Quickies

.

A roundup of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.




Here's some more of that Ivy League political diversity we've heard so much about:

The Harvard Crimson published an editorial urging conservatives not to apply to Harvard if they intend to criticize the university down the line for political points.

The editorial, titled “Warning: Do Not Enroll,” denigrates famous conservatives who graduated from Harvard and later sharply — and perhaps hypocritically — complained about the university’s liberal ideology, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly.

“If we could have spoken to these three men, we would have told them never to come to Cambridge,” wrote the staff of the Crimson. “We at The Crimson urge anyone who plans on one day scoring political points by maligning Harvard to neither apply, enroll, nor graduate from this fine institution.”

Do actual critically-thinking smart people go to Harvard, anymore? Given the number the past two or three generations of graduates have done on this country, we believe this to be a legitimate question.






Majority of Americans not down with the Executive branch American-killing drone program:

A new Reason-Rupe poll finds that a majority of Americans think President Obama's targeted killing program, which famously allowed the CIA to assassinate an American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen as well has his American-born teenage son, to be unconstitutional.

When asked if they thought it was "constitutional or unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists," 57 percent of respondents said they thought it was unconstitutional, including 65 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 44 percent of Democrats.

We don't think it would be going out on a limb to assume the number to be slightly lower for Republicans and up towards 70-75 percent for Democrats would a certain George W. Bush possessed this power.







In case you forgot, every bit of gun advice Joe Biden gives you will get you arrested:

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming.

(italics, ours)

This is known as the Oscar Pistorius method of home defense. How'd that work out for him?


This comes on the heels of him alleging to advise his wife to indiscriminately fire off her shot gun from the balcony should she sense any trouble at their home.

And as for the claim that most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon...






Again, the degree by which one pushes for stricter gun control is inversely proportional to one's knowledge of guns and gun laws.






From Gawker:

Comedian Brick Stone (real name: Dave Sirus) has made harassing Westboro Baptist Church members his life's mission.

Torn on this one. Not sure how much nobility can be derived from harassing the most universally reviled group of people in this nation's history. Talk about a soft target. They despise gays, they hate the military and if you are reading this, it's a good bet they hate you also. They're going to hell. Let them dance merrily along their way to it.






We suppose that's one way to bend downward the healthcare cost curve: stop paying the doctors.

From Reason.com's Hit and Run blog:

As Peter Suderman noted, the Obama administration is simultaneously pushing for Medicaid expansion and arguing that states should be allowed to reduce reimbursement to providers as a means of controlling costs in the bloated program. This comes even as Medicaid is already struggling to find providers willing to see patients — with low compensation cited as a major reason for the shortage.

The Obama administration's argument for reducing reimbursements for providers who see Medicaid patients was made very succinctly in a California courtroom:

"There is no general mandate under Medicaid to reimburse providers for all or substantially all of their costs."

This is what happens when you insert the state to supplant the realities of the free market. If the state doesn't feel obligated to pay for services they themselves did not provide, it is guaranteed those services will not-so-magically disappear.

Deciding not to pay for stuff is a great way to reduce your expenses — unless you actually need that stuff.







Just a reminder, gang: that conversation you had with that person who said it takes 10-20 years to bring a new oil/natural gas find to market, took place 10-20 years ago.







Nothing has been more illustrative of just how in the tank the 4th estate is for this presidential administration than the violent and reflexive reaction to WaPo's Bob Woodward "regret" dust-up.

It's now a badge of honor to be threatened by an administration you have absolutely zero intention of actually standing up to. So, we can only assume, the threats have been working to chill hard-edged journalism. Perhaps, more a case of battered wife syndrome, though.

One thing we do know: this is the most thin-skinned, whiny and petulant administration of our lifetime... and we're getting old.







Here's B-Daddy of The Liberator Today on sequestration:

Meanwhile, most of the country is going to yawn at the actual effects of sequestration. There will be pockets of pain in cities with a high concentration of defense civilians, and maybe some longer lines at the airport. I think this works to the advantage of those who want to cut spending because the over-reaction to sequestration will be seen as "crying wolf."

We agree and we believe the apocalyptic doom-saying will backfire on the Democrats.

A liberal friend of ours re-tweeted a message from the President claiming cuts to "vital services" would be made if sequestration were allowed to go down. We responded that if a 2% reduction in federal spending meant a cut to vital services then it's a good bet we have far too many "vital services".

Ultimately, the effects of sequestration, on the whole, will be one big fat whatever-burger.





Alright, we've done enough damage for today. Have an awesome Saturday.

.