Abbot of the University of Tasmania and Climaterian Monastery, commissioned a study. Using the most up-to-date scientific tools, the study resolved the question of why the sea level rise failed to come anywhere near the numbers proclaimed by the Prophets of the One True Faith.
Lo and behold, upon careful analysis, it turned out that sea levels hadn’t increased by 3.2 millimeters a year, but in fact, it had increased by somewhere between 2.6 and 2.9 millimeters a year, reaching a total increase of 2.25 - 2.50 inches over the past 22 years. Yes, that’s correct. Or, as Gautam Naik, the Wall Street Journal reporter put it, “Sea levels were more or less static in recent millennia. But there had been a significant rise in the 20th century, which is widely accepted to be one of the most pronounced effects of climate change.”
Quick quiz: if you saw the ocean levels rise by less than two-and-a-half inches over the course of more than two decades, would you describe that result as more or less static, or a significant rise? If you chose the latter, you may have what it takes to become a High Priest or Priestess of the Climaterian Faith.
What existing High Priests confronted was an existential crisis of faith. How could the seas not be rising ever more rapidly? (The answer, of course, is that Barack Obama was nominated as the Democrat Party Presidential standard bearer in 2008. You may recall his proclamation that from that day forward, the seas would no longer rise). However, as Obama’s term is about to end, the seas must necessarily resume their inexorable rise. The climate clerics had to find the numbers to support their panicked cries for additional research dollars.
Using really nifty new tools, including satellite imagery, tide gauges and accounting for “a slight discrepancy related to the electronics,” they found what they were looking for. Even though the seas were rising even more slowly than expected, over the last ten years the rate of slowing in the rising levels was lower than in the previous 12 years, which is “consistent with the projection of future sea-level rise estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change!”
So, there you have it. Scientific proof that the sky is in fact falling, and the seas are rising, and we all need to reduce our carbon footprints so Fiji Islanders won’t be forced to live in house boats in Marin County and climate change advocates can continue to fly around the world on their private jets preaching and seeking converts to the One True Faith.
|Posted by MLGoodell on April 20, 2015 at 2:40 PM||comments (0)|
The headline in this morning’s Detroit Free Press wondered “Could pot solve our budget problems?” The article promoted three groups attempting to legalize marijuana in the state of Michigan. Surprisingly, or as the article put it, “In a sign of changing political times,” two of the three groups claim allegiance to the Republican party.
If they are telling the truth these clever Republicans do represent a sea change in party identification. Traditionally, scouring the earth for new taxes to support an ever-expanding state has been the province of the Democrat persuasion. Regardless of party affiliation, legalizing marijuana solely to increase state revenues is a bad idea for many different reasons.
One reason is because it doesn’t work. In every state where pot has been legalized tax revenues have come in way below expectations, and expenses from increased regulation, smuggling interdiction and the consequences of an increasingly stoned populace have been higher than anticipated.
Still, the fact that it won’t work isn’t the main reason it’s a bad idea. If there is an argument in favor of legalization, advocates should make that argument. If they can convince the voting public that the possession, sale or consumption of marijuana should not be a crime, then by all means, let’s legalize the stuff.
However, if the state’s only reason for legalizing a criminal activity is to generate revenue, then the state has not legalized that activity, but in fact it has become a criminal enterprise. If marijuana is legalized solely for tax purposes, the only difference between a drug dealer and the state is the state has bigger guns. Indeed, the state will use its firepower to attack rival gangs, those who continue to sell their product without first paying off the state.
If the state can justify legalizing pot on the basis of revenues, what other activities might it consider legalizing? Prostitution comes to mind. It’s out there. If not everybody, certainly enough people avail themselves of the service to make its business plan viable. Why not let the state get a piece of the action? Why should it all go to the pimps?
Murder could also be very lucrative for the state. No doubt most murderers would happily pay a fee, or a murder tax, to avoid arrest and imprisonment. We could fix a whole lot of crumbling bridges with Detroit’s murder tax alone. Not only would revenues go up, expenses would plummet. Police departments could save money by eliminating their homicide departments. Coroner’s offices would see a dramatic reduction in work load. Prosecutors would try fewer cases, judges’ dockets would be cleared up, and the savings from not having to imprison murderers would be huge.
When you consider the twin benefits of increased revenues and reduced expenses, it’s clearly the sort of idea today’s modern Republican can get behind.
|Posted by MLGoodell on March 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM||comments (0)|
Finding myself driving across town last Saturday morning, I decided to tune in to the local NPR station. It’s been awhile, but it’s nice to keep my hand in from time to time. “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me (WWDTM)” happened to be on. I haven’t listened to that show since the host opened an episode with a vile, offensive screed against our president (Full Disclosure: it wasn’t the current one). WWDTM is ostensibly a humorous current events quiz show featuring mid- to low-range media types reading canned jokes in response to questions about events which transpired during the preceding week.
WWDTM is not a “political” show. It’s supposed to be “fun,” a way for loyal NPR listeners to relax, and to boost their self-esteem for being so well informed about current events. Of course, being part of the NPR universe, WWDTM is naturally and reflexively liberal. Their left focus is instinctive, and they assume their entire listening audience shares their prejudice. They would never expect a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed Conservative outlier such as moi to pop up in their audience.
As a result, when they addressed the recent Israeli election, one given was that everybody shares our current president’s attitude toward Benjamin Netanyahu. Since our president hates him, it’s okay for us to hate him too. Also, since our president hates him it is safe for us to assume that he is a Republican, or at least closely aligned with Republicans, which gives rise to jokes like the first one the panel dutifully recited, that Netanyahu’s victory marked the first GOP victory in a national campaign since 2004.
Of course, the clever joke writers got the joke exactly backwards. The GOP didn’t campaign for Netanyahu, and didn’t use American tax dollars to support Likud’s campaign. In fact, it was Obama and the Democrats who campaigned for the opposition, and, it is alleged, used American tax dollars to fund that campaign. It would have been more accurate if one of the panelists had read, “This marks the first national election Obama has ever lost,” but it wouldn’t have been as funny. At least, not for this audience.
Since in the eyes of Obama supporters Netanyahu is the most hated Jew since Shylock, it’s open season on him, his personality, and even his Jewishness. Thus were the panelists entitled to read comments such as, “Yes, he was elected by promising to let Israelis eat bacon,” “He said, ‘If you like your foreskin, you can keep your foreskin,’” and “He ran a pork barrel campaign.”
No doubt the party-faithful in the audience were laughing as hard as the panelists themselves, and no one, except this bitterly partisan, reflexively hateful, rightwing nutjob thought there was anything unseemly about that. I was apparently the only one who thought mocking someone for his religious beliefs, and ridiculing him for his dietary restrictions, essentially shaming him for being Jewish, reflects the same sort of mentality as those who watched Jews being loaded into boxcars and shipped to death camps without raising a voice in protest. It is simply a matter of degree.
It you don’t believe there was something despicable about this, imagine how the panelists, the WWDTM writers, and all dutiful NPR adherents would react if Netanyahu had lost and someone like, say, Rush Limbaugh had cracked the exact same jokes about the new Israeli Prime Minister, Whitey Herzog.
|Posted by MLGoodell on March 20, 2015 at 3:10 PM||comments (0)|
Compare a couple of recent statements emanating from the maws of the State Department. First we have Secretary of State, John Kerry--in Egypt to study mummies in the hopes of emulating their more lifelike facial expressions -- who said of the Iranian Theocratic Dictatorship, “As you all know, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, and that is a very welcome statement that the Supreme Leader has, in fact, incorporated into a fatwa. And we have great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa.”
Then we have Jen Psaki, whose official job description at Foggy Bottom, one hears is, “to keep Marie Harf from looking like the most stupid, naive person ever to walk the earth.” And she’s doing a great job, BTW, as if she were born to the task. No wonder she’s moving to the White House to head up their communications team. State Department insiders say she will leave just as soon as they find someone to fill her pumps.
Jen was not quite so effusive as her boss in embracing the veracity of a bitter enemy of the United States. When asked about Ayatollah Netanyahu’s stated willingness to accept a two state solution “under the right circumstances,” she expressed skepticism. “If he had consistently stated that he remained in favor of a two-state solution, we’d be having a different conversation,” she sniffed.
In this case Jen-Jen is showing understanding far beyond her tender years. It is important to realize who we are dealing with here. This is not a wise man of faith like Ayatollah Khamanei. He is not a long-term and steady ally of the United States. No, this is the Ayatollah Netanyahu, head of one of the cruellest, most oppressive regimes on earth.
As most folks--in the White House at least--know, Israel constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. Israel is a pariah of the international community. How can we be expected to take the word of a man who is known to begin rallies by leading the masses in cries of “Death to America?” How can we engage in reasonable dialogue with someone who calls our president “The Great Satan?”
How can we expect Israel, a nation which has provided weapons to our enemies and constructed roadside bombs which have killed or maimed thousands of American troops, to ever be a trustworthy partner on the road to peace? Israelis are dangerous. They cannot be trusted. They are Jews.
On the other hand, consider the Iranians. They have enjoyed a long history of free, democratic elections. People are free to speak their minds, and can adopt any “faith tradition” they choose, (as long they remember there is no God but God and Mohammad is his prophet). They have worked tirelessly for peace, continuing to negotiate for over eighteen months despite provocations from Israel and economic sanctions imposed by American neocons in thrall to AIPAC and the Jewish lobby.
The Obama administration has been unique in American history in its willingness to stand up to our allies and kneel down before our enemies. Finally, though, in the aftermath of the ungrateful Israelis’ refusal to accept presidential guidance on selecting their new government, we have figured out who our friends are and who our enemies are.
Clearly, Iran is a country we can do business with. Obama supporters are already looking ahead to a day when we will again have normal diplomatic relations with our old friend Iran, and maybe, just maybe, we won’t have Netanyahu to kick around anymore.
|Posted by MLGoodell on February 23, 2015 at 2:55 PM||comments (0)|
In a surprising policy shift, the White House spent last weekend talking up terrorism. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson turned to CNN to warn Americans that terrorists want to blow up their malls. In terms eerily similar to vice president Joe Biden’s Swine Flu counsel, Johnson said, “If anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they’ve got to be particularly careful.”
Why this sudden pivot from “nothing to see here, folks” to “the sky is falling?” After all, this is the same administration which just last week thought a progressive jobs program would eliminate “Violent Extremism.” This comes from a president whose views of Islamic Terrorism have evolved to the point where it has become known as the hate that dare not speak its name.
Though one hopes this isn’t a cynical political ploy, this is the Obama administration. Does this bid to foment panic have anything to do with the fact that DHS funding is due to expire next week if Congress can’t reach an agreement? Could they really be so despicable as to terrify an entire nation solely to make Republicans look bad?
They say the definition of insanity is to continually attribute a particular definition of insanity to Albert Einstein when nobody knows for sure who said it first. Another definition of insanity is the Cruz Caucus of the Republican Party. These are people who will play the same procedural card -- shutting down all or part of the government -- over and over, expecting a different outcome.
Having grown bored with shutting down the entire government, this time the Cruz Caucus decided to just shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Within the realm of brilliance, this qualifies as a supernova. Confronted by a president whose foreign policy can most charitably be described as feckless, whose tap dancing around Islam makes even those not given to fever swamp speculation wonder where his loyalties actually lie, the Cruz Caucus has taken the only action which makes the president look strong on national security.
It is so unfathomable, one wonders exactly who is the Manchurian Candidate here. Is it the president, whom many still insist was born to alien creatures occupying an abandoned nuclear power plant in Springfield, Oregon, or is it Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada?
No matter, because any action which gives aid and comfort to this president is unconscionable. Now, you may wish to argue that in fact it isn’t the Cruz Caucus threatening to shut down Homeland Security, but Senate Democrats, who though a minority, have sufficient votes to prevent cloture. If you were to argue thus, you would be correct, as far as the facts are concerned.
But when it comes to who gets blamed for government shutdowns, facts don’t matter. When Bill Clinton vetoed two consecutive GOP budgets, leading to the government shutdown in 1995, who got the blame? Not the president who with the stroke of his pen actually shut down the government, but Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House.
In 2013 Senate Democrats refused to vote on continuing resolutions which would fund the government in lieu of an actual budget. Who got blamed for this? The GOP. So too this time around. Shortly after the 2014 wave election, House Republicans agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security for just three months, reasoning they would have more flexibility after the new Senate was seated. They singled out DHS not because they wanted to let the president pretend he actually gave a damn about American security, but because it houses US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which has the brief to implement the president’s legally questionable new amnesty program.
Of course even a cursory glance at Senate rules would have shown that even after the wave election, Democrats still retained the power of the filibuster. They could block any bill defunding USCIS. If the Cruz Caucus stick to their guns, which they always do, until just after it’s too late, then the DHS will be defunded, and Jeh Johnson can release more terror videos and point to the GOP saying “These people want to see you die!”
Insane, you might suggest. Perhaps, if facts had anything to do with it. But again, when it comes to government shutdowns, facts have nothing to do with it. The dominant media’s narrative is that government shutdowns are always the Republicans’ fault. Someone needs to tell the Cruz Caucus, “You can’t win.”
Oh, sure, the base knows what you’re doing, and why, and they support you on this. The problem is, you already have the base, and it’s not that big. It’s the whole mass of Middle America, who get their news in snippets between episodes of “The Bachelorette,” who know who really shut down the government: the Republicans.
It may not be true, but if the overwhelming majority believes it, it is the truth. It is the truth, and it hurts your cause and you are insane if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect the Democrats to get the blame.
|Posted by MLGoodell on January 13, 2015 at 2:10 PM||comments (0)|
It is a staple of B-Grade movie thrillers that a structure built over an ancient Indian burial ground will inevitably become a portal for an alternate evil universe. No doubt president Obama must be wondering who was buried beneath the White House, or even beneath Michelle’s organic vegetable garden, because it’s like he’s stumbled into an alternate evil universe. Every time he turns around, or doesn’t turn around, or does something, or doesn’t do something, it seems he gets the blame.
When Congressional Democrats turned his epic stimulus package into a leftwing grab bag, somehow, that was his fault. When the launch of his incoherently written and inherently unworkable Affordable Care Act was so badly bungled that if it took place in the private sector the company it supported would have gone out of business and someone would likely have gone to jail, Obama got the blame. When his foreign policy descended into a pastiche of leading from behind, resets and pivots, like a bad episode of Dancing With the Stars, everybody pointed their fingers at him. It’s like all of a sudden, everything’s Obama’s fault.
Take the recent man-caused disaster over there in Paris. Suddenly, it’s like a 9/11 moment all over again. Remember when, after the towers fell, a French newspaper, Le Monde, printed the headline, “Nous Sommes Tous Americans?” What a sickening thought that was, right? But there was something scary about it, too. Even Kerry, just for a minute, started making patriotic noises.
Of course, that didn’t last long. But remember when Obama got elected back in 2008? The New York Times could have run a headline announcing, “Nous Sommes Tous Socialistes Europeens.” ‘Cuz it was true, or virtually true. He promised to fundamentally change America, and damned if he didn’t try. Okay, so it turns out the American people didn’t actually want their country fundamentally changed. Well, why the hell did they vote for him then? Didn’t they believe him when he told them what he was going to do?
Turns out Hans Gruber’s assessment of the American voter’s intellectual capacity was spot on.
Anyway, back to the man-caused disaster. Obama said the right things. He warned Charlie Hebdo’s editorial staff of the consequences. Remember, back in 2012, when those lousy man-caused disaster causers torched the American consulate in Benghazi, what Obama said to the United Nations? “The future must not belong to those who slander the name of the prophet of Islam.”
Pretty much told them what would happen, didn’t he. So why this worldwide outrage? What’s with all those lofted pens and those sappy #JeSuisCharlie signs and posters? I mean, who cares, right? But then they have this demo, no biggie, right? Only then it takes off. Who knew Angela would be there? And Cameron, and probably even that cute Danish chick. It got so ridiculous even Holder gets antsy, calls Valerie and asks if maybe he should put in an appearance. Luckily, or so it seemed at the time, Valerie told him, no, get the hell out of Paris. Come home and help us restart that crucial conversation on race. Do you realize there hasn’t been one word about Ferguson in the news since those stupid cartoonists got shot?
Anyway, who knew it would get so big? Who knew Bibi and Abbas would be holding hands and singing Kumbaya, and, who knows, French kissing even? Who knew Proposhenko or whatever that Ukrainian troublemaker’s name is would holding hands and singing Kumbaya with the Russian Foreign Minister, Leadbed, or whatever? Who knew that Obama would get the blame for not showing up? I mean, everybody, and I mean everybody, even Jon-Freaking-Stewart jumped on him over that one.
So what are you going to do? You warn these guys ixnay on the prophet slander. They ignore you. They get shot. And suddenly it’s your fault? Maybe it’s time to exhume some of those native bones.
|Posted by MLGoodell on December 11, 2014 at 4:40 PM||comments (0)|
Today the CDC revealed a frightening new disease called CBDS. If left untreated, CBDS could result in the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of Americans around the world. Some observers have gone so far as to call it a threat to national security. How could a disease as severe as CBDS appear without warning, despite one of best pathological research laboratories in the world? That’s a question the CDC is having trouble answering. “We just don’t know,” one scientist said, with a shake of the head. “Like Ebola, it suddenly popped up and then spread rapidly. But at least we know what Ebola is, and how to treat it. Historically, Ebola has been, if anything, too efficient to spread very far.” While the CDC is reluctant to draw direct comparisons between CBDS and Ebola, clearly ignorance and superstition can result in both diseases being widely transmitted. This certainly seems to be the case with CBDS, which scientists first discovered with the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture. “This release, which was unnecessary, and motivated only by a pathological form of hatred, indicates a mutated form of BDS,” the CDC spokesperson revealed. “We’ve thoroughly documented the source and pathology of BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome, which was nearly pandemic during the first decade of the Twenty-First Century. We expected once the original vector was removed from the local environment, BDS would eventually die out, much the same as smallpox did. The last thing we expected was for it to mutate into Chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome, like its precursor, results in delusions, mainly among liberals (and certain libertarians surnamed Paul) that George Bush is evil incarnate. They view him as simultaneously stupid and brilliant, masterfully implementing a plot to take over the world while remaining unable to speak intelligibly or string together a series of rational thoughts. BDS reduced seemingly intelligent people to the same incoherence they ascribed to their nemesis. During these fits of irrationality, liberals took actions contrary to their own interests as Americans. They gladly jeopardized national security if they thought it would hurt Bush. In the six years since Bush left the White House, there have been occasional outbreaks of BDS, generally emanating from the White House where frantic shouts of “It’s not my fault. It’s Bush’s fault,” could be heard during clinical interventions and interviews with sympathetic journalists. The disease cropped up with some frequency in Congress, though it seemed to have been eradicated in the House of Representatives sometime in late 2010. Recent hopes that the Senate would soon be declared BDS-free were dashed this week with the CBDS outbreak. “By all unbiased accounts the Senate Intelligence Report is an unbalanced, poorly researched and often mendacious report whose only objective is to ‘Blame Bush,’” the CDC spokesperson explained. (‘Blame Bush’ is the most common symptom of the BDS patient). “Writing the report is the sort of partisan infantilism characteristic of late stage BDS, but it was only when Senate Democrats and the White House decided to release the report in its entirety that we realized just how severe the BDS mutation had become,” the researcher stated. “Releasing it serves only to damage relations with our few remaining allies, and to lend aid and comfort to our enemies. Even in the throes of CBDS infection victims can recognize those consequences, yet they are unable to resist the urge to ‘Get Bush.’” It really is hard to understand why, six years after he left office Bush Derangement Syndrome remains such a powerful disease. “One theory is that BDS was caused by shame,” said a CDC representative who wishes to remain anonymous because he has not been authorized to tell the truth. “We have anecdotal evidence that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 many liberals sidled up to their more conservative colleagues and murmured, ‘A lot of us are glad your guy’s in the White House and our guy isn’t.’” In other words, according to this theory, BDS and CBDS are caused by a kind of short circuit in the brain occurring when liberals realize they have succumbed, even briefly, to patriotic feelings. “As long as that memory remains, CBDS might never be eradicated,” the CDC spokesperson concluded.
|Posted by MLGoodell on December 5, 2014 at 12:55 AM||comments (0)|
You remember that scene in “Die Hard With a Vengeance,” where Simon Gruber (apparently no relation to Jonathan, though they are in the the same line of work), taunts FBI agent Bill Jarvis, suggesting he’s chewing on the frame of his glasses in an attempt to “butch up?” Well, there ought to be a whole lot of frame chewing going on in Washington after the article in today’s “Wall Street Journal” explaining what is driving the slowing pace of rising health care costs.
That remarkable reduction is one of the items cited by those few remaining True Believers after NY Sen. Chuck Schumer admitted Obamacare was a mistake. Millions of previously uninsured have insurance, they crowed. The growth in health care cost is at the lowest level in decades, they swooned.
These are all good things, surely. Especially providing health insurance to the previously uninsured. Remember when people like Simon Gruber explained, in a slow, slightly elevated voice, the kind you need to use when addressing stupid people, that once everyone is insured health care costs will actually go down because people will willingly go to the doctor with minor ailments, thereby preventing them from become major, hence more expensive ailments.
Makes sense. Unfortunately, we learned today that there are two main reasons health care costs aren’t rising as quickly. The first is that apparently medical insurance premiums are not included in calculating the cost of health care. The second is since most of the private insurance plans allowed under Obamacare carry huge deductibles and copays, many people have chosen to “delay or put off seeking care.” Which means the cost of health care isn’t going down, but the amount of health care being purchased is.
In other words, while the previously uninsured can get a check up every time they sneeze, the rest of America won’t go to the doctor until that golfball-sized lump in their throat grows up to be a softball. This is absolutely brilliant. What this means is that Obamacare has basically mandated that every individual in America must carry a major medical insurance policy.
You may remember major medical plans. They were a lot cheaper because they only covered serious hospitalization or illness. The difference between those plans and Obama-approved plans is though the latter only provide the coverage of major medical, they are priced like comprehensive plans.
Today this only applies to individuals who pay for their own insurance, but one of these days, once our president finishes gnawing the frame of his glasses, he’s going to have to implement the rest of his eponymous legislative achievement, and revoke most employer-provided plans . Once this is done, the rest of America can stop going to the doctor, too. We’ll all be chronically ill, but our health care cost curve will finally start bending downward.
When Hans Gruber--or was it Simon, or Jonathan? Who can keep these villains straight?--started bragging about stupid American voters, everyone from the president to the former Speaker of the House started denying they even knew him, let alone paid him half-a-million dollars to develop Obamacare.
Of course they were lying. Everything about Obamacare was based on a lie. It wasn’t designed to do what they said it would. It couldn’t do that. It wouldn’t improve the delivery of health care, and it wouldn’t lower the cost. They knew this going in, but they also knew they knew better than we did what was good for us. Whether it actually was good for us was immaterial. The fact is, they decided it was, and we were too stupid to know the difference.
Where are Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson when we need them?