Monday, December 21, 2009

The Rundown - Hollywood, Death Panels, Canada, and RINO's

Got some good pieces for you today. Topics include Palin media bias, the death panel controversy, and a very insightful article on the Canadian fundraiser conniption fit and the Canadian health system in general (and where our health system is headed). Let's start out with this article in Big Hollywood:

The entertainment media’s treatment of Sarah Palin and her family has been abhorrent....

Since the end of the 2008 campaign, some of the most glaring examples of the entertainment media’s obsession with anti-Palin coverage have centered on Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby. Levi, a guy who would be better suited to appear on Tool Academy than he would on any legitimate hard or entertainment news program, has been reaping the benefits from his connection to Palin. In addition to his highly-publicized Playgirl shoot, Levi has been circulating entertainment shows in an attempt to pass off his melba-esque persona as something less than bland.....

This begs the question: Since when is Sarah Palin “Hollywood?” One could argue that it all started with Kathy Griffin’s antics. In what commenced as yet another plea for attention, Griffin brought Levi to The 2009 Teen Choice Awards. Clearly, this was little more than a publicity stunt for Griffin, who would likely sell her left kidney if it yielded a decent photo-op. However, in the grander scheme, this was a clear statement to young people: Go ahead and laugh at Sarah Palin. Hollywood’s doing it, so you should too!....
“Dressed in a pinstripe suit and pink striped tie, the Alaskan teen and father of Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp arrived hand-in-hand with Griffin, planted a kiss on her cheek for the cameras and did some solo posing as well.”
Gag me.

Anyway, let’s move back to 2009 champion of idiocy: The Insider. This fall, the show decided to reunite Levi and Griffin. During what host Lara Spencer probably mistook as a very riveting and thought-provoking interview, she asked Levi fair-minded questions in the vein of, “Is Sarah Palin really Trig’s mother?” and “Why do you think Sarah Palin is afraid of you?” Following the liberally-driven wingnuttery that ensued during the 2008 presidential campaign, the question about Trig’s birth is breathtakingly cruel and sense-retardant. Spencer’s questioning screamed ratings desperation and showed just how far entertainment media will go to make Palin look idiotic while turning a profit.....

These would be the same journalists who did such an excellent job researching the man who currently leads the free world. Insane.....Who can ignore Behar’s detached-from-reality commentary about people who favor Sarah Palin:
“Well her people are evil and nasty. They are not nice people. They send me nasty mail and everybody else who talks about it. Anything negative about Sarah Palin, they get hit with this stuff. You know.”
Ironic that Behar wouldn’t consider her own nastiness as a potential catalyst for negative feedback.

Behar has openly called Palin stupid, among other nasally-delivered complements. And the list goes on and on. The entertainment media (which, by my calculation, includes the now theoretically deficient Andrew Sullivan) are intent on making Palin out to be: stupid, evil, incompetent, a mere “Barbie” and insolent, in no particular order.

Get over it, Hollywood. Sarah Palin doesn’t share your values. She’s pro-life, pro-capitalism and pro-rationality. Rather than wasting all of your time lambasting her, promoting Levi and attempting to debunk her very existence, why not divert even a portion of your energy towards examining the man you’ve placed America’s very existence in the hands of. We’ve all got personal dirt. Since you’ll never let up, why not shovel a little less of Palin’s and a little more of Obama’s?

Read the full article here.

Now, on to this, "Lie of the Year" business. Article here:

Here’s the thing: Palin wasn’t lying.

Sure, “death panel” is a little over the top rhetorically speaking, but consider the recent controversy over a government panel declaring that mammograms for women under 50, not to mention at-home self breast exams, were worthless despite longstanding guidelines from the American Cancer Society, among others.

That panel’s recommendations, despite Obama administration instructions to ignore it, has resulted in funding for mammograms being cut in no fewer than 20 states.

Now, consider that the health care bill (both the House and Senate versions) contains legislation that creates health care exchanges that will be run by the government. All Americans buying health insurance once those exchanges are put in place would be only be able to choose from among plans offered on those exchanges. And the government defines what those plans will and will not cover.

So if, under this health care “reform” being pushed by Democrats, some government decides that a certain procedure or a certain drug isn’t good you may not be able to get coverage for that procedure or that drug.

[My insert - there's a difference between rationing and lack of coverage. Palin's death panels statement was given in the context of rationing.

Lack of coverage does not mean unavailability of treatment, it simply means you're going to have to find some way to pay for the treatment. The problem isn't lack of coverage so much as the system being overwhelmed by these new measures which could lead to a health care shortage, hence rationing.

Rationing means you're not getting it, whether you can afford it or not. Neither situation is ideal, but I'd rather have the former. At least you have a chance. So I disagree with this guy's premise that lack of coverage equals death panel in the context of Palin's original statement.]

Now, for some people, access to that coverage may be a life or death thing. Thus, the government decisions about that coverage are life and death. Thus, death panel.

Now, the liberals would rather you not think like that. They’d rather you just sit back, stop thinking and trust that the decisions the government is making for you are the best ones. But, in reality, death panels are more truth than fiction in these health care “reform” efforts.

Here's my vid on the "death panel" lie thing. There is much to say about this debate - I thought Palin's mistake was responding with just a specific portion of the bill after she was questioned on her statement. The death panel argument was much larger than end-of-life counseling:

Now, on to a great article in the Canada Free Press on this whole Palin hospital fundraiser thing. It's long, so I won't blockquote it. Excerpts:

A fundraising gala, set for April 15 in Hamilton Ontario, was initially to be held to benefit two local hospitals; the Juravinski Cancer Centre and St. Peter’s Hospital were to be the recipients of the funds raised. The organizers thought that they had struck gold when they booked former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the main speaker.

They should have known. Shortly after Palin’s presence but made public, Hamilton Health Services began to receive nasty telephone calls and emails. Some people who contacted the organization described themselves as donors and indicated that they would never ever donate again if Palin was to speak. While most of the disgruntled gave the fact that Palin had criticized Canada’s healthcare system as the reason, some people suggested that Palin should not be present in an area where many of the elected officials are members of the socialist NDP.

The angry response that Palin’s coming to Hamilton to raise money for local hospitals says more about Canadians than it does about Sarah Palin. Many Canadians view our system of healthcare as what defines Canada as a country. Practicalities such as funding and maximizing healthcare delivery are not as important as ideology. Canada is defined by many on the left, not by what the country is but what it isn’t. And many Canadians think that Canada’s defining feature is that it is not the United States. And at least for now, socialized medicine is one of the major differences between the two countries.....

Government run healthcare is considered a religion like Catholicism, Islam and global warming. Liberals, of course are not interested in debate or hearing what the other side has to say. This is the main objection to Sarah Palin’s presence at the gala; were she a lesser known Canadian who championed at least more private involvement in the healthcare system she would have been shunned for that. Those who consider themselves good liberal Canadians are not interested in anything that Sarah Palin has to say on the matter of healthcare. Too many Canadians are close minded when it comes to funding healthcare and are perfectly content to define sacrificing their lives for their country as dying on a waiting list. In the end, the money that the two hospitals undoubtedly need is not as important as ideology and political correctness.

The irony of all this is that our “Canadian-style” healthcare system is not be all that different from where American healthcare is headed.

While the far left in the United States is outraged that the public option has been dropped from the Senate bill, not having a public option will probably hasten what Obama and the far left really want – a single payer system.

What remains in the proposed legislation is that insurers will not be able to refuse coverage to those people with pre-existing medical conditions or who otherwise are poor risks. A public option would have at least allowed the government to insure those who could not get insurance anywhere else. With no public option private insurers will be forced to cover bad risks, which will in turn hasten the end of private insurance in the United States. Then American healthcare will be just like Canada’s. How will Canadians define their country then?

The April 15 gala is going ahead and Sarah Palin is still set to speak. But instead of the two Hamilton area hospitals being the beneficiaries of the funds raised, the money will go to The Charity of Hope, a children’s charity.

So far none of the children who will benefit from the funds raised by The Charity of Hope have complained about Sarah Palin.

In other news, there's a good letter to the editor here:

In response to the letter written by Walt Hill concerning Sarah Palin; he is correct on one point and one point only. He states that "until the big money guys can control and manipulate her, they are not going to support her in 2012." To me, this means that she is a politician who cannot be "bought." Personally, I feel that is a rare and valuable quality.

I find that the best way to determine how a politician will govern is to look at their past history (something no one did with Obama). When she resigned from Alaska, it was with a heavy heart.

However, she didn't want the state of Alaska to continue shelling out hard earned tax payer dollars to defend her against unending frivolous law suits. I feel this is a person who could have the country's best interests at heart.

Whether Sarah Palin chooses to run is her decision. If she does, I will support her.

Here's a great first-hand account of someone who felt drawn to Palin's Montana book-signing:

Palin Draws Crowds

Not being a fan or groupie of anyone or anything, I was surprised how compelled I felt to see Sarah Palin at her Billings book signing this week. It must be the newshound in me that had me RSVP to that event.

I braved the cold weather, and even worse, the crowd, to get her picture and an up close and personal look at this now-national personality. I didn’t, however, stand outside and wait in line to get an autograph. I see the collector value in that, but didn’t have hours to spend waiting for the signature.

Easily admitted to the store because I didn’t need that autographed copy, I soon found one of her many staff. Knowing she wasn’t taking questions or interviews, I flashed press credentials and a business card, asking for a photo op.

The “aide,” as he called himself, quickly lifted the burgundy curtain and admitted my camera into the book signing area. Sitting behind a square table was an animated and delightful Sarah Palin. She shook hands with everyone, looked each person in the eye and spoke to them in her now recognizable brogue, signing her signature without watching what she was doing. Sitting beside her, husband Todd shook everyone’s hand also and talked to every kid — as did she.

Todd Palin later milled through the receptive crowd, talking with them and with his father-in-law and mother-in-law. The “first dude,” smartly dressed in a tough-enough-to-wear-pink button down, isn’t as big as he appears on TV.

He’s about the size of a professional bronc rider — and like them, moves quietly and freely— greeting many of Sarah’s supporters. Many with camera phones and digitals were also enamored with Sarah’s family members and took their pictures.

One wondered if the Palins and Heaths enjoyed Montana’s Alaska-like weather.

What happened on this public side of the curtain was even more interesting than the other side and not at all how it was portrayed on the local TV stations.

For the most part, there was no crying or rapping. This was a quintessential Montana crowd with cowboy hats and Carhartts amid the ties and business suits. Cowboy boots mixed with Mucklucks and fashion boots were the dress code of the day.

Patient but chilled, this crowd wound their way through book shelves and politely waited their turn to shake hands with the former Alaska governor, who took on Big Oil and her own Republican party to correct the wrongs of the fat cats who take advantage of their positions.

Many in the crowd believe this woman can do the same with this nation.

Going rogue, maybe.

Impressing conservatives, definitely.

Now for just a couple vids. First off, Merry Christmas:

Michelle Malkin would have named Palin Person of the Year:

And here's some colorful commentary on the whole viser thing. Language warning:

It doesn't surprise me that Palin is going to support McCain for reelection. Everyone has their blindspots, and McCain is one of hers. Doesn't mean I'm not going to do all I can to make sure he doesn't get reelected.

Here's the thing with RINO's: they're fine as long as a conservative is in charge. If a conservative is the centerpole around which the big tent can gather, than it's all good. But if a moderate (like Bush) is in the White House, RINO's are our death knell. So if Palin or some other true Reaganite gets in there, I don't really care if McCain is there, but we have no guarantee that's going to happen. So I will not support McCain no matter what Palin has to say about it.

Hey, conservatives are cats. We've got minds of our own:)

No comments: