Remember Bama's big nighttime press conference a couple months ago where he said Republicans have some very good ideas on health care reform and how "Tort Reform" was high on his list of things he wanted to look at as a way of reducing health care costs? It was the same event where he blasted that white cop for busting his belligerent Harvard buddy, after which they all had a beer in the spirit of reconcilliation.
Well, he must not have looked too hard. Not only is there no tort reform in the bill, there's actually wording that penalizes states for enacting laws that restrict attorney's fees or limit malpractice liability!
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042
This is bullsh!t, and it's just the beginning. Getting to be time to move to Texas.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Health Care Reform Will Be A Disaster
Here's just one reason why: In an effort to save costs, Bama and the Dems want to require all health care consumers to meet first with Primary Care physicians before consulting with specialists. The idea being that specialists are more expensive and many patient meetings with specialists could have been handled by Primary Care physicians. While this may be true, the fact is we have a nation-wide shortage of Primary Care physicians that is nearly a crisis of its own.
Of course Bama and the Congress have no idea this is the case, as they have their own set of personal physicians whose consumer base number 536 plus immediate family. Almost no one else in America has such luxury.
So the other 99% or Americans will be forced to wait in line to see a limited and over-taxed (in more ways than one) number of physicians before being OK'd to then see a specialist.
The result will be even longer waits to see your doctor. All the horrifying stories of inhumane waiting times we hear out of Canada and the UK will happen here, in America.
Of course we could just pump the system full of unqualified caregivers to handle the load...
Which brings me back to the point of the first blog post I ever made here: Costs can only go up, and quality of care can only go down!!!
Of course Bama and the Congress have no idea this is the case, as they have their own set of personal physicians whose consumer base number 536 plus immediate family. Almost no one else in America has such luxury.
So the other 99% or Americans will be forced to wait in line to see a limited and over-taxed (in more ways than one) number of physicians before being OK'd to then see a specialist.
The result will be even longer waits to see your doctor. All the horrifying stories of inhumane waiting times we hear out of Canada and the UK will happen here, in America.
Of course we could just pump the system full of unqualified caregivers to handle the load...
Which brings me back to the point of the first blog post I ever made here: Costs can only go up, and quality of care can only go down!!!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Bara Bama's Latest Screwup: H1N1
Bama is so worried that H1N1 could be his Katrina that last week he took the extraordinary step of declaring a national emergency before there was one.
For months now we've known H1N1 was coming, and for months the CDC and it's small army of vaccine makers have been working feverishly to get doses made. And for months now they've known there would not be nearly enough for everyone, but they probably thought it wouldn't be a big deal because only a small percentage of the population even bothers with the seasonal flu shot, and H1N1 has been taking its sweet time infecting the population, and by most accounts has been significantly less severe than initially thought.
Unfortunately, the Campaigner-In-Chief, in an attempt to appear proactive, has actually single-handedly created a crisis. The CDC has now had to come forward and admit there have been complications in the vaccine creation, and because of that - just like a run on the banks - people are desperate to get what few doses are out there.
If Bama made the declaration without knowing all the facts, then he's both stupid and incompetent. If he knew there were not enough doses available and still went with the national emergency, making the declaration is no defense for incompetence. If anything it just reinforces it.
Make no mistake - this situation is almost entirely Bama's fault. If he had been paying attention and shifted the flu vaccine focus to H1n1 6 months ago, the CDC could have had an initial wave of doses to support demand for H1N1. But now they've had to stop making seasonal flu to focus solely on H1N1, and most people can't get either.
Bama created this panic - just one more example of how completely ignorant he is on how real people actually behave. How many more examples do we need?
For months now we've known H1N1 was coming, and for months the CDC and it's small army of vaccine makers have been working feverishly to get doses made. And for months now they've known there would not be nearly enough for everyone, but they probably thought it wouldn't be a big deal because only a small percentage of the population even bothers with the seasonal flu shot, and H1N1 has been taking its sweet time infecting the population, and by most accounts has been significantly less severe than initially thought.
Unfortunately, the Campaigner-In-Chief, in an attempt to appear proactive, has actually single-handedly created a crisis. The CDC has now had to come forward and admit there have been complications in the vaccine creation, and because of that - just like a run on the banks - people are desperate to get what few doses are out there.
If Bama made the declaration without knowing all the facts, then he's both stupid and incompetent. If he knew there were not enough doses available and still went with the national emergency, making the declaration is no defense for incompetence. If anything it just reinforces it.
Make no mistake - this situation is almost entirely Bama's fault. If he had been paying attention and shifted the flu vaccine focus to H1n1 6 months ago, the CDC could have had an initial wave of doses to support demand for H1N1. But now they've had to stop making seasonal flu to focus solely on H1N1, and most people can't get either.
Bama created this panic - just one more example of how completely ignorant he is on how real people actually behave. How many more examples do we need?
Monday, October 26, 2009
A Nice Example About How Budget Projections Are A Farce
In the light of the CBO's projections on health care reform I thought it would be good to share a local example of just how badly budgeting can go wrong.
Last year in the city I live there was a fierce debate on whether or not the city should start its own ambulance service. The case for was primarily profit-driven; the city would recognize an additional $3 million in revenue every year from the service. This money could then be used to offset property taxes, which are very high, even for Wisconsin.
There were serious concerns with the proposal: the City did not have the personnel, so those people would have to be hired and trained, and it did not have the vehicles or equipment, so all that would need to be purchased. The initial startup costs would place a significant burden on the city's taxpayers. It was a risk, but the trend at the time was a steady demand for health service and emergency transportation, so the outlay could be recouped within the first year, according to projections.
Ultimately the proposal died in council. In the year since, demand for emergency transportation and health service on the whole has fallen sharply, such that the existing ambulance service has had to lay off workers to cut its losses. The hospitals in the area are already working near minimum staffing and have just approved further cuts. The immediate future for health care in this area as a whole is depressed, and the city almost bought into it.
Had the ambulance proposal passed we, as taxpayers, would be taking a bath right now, footing the bill for an investment gone terribly wrong.
Fundamentally I oppose the premise that government should compete with private enterprise for the purpose of supplementing tax revenue. Even if the ambulance service could have been profitable, its unlikely our taxes would really have been significantly cut - government can always find more ways to spend our money.
Last year in the city I live there was a fierce debate on whether or not the city should start its own ambulance service. The case for was primarily profit-driven; the city would recognize an additional $3 million in revenue every year from the service. This money could then be used to offset property taxes, which are very high, even for Wisconsin.
There were serious concerns with the proposal: the City did not have the personnel, so those people would have to be hired and trained, and it did not have the vehicles or equipment, so all that would need to be purchased. The initial startup costs would place a significant burden on the city's taxpayers. It was a risk, but the trend at the time was a steady demand for health service and emergency transportation, so the outlay could be recouped within the first year, according to projections.
Ultimately the proposal died in council. In the year since, demand for emergency transportation and health service on the whole has fallen sharply, such that the existing ambulance service has had to lay off workers to cut its losses. The hospitals in the area are already working near minimum staffing and have just approved further cuts. The immediate future for health care in this area as a whole is depressed, and the city almost bought into it.
Had the ambulance proposal passed we, as taxpayers, would be taking a bath right now, footing the bill for an investment gone terribly wrong.
Fundamentally I oppose the premise that government should compete with private enterprise for the purpose of supplementing tax revenue. Even if the ambulance service could have been profitable, its unlikely our taxes would really have been significantly cut - government can always find more ways to spend our money.
The CBO On "Saving Money"
The "Center for Barack Obama", or is it the Congressional Budget Office, has made the outrageous statement that the so-called "public option" in the health care proposal will actually save money. So now the projected cost of reform is only $871 Billion over 10 years. Of course, as has already been explained, the actual reform won't kick in until year 4 and the first 3 years will just be up front billings, so they really expect the cost to be $871 Billion over 7 years.
But what does it mean for the government to save money? Bara Bama has pledged not to deficit spend to pay for reform. This is of course a blatant slight of hand - he'll rob Medicare to pay for his reform, and then have to cover the holes he created in Medicare somehow, or just claim that it then also needs to be reformed. Ta-da, the Prestige!
Inclusion of the public option in the proposal saves money only when a specific number of people are included under the plan. Somehow, the CBO knows what that number is: 15-20 million Americans. This is within the 7 years of coverage. Beyond that is anyone's guess, but I'm guessing the number won't go down.
Here's the point: Government cannot save money. It can only spend money, and it acquires the money to spend either through taxes or by issuing new debt and running the presses, and eventually tax revenues pay for that debt. Either way, American tax payers pay for everything. Passing any health care reform proposal, by any estimate, will not save money; it can only cost more than what we are currently paying the government to do everything it does. In this case, according to the CBO, $871 Billion more.
This is a popular misconception among liberals, who are confused about the ownership of money. To Pelosi and her ilk, money is not yours or mine, it's theirs - the government - and as such we are only borrowing from the Great Provider, and if they want to take back a little more for the common good, we should all be thankful for their benevolence.
This mode of thinking is appalling; taxation is akin to legalized theft. Unfortunately, in this country those who do not contribute and who take are at least as valuable as those who provide, thanks to voting laws and widespread fraud, perpetrated almost exclusively on behalf of Democrats. So there's very little any sensible person can do about the current regime's theft policy, and the current slant is a lot to undo in a single election cycle. This is relevant because current polling (typically over-sampled with democrats) suggests people are actually in favor of a public option, and that is as good as currency for Congress to pass a bill to Bama's desk.
At this point I could take this post any number of ways but that would distract from the point. Government can never save money, it can only spend more than it currently is.
But what does it mean for the government to save money? Bara Bama has pledged not to deficit spend to pay for reform. This is of course a blatant slight of hand - he'll rob Medicare to pay for his reform, and then have to cover the holes he created in Medicare somehow, or just claim that it then also needs to be reformed. Ta-da, the Prestige!
Inclusion of the public option in the proposal saves money only when a specific number of people are included under the plan. Somehow, the CBO knows what that number is: 15-20 million Americans. This is within the 7 years of coverage. Beyond that is anyone's guess, but I'm guessing the number won't go down.
Here's the point: Government cannot save money. It can only spend money, and it acquires the money to spend either through taxes or by issuing new debt and running the presses, and eventually tax revenues pay for that debt. Either way, American tax payers pay for everything. Passing any health care reform proposal, by any estimate, will not save money; it can only cost more than what we are currently paying the government to do everything it does. In this case, according to the CBO, $871 Billion more.
This is a popular misconception among liberals, who are confused about the ownership of money. To Pelosi and her ilk, money is not yours or mine, it's theirs - the government - and as such we are only borrowing from the Great Provider, and if they want to take back a little more for the common good, we should all be thankful for their benevolence.
This mode of thinking is appalling; taxation is akin to legalized theft. Unfortunately, in this country those who do not contribute and who take are at least as valuable as those who provide, thanks to voting laws and widespread fraud, perpetrated almost exclusively on behalf of Democrats. So there's very little any sensible person can do about the current regime's theft policy, and the current slant is a lot to undo in a single election cycle. This is relevant because current polling (typically over-sampled with democrats) suggests people are actually in favor of a public option, and that is as good as currency for Congress to pass a bill to Bama's desk.
At this point I could take this post any number of ways but that would distract from the point. Government can never save money, it can only spend more than it currently is.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Dispelling the Audacity of Hope
Audacity: Arrogant disregard of normal restraints.
Hope: To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
If you haven’t already wasted time reading Bara Bama’s books, but was interested in doing so for some reason, I’ll save you the effort. The title says it all – “The Audacity Of Hope.” What does that mean? We know Hope was one of two primary themes of Bama’s 2006-2009 presidential campaign, the other being Change, and the composite of these was/is Hope for Change.
Now isn’t that nice and comforting. Of course Hope for Change was an abstract concept; it meant whatever you wanted it to mean. Really, this was a political masterstroke, because anyone could interpret it to mean anything. The truth is that the slogan has no meaning, because if it did it would dispel the delusion of meaning for millions of people who had made their personal interpretation. So, in effect, a candidate who ran a campaign based on nothing won the election. It was all a scam, and a narrow majority of American voters bought in.
Now look again at Bama’s book title, “The Audacity of Hope.” Once again this is a meaningless slogan, but it betrays some truths about the man, err, chosen one. The first is that he is arrogant. In fact, Bama’s arrogance is his defining characteristic. In his mind, there’s nobody more important in the history of the world than him. People around him have told him this, and the election validated this perception. He is now free to strut around the globe exhibiting his eminence believing everyone should give a damn. Many of us knew this about him before election night, and his behavior since then has been extreme in its self-importance, but remarkably, millions of Americans can’t see the man’s complete lack of humility and disregard for the position of others, most of whom have earned their status while he has not.
The second trait is that Bama does not act; he merely expects. This trait has been on full display during his 2009 campaigning for such issues as economic stimulus and health care and the war in Afghanistan and the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. He’s done absolutely nothing to improve the likelihood of success for any of these concerns, except to hope they get better.
Well, what has he done? He did ask for nearly a trillion dollars to “stimulate” the economy, but did not follow through. Only about 15% of that money has been spent, and even though the “experts” have declared the recession over, try telling that to the 17 million Americans out of work – almost double the number from when Bama took office.
He asked Congress to put a health care bill on his desk to sign and then created several deadlines, which have been ignored because the expectation was foolish, and all he’s been saying is that the opposition has posited “misinformation” which has stymied the process. Again, he’s done almost nothing to actively participate in the effort, he just has people hoping for it. Meanwhile, democrat politicians are hoping to survive the persistent anti-overhaul movement, which is actively working against them. Harry Reid’s days are numbered.
He scrapped the missile defense program for Poland so the Russians would be happy in hope they would be better partners in limiting Iranian nuclear aspirations. Yeah right. All he did was show weakness, and the Russians are playing him for the fool he is. Now the Russians and Chinese will be enriching the uranium for the Iranians for “medical purposes.” Uh-huh. Great leadership there, Bama.
And finally, he has hoped for a better outcome in Afghanistan. The strategy he developed during the 2008 campaign, without active participation from generals in the theater, was to pump an additional 17,000 men into the country when the real number needed has turned out to be closer to 60,000. Now he’s just hoping the problem goes away because the Norwegians have tied his hands with their diabolical Peace Prize.
Hope is always a passive action. When you hope for something, it means you either do not have the means to affect the outcome in your favor or are unwilling to put forth the necessary effort. The outcome for both situations is in someone else’s hands. People who voted for Bama hoped they would get something for it. In one sense, they actively participated in the voting process and affected the outcome in their favor, but they also bought into his bullsh!t campaign message, so what they hoped he would do for them as president cannot but disappoint. The guy has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing. You can hope all you want, it won’t change the fact that Bama is unprepared and unqualified to lead this country, and appears unwilling to put forth the effort it takes to get anything meaningful done.
The fact of the matter is that when you’re the President, there’s nothing less meaningful or useless than hope. You must affect change. You must lead. You cannot let everyone do your work for you and expect a favorable result. Barack Obama, if you fail it’s because you hoped for change but did nothing to make it happen.
Hope: To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
If you haven’t already wasted time reading Bara Bama’s books, but was interested in doing so for some reason, I’ll save you the effort. The title says it all – “The Audacity Of Hope.” What does that mean? We know Hope was one of two primary themes of Bama’s 2006-2009 presidential campaign, the other being Change, and the composite of these was/is Hope for Change.
Now isn’t that nice and comforting. Of course Hope for Change was an abstract concept; it meant whatever you wanted it to mean. Really, this was a political masterstroke, because anyone could interpret it to mean anything. The truth is that the slogan has no meaning, because if it did it would dispel the delusion of meaning for millions of people who had made their personal interpretation. So, in effect, a candidate who ran a campaign based on nothing won the election. It was all a scam, and a narrow majority of American voters bought in.
Now look again at Bama’s book title, “The Audacity of Hope.” Once again this is a meaningless slogan, but it betrays some truths about the man, err, chosen one. The first is that he is arrogant. In fact, Bama’s arrogance is his defining characteristic. In his mind, there’s nobody more important in the history of the world than him. People around him have told him this, and the election validated this perception. He is now free to strut around the globe exhibiting his eminence believing everyone should give a damn. Many of us knew this about him before election night, and his behavior since then has been extreme in its self-importance, but remarkably, millions of Americans can’t see the man’s complete lack of humility and disregard for the position of others, most of whom have earned their status while he has not.
The second trait is that Bama does not act; he merely expects. This trait has been on full display during his 2009 campaigning for such issues as economic stimulus and health care and the war in Afghanistan and the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs. He’s done absolutely nothing to improve the likelihood of success for any of these concerns, except to hope they get better.
Well, what has he done? He did ask for nearly a trillion dollars to “stimulate” the economy, but did not follow through. Only about 15% of that money has been spent, and even though the “experts” have declared the recession over, try telling that to the 17 million Americans out of work – almost double the number from when Bama took office.
He asked Congress to put a health care bill on his desk to sign and then created several deadlines, which have been ignored because the expectation was foolish, and all he’s been saying is that the opposition has posited “misinformation” which has stymied the process. Again, he’s done almost nothing to actively participate in the effort, he just has people hoping for it. Meanwhile, democrat politicians are hoping to survive the persistent anti-overhaul movement, which is actively working against them. Harry Reid’s days are numbered.
He scrapped the missile defense program for Poland so the Russians would be happy in hope they would be better partners in limiting Iranian nuclear aspirations. Yeah right. All he did was show weakness, and the Russians are playing him for the fool he is. Now the Russians and Chinese will be enriching the uranium for the Iranians for “medical purposes.” Uh-huh. Great leadership there, Bama.
And finally, he has hoped for a better outcome in Afghanistan. The strategy he developed during the 2008 campaign, without active participation from generals in the theater, was to pump an additional 17,000 men into the country when the real number needed has turned out to be closer to 60,000. Now he’s just hoping the problem goes away because the Norwegians have tied his hands with their diabolical Peace Prize.
Hope is always a passive action. When you hope for something, it means you either do not have the means to affect the outcome in your favor or are unwilling to put forth the necessary effort. The outcome for both situations is in someone else’s hands. People who voted for Bama hoped they would get something for it. In one sense, they actively participated in the voting process and affected the outcome in their favor, but they also bought into his bullsh!t campaign message, so what they hoped he would do for them as president cannot but disappoint. The guy has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing. You can hope all you want, it won’t change the fact that Bama is unprepared and unqualified to lead this country, and appears unwilling to put forth the effort it takes to get anything meaningful done.
The fact of the matter is that when you’re the President, there’s nothing less meaningful or useless than hope. You must affect change. You must lead. You cannot let everyone do your work for you and expect a favorable result. Barack Obama, if you fail it’s because you hoped for change but did nothing to make it happen.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Quick Hit: Bama's True Priorities
Yesterday, Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama had 2 major bullet points on his itinerary. The first was a stop in New Orleans. It was his first visit there since being elected, which is odd since New Orleans was such a major attack point for Dems and Bama last year against Republicans, but since last November they have all but ignored it.
Luckily for Bama, many of the residents of New Orleans have refused to move on with their lives, and the city as a whole, thanks in large part to its incompetent mayor, is still waiting for a handout. It should have surprised no one when the overwhelming demand of the attendees at Bama's "town hall" just wanted to get some of that Obama money that seems to be in rich supply these days.
Bama, as is his custom, fumbled a few empty promises and promptly got the hell out of there. He spent just over 4 hours in the area from wheels down to wheels up on Air Force One, causing even some of his supporters to wonder what just happened.
The second item on his day was a fundraiser in San Francisco, ever the safe haven of radical leftism, which no doubt gives comfort to Bama and his ilk. He raised millions of dollars for Democrat coffers, not one dime of which will go toward rebuilding New Orleans or helping one single person in Louisiana.
Bama spent about the same amount of time in each city, and proved once again that Democrats are free to ignore promises made to groups whose vote's they feel assured of, like the poor suckers in New Orleans, while they themselves luxuriate in the froth of rich and famous liberals who would rather throw money at Democrat reelection efforts than putting it to any real good use.
Imagine if Bama could have coordinated a fundraiser for New Orleans! Nah, never happen. Only people who depend on government reliably vote democrat, so keeping the population in need is Bama's #1 priority.
Luckily for Bama, many of the residents of New Orleans have refused to move on with their lives, and the city as a whole, thanks in large part to its incompetent mayor, is still waiting for a handout. It should have surprised no one when the overwhelming demand of the attendees at Bama's "town hall" just wanted to get some of that Obama money that seems to be in rich supply these days.
Bama, as is his custom, fumbled a few empty promises and promptly got the hell out of there. He spent just over 4 hours in the area from wheels down to wheels up on Air Force One, causing even some of his supporters to wonder what just happened.
The second item on his day was a fundraiser in San Francisco, ever the safe haven of radical leftism, which no doubt gives comfort to Bama and his ilk. He raised millions of dollars for Democrat coffers, not one dime of which will go toward rebuilding New Orleans or helping one single person in Louisiana.
Bama spent about the same amount of time in each city, and proved once again that Democrats are free to ignore promises made to groups whose vote's they feel assured of, like the poor suckers in New Orleans, while they themselves luxuriate in the froth of rich and famous liberals who would rather throw money at Democrat reelection efforts than putting it to any real good use.
Imagine if Bama could have coordinated a fundraiser for New Orleans! Nah, never happen. Only people who depend on government reliably vote democrat, so keeping the population in need is Bama's #1 priority.
"I Wish I Could Write A Check," Says Bama
This is perhaps the most telling moment of who Bama really is that we've been allowed to see during his interminable campaignery.
He was in New Orleans yesterday giving a speech to another one of those highly-controlled favorable crowds, and the crowd wants to get paid, so Bama blurts out, "I wish I could write a check." Someone in the crowd yells out, "Why not?"
Now before I get to his answer - and believe me it's worth the wait - the very fact that he said what he said shows the true depth of his fanatical liberalism and disconnect from economic reality. You might think, that's just something people say, he doesn't really mean he wants to just write a check. Yes he does!! Bama wishes he could just write checks for everything without regard to any kind of review process. Writing checks is an exercise in power, and Bama is a power-corrupt megalomaniac. Also, he knows people want to get paid, and for Democrats, support = paybacks = continued support.
At this point in the event Bama has wandered well off the teleprompter and into was is for him a minefield of inept response, but he starts his answer anyway. The audio is linked below. By the way, if you start Googling the speech and read what the major news outlets are reporting and then hear it for yourself, you'll quickly see how abysmally he's being quoted in an effort to cover his stupidity. MSNBC, for example, quotes the question but leaves his response completely off, but anyone who doesn't know NBC is in the tank for Bama is brain dead.
So someone asks why not, and Bama starts stuttering his reply, and you can almost hear the voice in his head saying, "Uh oh, now what?" So he says, “Well, you know there’s this whole thing about the Constitution and Congress and… you know… I uh… Not to mention the fact that, you know, I’m always, (stutters), one of the interesting things you find out about being president is, ah, everybody will attack you for spending money, unless you’re spending it on them.” (Applause from idiots)
My first thought was, this guy still has no idea what it means to be president - he's still campaigning, not leading. Also, it's more obvious every day just how unprepared he and everyone around him was and still is to be leading this country. Finally, his statement is just wrong; conservatives do not want Bama to spend money on us, period. We don't need his handout. Only liberals want Obama money, and as evidenced in the Q&A in New Orleans, they all want to get paid, and yeah, they're pissed off when others are getting paid and they're not. They all want that Obama money, just like in Detroit.
Here's the audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=113840363&m=113841391
"Obama on defense in New Orleans"
The crowd was gracious to Bama, even though he has given them nothing but empty promises, err, hope, and booed governor Jindal, who has done more to reshape the mess that is Louisiana than any other politician in that state's history. It's funny how desperately people want Bama to be the messiah, and it's all his fault. Bama allowed himself to be packaged that way and was all too happy to roll with it and started to believe his own praise. That's the real problem with this guy and all of his followers - their near total disconnect from reality.
He was in New Orleans yesterday giving a speech to another one of those highly-controlled favorable crowds, and the crowd wants to get paid, so Bama blurts out, "I wish I could write a check." Someone in the crowd yells out, "Why not?"
Now before I get to his answer - and believe me it's worth the wait - the very fact that he said what he said shows the true depth of his fanatical liberalism and disconnect from economic reality. You might think, that's just something people say, he doesn't really mean he wants to just write a check. Yes he does!! Bama wishes he could just write checks for everything without regard to any kind of review process. Writing checks is an exercise in power, and Bama is a power-corrupt megalomaniac. Also, he knows people want to get paid, and for Democrats, support = paybacks = continued support.
At this point in the event Bama has wandered well off the teleprompter and into was is for him a minefield of inept response, but he starts his answer anyway. The audio is linked below. By the way, if you start Googling the speech and read what the major news outlets are reporting and then hear it for yourself, you'll quickly see how abysmally he's being quoted in an effort to cover his stupidity. MSNBC, for example, quotes the question but leaves his response completely off, but anyone who doesn't know NBC is in the tank for Bama is brain dead.
So someone asks why not, and Bama starts stuttering his reply, and you can almost hear the voice in his head saying, "Uh oh, now what?" So he says, “Well, you know there’s this whole thing about the Constitution and Congress and… you know… I uh… Not to mention the fact that, you know, I’m always, (stutters), one of the interesting things you find out about being president is, ah, everybody will attack you for spending money, unless you’re spending it on them.” (Applause from idiots)
My first thought was, this guy still has no idea what it means to be president - he's still campaigning, not leading. Also, it's more obvious every day just how unprepared he and everyone around him was and still is to be leading this country. Finally, his statement is just wrong; conservatives do not want Bama to spend money on us, period. We don't need his handout. Only liberals want Obama money, and as evidenced in the Q&A in New Orleans, they all want to get paid, and yeah, they're pissed off when others are getting paid and they're not. They all want that Obama money, just like in Detroit.
Here's the audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=113840363&m=113841391
"Obama on defense in New Orleans"
The crowd was gracious to Bama, even though he has given them nothing but empty promises, err, hope, and booed governor Jindal, who has done more to reshape the mess that is Louisiana than any other politician in that state's history. It's funny how desperately people want Bama to be the messiah, and it's all his fault. Bama allowed himself to be packaged that way and was all too happy to roll with it and started to believe his own praise. That's the real problem with this guy and all of his followers - their near total disconnect from reality.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
More Evidence The Stimulus Is A Scam
20% of all jobs "Created" by the Federal Stimulus in Wisconsin were seasonal summer jobs for teenagers. Those are exactly the kinds of great wage jobs we need more of!
Also, because the number of jobs "created or saved" is based on projections to make decisions based on government budget cuts that didn't happen, the States and Feds can claim to have "Saved or created" the same jobs more than once. In fact, they can do it for every budget cycle. So the same jobs not considered for elimination this year due to the stimulus could also be not considered next year due to the stimulus and viola! Two jobs saved!
Finally, during the same period, 189,000 private sector jobs were lost in Wisconsin. Way to go, Bama! Lets all cheer his wonderful policy of negative job growth!!
Also, because the number of jobs "created or saved" is based on projections to make decisions based on government budget cuts that didn't happen, the States and Feds can claim to have "Saved or created" the same jobs more than once. In fact, they can do it for every budget cycle. So the same jobs not considered for elimination this year due to the stimulus could also be not considered next year due to the stimulus and viola! Two jobs saved!
Finally, during the same period, 189,000 private sector jobs were lost in Wisconsin. Way to go, Bama! Lets all cheer his wonderful policy of negative job growth!!
Massaging Federal Stimulus Results
I woke up this morning to the glowing report that Federal Stimulus money has, "Created or saved 8200 jobs in Wisconsin."
Well, which is it? Were jobs "created" or "saved"?
Just a few minutes of digging online revealed the truth I had suspected: 6000 of the 8200 jobs are existing public-sector jobs, including teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc. None of these jobs were even at risk unless the state and local governments decided budget holes would not be filled and those positions would have been cut. We hear that debate locally every year, but for some reason the politicians and administrators are never willing to eliminate the dead weight they themselves represent!
So obviously this is a total snow job. Anyone who takes this report at face value is a fool. All the stimulus has done is allow state and local governments to spend without restraint or regard for the current fiscal crisis. The Federal Stimulus will have exactly the opposite effect long-term, because it encourages governments to take money out of the economy by taxing wage earners and only extends or expands current government. This is obvious chronyism.
The other 2200 jobs supposedly "created"? All construction jobs, many of which are wasted on projects that are not needed. I know first hand that a large stretch of Interstate 90 between Tomah and La Crosse has been torn up as part of a "stimulus project", but the concrete had 3-5 good years left, and what'd they replace it with? Asphalt! So they replaced durable concrete with asphalt that will need to be replaced again in 5-7 years (asphalt doesn't last through Wisconsin winters). These are the constructions jobs being created - a permanent cycle or road repair due to the use of cheap and short-lived materials. Any guess who the asphalt lobby is throwing money at?
Is it even possible to spend $2 Billion is less useful ways? Give Bama, Pelosi, and Reid another year and we'll probably find out.
Well, which is it? Were jobs "created" or "saved"?
Just a few minutes of digging online revealed the truth I had suspected: 6000 of the 8200 jobs are existing public-sector jobs, including teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc. None of these jobs were even at risk unless the state and local governments decided budget holes would not be filled and those positions would have been cut. We hear that debate locally every year, but for some reason the politicians and administrators are never willing to eliminate the dead weight they themselves represent!
So obviously this is a total snow job. Anyone who takes this report at face value is a fool. All the stimulus has done is allow state and local governments to spend without restraint or regard for the current fiscal crisis. The Federal Stimulus will have exactly the opposite effect long-term, because it encourages governments to take money out of the economy by taxing wage earners and only extends or expands current government. This is obvious chronyism.
The other 2200 jobs supposedly "created"? All construction jobs, many of which are wasted on projects that are not needed. I know first hand that a large stretch of Interstate 90 between Tomah and La Crosse has been torn up as part of a "stimulus project", but the concrete had 3-5 good years left, and what'd they replace it with? Asphalt! So they replaced durable concrete with asphalt that will need to be replaced again in 5-7 years (asphalt doesn't last through Wisconsin winters). These are the constructions jobs being created - a permanent cycle or road repair due to the use of cheap and short-lived materials. Any guess who the asphalt lobby is throwing money at?
Is it even possible to spend $2 Billion is less useful ways? Give Bama, Pelosi, and Reid another year and we'll probably find out.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Passing the Hat for Healthcare
It looks more and more like a the Dems will get a bill to Bama's desk before the end of the year. Strangely, even though we'll start paying for health care reform next year, none of the provisions of reform begin until 2013. So that means Americans will be paying for 3 years for something before it comes into effect. Does that make any sense? Well, it's a key component of the scam to bring down the projected cost of the plan. By forcing all of us to pay into the fund ahead of time when no benefits are dished out, Democrats hope to make it look like it costs less than it actually does.
Meanwhile, all we'll hear about from Bama and the media is how he passed a successful health care reform law that will affect the lives of millions of Americans, blah, blah, blah. But in truth, not one single person will benefit from this law before 2013. Which means that all the negative aspects of reform - the huge cost passed onto all Americans and the reduction in quality of care - won't be realized before his reelection campaign in 2012, so Republicans won't be able to use it to sink the Campaigner-In-Chief.
So we've got two scams going on: the first is an effort to disguise the true costs of health care by making Americans pay up front, and the second is an effort to mislead the public on the effectiveness of the reforms by not implementing them before Bama runs for reelection.
It seems that many members of the"Greatest Generation", who have orchestrated 60 years of such reforms for their personal benefit and screwed everyone else in the process, are becoming increasingly confused about their own scam. There are those who actually blame Republicans for Medicare's shortcomings, and fail to understand that Bama intends to fund new health care by significantly carving up Medicare. There's a freshman congressman from Florida, Garvin, a trial lawyer and one of the wealthiest men in all of government, who is blasting away saying if you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly. Instead of critical commentary about how ridiculous this is, the media is offering it as an honest spur to debate the issue. No Republican would get such benevolent treatment. Anyway, Garvin gets to state outright lies about Republicans and for some reason many seniors believe the crap that comes out of his stinking mouth. Hmmm, maybe sick old people should just be allowed to let nature take its course - at least then we'd have a less diluted pool of rational thinkers voting during the mid-terms.
I will soon be taking full advantage of the current American health care system, and will no doubt encounter many of its pros and cons. In the lead up, I'm hoping to not get messed with. My current situation is excellent, and I don't want a group of people who've had ample opportunity to live a long life affect changes that cut mine short just so they can squeeze a few more fuzzy days out of theirs.
Meanwhile, all we'll hear about from Bama and the media is how he passed a successful health care reform law that will affect the lives of millions of Americans, blah, blah, blah. But in truth, not one single person will benefit from this law before 2013. Which means that all the negative aspects of reform - the huge cost passed onto all Americans and the reduction in quality of care - won't be realized before his reelection campaign in 2012, so Republicans won't be able to use it to sink the Campaigner-In-Chief.
So we've got two scams going on: the first is an effort to disguise the true costs of health care by making Americans pay up front, and the second is an effort to mislead the public on the effectiveness of the reforms by not implementing them before Bama runs for reelection.
It seems that many members of the"Greatest Generation", who have orchestrated 60 years of such reforms for their personal benefit and screwed everyone else in the process, are becoming increasingly confused about their own scam. There are those who actually blame Republicans for Medicare's shortcomings, and fail to understand that Bama intends to fund new health care by significantly carving up Medicare. There's a freshman congressman from Florida, Garvin, a trial lawyer and one of the wealthiest men in all of government, who is blasting away saying if you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly. Instead of critical commentary about how ridiculous this is, the media is offering it as an honest spur to debate the issue. No Republican would get such benevolent treatment. Anyway, Garvin gets to state outright lies about Republicans and for some reason many seniors believe the crap that comes out of his stinking mouth. Hmmm, maybe sick old people should just be allowed to let nature take its course - at least then we'd have a less diluted pool of rational thinkers voting during the mid-terms.
I will soon be taking full advantage of the current American health care system, and will no doubt encounter many of its pros and cons. In the lead up, I'm hoping to not get messed with. My current situation is excellent, and I don't want a group of people who've had ample opportunity to live a long life affect changes that cut mine short just so they can squeeze a few more fuzzy days out of theirs.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Anti-Semite Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Of course Jimmy Carter's an anti-Semite. The guy has blatthered at length over the last decade his affinity for the Palestinian cause and his belief that the Jews are in the wrong and at fault for the continuing conflict in that region.
Now that Candidate-In-Chief Barack Obama has espoused essentially the same point of view in admonishing Israel for its West Bank settlements and even threatening to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraqi airspace, he has been honored with the world's most notorious prize for anti-Semitism, the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, quite a lot has been made during the last 4 weeks about the lack of communication between Bama and his commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal had been trying to talk to his boss for weeks and was being ignored. Then Bama comes back from Copenhagen and finally sits down to talk about the future of our military presence in the region.
So why the wait? What did Bama's trip to pitch for the Olympics have to do with Afghanistan? Now we know. Bama almost certainly knew he was in the running for the Peace prize, and while in Copenhagen an emissary from Oslo got the message to him, the Prize is yours, just don't blow it. That's why he went to Copenhagen, not for the United States, but for his own ego.
Now that he's won the prize, expect a half-ass response for McChrystal. Enough troops to keep the situation in limbo another 2 years, and then a dramatic pull out in 2012 when the whole thing has fallen apart. The more appropriate response, the response Bush took in Iraq, would be to send in a troop force capable of winning, or at least cleaning out the organized elements of the Taliban. In other words, another surge. But that would look bad for the Nobel committee, and even the pundits this morning agree that this award is more of a proactive attempt to affect Bama's policy with regards to the Middle-East, even as the idiots in Oslo claim they are rewarding Bama's good intentions to make America a better world citizen.
And what is that all about? The United States is not in the business of bowing to dictators, even though Bama is. He does not represent us, and not even a majority approve of the job he's doing anymore. We don't need him to apologize for us, as if he speaks on behalf of every American. That's infuriating. This guy is a clown, only in it to fulfill a prophecy he and the media created for himself. Nothing short of the humiliation of Americans and the destruction of American values will suffice, and that's exactly why he's so popular in Oslo.
By the way, before Carter, Woodrow Wilson was the last American president to win the Peace Prize. Being a bigot and anti-Semite may not be a requirement for winning the prize, but it obviously helps.
Now that Candidate-In-Chief Barack Obama has espoused essentially the same point of view in admonishing Israel for its West Bank settlements and even threatening to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraqi airspace, he has been honored with the world's most notorious prize for anti-Semitism, the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, quite a lot has been made during the last 4 weeks about the lack of communication between Bama and his commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal had been trying to talk to his boss for weeks and was being ignored. Then Bama comes back from Copenhagen and finally sits down to talk about the future of our military presence in the region.
So why the wait? What did Bama's trip to pitch for the Olympics have to do with Afghanistan? Now we know. Bama almost certainly knew he was in the running for the Peace prize, and while in Copenhagen an emissary from Oslo got the message to him, the Prize is yours, just don't blow it. That's why he went to Copenhagen, not for the United States, but for his own ego.
Now that he's won the prize, expect a half-ass response for McChrystal. Enough troops to keep the situation in limbo another 2 years, and then a dramatic pull out in 2012 when the whole thing has fallen apart. The more appropriate response, the response Bush took in Iraq, would be to send in a troop force capable of winning, or at least cleaning out the organized elements of the Taliban. In other words, another surge. But that would look bad for the Nobel committee, and even the pundits this morning agree that this award is more of a proactive attempt to affect Bama's policy with regards to the Middle-East, even as the idiots in Oslo claim they are rewarding Bama's good intentions to make America a better world citizen.
And what is that all about? The United States is not in the business of bowing to dictators, even though Bama is. He does not represent us, and not even a majority approve of the job he's doing anymore. We don't need him to apologize for us, as if he speaks on behalf of every American. That's infuriating. This guy is a clown, only in it to fulfill a prophecy he and the media created for himself. Nothing short of the humiliation of Americans and the destruction of American values will suffice, and that's exactly why he's so popular in Oslo.
By the way, before Carter, Woodrow Wilson was the last American president to win the Peace Prize. Being a bigot and anti-Semite may not be a requirement for winning the prize, but it obviously helps.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
How to Win in Afghanistan
The biggest problem we have in Afghanistan is the same problem we had in Iraq: American troops cannot secure the borders to contain the fight. Militants stream across the mountains from Pakistan everyday, and there's no way to stop them within the confines of Afghanistan. That's why we were launching drone attacks into Pakistan, but those only succeeded in inciting the Pakistanis against us.
Bama's current strategy is failing, and McChrystal's request for more troops may also not be enough. We're hearing today that many of our servicemen on the ground do not understand the goals of this conflict, and who can blame them? Afghanistan has no resources to exploit and no clout in the region. Victory there means freedom for it's people from the medieval Taliban regime, but for how long? I used to think freedom would instill desire to protect freedom from oppression, but that's not happening in America, so how can we expect it to happen anywhere else, especially in states such as Afghanistan that have no resources of their own to fight the well-funded extremist advances in the region.
So either the US needs to mount a thorough offensive with a lot more troops and remain installed to police the country from extremism indefinitely, or we need a new strategy that will reduce the burden on the troops inside the borders to focus on those Taliban forces and then turn it over to the Afghans to control their own destiny.
Here's the only way I see this working: The United States needs to incite a major conflict between Pakistan and India and secretly support India. At the same time, we need to use Bama's new-found influence with Russia, at the same time apply pressure with the continued presence in Poland and Russia's neighbors, to strictly control their own regional border with Afghanistan. The cost of prosecuting the war today would be shifted to the new strategy, but we'd be able to pull our troops out of Afghanistan after cleaning up the Taliban inside the borders, while the insurgents that had previously streamed in from Pakistan now focus on their sworn blood enemy, India. With the external pressure relieved, victory in Afghanistan becomes more clear, and as long as Pakistan/India does not escalate beyond a conventional conflict we can fund it indefinitely.
Insidious? Yes. This is definitely a move worthy of Emperor Palpatine, but it is also a path to victory, whatever that means.
The other remaining option is that we pull out of Afghanistan and then just try to kill Taliban remotely using drones or Special Forces, but that did not work too well at the beginning of the war, so the aim would be to continue to disrupt Taliban efforts to consolidate power for as long as possible while surveying the region for terrorist camps and then hitting them with drones and missiles and the occasional bomber run.
Bama would never go for it, and it's probably a bad idea, but we're pretty low on good plans right now.
At least with Bama we always have hope!
Bama's current strategy is failing, and McChrystal's request for more troops may also not be enough. We're hearing today that many of our servicemen on the ground do not understand the goals of this conflict, and who can blame them? Afghanistan has no resources to exploit and no clout in the region. Victory there means freedom for it's people from the medieval Taliban regime, but for how long? I used to think freedom would instill desire to protect freedom from oppression, but that's not happening in America, so how can we expect it to happen anywhere else, especially in states such as Afghanistan that have no resources of their own to fight the well-funded extremist advances in the region.
So either the US needs to mount a thorough offensive with a lot more troops and remain installed to police the country from extremism indefinitely, or we need a new strategy that will reduce the burden on the troops inside the borders to focus on those Taliban forces and then turn it over to the Afghans to control their own destiny.
Here's the only way I see this working: The United States needs to incite a major conflict between Pakistan and India and secretly support India. At the same time, we need to use Bama's new-found influence with Russia, at the same time apply pressure with the continued presence in Poland and Russia's neighbors, to strictly control their own regional border with Afghanistan. The cost of prosecuting the war today would be shifted to the new strategy, but we'd be able to pull our troops out of Afghanistan after cleaning up the Taliban inside the borders, while the insurgents that had previously streamed in from Pakistan now focus on their sworn blood enemy, India. With the external pressure relieved, victory in Afghanistan becomes more clear, and as long as Pakistan/India does not escalate beyond a conventional conflict we can fund it indefinitely.
Insidious? Yes. This is definitely a move worthy of Emperor Palpatine, but it is also a path to victory, whatever that means.
The other remaining option is that we pull out of Afghanistan and then just try to kill Taliban remotely using drones or Special Forces, but that did not work too well at the beginning of the war, so the aim would be to continue to disrupt Taliban efforts to consolidate power for as long as possible while surveying the region for terrorist camps and then hitting them with drones and missiles and the occasional bomber run.
Bama would never go for it, and it's probably a bad idea, but we're pretty low on good plans right now.
At least with Bama we always have hope!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hollywood is F***ing Dumb.
This post is primarily a movie review, but it is also politically relevant.
I was suffering a bit of insomnia last night and flipped to HBO after the ESPN bonus coverage of the MNF Packer-Viking game. The movie in progress was Shoot 'Em Up, an action movie that aspired to the slick stylings of the latest James Bond films, and with similar star power; Clive Owen played the dashing but dour, square-jawed hero to Paul Giamatti's archetypal one-dimensional completely evil villain.
The plot of the movie, if you can call it that, is that the hero, Smith, is trying to uncover some conspiracy that has something to do with infant bone marrow and a Democrat senator who is the front runner for the presidency because of his anti-gun stance. He's also a cripple and needs the marrow, so he's icky because he's breeding babies for the sole purpose of harvesting the marrow to treat himself. Unfortunately for the senator the major gun manufacturer has caught on and kills all the babies, except one, which has been saved by Smith.
The gun king has employed Paul Giamatti to find and kill the last baby to cover their tracks, so Paul, who just knows people, which is how it's explained that he is able to find Smith so easily, hires about 50 goons with automatic weapons to storm Smith's abandoned warehouse safehouse.
Unfortunately for Smith, he wasn't able to afford all the guns he wanted, so he gets a single box of shells for his pistol.
Now, there's also a woman in the film who's sole purpose is to breastfeed this baby Smith is trying to keep safe, but she's clearly a romantic interest if only Smith wasn't so disturbed.
I probably missed the part at the beginning of the movie where the story explains how Smith is so good at killing things, but it doesn't really matter. We do know that he has really good vision because he eats lots of carrots.
Once the goons start assaulting the warehouse, Smith kills nearly all of them. At first, because he has to conserve ammo, he kills about 10 guys with a single shot at each, all the while he's running directly at them and carrying the baby in his left arm. That's right - he's carrying the baby the whole time. Miraculously, none of the goons can hit him with their automatic weapons from 10 feet away, even as he has to rush them and wait for the perfect shot to conserve ammo. At the end of this scene he manages to pick up one of the sub-machine guns off a dead goon, jump out to a zip wire extending from the ceiling into the large, open square stairwell, and while he's spinning around and zipping down the line, he's shooting the goons on the stairwell, all while cradling the baby. He kills dozens of guys on his 10 second descent to the floor, all the while every one of them is shooting back, but they just can't seem to hit him. Rambo never had it so good. Heck, parodies of Rambo never had it so good. I couldn't help but think of Weird Al's hilarious spoof in UHF. That's pretty much the idea here.
In a subsequent scene the goons have him cornered in a warehouse full of guns, and to get away he fires his pistols in opposite directions while looking and running in a third, and of course the goons are both shot in the head. And then he has all these guns taped to posts that he's controlling with string and the rest of the goons just keep running into bullets. There's a quick second where he has to run to the next set of strings and the goons are following - two guys are literally within arms reach of Smith and firing their machine guns directly into his back at point-blank range and he is miraculously unharmed. The he escapes in a car and ends up crashing into a van full of goons, flying through both windshields and then neatly dispatching 6 more guys who don't even shoot back. I think his one-liner was something like, "Who says seat belts save lives?"
Smith then goes to meet with the senator, who it turns out is working with the gun manufacturers. So Smith kills the senator and jumps our of his plane and kills 20 more goons as he's plummeting to the ground.
Wait, it gets better. So Paul finally captures Smith and breaks some of his fingers and is about to cut his eye out and Smith headbutts Paul and then pushes the exacto knife through his own hand so he can whack goons in the face with it. The he sprays the gun king with blood squirting out of his hand and kills that guy, but he can't shoot straight with his broken hands so he can't kill Paul, who apparently would rather be shot at and taunt Smith than actually kill him. Paul's motivation for not killing Smith is that he has to be right about him because he knows people so well, so he's just wants Smith to confirm his ideas before he can kill him - typical stupid villain stuff.
So finally Paul is about to shoot Smith, who is sitting next to a fireplace with a roaring fire - we're not sure why, and then Smith reveals a handful of bullets, which he holds to the fire while aiming his hand at Paul, and of course the bullets fire out of his hand like a gun and Paul gets all shot up.
That's not even the end but I won't spoil it for you.
This movie takes comic violence to a new level, and I guess it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, except it's clearly not funny or even remotely clever. It's just stupid, with each action sequence more ridiculous than the last.
The movie is supposed to have an anti-gun message, but every single character, except for the baby, glorifies in the gun violence to such an extreme that it has the exact opposite effect. There's even an absurd line of dialog when Smith finds out the senator is working with the gun king; he says, "You know what I hate? Hypocrites." Except he's the biggest hypocrite of them all because supposedly despises the gun manufacturers while all he does in this movie is kill about 100 people with a gun. Giamatti has a similarly terrible line. "Guns don't kill people, but they help."
I get that that is supposed to be commentary on the pro-gun groups, and that the movie itself is some kind of statement about gun violence. But it's just so stupid and unbelievable in it's action sequences and characterizations that it comes off as a piece of Hollywood slop. It also suffers from the uniquely liberal trait of being unable to be a self-parody, because it tries to be serious even through the cartoon violence.
Somehow the Rotten Tomatoes crowd gave this thing good marks, but in the sort of self-loathing way that they also like Zombieland, the difference being that Zombieland knows what it is all about and Shoot 'Em Up clearly does not.
Clive Owen has made a few of these movies the past few years where his character is involved in some liberal silliness to fight evil corporations and whatnot, so I'm not surprised he took this role, even though this is clearly a B-movie. That he was passed over for the role of Bond is obviously a good thing. Paul Giamatti I can't figure. He has talent, and should not have relegated himself to the nonsense of this villain, more appropriate for a lesser-known actor not interested in a serious career. If not for John Adams, this role might have been the death knell in his own career.
Once again, Hollywood has made an absolute garbage movie that fails to either educate or entertain, and takes these absurd shots at conservative principles that miss the mark no less dramatically than the endless stream of extras who can't seem to kill the very unlikeable main character.
By the way, here are my bottom 5 most awful movies I've ever seen most of:
5. Tomb Raider
4. Joe Dirt
3. Freddie Got Fingered
2. Mannequin Too
1. Shoot 'Em Up
Yep, this one was that bad!
I was suffering a bit of insomnia last night and flipped to HBO after the ESPN bonus coverage of the MNF Packer-Viking game. The movie in progress was Shoot 'Em Up, an action movie that aspired to the slick stylings of the latest James Bond films, and with similar star power; Clive Owen played the dashing but dour, square-jawed hero to Paul Giamatti's archetypal one-dimensional completely evil villain.
The plot of the movie, if you can call it that, is that the hero, Smith, is trying to uncover some conspiracy that has something to do with infant bone marrow and a Democrat senator who is the front runner for the presidency because of his anti-gun stance. He's also a cripple and needs the marrow, so he's icky because he's breeding babies for the sole purpose of harvesting the marrow to treat himself. Unfortunately for the senator the major gun manufacturer has caught on and kills all the babies, except one, which has been saved by Smith.
The gun king has employed Paul Giamatti to find and kill the last baby to cover their tracks, so Paul, who just knows people, which is how it's explained that he is able to find Smith so easily, hires about 50 goons with automatic weapons to storm Smith's abandoned warehouse safehouse.
Unfortunately for Smith, he wasn't able to afford all the guns he wanted, so he gets a single box of shells for his pistol.
Now, there's also a woman in the film who's sole purpose is to breastfeed this baby Smith is trying to keep safe, but she's clearly a romantic interest if only Smith wasn't so disturbed.
I probably missed the part at the beginning of the movie where the story explains how Smith is so good at killing things, but it doesn't really matter. We do know that he has really good vision because he eats lots of carrots.
Once the goons start assaulting the warehouse, Smith kills nearly all of them. At first, because he has to conserve ammo, he kills about 10 guys with a single shot at each, all the while he's running directly at them and carrying the baby in his left arm. That's right - he's carrying the baby the whole time. Miraculously, none of the goons can hit him with their automatic weapons from 10 feet away, even as he has to rush them and wait for the perfect shot to conserve ammo. At the end of this scene he manages to pick up one of the sub-machine guns off a dead goon, jump out to a zip wire extending from the ceiling into the large, open square stairwell, and while he's spinning around and zipping down the line, he's shooting the goons on the stairwell, all while cradling the baby. He kills dozens of guys on his 10 second descent to the floor, all the while every one of them is shooting back, but they just can't seem to hit him. Rambo never had it so good. Heck, parodies of Rambo never had it so good. I couldn't help but think of Weird Al's hilarious spoof in UHF. That's pretty much the idea here.
In a subsequent scene the goons have him cornered in a warehouse full of guns, and to get away he fires his pistols in opposite directions while looking and running in a third, and of course the goons are both shot in the head. And then he has all these guns taped to posts that he's controlling with string and the rest of the goons just keep running into bullets. There's a quick second where he has to run to the next set of strings and the goons are following - two guys are literally within arms reach of Smith and firing their machine guns directly into his back at point-blank range and he is miraculously unharmed. The he escapes in a car and ends up crashing into a van full of goons, flying through both windshields and then neatly dispatching 6 more guys who don't even shoot back. I think his one-liner was something like, "Who says seat belts save lives?"
Smith then goes to meet with the senator, who it turns out is working with the gun manufacturers. So Smith kills the senator and jumps our of his plane and kills 20 more goons as he's plummeting to the ground.
Wait, it gets better. So Paul finally captures Smith and breaks some of his fingers and is about to cut his eye out and Smith headbutts Paul and then pushes the exacto knife through his own hand so he can whack goons in the face with it. The he sprays the gun king with blood squirting out of his hand and kills that guy, but he can't shoot straight with his broken hands so he can't kill Paul, who apparently would rather be shot at and taunt Smith than actually kill him. Paul's motivation for not killing Smith is that he has to be right about him because he knows people so well, so he's just wants Smith to confirm his ideas before he can kill him - typical stupid villain stuff.
So finally Paul is about to shoot Smith, who is sitting next to a fireplace with a roaring fire - we're not sure why, and then Smith reveals a handful of bullets, which he holds to the fire while aiming his hand at Paul, and of course the bullets fire out of his hand like a gun and Paul gets all shot up.
That's not even the end but I won't spoil it for you.
This movie takes comic violence to a new level, and I guess it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, except it's clearly not funny or even remotely clever. It's just stupid, with each action sequence more ridiculous than the last.
The movie is supposed to have an anti-gun message, but every single character, except for the baby, glorifies in the gun violence to such an extreme that it has the exact opposite effect. There's even an absurd line of dialog when Smith finds out the senator is working with the gun king; he says, "You know what I hate? Hypocrites." Except he's the biggest hypocrite of them all because supposedly despises the gun manufacturers while all he does in this movie is kill about 100 people with a gun. Giamatti has a similarly terrible line. "Guns don't kill people, but they help."
I get that that is supposed to be commentary on the pro-gun groups, and that the movie itself is some kind of statement about gun violence. But it's just so stupid and unbelievable in it's action sequences and characterizations that it comes off as a piece of Hollywood slop. It also suffers from the uniquely liberal trait of being unable to be a self-parody, because it tries to be serious even through the cartoon violence.
Somehow the Rotten Tomatoes crowd gave this thing good marks, but in the sort of self-loathing way that they also like Zombieland, the difference being that Zombieland knows what it is all about and Shoot 'Em Up clearly does not.
Clive Owen has made a few of these movies the past few years where his character is involved in some liberal silliness to fight evil corporations and whatnot, so I'm not surprised he took this role, even though this is clearly a B-movie. That he was passed over for the role of Bond is obviously a good thing. Paul Giamatti I can't figure. He has talent, and should not have relegated himself to the nonsense of this villain, more appropriate for a lesser-known actor not interested in a serious career. If not for John Adams, this role might have been the death knell in his own career.
Once again, Hollywood has made an absolute garbage movie that fails to either educate or entertain, and takes these absurd shots at conservative principles that miss the mark no less dramatically than the endless stream of extras who can't seem to kill the very unlikeable main character.
By the way, here are my bottom 5 most awful movies I've ever seen most of:
5. Tomb Raider
4. Joe Dirt
3. Freddie Got Fingered
2. Mannequin Too
1. Shoot 'Em Up
Yep, this one was that bad!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Rio in 2016 - What Happened?
Perhaps more shocking than Chicago not winning the 2016 Olympics is the fact it lost in the first round of voting, behind even Tokyo, which was not given a serious chance. Rio might have been the front-runner all along, especially after the IOC report of Chicago's preparedness to host the games came back ugly.
Still, the 3 most important people in America, and therefore the world, Oprah Winfrey, and Michelle and Barack Obama, all went to Copenhagen to pitch the games. Failure should have been impossible.
I mentioned in a blog a month ago about Bama's popularity overseas, specifically in Europe. He's far more popular there than here, and yet he failed to woo the IOC voters.
In fact, it appears he managed to turn a tight contest between Chicago and Rio into a last place finish behind Tokyo, considered a non-factor in the results.
Is it possible the Obama's managed to turn people off? If you read Michelle's comments from yesterday, you could certainly cross that bridge. "It's a sacrifice," she said of her time committed to elegant parties and schmoozing foreign dignitaries. Uh-huh, she's that self-important.
And Bama's ego is only slightly smaller than the sum total of everything else in the entire universe. How could the congenial world body stand to listen to the smug SOB? Especially after that ridiculous speech he gave last week at the United Nations where he basically told the world, I saved America, but the rest of you poor bastards are on your own. And then he flew in just for the day, and all the pundits were convinced that just his presence would be enough to land the games for the USA. Could it be the committee thought his manuever one of supreme arrogance, that one man is so important that voters would throw out all the work put in by other nations just at the sight of him?
That's Bara's MO, of course. He is the chosen one, after all, he shouldn't have to work for it, it should just magically happen when he thinks of it. Just like everything else he's thought about doing this year and not done any real work to accomplish except to blame others for his failures.
I can't really blame the committee for voting as they did - Rio deserved it. Also, Chicago may have dodged a bullet; Olympic games are notoriously over-budget and never come close to breaking even, and it's not like the residents of the city would be thrilled about having it torn up for the next 6 years. The IOC probably saved U.S. taxpayers from the inevitable Chicago Olympic Games Federal Bailout.
Personally, I'm disappointed. I live in Wisconsin and would have liked to have gone to some of the events. Thanks for nothing, Barack. Your jackassedness has screwed America again.
Still, the 3 most important people in America, and therefore the world, Oprah Winfrey, and Michelle and Barack Obama, all went to Copenhagen to pitch the games. Failure should have been impossible.
I mentioned in a blog a month ago about Bama's popularity overseas, specifically in Europe. He's far more popular there than here, and yet he failed to woo the IOC voters.
In fact, it appears he managed to turn a tight contest between Chicago and Rio into a last place finish behind Tokyo, considered a non-factor in the results.
Is it possible the Obama's managed to turn people off? If you read Michelle's comments from yesterday, you could certainly cross that bridge. "It's a sacrifice," she said of her time committed to elegant parties and schmoozing foreign dignitaries. Uh-huh, she's that self-important.
And Bama's ego is only slightly smaller than the sum total of everything else in the entire universe. How could the congenial world body stand to listen to the smug SOB? Especially after that ridiculous speech he gave last week at the United Nations where he basically told the world, I saved America, but the rest of you poor bastards are on your own. And then he flew in just for the day, and all the pundits were convinced that just his presence would be enough to land the games for the USA. Could it be the committee thought his manuever one of supreme arrogance, that one man is so important that voters would throw out all the work put in by other nations just at the sight of him?
That's Bara's MO, of course. He is the chosen one, after all, he shouldn't have to work for it, it should just magically happen when he thinks of it. Just like everything else he's thought about doing this year and not done any real work to accomplish except to blame others for his failures.
I can't really blame the committee for voting as they did - Rio deserved it. Also, Chicago may have dodged a bullet; Olympic games are notoriously over-budget and never come close to breaking even, and it's not like the residents of the city would be thrilled about having it torn up for the next 6 years. The IOC probably saved U.S. taxpayers from the inevitable Chicago Olympic Games Federal Bailout.
Personally, I'm disappointed. I live in Wisconsin and would have liked to have gone to some of the events. Thanks for nothing, Barack. Your jackassedness has screwed America again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)