Why the Suds Summit Was a Failure

These days, I am not known for my drinking.

These days…

However, I am not without experience. And it’s that experience that tells me that today’s “Suds Summit” was an abject failure. And here’s why.

Unless you weigh 95 pounds soaking wet, it takes more than one beer to get the brutal truth. I mean, look at the picture.

You know these guys drank their beer, talked superficially about the incident and went to meet the press.

If they really wanted to mend fences, there should have been a five beer minimum before the conversation started. Minimum.

By then, Biden would have blurted out something like, “Skip, I can’t believe what you said about Borley’s mother! That took some balls!”

Then Skip and Obama start laughing because of A) Biden’s reference to Crowley as Borley and B) what Skip said about Crowley’s mama. Then Crowley fires back with something, more beers arrive, more drinking followed by lesser inhibitions until finally you get this:


Everyone’s too drunk to hurt one another, but also too drunk to keep from saying things they normally wouldn’t.

Then, the truth finally comes out and some progress can be made. They go out for some Five Guys, Biden in the back of the limo yelling, “GIMME THE KEYS! GIMME THE KEYS!”

Finally, they get to the point where they let bygones be bygones and they walk away cool with one another.
What you had today was just a show to make Obama look like an everyman. Nothing was solved there.

Respond to this: 3 Comments

Stereotypes Abound at White House, President Invites Two Irish for Beer

This is an interesting twist on the Gates-Crowley story. Turns out they have some ancient ancestors:

In a PBS series on African-American ancestry that he hosted in 2008, Gates discovered his Irish roots when he found he was descended from an Irish immigrant and a slave girl.

He went to Trinity College in Dublin to have his DNA analyzed. There he found that he shared 10 of the 11 DNA matches with offspring of Niall of the Nine Hostages, the fourth century warlord who created one of the dominant strains of Irish genealogy because he had so many offspring.

Ironically, James Crowley, whose name in Gaelic means “hardy warrior,” is also descended from the same line as Gates, having very close links to Niall of the Nine Hostages.

So the two men who took part in what is now an infamous confrontation outside the Gates home near Harvard this month are actually related through common Irish lineage — one of the more extraordinary aspects of the incident that has sparked worldwide headlines.

Wait a minute here…they are both of IRISH DESCENT? And the president asked them both over for a beer?

Well, that sound pretty racist to me. Why does it have to be beer? Why couldn’t it just be a soda? Is it because the president thinks all the Irish do is drink?

Sounds like a clear cut case of stereotyping by the president. What do you think?

Respond to this: 3 Comments

Stereotypes Abound at White House, President Invites Two Irish for Beer

This is an interesting twist on the Gates-Crowley story. Turns out they have some ancient ancestors:

IrishIn a PBS series on African-American ancestry that he hosted in 2008, Gates discovered his Irish roots when he found he was descended from an Irish immigrant and a slave girl.

He went to Trinity College in Dublin to have his DNA analyzed. There he found that he shared 10 of the 11 DNA matches with offspring of Niall of the Nine Hostages, the fourth century warlord who created one of the dominant strains of Irish genealogy because he had so many offspring.

Ironically, James Crowley, whose name in Gaelic means “hardy warrior,” is also descended from the same line as Gates, having very close links to Niall of the Nine Hostages.

So the two men who took part in what is now an infamous confrontation outside the Gates home near Harvard this month are actually related through common Irish lineage — one of the more extraordinary aspects of the incident that has sparked worldwide headlines.

Wait a minute here…they are both of IRISH DESCENT? And the president asked them both over for a beer?

Well, that sound pretty racist to me. Why does it have to be beer? Why couldn’t it just be a soda? Is it because the president thinks all the Irish do is drink?

Sounds like a clear cut case of stereotyping by the president. What do you think?

UPDATE:

Doug Powers writing at Michelle Malkin notes the stereotyping as well.

Respond to this: 3 Comments

Why John Edwards Is Responsible for More Unnecessary Operations Than "Greedy Doctors"

Last night during his national press conference, President Barack Obama maligned doctors as doing unnecessary operations based on greed, not the best interest of the patient. He said:

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

It’s interesting that President Obama discusses unnecessary operations as one of the causes of high health care costs. Do you know what the most often performed operation is in the United States? With heart disease being the number one killer in America, you might think it would be related to that, perhaps bypass surgery or angioplasty.

It’s cesarean section. In 1965, only 4.5 percent of children were delivered via c-section. Today, 31 percent are. That’s a huge increase for a procedure that was once reserved to emergency situations. And as the Los Angeles Times notes, it has resulted in “an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.”

What is the reason for the increase? Is it greedy doctors looking for a new summer home? No, it’s something far worse.

John Edwards.

The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:

“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.”

In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.

Whether or not fetal heart rate monitoring during labor has led to a reduction in cerebral palsy has been researched extensively. The conclusion established by multiple scientific evidence is: Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor does not reduce rates of cerebral palsy, although it does increase the rate of cesarean section.

As the L.A. Times notes, they also lead to unnecessary costs:

As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation’s $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.

Because the average uncomplicated cesarean runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.

and:

The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean — delivery via uterine incision — exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.

If the president is really interested in reducing the occurrences of unnecessary operations, he doesn’t need to create the boogey-man of “greedy doctors.” Greedy doctors don’t remove body parts like tonsils. They implant body parts, like silicone breasts. The real culprit here is the trial lawyer, who has helped create a medical world that chooses procedures based on the CYA diagnosis method. However, the president’s speech last night was not critical of this, and didn’t emphasize tort reform.

A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn’t see a need for tort reform:

An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.

If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.

Update:

Thanks to those who liked and linked, including Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, Melissa Clouthier at Melissa Clouthier.com and Right Wing News, Jenn Sierra at Fort Hard Knox, Kathy Shaidle at fivefeetoffury. You all helped me get my first Memeorandum thread!

If I missed you, it’s not intentional. I just haven’t found your link yet.

Don’t forget to retweet and stumble! Thanks again!

Update 2:

I guess this story has some legs. Welcome Lucianne and American Thinker readers. Please remember to subscribe and follow me on Twitter! I’m closing in on 3,000 followers.

Respond to this: 90 Comments

Emanuel: We Rescued the Economy; Boehner: I Don't Think So

This guy can’t get enough of himself on television.

But you know what I honestly think…Obama thinks he is so charismatic that if he goes on television and says it’s so, then the masses will slowing start to nod their heads in unison and start mumbling “Yes…we…can…” again. Why else would he be on television so much that even his supporters are saying enough is enough!

Now, he is going to go on television, again, tonight, to tell us he’s rescued the economy. No, really:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a “six-month report card,” to talk about “how we rescued the economy from the worst recession” and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Rescued? Really? Where?




Gateway Pundit has a video that I’ll share with you below, showing 134 Republicans in the House asking “Where are the jobs?”




Obama said we had to pass the stimulus bill fast and that it would create or save millions of jobs. He said it would start immediately, not in two years:




So now he is telling us that the stimulus plan was supposed to start immediately, that it is ahead of schedule, that it has done its job, but it is a two year plan. Oh yeah, and you rescued the economy even though you predict higher unemployment.

Obama’s path leads to bondage. A people more and more dependent on a central government to provide for them. As more people find it easier to do this, there will be less people to do the providing.

He hasn’t rescued the economy. He has worsened it.

Respond to this: Comments Off