Searchlight or L.A.?

This is a serious question I’m putting out to my readers.  Read this post from Zombie and let me know in the comments which group would you choose.  And yes, I’m making this an “either/or” proposition.  Picking the group you would be “least embarrassed” to be photographed with does not mean you have to accept either groups ideology.  So, if you had to be in either Searchlight or L.A. and attend the rally, where would you go?

Bonus question–do you believe the press covers these these two groups in an equal, “fair and balanced” way?

Democracy and stupid people to blame for Global Warming (blessed be thy name)!

Well anyway, according to this scientist, climate change can’t be appropriately addressed until we get rid of the stupid people and demoncracy.  Man, I couldn’t make up stuff like this if I tried!

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

You gotta laugh

Althouse is on a roll.

“Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

President Obama, March 19, 2010

Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

NY Times March 29, 2010

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010

So, now that the Dems and the Press have gotten around to reading this craptastic health care legislation they’ve foisted on the people they are outraged, outraged I say, at, you guessed it, the insurance companies!

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”



Promises, promises

“I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Video here)

–Barack Obama, September 2008.

The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance. (NY Times blog)

–Jack Baldwin, Constitutional Law Professor