Video clip of the day

Via Hot Air:

Emily's List, a pro-choice outfit has come out with a video which is in response to Sarah Palin's call to America's "Mama Grizzlies". As you will see, the video makes a radical departure from some progressive-sponsored videos of recent vintage.



Can it be? 85 seconds and nary a curse word in sight? Now just what in the sam hill is going on around here?

We'll give them credit, though? Unlike their recent predecessors, we welcome the break from puerile juvenile-ness.

But to the video itself: We're not quite sure what is meant by Sarah Palin and the MGs (hey.... Sarah and the MGs?... it's ours. Don't even think about it, 'yatch) "wouldn't have health care". What does that even mean? Does Palin want to do away with hospitals and doctors visits or something? If they mean that Sarah and the MGs want to do away with ObamaCare then just come out and say it. Of course, that would be drifting into the popular sentiment of the nation, currently, so obfuscation is the safe and correct way to proceed forward.

And how about "do away with... unemployment benefits?" As we recall, Republican "obstructionism" with this latest round of benny extensions was specific to having Congress abide by the "pay-go" rule (pay as you go... don't pass a law that can't be paid for... don't borrow even more money than we already have to pay for anything... you get the point) before passing the extensions. The Democrats in order to pass the bill, instead, chose to cut... food stamps. Does it get any better than that?

And by golly, we couldn't get through a minute and a half without a culture war broadside: "... protect our right to hibernate with whoever we choose."

We'd like to take a moment to remind Emily's MGs who it is that is leading the pack among Republicans who like to blaze. In case they hadn't noticed, this particular Alaskan has got a pretty well-defined libertarian stripe running down her back and murky allegorical charges won't stand up to scrutiny. What Sarah and the MGs know and what the rest of the nation is coming around to is that being family values-oriented and not being a social-conservative fire-brand does not an oxymoronic state of being make.

Now the rest of society may think that's fine and that's their prerogative, but if I ever catch you doin' that, son, I'm going to kick yer ass.

Like, who hasn't heard that or sentiment to that effect, before?

So, all in all, not a bad effort by Em's List if for nothing else than not having to slap the NSFWoH content label on this post.


Addendum #1: Capt. Ed, from the link at the top of the page, wonders how Emily and her MGs will feel about Medicare possibly not reimbursing for the cancer drug, Avastin, because of an FDA decision to scotch approval based possibly upon "cost effectiveness"? Obama... wouldn't have health care?

Lordy

Don't look now, it's already here.

File this one under, "We told you so", or perhaps more aptly, "He told you so" because if you didn't want to believe us or perhaps thought we were engaging in hyperbolic fear-mongering, we would've directed you to the musings of one Dr. Donald Berwick who has quite a bit to say on the subject of rationing.

And even then, if perhaps you thought the man's apparent affection towards rationing was taken out of context or otherwise distorted to make a point, well then...

A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments.

Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread.

It costs $8,000 (£5,000) a month and is given to about 17,500 women in the US a year. The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month.

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

The FDA is charged with determining the "effectiveness" of a drug not its "cost effectiveness". A wild assumption, we realize, that "cost effectiveness" is best determined by an open and transparent market place.

For those of you out there that would say the article gave scant evidence that "cost effectiveness" was the actual reason the FDA shot down Avastin, that would not be an unfair critique. However, given the cravenly cynical and hyper-political manner in which ObamaCare was Bush-Pushed across the finish line and what proponents like Berwick, who will be in charge of running Obamacare, have flatly stated about rationing and comparative effectiveness boards, why on earth would we give these unaccountable and politically-manipulated bureaucrats the benefit of the doubt?

We see no reason to so, yes, we will be embracing our inner cynic towards any and all matters related to healthcare in a constant effort to remain ungovernable.

Getting outflanked?

For an illustration of just how dire our public education system is in parts of our country, consider this: Democratic mayors from traditional machine-politics cities of the Midwest, Rust Belt and the Northeast are standing up to the teachers' unions in an attempt to implement pragmatic results-oriented solutions to their towns' school districts.

During the last weeks of the term, third graders at School 58-World of Inquiry School created an oil spill in a bowl. Under the guidance of teacher Alyson Ricci, they tried to clean it up. Cotton swabs worked.

The school last year won the national Excellence in Urban Education Award, with all students meeting state proficiency rates in science and social studies. It's an exception, though, in a Rochester system where fewer than half of the 32,000 public-school students graduate on time.

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy wants to set up more schools that produce results like World of Inquiry's. But he says the superintendent's efforts to close failing schools and open new ones have been hobbled by a school board mired in minutia. He is pushing to dissolve the elected board in favor of one appointed by the mayor and city council for a five-year test period. New York's state legislature is considering the bid.



As cities come under increasing pressure to fix failing schools, more are, like Rochester, trying to take matters into their own hands—or at least those of their mayors.

"People are desperately seeking a model that can be duplicated and used in different communities," said Jim Ardis, the mayor of Peoria, Ill., who is considering such a move. He argues that a Peoria model—yet to be developed—is more likely to fit smaller cities across the Midwest than existing systems in larger urban areas.

The school district of Boston, where mayoral control was first pioneered back in '92 has been joined by New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, Cleveland, New Haven, Conn., and Providence, Rhode Island which are now all under mayoral control.

Of course, giving the mayor more autonomy at the expense of school boards is not going unchallenged by the school boards themselves and their allies, lawmakers at the state and municipal levels and, of course, the teachers' unions (it has been declared unconstitutional by the courts here in California, natch).

Unions say mayoral control often ushers in policies counter to teachers' interests. Cities with mayoral control often seek to award pay or decide layoffs based on performance rather than seniority. Mayors have also pushed for the opening of charter schools, which are more difficult for unions to organize than public schools.

Once again, no where do we ever see the union concede that they may not have all the answers and how they might possibly be open to trying something different that just might be in the better interests of the children. Somehow the battle cry of "it's for the children!" is strangely absent in matters that actually effect the children.

Please read the article where they go to extents to explain that there is no cut and dry nor any black and white plan to reforming the district hierarchy but only a willingness to mix it up and try something different apart a culture and mindset that is failing the children of lower and working-class families.

Side note: We have taken the Republican Party to task at every opportunity for not doing enough to get out in front of education reform, particularly in way of vouchers, school choice and charter schools. Here is a situation, though, not of their making whereby the Democrats have a simple structural advantage in that the most significant education reform battles are being waged within the ranks of the Democratic Party itself and thus, the biggest proponents of education reform will be Democrats.

No matter... all the more reason for the Republicans to get off their sorry asses and engage the opposition in the education reform debate. It's doing right by the children, it's electorally-favorable with minorities and it cheezes-off the unions. Tell us again what we're missing here?

Not evidentiary

Officials in China are struggling with allegations that a tainted baby powdered-milk formula is to blame for an alleged outbreak in infant puberty.







If that is true, it's clear that it never effected one particular segment of the population.

Not so random thought of the day

It's not too late... is it?


Jeff Gottlieb, one of the two L.A. Times journalists (Ruben Vives is the other) that broke the devastating story of the outrageous salaries and compensations of Bell, CA city officials, was on Chris Reed's outstanding Top Story radio show last week.

Reed casually joked with Gottlieb that both he and Vives were on the "glide path" to a Pulitzer prize in journalism. Gottlieb somewhat sheepishly observed that all they really did was use freedom of information/sunshine laws to obtain the information. He then said something that we thought was extremely important: (paraphrasing) What we did could only be done by a newspaper and a big one at that. A blogger could not have done what we did. When the city of Bell initially stone-walled us from obtaining salary and compensation documents, we simply told them that our lawyers would be the next people they would hear from. The muscle and prestige afforded by a renowned institution like the L.A. Times made breaking this story possible.

Gottlieb is 100% correct. We couldn't do what the Times did. And we don't think that say, either, The Liberator Today or The Scratching Post have the time and resources to essentially threaten the city of Bell with legal action if they did not release the documentation the Times was seeking.

This is why it is so important for the newsies to re-commit themselves to upholding the trust that exists between they and their readers with respect to being that watchdog of democracy.

For as much crowing as we like to do over the ascendancy of the new media, it's still the good ol' fashioned old media that is doing the vast majority of yeoman's labor when it comes to breaking stories like this.

We're newsies at heart - we grew up reading the newspapers and consider ourselves news geeks to the point that we can rattle off the dailies of about every major metropolitan area in this country and that is why it pains us even more to see the traditional print media behave so poorly of late. Technological and socio-cultural advancements are one thing, but there is no need to grab a shovel to assist in your own grave-digging.

So, c'mon newsies! If you are going to go out the way of the buggy whip, do it with some pride and integrity!


Welcome Hot Air commenters and readers! Many thanks to Leslie over at Temple of Mut for the link to this post.

O ye rogue monks

Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

Related...

Rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Yesterday, we saw how a handful of distributors and beer and wine makers are attempting to squeeze out the competition by restricting the ways and means by which wine and beer can be purchased and transported.

Today, we are seeing how the monks of Saint Joseph Abbey of Covington, LA who for the past 100 years have been hand-crafting caskets of "noble simplicity" are being sued by the state of Louisiana for selling caskets without a license.

The caskets are an important part of the Abbey's income but now the monks face crippling fines and even jail time for their wanton non-compliance.

The Institute for Justice has taken up the monks' cause which is detailed in the video below via Secular Apostate.

More choices, more freedom

To the barricades, people!


Maybe because it's a slow news cycle in the dog days of August but once again we see a confluence between liberty and our ability to purchase and consume booze on our terms here in California.

With little public notice, distributors of alcoholic beverages are pressing for a federal law that would allow states to block interstate sales of wine and beer to their residents — a result that could limit consumer choices, raise prices and hurt hundreds of small vintners and micro brewers.

A bill pending in the House would put the authority to regulate alcohol more squarely in the hands of the states and would require those challenging the regulations to prove the rules violate federal law or the Constitution.

And it would supersede a number of recent court rulings that have struck down limits on interstate sales of alcoholic beverages.

“It’s the cumulative effect of all these lawsuits, and the confusion,” said Paul Pisano, a vice president at the National Beer Wholesalers Association, which proposed the legislation in the spring and backs a lobbying campaign. “We’re asking to make sure that states aren’t having their hands tied when they’re trying to defend their alcohol laws.”

Critics countered that the distributors’ real motive was to restrict competition.

Internet and direct-mail sales have become essential to the growth of smaller winemakers and micro brewers in the last decade.

South Coast Winery in Temecula, Calif., for instance, sells almost 30 percent of its wine through a 10,000-member wine club and ships to customers in about 20 states, owner Jim Carter said.

“It’s very important for small wineries, especially, to be able to have these wine clubs because it’s our best vehicle for dealing direct with the public,” Carter said. “We sell more wine through our wine club than we sell in the wholesale market.”

Through consolidation in recent years, many markets are controlled by only a handful of high-volume distributors, and they have little incentive, critics contend, to carry wines and beers that are available only in small quantities.

That last paragraph is key, because whatever alleged mess of conflicting state and federal laws this bill would supposedly clarify, the end result of this bill would represent a constriction of small vintners and microbreweries' ability to compete in the open market.

San Diego is dominated by essentially 4 distributors: Crest, Budweiser, Stone and Wine Warehouse and the article is quite correct in its contention they have no interest in pushing small volumes. Stone does what they can for the little guys but they have their own beer to get to the thirsty masses, as well.

This bill will have a devastating effect on local microbreweries who ultimately depend on a literal out-of-the-back-of-the-van distributorship.

And in case you were wondering how the free market is effected by all this, check this out:

Jerry Ellig, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, studied wine prices in the years before and after Virginia enacted a law in 2003 to allow direct shipping to residents. The study, published in 2007, found that the law had prodded retail stores to become more competitive with online sellers.

Wait. Is Ellig suggesting that increased competition from increasing the avenues by which a product is brought to market... lowers the prices of those products?

Opponents of the bill also claim that the bill would be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent and would prove to be the conduit to even more regulatory meddling in the liquor industry.

Of course, proponents of the bill go the "it's for the children route" (which, by the way, is an automatic disqualifier in our book) by claiming the tightening up on the ways that booze can be sold will cut down on underage drinking.

Right. Because the last time some under aged scrub hit us up for beer, it was to buy a couple of 22 oz. bombers of Green Flash's 30th Street.

Just another assault on our collective ability to enjoy perfectly legal adult activities.

H/T: Got an assist on a couple of points in this article from Michael Craig of Hoffer's in La Mesa.

And speaking of meta-

Here's KT on what we referred to yesterday as California's new meta-economy where state-issued IOUs are essentially legal tender by which businesses can pay back obligations to the state:

Essentially, this creates a new currency, one only valid within the government. The money is trapped entirely within the State economy since you can't use it to buy things from private parties. The idea of being able to use the IOUs within the State seems like a good idea until you pair it with our growing Justicialism.

KT suggests that the bill to make this happen gets passed to better serve an increasing regulatory regime here in California that is fueled by state-issued scrip.

So, link back to KT's article which links to ours from yesterday so we can generate a self-starting experiment on the effects of a blogospheric meta-black hole.

Weeeeeee!!!

Radio KBwD is on the air (Special Edition)

Holy smokes. It feels like summer is finally here in San Diego after a protracted and intense June Gloom that spilled over into August.

We hope wherever you are, you are enjoying yourself with family and/or friends and maybe, at this twilight hour (PDT), enjoying a cold beverage.

When we were bumping around YouTube searching for the Elvis Costello song we featured yesterday, we stumbled across this beauty from Elvis which is actually a cover of George Jones' "A Good Year for the Roses":







Incidentally, the two tykes to Costello's right are his two daughters at the time. We thought this song was from the outstanding King of America which came out in the mid-80s and which saw Costello delving into American Country and Western. Alas, it is not - does anyone know from which album this song is?

And here's the George Jones original:




Who ya got?

We're usually loathe to pick against the original artist but in this case, the Costello version actually sounds more "country" than does Jones' due in large part to Costello's emphasis on the pedal steel guitar.

Advantage: Costello.

Exit question: Does anyone know who that is on the pedal steel?


P.S. The two questions we're asking aren't an attempt to polish our geek chops. We truly don't know.

Quote of the day

“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

That was from the President and in defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama made these remarks on Friday as he hosted an iftar at the White House kicking off Ramadan.

What the President said got us to thinking about this whole thing and the lecturing we've been receiving from the left regarding the opposition to the mosque: it is in no way inconsistent to simultaneously believe that building the mosque there is an abjectly horrible idea and acknowledge that as long as zoning requirements are met, there is not a damn thing, legally speaking, that should be done to prevent this mosque from being built.

So, with that in mind, we ask our friends on the left to join us in welcoming, nay, actively supporting Greg Gutfeld's gay Muslim bar that will be built as close as possible to the mosque in order to build bridges of understanding, or something. The left has been a shining example of what constitutes tolerance and religious freedom here in America with respect to this mosque, so we are positive that they will be with us on Gutfeld's bar. And, yes, we have to go there: Bottoms up!

Exit question: Considering this is the first time he had said anything about the mosque, was his timing, doing so at the iftar, shameless pandering or totally appropriate?

Quickies

A round-up of articles and blog posts that caught our attention this past week.



Welcome to California's meta-economy: A bill, if passed, would allow businesses to pay obligations to the state (taxes, fees, fines, etc.) with.... IOUs issued by the state to those same businesses.



Yes, though I'm an (R), I still want to be invited to those upper west-side cocktail parties.

Kathleen Parker's current nitwit column: A half-hearted attempt at defending Michelle Obama's Spain trip by comparing it to... Laura Bush's trip to the Middle East to promote breast cancer awareness and to visit the troops?



From the comfortable shoes and flannel shirts gallery: Whiny feminists in the sports media wing are demanding a net-neutrality of sorts with respect to the coverage of women's sports. One small problem: no one cares about womens' sports... not even women.



Kirsten Powers: Ignore Robert Gibbs' lashing out at the "professional left". It's a head fake. With respect to foreign policy, Obama = Bush.














"If they want a greeting and you don't honor it they can hold it against you," Quintero said. "You know how I defend myself? By being agreeable."

Musicians glorifying gangsters and drug dealers? Nothing new here on this side of the border but south of the border? Your most depressing terminology development, narco-corrido is explained here.

Although, defining phenomena as north or south of the border is proving much more difficult these days, now isn't it?















Crony capitalism, Peronism, economic fascism, judicialism, picking winners and losers, corporatism.... ready for a new term for us right-wingers to get all wee-wee'd up about? Michael Barone introduces state capitalism.



Staying fair and balanced: Although it doesn't take much to read between the lines, USA Today editorial on the newly-minted fiscally-conscious Wal-Mart Moms, takes great pains to avoid uttering, "Democrats are in for an ass-whupping in November", or, you know, words to that effect.



B-Daddy is back from his family vacation Down Under and is lamenting the virtual no-win situation that confronts us when selecting our new governor here in California in November.

"One terrible consequence of this liberal attitude toward black violent crime is that too many blacks come to believe that less is expected of them morally than from whites. And the truth is that most Americans on the left do expect less from blacks."

Dennis Prager on the soft bigotry of low expectations as further revealed by the reaction to the Connecticut shooting deaths last week.



And finally, fellow SLOB (San Diego Local Order of Bloggers) Left Coast Rebel got picked up by the Daily Caller (again!) for his piece here on global warming. Good job, Tim!