Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for March, 2010


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

From the “Keep Kicking Them When They’re Down” file …

How often have you heard someone ask something akin to: “They can land a man on the moon, but how come they can’t figure out how to get the wheels on a shopping cart to work right?”

Or: “Sure, they can send rovers to Mars, but how come no one can figure out how to get a stupid voting machine to punch holes in ballots correctly?”

Everyone has lamented the seemingly archaic state of some technologies while other scientific advances have literally rocketed man into space.


Enter the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – (NASA).

Sure, they are terrific at putting humans on the lunar surface, sending space shuttles into orbit around the Earth to conduct a myriad of critical experiments, placing remote control land rovers on the Martian terrain, and launching probes that travel through the solar system and beyond; but when it comes to keeping track of surface temperatures, not so much.

In what is yet another blow (how many is that now?) to the religion of man-made global warming, it seems that the record keeping at NASA has been a downright mess, making the fiasco of ClimateGate almost pale by comparison.

Blake Snow of Fox News writes:

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Meanwhile, a world renowned professor, the hysterical (but seemingly pleasant) James Lovelock – famous for putting forth the proposition that the “whole earth is a single organism,” – has announced that it is already too late to save the planet from the ravages of humankind’s existence. The planet, he says, cannot be saved. The best we can do, as the catalysts of the impending destruction, is to simply “enjoy life while (we) can.”

Excellent advice.

From the BBC:

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys … he said that while the earth’s future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger” on global warming as it built its civilizations.

What is more, he predicts, the earth’s climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in “jerks and jumps”, and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Humanity, driven by its insatiable thirst to selfishly and recklessly improve its quality of life over the course of the millenia at the expense of nature, ravenously raping resources in the process, inflicting irreperable damage to delicate balances of the planet, has permanently crippled fragile Mother Earth.

What have we done?

Damn us all!

And out of sheer curiosity … what exactly would a world not dying from the effects of man-made global warming look like?

Cold in the winter?

Hot in the summer?

Wet in the Spring?

Oh, wait …

wordpress statistics


Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

It’s probably a stunner (or a conspiracy) to many that only one news network saw their ratings increase during the first quarter of 2010 – The Fox News Channel. Perhaps perplexed leftists could make the argument that more KKK clubhouses are equipped with cable television these days, or that an increasing number of Young Republican clubs have gotten satellite dishes, but the fact of the matter is that only Fox’s numbers have gone up. The rest have taken a statistical dump. CNN, in fact, has lost half its viewers over the past year.

Take an “ouch” out of petty cash.

And it isn’t as if there hasn’t been enough news to keep people’s interest:

The stimulus bill, the omnibus package, TARP, Obamacare, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Cap and Trade, the Nobel Peace Prize, the International Olympic Committee, ClimateGate, North Korea, the takeover of banks, the takeover of automobile companies, Haiti, alienating our allies, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco, teleprompters, bowing to foreign heads of state, and those ridiculous looking WWE Championship-like belts Michelle Obama wears.

There’s been plenty to keep the lefty media complex busy.

Bill Carter of the New York Times (of all places) writes:

The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.

CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.

The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)

And not that they should – because, after all, I believe in the free market and everyone’s right to fail – but CNN bigwigs say they will “not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.”

(insert pause)

Here’s the real scoop: CNN hosts are crushingly uninteresting and their perspectives are unmistakably liberal. Has their been a more disastrous combination since the pairing of Chevy Chase and the late-night talk-show desk?

Of course, MSNBC – with the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow – don’t do much better number-wise in prime time, but at least their evening docket is a tad more interesting than the likes of the phlegm juggling Larry King and the exceedingly metrosexual Anderson Cooper. The problem with MSNBC’s lineup is that after about four minutes, the mouth-foaming and vein-splitting get to be too much. Liberalism is already impossible to peddle to thinking people based on its merits. Hysterical ideologues hurling saliva at the camera through tirades, lies and tantrums shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Unfortunately, Americans aren’t buying that either.

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, says, “… Proving once again, pumping out lefty propaganda is not a viable business model…”


wordpress statistics

Posted in Media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

A cool global warming snapshot.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 30, 2010

Downtown Davenport, Iowa

The feel-good story of tolerance …

Last week in Davenport, Iowa, the City Administrator decided the time was ripe to be less offensive. Because the words “Good Friday” were deemed by him to be divisive and (presumably) hateful, he had the words “Good Friday” removed from the municipal calendar and replaced with the doltish and achingly liberal contrivance: “Spring Holiday.”

It didn’t matter that it actually was “Good Friday,” the name had to changed so that it was less blatantly about all of that God stuff and more of an open tent celebration.

(If the “Separation of Church and State” bell just went off in your head, your moonbat monitor is perfectly calibrated).

Safe to say, the change did not sit well with too many.

That the majority of the population there – Christians – might be offended by the attempt to change the name of “Good Friday” was apparently irrelevant to Davenport ass-clown who initiated the change, Craig Malin.

To him, as long as those who do not celebrate Good Friday are coddled and protected from the pain of exclusion, then the leftist objective of equality at all costs is that much closer to being met … and then all of the fuzzy bunnies of the world can prance in harmony in fields of sunshine-soaked swaying daisies.

Besides, offending Christians is perfectly permissible – perhaps, a badge of honor. What better time to kick Christians than during Holy Week?

After all, this extrication of the social epithet “Good Friday” was done with only the most honorable of intentions – namely, the never-ending pursuit by the Equality-Is-The-Most-Important-Value crowd of separating church from state.

Russell Goldman at ABC News writes:

One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday’s name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as “Spring Holiday.”

“My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday,” said city council alderman Bill Edmond. “People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok.”

Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.

“The city council didn’t know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we’ve got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?” said Edmond.

Does anyone want to take a guess which political party Mr. Malin is a member of?

The irony is that the Framers of the Constitution intended for government to stay out of the citizenry’s right to freely exercise their faith, not for the banishment of all references to God in the public arena. This is precisely what Thomas Jefferson was talking about in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 where the phrase “wall of separation” famously comes from – that the separating church and state refers to keeping government out of the sphere of religion, not the other way around.

City Council member Tim Hart brilliantly commented, “Our Constitution calls for the separation and church and state.”

Really? Where, exactly? Which article?


Fortunately, the “Spring Holiday” initiative was overruled yesterday by the Davenport City Council.

Good for them.

“Good Friday” breathes again.

Rumors that Easter will be renamed “Bunny and Egg Fest,” or that the Jewish holiday of “Passover” will be renamed “Big Matzoh-Time,” cannot be confirmed.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Church and State, religion, Secularism | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 29, 2010


Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2010



Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2010

Congressman Steny Hoyer (the one on the left)

Incidents abound, say the mainstream media.

They have been born from the kind of hatred that leftists and other children have been warning us about for years. Since late Sunday, when America became less free thanks to the passage of Obamacare into law, it has been manifesting itself in violent outbursts that – according to the mainstreamers – are sweeping across the nation. Angry right-wingers, threatened by the civility and decency of the compassionate class (i.e., Democrats), are fighting back, selfishly desperate to hold onto their bigotries, biases and tax dollars.

From all corners of the mainstream media complex, the reports have been filling the airwaves: threats, gunshots, broken windows – all being perpetrated by furious anti-Obamacrats.

The mood in America is turning ugly, they say. It’s getting scary out there, they claim. The right-wing is becoming unhinged – and since the right is the home of the “God-and-Guns” crowd, fair-minded liberals are now understandably frightened.

That’s what they’re saying.

Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland is very concerned about the threat of reprisals from merciless ObamaCare foes who take the Constitution too literally. Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado says her office received a threatening call the day before the vote from someone who said she had “better hope I don’t run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.” A Democratic lawmaker’s brother in Virginia had a gas line cut at his house. Windows were broken at four Democrat offices in three states.

To hear it from the mainstream media, the nation may be descending into right-wing-led chaos.

Even NBC’s Ann Curry (Today Show) – a beacon of impartiality and objectivity – says that Republican lawmakers are “encouraging the violence” against Dems. Sarah Palin, for example, “posted a map highlighting weak Democratic districts…with a crosshair symbol” on her website. Words like “targeted” and “battleground” are incendiary terms, according to Curry, and can incite violence in these “very dangerous times.”

Curry’s psychiatrist was not available for comment.

It goes without saying that threats against politicians or acts of violence of any kind against any public official – Democrat or Republican – are not to be tolerated. Such behavior is repugnant and can never be acceptable.

But some of these “backlash” incidents have not even been verified; and the ones that have are isolated.

Almost immediately, as soon as the media when orgasmic reporting on this new wave of rampant conservative ugliness, Republicans took to microphones everywhere condemning such acts.

Some of the interviews that ensued were almost comical.

Reporters made sure to ask these Republicans – these monsters, these aliens – what they thought about such behavior against poor Democrats who only wanted to help Americans in need, as if there was a genuine possibility one or two of them might say, “Well, I can see their point.” Maybe – just maybe – one of them would slip up and say something that would confirm the fact that conservatives really are violence-loving, rifle-toting, enraged psychopaths.

Unfortunately, despite salivating palettes and “See, I Told You Conservatives Were Bad” demeanors on the part of the mainstream talking heads and print pimps, there simply is no story here. There is no groundswell of conservative violence across America, nor is there any kind of organized movement. A few freaks do not represent nor define how conservatives are wont to handle Obamacratic encroachments on liberty.

Sadly, threats to people in the public eye – including politicians – are made daily. It’s a fact of American life. There are nuts in all sectors of society, left and right, up and down, high and low. The difference, however, is that in the past, such threats have not followed the passage of “historically transforming” legislation enacted by Obamacrats – thus, making them unworthy of air time, bandwidth or page space.

Note that left-wingers are almost never depicted as being inciters of needless violence, nor are the terms “left-wing” or “left” ever used to describe them. Rather, they are portrayed as concerned justice-seekers, compelled to stand for a cause, sometimes forced into unpleasantness by the weight and severity of a given injustice.

That is, unless the act is so heinous, so egregious that it cannot be glossed over.

For instance, is Lee Harvey Oswald ever described as a “left-wing” assassin? If he had been, for instance, a commited fascist instead of a die-hard communist, the words “right-wing” would have become extensions of his name.

Just for fun, I must make it a point to go back through the archives of the major news services and revisit how the “drive-by” media, in all of their objectivity, covered the angry protests of the Left during the Bush administration.

There were probably more Hitler moustaches seen in public during the Bush years than at any time since the days of Joseph Geobbells, but I don’t recall too many stories on the outrage and instability of the “incendiary” Left.

Recall how the letter “s” was given a much-needed rest on protest sign and banner alike, thanks to swastika substitutions in the word “Bush.” Those were the days when dissent was good, remember?

Where was Ann Curry then?

Movies and books that talked about the assassination of George W. Bush must’ve gotten a wealth of coverage as well, although I don’t recall.

And the incivility of students on college campuses across the map attacking such conservative speakers as David Horowitz and Ann Coulter certainly must have had the talking heads expressing concern.


Oh wait …

wordpress statistics

Posted in health care, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 25, 2010

For the thinking person, it is akin to trying to lay out the pieces of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle on a small bridge table without stacking or overlapping any of the pieces.

No matter how he or she may try – or even wish it – it simply cannot be done.

For the utopian, however, it doesn’t matter if the table top is too small. It doesn’t matter if common sense dictates that it is a physical impossibility to lay out that many puzzle pieces on a table of that size. There will always be time to figure it all out later. Right now, the imperative is to dump all the pieces out, regardless of consequence, for the sake of getting them on the table.

Eventually, when the utopian realizes, much to his or her chagrin, that the pieces actually will not fit on the table top – or even better, that a plan to figure out how best to do it has not yet been formulated by a czar of some sort – desperate (and deceitful) action will inevitably follow. He or she will manipulate data and swindle observers to create the illusion that all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, indeed, fit.

It’s something Democrats actually do all the time by putting out only those pieces that are the most colorful – the ones that suggest to the observer that a gorgeous final product waits. They are the puzzle pieces that are the most pleasing to look at, the most suggestive. So while the utopian is able to fit maybe 200 or 300 on the table at best, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about appearances. No one will know that the rest of the puzzle is stashed away, out of sight. And if someone does, it will be too late. To the casual observer, there exists the promise of a beautiful finished puzzle based on what he or she is allowed to see by the utopian. The reality, however, is that the puzzle will never be completed.

It doesn’t need to be.

Wrapping my brain around the passage of ObamaCare is much like that.

The pieces don’t fit.

Not for the thinking person.

And what makes it all the worse is that those who forced this nation into adopting this horrifically catostrophic transformation don’t even know what they’ve passed. They’ve not read the thing. They have no idea how many pieces to the puzzle there really are, nor what the final picture is going to look like.

On one hand, it thoroughly befuddles the mind to think that the road to American mediocrity set in motion with the passage of this bill last Sunday – the latest move by leftists to transform this nation into Europe West – is something anyone with properly firing synapses could champion; especially when it comes to what was the greatest health care delivery system in the entire world.

On the other hand, the very notion of American exceptionalism repulses the Left.

The toxicity of what Democrats did on Sunday evening by passing what is the first step toward an inevitable single-payer health system (i.e., government-run health care) won’t be obvious in a week or a month. But make mistake no about it, there is no way that the passage of ObamaCare will not lead to a single-payer system. It’s as inevitable as saying that if one fires a shotgun into a pumpkin at point-blank range, there is no way that pumpkin seeds will not scatter everywhere.

That’s because liberals are not interested in excellence.

To them, there is no value more important than equality.

And if they can create a nation – once the envy of the entire world in terms of its medical delivery system – where everyone, regardless of who they are, can be put on waiting lists for mediocre medical care, they will feel good about themselves. They will feel as if they’ve accomplished something.

Literally, Sunday’s vote was the most dramatic transformation this country has undergone in my lifetime – and we are (and will be) all the worse for it. The United States was changed (i.e., tansformed) forever, based on a radical ideology that is embarrassingly hinged on false statistics and fairy-tale premises. A system that was largely favorable to the American people has been wiped out by the hunger pains of tyranny – and it didn’t have to be.

A last minute sell-out to a weasel of a man – congressman Bart Stupak – that all but tossed the term “pro-life democrat” onto the history’s compost pile forever did in the world’s greatest health care delivery system.

My Lord, what have they done?

That rickety old bridge table gets smaller every time I walk past it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, socialism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 25, 2010

I have received a good amount of e-mails and comments asking why I have not been posting much here lately – especially in light of the travesty of what happened on Sunday in Congress. Indeed, if ever there was a time when I should be making it my business to post regularly, it is now. With ObamaCare now the law of the land, there can be no shortage of opinion and analysis from the great thinkers and wordsmiths on the right – and even me too – on the encroachment of tyranny.

In brief, I have been far less prolific in recent days due to two things that inconveniently converged upon me at one time.

First, I have been battling a nasty case of pneumonia.

Fortunately, I was able to get it treated before Sunday’s vote in Congress, when America was more free.

Second, a client of mine pushed a deadline for a video project ahead almost three weeks, forcing me to put almost all else in my life on hold – including my recovery from pneumonia.

I have slept, perhaps three hours in almost three days.

I am being constantly reminded by my daughters that this is not the way to get better, Daddy.

Thankfully, the light at the end of the tunnel is starting to glimmer brightly and I can hopefully begin tending to the blog on a daily basis once again, as I’ve always done.

As the sole contributor, it can sometimes be difficult to keep up.

But please … keep checking. I am here.

Thanks for your comments, concerns and well-placed expletives.

Be well. God Bless.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Roman Around | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 25, 2010


..and just think how they’ll handle your health care.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 23, 2010


From the “Now I’ve Seen Everything” file … Playboy for the BLIND.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 22, 2010

I came across this picture at the great Weasel Zippers blog.

It isn’t a particularly earth-shattering photo, as you can see. It certainly won’t win any Pulitzer Prizes (although it may earn President Obama another Nobel Prize for an accomplishment to be named later).

Just a couple of raging libs out for a walk.

However, I am including it here because, at first glance, it struck me as a touch odd.

I assure you, my intention is not poke fun at anyone or hurl unwarranted insults at two amazingly easy targets.

(Is there such a thing as an unwarranted Obama insult?)

I wonder … Am I the only one who thinks Hillary Clinton looks as if she is about to give birth? Or maybe trying to sneak a small ham out of the A&P?

And doesn’t Barack Obama look as if he’s got bad cramps?

Or that he might have been on the receiving end of a steel-top boot to the jewels?

These are the things I notice when Democrats try to destroy my country.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Everything Else | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 21, 2010

A few moments ago, Congressman Bart Stupak, Democrat from Michigan – the man who confirms for the thinking world that the words “pro-life Democrat” have absolutely no meaning in real life – announced he was throwing in with the rest of the Capitol Hill socialists by voting “yes” for ObamaCare.

God help us all.

Daniel Foster at National Review’s Corner writes:

The agreement comes in the form of an executive order from President Obama promising that the Hyde Amendment restrictions on the federal funding of abortion will extend to the current health-care bill.

Text of the White House executive order is here.

So, the President now has the authority to nullify legislation – or portions of it – simply by signing an Executive Order? Because he feels like it? Because it suits him? So that he can broker shady deals?

Where in the Constitution is that little nugget?


Simply unbelievable.

In case there was any confusion, behold the blessings of tyranny.

Posted in health care | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010

If this wasn’t Nancy Pelosi, I might shake my head a little harder, a little faster.

It’s at the point now that Pelosi should only warrant mention on this blog if she actually does something noteworthy – like speak coherently or juggle pomegranates with one hand. Truly, if this wasn’t something coming out of the mouth of the most inept and incompetent House Speaker in my lifetime, I might actually be surprised.

I’m not.

Pelosi, apparently, is summoning higher authority in the hope that it will be enough to get ObamaCare passed.

From the woman whose purpose (among others) as a militant Leftocrat is to ensure that as many abortions take place as possible – in the name of “reproductive rights,” mind you – comes the revelation that Nancy Pelosi has been praying to Saint Joseph in the hope that he might sprinkle a little magic dust on the process.

On Friday, Madame Speaker said the following:

Today is the Feast of St. Joseph, the worker – particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it’s a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that’s exactly what our health care bill will do.

Along with a whole lot of blah, blah, blah about how the bill is gaining momentum and will be historic (there’s that word again), Pelosi went on to say that she has received letters representing “sixty leaders of religious orders” supporting this “life affirming legislation.”

Life affirming legislation?

It’s obviously no great analytical accomplishment on my part to showcase the absurdly obvious, but that’s still one hell of a ballsy assertion considering that the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to abortion, and the bill that would become law – the original Senate version – would allow taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of the unborn.

If by “life affirming” Pelosi means everyone except those who have yet to emerge from the womb, those who’ll be dead soon, and those considered disabled, Pelosi may be on to something.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010

New York City’s largest public employee union is DC37 – AFSCME/AFL-CIO.

On Thursday, an e-mail was sent out to city employees from the President of AFSCME International, Gerald W. McEntee.

For any of you who may still be grasping to the antediluvian fantasy that unions are all about fair and just working conditions for its members – and not about politics – a few choice lines from this mass mailer might help:

This is the week we’ve been waiting for — the week when members of the House of Representatives choose to stand with us or the insurance companies.

The insurance industry operatives and Republican talking heads you see on cable TV say we need to start over and spend another year — or another decade — before we pass reform. They twist the facts to say that the public opposes reform, but what the public really opposes are attempts to water down or kill reform to keep the insurance companies happy.

Yes, Mr. McEntee has us all pegged.

We the “public” are tired of having Obama’s reforms “watered down” and “twisted” by uncaring, profit-hungry, big-insurance fat cats.

It all makes sense now. It’s all falling into place.

It was also an eye-opener learning that “operatives” from insurance companies, along with “Republican talking heads,” are responsible for this rampant fact-twisting of Obama’s America-saving initiative.

Clever cusses, all of them.

Who, pray tell, are these “operatives” and what are they doing to “twist” things exactly? Reading the bill?

Have you seen them anywhere in the mainstream media? Are they out in the open manipulating the above-board and transparent attempts by Obamacrats to do what’s best for a deteriorating American population deprived of basic health services? Do these “operatives” have uniforms? Can they cook?

Did you also know that those who don’t vote to have their health care taken over by an entity that has been a miserable failure at running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be “standing with the insurance companies“?

(That’s meant as a pejorative).

I’m sorry, but aren’t insurance companies part of a legitimate, free-enterprise industry entitled to make profits like any other – like “big education?” Or “big media?”

Did you know that the government turns down more claims, in terms of percentage, than every private insurance company in America?

AFSCME members like you are fighting the good fight and have been a critical voice for the past year in the health insurance reform debate. Together, we’ve made literally tens of thousands of phone calls and sent even more emails to our senators and representatives. The insurance industry has deep pockets and is doing all it can to kill reform — but we won’t let them win. This is our moment.

The bill that the House will soon vote on would end the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions — or deny coverage when you get sick. It would require insurance companies to pay for preventive care. It would also allow parents to keep their unemployed children on their policies until they turn 26. And it would end taxpayer funded subsidies to Big Insurance.

Are they out of their ever-lovin’ minds?

Why on earth would I – or anyone who wishes to use their basement or spare bedroom for anything other than supporting a child four years away from thirty years old – want my adult offspring to be on my insurance policy?

Where in hell does the government get the right to tell insurance companies how they can insure and whom they can insure?

The historic nature of this moment cannot be overstated. The opportunity to end insurance company abuses is a moment for which we have worked long and hard. It is a vote that will affect our children, and their children. Please take a moment now to contact your member of Congress. Tell him/her the time has come to stand up to the insurance companies. The time has come to pass health care reform.

The closing salutation reads: “In solidarity.”


But don’t get the idea that unions are in any way political.  That’s crazy talk.

wordpress statistics

Posted in health care, politics, Unions | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010

In every good relationship, there’s always a little balance.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 19, 2010

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2010

This is more like it.

This is the kind of thing that gets us pro-Constitution types singing around the campfire. This is the type of thing that’ll get Obamacrats screeching about us gun-and-God-clinging bigots even more than they already have. In a sense, one could think of this as a kind of legislative tea party – a push back at the soft tyrants running the show in Washington.

Yes, the gesture is largely a symbolic one, but it does matter – except to Democrats, of course.

Thirty-seven states are in line to follow what Idaho did yesterday.

John Miller of the Associated Press writes:

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

(Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch”) Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

“A constitutional mass,” as Otter calls it – the overwhelming rejection by the American people of this unprecedented encroachment of the federal government on their liberties – is a very good thing, even if it is symbolic; although I’d like to believe that genuine legal action actually could be taken in some form should ObamaCare become the scourge of the land.

Still, the rejection of ObamaCare from every sector of American life is unquestionable … and fascinating to watch.

It’s as if the Body American is reacting instinctively – intuitively – dispatching antibodies to fight the infection of government-run health care. The irony, however, is that the ones reacting without thinking – the ones who are on ideological auto-pilot – are the Democrats.

They are not hearing the American people.

They don’t care what we think.

They’ve told us we will know all about the bill after its been passed. They have tried to sidestep and rework every rule, and still cannot – and will not – accept that they do not have the votes to get it done.  They are even attempting a measure that would enable the Senate version of the bill to pass the House without a vote ever having to be taken there – something that would have summoned the lynch mobs had Republicans ever dreamed of doing such a thing.

When the rules get in the way, they change them.

When the people get in the way, they stomp on them.

The funny thing is, the Constititutional process is working, and it pisses off Obamacrats. Thus, they effectively urinate on the Constitution and call it Miracle-Gro.

Just as America rejects ObamaCare, Dems reject Americans, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich proved yesterday, when he admitted that he took his cues on how to vote on the bill from his wife and friends – not his constituency.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Economy, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010

On Sunday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich had a column published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said, in part:

Unfortunately, the president’s plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do — protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness.

But Sunday was a long long time ago, and even socialists have to deal with things as they truly are, not as they would like them to be.

After a ride onboard the big Presidential jet with Barack Obama, Kucinich is changing his ObamaCare vote from “no” to “yes.”

From Fox News:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he would vote for the Senate health care bill, becoming the most prominent House Democrat to reverse his opposition.

With Kucinich’s switch, Democrats now have 212 votes in favor of the bill, four shy of the 216-threshold needed for passage.

“This is not the bill I wanted to support even as I continued efforts into the last minute to try and modify the bill,” he said at a news conference. “However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

Kucinich didn’t vote for the original House version of the bill when it passed in November, and up until earlier today, was adamantly opposed to the Senate version because of its lack of a public option.

He is, however, a Democrat … so anyone surprised by Kucinich’s lip-licking after this latest serving of Payoff Pie better pull his or her head out and refocus.

The real question is … What, pray tell, was the People’s Watchdog – the unflinching, never-corruptible, always-true-to-his-principles, Dennis Kucinich – promised for his vote?

What was he given on that big ol’ jet airliner that made him switch sides on something he said he could never compromise on?

How much “courage” does it take to flip-flop votes after a ride on Air Force One and a promise of who-knows-what?

Note how Kucinich never once mentioned the people he is charged to represent.

It was only after “careful discussions” with the Messiah and the Nancy Pelosi that he decided to switch sides. It was only after he talked it over with his wife and friends that he had his change of heart.

His wife and friends?

What about his botanist?

Or Sally in Accounting?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010

Liberals are cute when they try to make a point.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010



Posted in holiday greetings | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 15, 2010

A tip of the chapeau is in order for NBC’s ever-zealous, nitty-gritty, down-to-the-bone political dynamo, Andrea Mitchell. In the spirit of clarity over agreement (as talk show host Dennis Prager is wont to say)  – and at the risk of sounding as if someone spiked my Sunny D with weapons grade narcotics – I believe Mitchell is worthy of some conservative respect.

(insert the sound of eyebrows crinkling here)

No, I am not insane.

No, my little red wagon has not gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.  

I truly believe she is deserving.


Too often, journalists claim to be objective, straight-down-the-middle, impartial disseminators of information, reporting the news in an unbiased and fair way.

Unfortunately, reality refutes this fairy tale. The mainstream news media, save for a couple of far-and-few-between outlets, is infected with liberalism. Like dirt in an open blood blister – or Nancy Pelosi speaking in front of any microphone anywhere in the world – it is a pervasively ugly reality.

But that isn’t what irritates me.

The fact that the news media is liberal is not what is so frustrating. That would be like being angry that water is wet. What annoys me are lib journalists (redundant, I know) claiming to be objective and impartial when they clearly aren’t.

That’s why Andrea Mitchell gets my “attaboy” award – or “attachick,” rather – for removing all doubt as to where her political allegiance lies.

She’s hiding nothing … and for that, she deserves a little respect.

Speaking with Congressman Elijah Cmmings on MSNBC late last week, Mitchell said the following:

Bottom line, what happens if you don’t get health care for this president – this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, for his legacy, he’s invested so much in this, in this first year. You’ve got to get this for him.

Cummings said he agreed with her a million percent.

If Mitchell could have said anything that was more pro-Obamacare in that context, I don’t know what it could have been – other than, “Have my love child, you health care God!”

Remember, the issue isn’t whether or not the mainstreamies lean left. The matter at hand isn’t whether or not “journalists” from the alphabets are unabashed libs.

This is about a flaming lib letting her leftism bust through without concern for how she would be perceived. 

This is about a lib journalist looking America in the eye and saying, “Yes, I’m leftist. Yes, I want ObamaCare to pass. No, I won’t hide it any longer. No, I am not objective, and I’m okay with that.”

This is about coming clean.

This is about  Andrea Mitchell breaking down a huge barrier the likes of which Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw never had the courage to.

This is about hoping all non-opinion mainstream news media types will step out of their confining charades and declare, “We’re journalists! We’re leftists! And we’re in your face!”

It is in this context, that I tip my cap to Andrea Mitchell. 

Of course, after all of that, if she still believes she is a down-the-middle, unbiased, straight-shooter who doesn’t let her leftism creep into her “objective journalism,” I take it all back.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 15, 2010


It’s an illusion, man.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 13, 2010

If he did, he wouldn’t have gotten into all this trouble.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 12, 2010

..for those who needed clarification.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010

Too bad for the Dems.

It must truly stink when your efforts to be as underhanded as humanly possible hit a snag. It has to be heartbreaking when, despite your best efforts to bask in grand deceit, there just isn’t enough “bend” available in the process of warping the rules to get your way.

For what it’s worth, things just got a little bit tougher in the Democrat quest to pass the entirely unpopular, thoroughly unwise and profoundly misguided health care reform bill.

What some pro-health care Obamacrats wanted to do was have the House of Representatives pass the original $871 billion Senate bill – complete with all of its bribery and pro-abortion language – and then have that bill sent back to the Senate for further modifications (reconciliation) before it went to the President’s desk for his signature.

But it doesn’t work that way, according to the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office.

If the House approves the original Senate bill as is, that bill must be signed into law by the President before any reconciliation can take place. In other words, the bill that passed the Senate – the one with the abortion funding provisions; the one that included the “Louisiana Purchase”; the one that included the “Kansas Kickback” – must be okayed by the House of Representatives without any changes and sent to Barack Obama for passage before “reconciliation packages” can be crafted to modify it.

In short, it must already be law before anything else can be done to it.

David M. Drucker of Roll Call writes:

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

The problem, of course, is the House does not like the Senate version of the bill. And House Dems will have to trust that once it becomes law, the Senate would be willing to revisit it and work on those elements that dissatisfy Pelosi’s gang.

That’s alot of blind faith.

In other words, it comes down to having to trust Democrats.

I don’t think Democrats can even do that.

But fear not.

This is the Democrat Party we’re talking about. They have not yet begun to cheat.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010

It’s unclear whether large, dark-clad Obamacrats carrying big sticks will show up at the house of Senator Dick Durbin in the middle of the night for a “friendly visit,” but it’s obvious, he won’t be getting a whole lot of love from the White House – that is, until Durbin can come out and tell us how what he said was misquoted and taken out of context by sinister Republicans. Like most things that come out of the mouths of Democrats, “further clarification” will almost assuredly follow. 

Still, Senator Durbin did tell it like it is (and how it will be) – to his credit – and is worthy of a special “quote of the day” space on this blog.

Said Dick:

Anyone who would stand before you and say, “Well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down,” I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up. What we’re trying to do is slow the rate of increase.

Touche, Senator.

Although the word “likely” is a bone for the left. There can be no doubt that premiums will go up.

Nice job, Dick.

wordpress statistics

Posted in health care | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010

Liberals profess that it is a subjective morality that determines whether or not ripping the life from a woman’s womb is right or wrong, yet they are quick to call the act of smoking a universal immorality. Liberals gripe about wanting government out of their bedrooms, but have no problem if it shows up in the kitchen … or at work. 

If you could take a time machine back to, say, 1980 – or even 1990 – and sit down for a chat with someone from that time about some of the societal changes that await them, what are the chances that someone might think you were under the influence of some sort of hallucinogen if you were to tell them that smoking cigarettes in bars would be illegal? In bars! Or that privately-owned restaurants would be banned from using certain cooking oils? Or that it would be mandatory to post the calorie content of food in restaurants? 

They’d probably look at you like you were sporting three heads. 

Welcome to the future. 

It’s here. 

In yet another example of how health is leftism’s new morality, the first shot has officially been fired in the War On Salt – and leave it to a New York City legislator to pull the trigger. 

Six days ago, a bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. Any violation of the salt statute would result in a $1000 fine.

A band of jackbooted Sodium Smashers could be showing up at your favorite eatery if its discovered that the chef salted to taste.

Care to guess what Ortiz’s political party affiliation is?

Arun Kristian Das of MyFox NY writes: 

Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. 

“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part. 


Ortiz has said the salt ban would allow restaurant patrons to decide how salty they want their meals to be. 

“In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles,” Ortiz said, according to a Nation’s Restaurant News report. 

No, this is not an article snatched from the pages of The Onion. This isn’t taken from an old Soviet cuisine mag. This isn’t the feature story in the March issue of Better Fascists And Gardens. 

This is free-market America. 

This is the land where liberals demand that government stay out of their business – and their bodies – when it comes to terminating a human life, but where private-sector restaurant owners are told by the government what oils they can cook with and how they can season their food. 

The sad (and frightening) thing is: This all makes perfect sense to the modern liberal. None of this seems contradictory or conflicted.  None of this seems out of order or unusual. This is all for our own good. 

Personally, I can’t help but wonder why there is so much lollygagging going on. Why not leapfrog over the baby steps and take this proposed ban on salt to its natural conclusion? 

Why not just ban food from restaurants? 

Considering how catostrophic it would be for the restaurant industry in New York, it makes perfect sense. 

Better yet, why not introduce a bill that bans death altogether? 

That’ll put an end to all of this mamby-pamby health-related legislation.

That such thinking, which would have seemed inconceivable even fifteen years ago, could lead to the introduction of legislation as absurd as this reveals two absolute truths. One, that freedom is easily eroded incrementally over the course of time, in the name of “good.” 

And two, human beings unchecked don’t know when to stop. 

That’s about as good a definition of liberalism as there is.

How long will it be before the Supreme Court declares salt a poisonous mineral?


wordpress statistics

Posted in Health is the New Morality, Liberalism, Nanny State, New York City | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010

Maybe a visit to the florist, or a gift certificate from Pennys, might be a better choice for Mom.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2010

Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump

Were you aware that the United States of America was intent on destroying the Japanese people during World War II because they were different? Did you know that America’s motivation in making war on the Japanese Empire in 1941 was rooted in the fact that “they” weren’t the same as “us?” Were you also aware that Americans hated the Japanese because they believed in different gods?

America’s fight with Japan in World War II evidently had nothing to do with the fact the Japanese had launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 2,400 people, or that they were a vicious and brutal empire hell bent on enslaving everyone in its path.

It’s because they were different and believed in different gods.

If these delectable morsels of American history have eluded you – if you are outraged at the con job American textbooks have been perpetrating for lo, these many moons – it may be worth your while to seek out competent, reliable historians to help set the record straight. It may be time to cast off the assembly-line, force-fed interpretations of what the Second World War was really all about and seek out those who will place the events of that tumultuous time in proper context. It’s time for the most steadfast, unfailing historical minds to shed light on the greatest, most wide-spread conflict the world has ever known.

It’s time to bring in Tom Hanks.

Indeed, for those of you looking to draw parallels between history and current events – for those of you trying to make sense of a topsy-turvy world rife with conflict – one need only pick the brain of Forrest Gump himself. What better person to put World War II – along with the conflicts of today – in proper perspective than Tom Hanks? After all, isn’t that why we ask entertainers what they think about world events? Because their insights help us to wrap our brains around complicated happenings we might not otherwise be able to understand? And who is more qualified – and believable – than Tom Hanks?

Thanks to him, using history as a guide, we can now begin to understand the reason why many Americans are so keen on destroying Islamo-fascists: because they’re different.

But what does Tom mean by “different”?

John Nolte at Big Hollywood writes:

…when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]

[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.

To leftists, all ideologies are equal. To listen to Hanks is to take another ride on the moral equivalency train. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, blah, blah, blah.

But a little history lesson is in order.

It was America – rooted in her Judeo-Christian value system – that saw fit to rebuild Japan after the war at tremendous expense. It was the United States that invested manpower and money to transform an axis nation allied with Adolf Hitler into a liberated world economic power.

After the war, the Japanese weren’t enslaved. They didn’t become subjects of America. And while the opportunities to “annihilate” Japan were certainly plentiful – and would have been easy – it didn’t happen.

Those “yellow, slant-eyed dogs” are America’s allies today.

Indeed, the Japanese are still ‘different from us” in many ways. The overwhelming vast majority of Japanese are Buddhists and Shintoists, for example. In the World According to Tom Hanks, I wonder what keeps America from annihilating them today?

One also wonders how similarly “moral” the Japanese would have been to their American subjects had Japan won the war? If their barbaric and inhumane actions all over the Far East prior to Pearl Harbor were any indication, it wouldn’t have been pretty.

Nolte writes:

And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high.

But that’s not who we are.

Amen, brother.

Incidentally, in the name of fairness and accuracy, let me avoid the semantics.

The Imperialist Japanese were different than Americans. They slaughtered innocents by the tens of thousands – in China, Korea, Phillipines, etc – and believed themselves to be a master race, not unlike the Nazis. They were virtuosos of torture, and were determined to keep expanding their empire at any and all costs. They also demanded that while their evil empire continued to grow, America keep supplying them with resources like steel and coal.

Islamo-fascists are, too, different from Americans. Their value system is radically different than ours – and they have consistently unleashed their barbarism and brutality on innocents all across the world, murdering tens of thousands, including three thousand here on American soil. They are murderous thugs with no remorse and no intention of stopping until the entire world falls in line.

Different? Yes.

But not in the way Hanks means.

Poor Tom Hanks. Stupid is as stupid says.

Posted in History, Hollywood, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2010

I really gotta go, Dad.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2010

Not that it will matter, of course.

When do liberals ever pay attention to – or care – what the people they are charged to represent think? When do leftists ever concern themselves with the will of their constituencies?

The next time will be the first time.

Leftists know best – and they’ll tell you so.

When the electorate votes against the redefinition of marriage, for instance – which they have done each and every time it has been brought before the people – liberals immediately cry foul. Americans are stuck in the dark ages, they say. Angry God-types are poisoning the American bouillabaisse, they scream. Americans are nothing but bigoted, backwater, fag-hating pickup truck pilots, they screech. Protests, appeals, and rainbow flag waving inevitably pepper the map.

But it isn’t enough.

So, what do libs do?

They use leftist judges to magically find loopholes in the law so that they can bypass the brain-dead, hate-mongering electorate. It’s the only way to enact destructive leftist policies, and they know it.

Take the entire health care reform debacle as another example. Poll after poll shows that the American people categorically do not support ObamaCare. Most Americans abhor the idea of government meddling in things it has no right being involved in – especially something as important and personal as their health care. Yet, the President tells us he knows what’s best for all of us – and demands that we understand that. He believes this is his charge. This is his historic moment (as opposed to America’s). ObamaCare is such a good plan – so necessary for the American people – he’s asking Democrats to have “courage” to pass it.

Again, who cares what Americans want? Who cares that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care? Why relegate oneself to trying to implement some targeted improvements to what is already the best health delivery system in the world when one can transform the whole damn thing?

Welcome to the Messianic Age.

But it only gets better.

Take this example from Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

Of course, none of this is surprising. None of it.

Apologizing on foreign soil and bowing to foreign heads of state can only go so far.

But will any of this matter to the President – our Commander In Chief? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what we the people think. It only matters what the rest of the world thinks.

This leftist polling company seems to concur.

Allow me the chance to educate them on two small points.

First, global acclaim is incalculably meaningless in rating an American President’s performance. His “citizen-of-the-world” status is irrelevant to national security. My rule of thumb has not changed: Whatever world opinion is on almost any given subject of relevance, go with the opposite.

Second, ever since the terrorist Yasser Arafat snagged the prize – and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the world’s top “peace promoters” because of their work on the global warming hoax – the Nobel Peace Prize has about as much prestige as a colon polyp.

Democratic Corps, incidentally, was founded by Democratic talking head – and former Clinton adviser – James Carville along with Dem pollster, Stanley Greenberg.

The Third Way “calls itself ‘the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.’

A moderate progressive?
wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2010

 …because in my beer guzzling days, it wasn’t uncommon to find me playing kissy-face with small aquatic creatures.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 8, 2010

When you think “reviving the economy,” what comes to mind?

Implementing tax cuts? Less government regulation? Unleashing the power of the free market?

They seem like reasonable choices.

But maybe I’m being a bit too simplistic – a bit too ideological. Maybe my conservatism is showing.

Perhaps some nuance is required.

How about this: cocaine and monkeys?

How’s that for an economy-jolting combination?

When you hear the words “cocaine” and “monkeys” used in the same sentence, do you think of rejuvenating the American economy?

After all, what says “economic growth” more than using stimulus money to enable university researchers to feed blow to monkeys?

Benjamin Niolet of the Raleigh News Observer writes:

Monkeys are getting high for science in North Carolina.

An analyst at the Civitas Institute seized on that image when selecting a cocaine addiction study at Wake Forest University Medical School as No. 1 on a list of the “10 worst federal stimulus projects in North Carolina.” Civitas’ Brian Balfour takes swipes at projects, writing that they “seem completely unrelated to avoiding an economic ‘catastrophe,’ but rather an ad hoc satisfaction of countless dubious wish lists.”

So, what is the $71,623 federal stimulus grant paying for?

Well, a job, said Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

“It’s actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn’t been for the stimulus funding. And it’s a good job,” Wright said. “It’s also very worthwhile research.”

The study is examining the effects of cocaine on a particular neurotransmitter among monkeys who have had a long-term addiction to cocaine.

Maybe I’m not focusing enough, but stoned primates generally don’t make me think, “Man, that stimulus money is working!”

I know I’m not a liberal, but let me try to wrap my brain around this somehow.

According to the brochure, the Obama “stimulus money” was meant to give a jolt to the ailing economy by creating or saving jobs. Thus, one would have to assume – considering billions and billions of jobs have already been “saved” by the stimulus bill – that this Wake Forest stimulus story is yet another example of an economy-saving Obamacratic triumph.

In short, because of this study – and others like it – the unemployment rate stayed just below 10%.

Thus, it would be correct to conclude that if not for this stimulus money, the snowblowing monkey researchers would have all been fired. If not for this stack of ObamaCash, all of these university folks have all been out of work.

After all, wasn’t Obama’s stimulus money meant to “create” or “save” jobs?

Certainly none were created here. It isn’t unreasonable to assume, then, that the jobs of these otherwise soon-to-be-unemployed university researchers were “saved” because of the continuance of “monkeys on coke” studies.

Ahh, makes sense now.

“How does this study help revive the economy?” Balfour asked.

Well, again, jobs, said Nancy Avis, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health policy at the medical school. The funding, more than $147,000 over two years, will contribute to the salaries of six people.


So, are all of these six jobs considered “saved?” Without taxpayer dollars to help “revive the economy,” would these six “hanging-by-a-thread” researchers all been cast out to the unemployment lines? And if they were, wouldn’t they just be collecting government-provided funds in the form of unemployment anyway?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Economy, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 8, 2010

It’s all about legacy.

It’s all about making the kind of fundamental change that cannot – and will not – be overturned. It’s all about the willingness to take the political hit now, suffer significant losses, and figure out how to come back sometime down the road.

If victory can be secured now, many will be more than willing to get knocked down and tend to what will be undoubtedly be an ugly wound, knowing full well that time is a great healer.

The fact is, once the changes (i.e., fundamental transformations) are enacted – once seventeen percent of the American economy falls under the heel of the federal government – the chance of seeing things reversed is nil.

And that’s the point.

They’re not stupid.

They know that entitlement programs don’t go away. They never ever disappear.

They know that once ObamaCare becomes law, there’s no way in hell it will be wiped off the books. Once Bammy signs it, the fight in the opposition will effectively die on Capitol Hill. All that will follow will be a whole lot of blah, blah, blah about how it is now the law of land and must be implemented as effectively as possible, along with a boatload of doubletalk about controlling the rate of growth, and so on and so forth.

It sounds so antithetical to the game of politics. Why would one side deliberately pursue legislation that is tremendously unpopular and be willing to fall face first on a sword that will all but guarantee major losses for their party?

Because of the big picture.

If history is any sort of guide, it simply isn’t possible for ObamaCare to be a temporary measure. Once the rot of liberalism sets in, it is a victory for the left that forever changes the playing field. Indeed, the right may win future elections because of Obama’s gross miscalculation, but the default position will be further left. passing ObamaCare is a permanent move toward Camp Socialism.

That’s why the President will take his tired act on the road once again to try and sell something to the American people that they do not want – despite the fact that he said there is nothing more to say about the health care debate.

Unless he says it, I guess.

From Fox News:

With the fate of his signature legislative initiative far from certain, President Barack Obama is taking his last-ditch push for health care reform on the road.

In a speech Monday in Philadelphia, Obama will try to persuade the public to back his plan to remake the nation’s health care system, while also urging uneasy lawmakers to cast a “final vote” for a massive reform bill in an election year.

Obama’s pitch in Philadelphia, along with a stop in St. Louis Wednesday, comes as the president begins an all-out effort to pass his health care proposals. Though his plan has received only modest public support, Obama has implored lawmakers to show political courage and not let a historic opportunity slip away.

I must ask the same question I asked last week: If the bill is such a good idea, and if it will do much to solve America’s health care problems, and if the American people will unquestionably benefit from the bill’s passage, and if it will keep health care so affordable for everyone without compromising quality, why do the Democrats need “courage” to pass it?

I don’t give a damn how “historic” this bill is supposed to be.

President Obama’s election was “historic,” wasn’t it?

Look where that got us.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, health care, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 7, 2010

Honestly, no one could think of a better name?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 6, 2010

Designed by Democrats?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2010

Yesterday, at the University of Washington, students representing the Socialist Workers Party held a protest against budget cuts at the school.

Like their college campus ancestors, they took to the greens and waved banners.

Among the litany of catchy slogans employed yesterday was this little gem: “Who’s Schools? Our Schools.”

Yes, students were actually carrying signs that read, ” Who’s Schools? Our Schools.”

The irony is both delicious and incalculable.

Sadly, the young Marxists may be right. Perhaps more money needs to be funneled into the English department. Or maybe these young people just need to sit in on English class a little more often.

Either way, here’s a quick lesson from your old Uncle Andy to all of you Socialist Workers Party kids out there: Written with an apostrophe “s,” the sign would actually be saying “Who is Schools? Our Schools.”

Of course, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, depending on how much ecstasy you’ve taken.

The correct spelling of the word is “whose, ” which is the possessive of “who.” In this context, you would use the word “whose” to ask the question: “The school belonging to whom?”

Note that the little darlings attempted to correct their mistakes by hand scribbling an “e” at the end.

Fortunately, as you can see, no apostrophes were harmed in the rewrites.


This photo comes from Gateway Pundit, via Weasel Zipper. It’s one of those “gifts” that make blogging a whole lot of fun.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Education, socialism | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2010

As I’ve written here on several occasions, the best thing to come out of the Messianic Age is the exposing of liberalism for what it really is – the ideology of “government knows best.” Talk show host Dennis Prager coined a phrase that sums it up perfectly: “The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.”

The key here is that while America continues to reject liberalism, and while the mood and temperament of this nation continue to trend toward limited government, rugged individualism, personal accountability and liberty (i.e., conservatism), we’re not where we need to be yet. In fact, the only thing clear at this time is that America is resoundingly kicking liberalism (the Democrat Party) to the curb. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are racing over to embrace the Republican Party.

Not yet.

President Barack Obama has officially declared that there is nothing more to be said about the health care issue. The time for debate is over, according to his royal messiahness. He has spoken.

Of course, he hasn’t even read the 2000 page bill, evidenced by his preposterous commentary on Wednesday, surrounded by white-coated human props. And despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t want this thing passed, he’s determined to move forward, because the only damn thing that matters to him is his legacy – the fact that he can say he’s done what no other president has done.

Pollster Frank Luntz – the Maharishi of focus groups – appeared on Fox News’ Hannity last evening, commenting on what American can expect if Bammy finds a way to ram this health care down our throats:

I will tell you two things will happen: Number One – is that everyone who isopposed to this will absolutely, positively come out and vote because they will feel like it is not only their right but their responsibility to send a message.

And two, you will see democrats defeated in places that haven’t elected a Republican since 1994. This will have such huge political consequences.

That’s what I don’t understand.

I see why Barack Obama might push it for ideological reasons, but why would Congress go along when their own jobs are in jeopardy, and their responsibility is to represent their own constituents?

Rolling back entitlements – and make no mistake, entitlements are precisely what ObamaCare is all about – is an extremelydifficult, if not impossible, nut to crack. (See Medicare and Medicaid). What federal government entitlement program has ever been scaled back? When has anything that has been enacted to increase government intervention in our lives been trimmed?

While I wholeheartedly concur that there is nothing that would be better for the United States of America than to see the Democrats nuked from their congressional majorities, the solution doesn’t end with just a numbers shift.

Rob at the Say Anything Blog writes:

Of course, just voting against Democrats and what they’re doing both in terms of policy and how they’re governing doesn’t mean Republicans have won back the hearts and minds of the people. If Republicans think they’re going to be swept back into office and go about business as usually they’ll be swept back out just as quickly.

He’s right.

No one wants to see cancer replaced by typhoid so that the black plague can move in after that.

By the way, if the President is correct in saying that there is nothing more to be said about the health care debate, why did Robert Gibbs – the greatest Press Secretary the world has ever known – say that Americans want the debate to continue?
wordpress statistics

Posted in health care, politics, Robert Gibbs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2010

..and next to a cemetery yet.

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010

Oh yeah …

And the Alaskan Glaciers aren’t melting quite as much as originally thought either – which means sea levels aren’t rising as quickly as advertised.

Go figure.

So, instead of melting Alaskan ice contributing .0067 inches more water a year to world sea levels – which is a highly questionable calculation anyway – it turns out it is only contributing .0047 inches a year. That means it would take two centuries for world sea levels to rise nearly – but not quite – one whole inch.


Still, don’t be surprised if cities like New York, Miama and Los Angeles – coastal metroplexes – become barren wastelands over the next several milenia.

Perhaps people ought to think about packing up shop now, while traffic is still good, and head for higher ground.

From Science Daily:

The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.

Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of Nature Geoscience that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.

The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.

Incidentally, the forecast for Fairbanks, Alaska calls for temperaures to be below freezing for the next several days – including a high temperature of 9 degrees on Saturday.

I hate when Alaskan ice melts in subfreezing temperatures.
wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.

Maybe the White House was thinking, “It looks so obvious, so blatant, they won’t think anyone could be that stupid. They’ll decide it’s just a coincidence.”

Maybe the White House thinks we are that stupid.

On the other hand, maybe there really is nothing to it.

Maybe it really is just a coincidence.

Either way, it’s a story that will get very little – if any – coverage by the mainstream media. All of the young “Woodward” and “Bernstein” wanna-bes out there in journalistland will be taking a convenient powder.

It’s a shame, because it’s actually an interesting story – certainly one worthy of visiting at least once. In the days when reporters actually did investigating, it might have grown legs.

What am I talking about?

Last night, the President played host to ten House Dems who voted against ObamaCare last year. Clearly, Obama was hoping to convince some of them – if not all – to flip their ticks over to the “yes” column for the good of the country.

One of those in Obama’s sights was Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.

What makes this otherwise run-of-the-mill, uninteresting political play a bona fide story is the fact that the White House issued a press release yesterday saying that President Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. – Congressman Matherson’s eldest brother – to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit … on the same day.


John McCormack at the Weekly Standard writes:

Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.” Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: “I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday.”

The real question … Is this necessary now?

Inexplicably, this one seems to have slipped under the radar of the “drive-by media.”


Could this develop into an actual scandal of some kind?

Not likely.

It would first have to warrant a blurb somewhere.

However, one could almost bet a vital body appendage that it would have graced front pages everywhere had these group of players been Republicans.

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

I’m not a conspiracist.

Obviously, Court of Appeals nominations are not made on the drop of a dime. I suppose there is some chance that the choice of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit is all just a fat and happy coincidence.

But there’s no way – even if the process began before Congressman Matheson’s thumbs down vote in November – that yesterday’s announcement of the elder Matheson’s nomination just happened to fall on the same day ten Democrat “NO” votes visited the White House (including the younger Matheson) to be persuaded by Barack Obama to change sides.

No way in hell.

Somehow, I see a puffy-cheeked Marlon Brando putting his arm around Congressman Matheson in the Oval Office saying, “Congratulations on your brother’s nomination. I hope it all works out for him.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, health care | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010

Someone’s idea of a joke?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

From the “Selective Reasoning” file …

A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday that, if passed, would put the face of America’s 40th President – Ronald Wilson Reagan – on the $50 bill. Congressman Patrick McHenry, Republican from North Carolina, introduced legislation that would replace the likeness of Ulysses S. Grant – celebrated Civil War general and 18th President of the United States – with that of Reagan’s.

From Fox News:

“Every generation needs its own heroes,” McHenry said in a written statement. “One decade into the 21st century, it’s time to honor the last great president of the 20th and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy.”

FDR’s likeness in on the dime and Kennedy’s is on the half-dollar.

McHenry pointed to a polls of presidential scholars that show Reagan consistently outranks President Grant, including a Wall Street Journal survey in 2005 that ranked Reagan sixth and Grant 29th.

But one Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee said he’s not ready to grant that honor to “someone whose policies are still controversial.”

“Our currency ought to be something that unites us,” Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Times.

I could be wrong on this, but I’m guessing that Ulysses S. Grant is similarly regarded in some sectors of the South as General William Techumseh Sherman is, although probably with less disdain. To be sure, Grant’s likeness wasn’t a common sight in too many American homes south of the Mason-Dixon line after the war.

And how exactly did John F. Kennedy unify America? By his death? Nearly half of America did not vote for the man in 1960. Apart from his murder, what did he accomplish that warranted his face on a coin? The escalation of America’s involvement in Vietnam?

Indeed, Franklin Roosevelt helped lead America to victory in World War II, but to suggest that his nearly four terms of unprecedented government expansion  – along with his creation of the modern entitlement state – wasn’t (and still isn’t) controversial is to deny that water is wet. Outside of World War II, there isn’t much that “unifies” the American public today about the hyper-progressive, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And yet, there he is on the dime.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the war to this day is controversial.

Why didn’t Congressman Sherman just say, “Reagan was too conservative to be on my money.”

We all know that’s what he means.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Ronald Reagan | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

It’s only a bit of research by some Harvard “experts.”

But this just isn’t going to fly.

Although no one in the enviro-fascist camp really seems to be trying to tackle the problem of reducing the most abundant greenhouse gas of all – water vapor – the Obama administration stands steadfastly behind its goal to reduce other doomsday greenhouse gases that threaten the planet’s existence, like carbon dioxide.

You’ll recall that carbon dioxide is the stuff we – and all air breathing creatures – exhale.

(I thought it was worth restating).

And even though the hoax of manmade global warming continues to unravel on a daily basis, it isn’t keeping the true believers – like the ever-industrious President of the United States – from demanding that greenhouse emissions be cut before it’s too late.

But Obama’s standards are steep.  His goals are ambitious.

And if America is to save itself – and the world – from greenhouse death, it’s going to require that the price of gasoline go up, according to some researchers.

Way up.

How does $7.00 a gallon sound?

Sindya N. Bhando of the New York Times’ Dot Earth feature writes:

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

I’m curious … which governmental agency will be so lucky to benefit from the income generated by these tax increases?

Perhaps the new found revenue could be used to subsidize the poor, who will be hit hardest by such a price increase.

And let’s not forget those people unfortunate enough not to have access to a urine-soaked subway system, a sparsely travelled light rail system or a public bus.

A government-imposed $7.00 a gallon price for gasoline might hurt a little. 

It’s interesting to note that while stories about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continue to somehow find their way onto the pages of the New York Times, the continued implosion of the global warming charade – including the story of ClimateGate itself – is all but ignored by the Grey-haired Lady.

$7.00 a gallon gas?

Is the government-led dismantling of the transportation industry as we know it the goal here?

What’s next?

An attempt to take over the health care industry?
wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

I know that the study of climate is a tricky science. I am also aware that, often times, things aren’t quite as they seem.

We now know, for instance, that global warming triggers global cooling that induces global moderation that leads to all-encompassing global climate change.

And even though nothing may actually be changing, things change all the time, even when they don’t.  And even though it may not necessarily be a global thing, it is taking place all over the world, even if it’s not.

This isn’t your father’s weather.

Last week, for example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that the last ten years have been the hottest decade since temperature records have been kept, although Professor Phil Jones – the former chief of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit who was forced to step down due to the ClimateGate scandal – finally admitted there has been no global warming in 15 years.

Nuance, baby.

Last week, Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said that the three month span from November 2009-January 2010 has been “the hottest November-January the world has seen.”

Yet, in Great Britain, it has been the coldest winter in three decades.

Go figure.

Adam Gabbatt from the Guardian.UK writes:

After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction.

Provisional figures from the forecaster show the UK winter – which in forecasting terms lasts from the start of December until the end of February – has been the harshest, in temperature terms, since 1978-79.

According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature – calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 – of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C.

So much nuance.

I’m out of my league.

Speaking of Professor Phil Jones … he testified on Monday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology in an attempt to defend himself after the ClimateGate scandal threw the entire manmade global warming farce into a tailspin. Indeed, he admitted to withholding data about global temperatures, but said that it wasn’t standard practice to share that kind of information with other scientists, nor was it common to release computer models so that the “science” could be checked.

Jones said, “I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way.”


That’s all I can say.

Is he serious?

True, I’m no scientist, but the layman in me can’t help but wonder … what exactly is the “peer review” process if it isn’t allowing fellow scientists to review and challenge research? What is it that peers are supposed to be reviewing if not the methods and data used to arrive at given conclusions? Isn’t that, quite literally, what science is supposed to be all about? Isn’t that what the scientific method is?

Before conclusions can become accepted in the scientific community – let alone “settled science” – other scientists must be allowed to conduct their own research using the data and methods employed by those who have drawn the original conclusions.

Am I wrong?

What am I missing here?

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010


Why swim when you can charter a boat?

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2010

offensive banner one

Three years ago, San Diego school teacher, Brad Johnson, was informed that two banners he had displayed on his classroom wall – one that hung for twenty-five years and another for seventeen years – had to come down.  

Apparently, they were suddenly offending students.  

For all those years, they simply hung there, as they always had , without incident, without complaint. There wasn’t even a hint that their American patriotic references to God were an affront to anyone.  

Then, school administrators told him that he was violating the principles of Separation of Church and State. They told Mr. Johnson that his banners were “an impermissible attempt to make a Judeo-Christian statement to his students.”   

They had to come down, they demanded.  

His First Amendment rights had limitations, they argued.  

The school’s principal had final say on what went up on the classroom walls, they said.  

One banner, with its four phrases – In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, God Bless America and God Shed His Grace On Thee – had no business in a classroom. The other, quoting directly from the Declaration of Independence, might insult Muslims, Johnson was told.  

Johnson decided he would sue.  

A year later, in September, 2008, Judge Roger T. Benitez, said Johnson had the right to do so.  

He did.  

From Warner Todd Huston’s Pluribus Form blog, September, 2008:  

In a blistering 23-page decision, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez rejected the district’s motion as legally faulty and blasted its “brash” attempt to take down the banners. The jurist noted that the district allowed other teachers to put up posters with Buddhist and Islamic messages, posters of rock bands including Nirvana and the Clash, and Tibetan prayer rugs… Johnson’s banners, Benitez wrote, were patriotic expressions deeply rooted in American history.  

Last Friday – seventeen months after Judge Benitez ruled that Johnson had the right to sue – he ruled that the Poway Unified School District of San Diego, CA, violated Johnson’s constitutional rights.  

Score one for the Constitution and the good guys.  

From the Thomas More Law Center, who represented Johnson:  

offensive banner 2

That school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.  

These displays included: a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.  

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”   

If an educator is permitted to post an ex-Beatle’s vision of a Godless world, then certainly one should be permitted to allow historical slogans dating back two centuries that acknowledge this nation’s religious heritage. If Tibetan prayer flags are allowed to be put on display, then a quote referencing God taken from this nation’s founding document seems perfectly reasonable. 

The “Free Exercise Thereof” portion of the First Amendment isn’t an anti-Christianity clause.  


HUGE H/T to Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog.

wordpress statistics  

Posted in Constitution, First Amendment | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2010

Language evolves.

The meanings of words change over time. New words find their way into the American lexicon, while others fade away into the recesses of classic literature and old celluloid. Some words that started out as slang can become “normalized” and stick around for a long time. Others have a short shelf life.

For instance, the word “cool” seems to transcend time – “that’s cool” – while others, such as “groovy” and “swell,” are prisoners of their time.

Then there are instances when a word becomes part of the language because of an obvious void. Sometimes specificity is needed.

Let’s look at the word “lie” for a moment.

Knowingly telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive is a lie.  Most everyone knows that.

Most also know that not all lies are equal.

For instance, there are necessary, peace-keeping kind of lies:

-Concerned Wife: Honey, does this shirt make me look fat?

-Harrowed Husband: No, dear. Not at all.

Then there are the more egregious, “Do you really think we’re that dumb” type of lies:

Lying President: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Then there’s the Vice President Joe Biden kind of lie – a special kind of deceit in a category all its own, worthy of its own word. You might call it the “Sky isn’t blue, although it’s obviously blue if you just look at it” lie.

Soon, it will be known as pulling a “biden.”

When one asserts a falsehood that is obviously untrue – provably untrue – and he or she knows it’s not true, but says it is anyway, and does so because there is no other way to make a point that otherwise cannot be made by sane human beings without ingesting fairy dust, and those who are witness to the lie stand there dumbfounded, gaping, wondering why the padded trucks have not yet arrived, and no one is really taking him or her seriously anyway – kind of like that crazy Uncle who only visits at Thanksgiving and wants to talk to you about his mucus buildup – one is said to be pulling a “biden.”

Joe Biden, indeed, pulled a classic “biden” in Orlando, Florida yesterday, talking about what he perceived as the grand successes of President Barack Obama’s year-old Recovery Act – a.k.a, the Stimulus Bill, a.k.a. steaming crap – saying, “There’s no economist now that says the Recovery Act hasn’t created or saved at least two million jobs.”

Not one, says the Vice President.


Every economist on the face of planet earth says that the Obama Spendulous Bill has created or saved two million jobs.

Every economist.

And the math is simple, according to Joe:

“When you lose eight million jobs in this Great Recession, and you keep it from being ten, that’s no solace to the eight million who don’t have a job, man.”

In other words, if not for Obama, ten million jobs would have been lost, instead of eight … hence, two million saved or created.


This is another way of pulling a “biden” – saying something that cannot be disproven because the premise on which the assertion is made is completely made up, but otherwise sounds pretty cool to a crowd full of libs. (Remember, the word “cool” transcends time).

Using the Biden method – or being “bidonian” – I can say, for instance, I “saved” my wife’s job because I didn’t send in a letter to her supervisor threatening his life and signing her name to it. Because of my inaction, she’s still employed. In essence, I saved her job by doing nothing – which is precisely what the Stimulus Bill did … nothing.

It’s all very bidenesque.

But I can’t help but wonder … since the criteria for what constitutes a “saved” or “created” job is so jumbled, ill-defined and convoluted, why didn’t the Veep claim that three million jobs were saved? Or five million? What’s the difference anymore?

I ask the same kind of question when it comes to the minimum wage. Why not make it $15 an hour? Or $25? Or $100?

As far as my original point is concerned, please note that the word “biden” can be used as a noun: He’s pulling a biden.  Did you catch the biden that came out of his mouth yesterday?

It can be used as a verb: She’s gonna biden her Dad about the scratch on the car.

It’ll work as an adjective: That speech was very biden.

It’ll even fly as an adverb:  The governor is bidenly effective.

It’s also a joke – as in, “Joe Biden is ourVice President.”

Incidentally, in the spirit of openness and hospitality, I offer these to Vice President Joe Biden:  Dan Mitchell, J.D. Foster and Lawrence Katz, among many many others.

… three very well-known economists who don’t subscribe to the two million jobs fairy tale.

You’re welcome, Joe.


H/T – Hot Air Pundit, via Weasel Zippers.

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2010

Posted in Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »