I know an anecdote doth not a trend make, but this is still interesting.

From 1999 to 2007, Medicare denied access in a third of the treatments it evaluated through its coverage process, taking an average of eight months to complete its reviews. When coverage was granted, in 85% of cases the treatments were restricted, usually to patients with more advanced illnesses.

Medicare is lately increasing its use of the national coverage process and is becoming more tightfisted. Since 2008, according to my review of Medicare data, it conditioned access in 29% of its reviews and denied new or expanded coverage in fully 53% of cases.

Those who say it couldn’t happen with our brand new health care legislation being considered right now, might respond with some stories about medical care run by nations’ governments that ended up not being rationed. That’s what the debate is supposed to be all about, right?

Chirp…chirp…chirp…

The wires are burning up with news that Sarah Palin’s co-author is “extremely conservative.”

You know what? I don’t even know what that phrase means anymore.

I’m pretty sure I know what someone means when they call themselves or someone else “extremely liberal.” It means they think capitalism is evil and the government should run everything…right before it is dismantled and replaced with a communist empire. And as the necessary changes are made there are going to be sweet little whispers that it’ll all be done to “save the environment.”

Extremely conservative? Does anyone know what kind of meaning to make of that anymore? It means someone doesn’t have a problem if someone else eats meat or legally buys a gun?

BroKen, over at Rick’s place, heard an interesting and colorful phrase.

I think he’s learned about Yin and Yang, the idea that some among us perceive the world around us through facts and logic, and others among us perceive the world around us by means of social interaction with yet others. Which leaves us conflicted with each other, because it leaves some of us abhorring ambiguity, and others of us craving it.

He’s just come in contact with the world of those who crave it.

A few days ago I was watching a diplomat (I think she was retired) discuss the issues facing those seeking peace in the Middle East and she used a fascinating term. She said that agreements reached between the parties would need some “creative ambiguity.”

Do you see what that means? Since the parties have diametrically opposed goals, the only way to get them to sign a piece of paper is if each side thinks the paper says something different.

As Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” Not everybody is willing to sign on to that one.

…and may God have mercy on her soul.

My comments at Gerard’s site speak for themselves. This shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal thing, and yet it is quickly becoming one. Because of what’s being defended, and the methods used.

Had another thought though:

A while back, Republican Senator Larry Craig pled guilty to trolling for sex in a mens’ bathroom in a Minneapolis airport. Conservatives came out in defense and liberals came out fightin’. I’m reasonably sure I heard all the arguments on both sides…not that this means very much. You’d have to have been living on Mars to miss anything.

To the best I can recall, the conservatives all made note of the idea that the law was absurd…but not a single one of them made too much of it. Going by their words, they all would have gone along with the suggestion — if indeed he was guilty, and if indeed whatever punishment’s on the table would also be applied to you or me in the same set of circumstances…well then, the conversation’s over. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.

Whoopi acts like no matter how many layers you peel off the onion, there’s always some other infinitesimal, crucial distinction to be made that changes everything. Perhaps she’s convinced herself this is the case. But look at all that time that was given to her to define why exactly this wasn’t “rape-rape,” and her teeny brain couldn’t come up with a single salient point. She just threw out a big fact-salad to confuse people, and when it was all over, nothing had changed. Nothing had been argued. She just went through the motions.

Is she laying down some protocol of justice to be applied to the esteemed director, that would also apply to everyone else? Heh. The question is too ludicrous to even be asked.

I quote myself, once again.

7. Find Out What People Are Missing

Once you’ve demonstrated a connection between your concerns and the concerns of your audience, you’ll find people are quite forgiving when confronted by disconnected, trashy logic. So don’t be afraid to turn your dumb idea into a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. Dumb ideas get sold that way pretty much all the time.

Once again: What you are doing is not putting together a meritorious argument; instead, what you’re doing is dispelling the requirement for you to put together a meritorious argument. It would be highly difficult to assemble a meritorious argument that a weak economy will recover through an ambitious “stimulus” program financed through record-setting debt and draconian tax increases against the most productive citizens. Or that the unemployment rate will go down when the minimum wage goes up. Or that when we activate a “disarmament” treaty with a belligerent foreign power, things will work out okay because there’s just no way our former enemy would stockpile some secret weapons and fail to tell us about them.

None of those things make any sense, but they’ve been sold over and over again, quite successfully, through a suggestion that the plan is substantially conducive to the declared goal. Once that suggestion is planted, people don’t check it out to see if it makes sense. They think they did, but they didn’t.

That’s Item #7 from the list of ways To Motivate Large Numbers of People To Do a Dumb Thing, Without Anyone Associating the Dumb Thing With Your Name Later On.

And perhaps I should make a mental note to begin writing about the flawed human condition with just a little bit more optimism. Sometime in the future. If recent events constitute any indication of what will continue to happen indefinitely…

President Barack Obama made a “public option” his centerpiece not because it’s the answer to what’s broken in the U.S. system, but because it’s a halfway house to a single-payer setup that liberal Democrats have always wanted. Team Obama also knew the public is concerned about rising costs, so they jammed together a hooey-filled argument that the public option was somehow the solution to rising costs.

The public is not as dumb as it’s made out to be, and Mr. Obama’s public option died a bipartisan death yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee.

I don’t entirely share Mr. Jenkins’ optimism; I think the public is, generally, just as dumb as it’s made out to be. The public smartens up at breakneck speed when pain is coming. Personalized, individualized, “Yeah I Mean You” pain…not some other guy’s pain. We’re ready to indulge in all kinds of whacky theories about how much water may or may not be in the pool, when it’s the other fellow diving in; factual statements about the volume of water, and gravity, are just too dry and time-consuming for us, messing up our precious schedule of downloading tunes to our iPod-whatever. And we don’t have any patience for anybody else paying attention to such boring stuff either.

Once our own feet are on the diving board our interests suddenly change.

That’s why “The Man Who Can Sell Anything” suddenly met His match. He tried to sell us something that was bound to mess things up, and soon. Crafty as He is, I doubt like the dickens Mr. Juice ever saw it coming. I really doubt it. Don’t ever forget — this is the guy who argues with dictionaries.

Go for it, Tinseltown. Show us exactly what you think is moral, and what you think is not (via Big Hollywood, via Memeorandum). And when you’re done showing us your oh so refined sensibilities, I think the word needs to get out, to be broadcast far and wide. The whole world should know exactly what makes you tick.

Best quote from the story by far:

“[A]t a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you’d hope that LA County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor [sic] by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime…”

If anyone wants to argue with me about this in the comments below, know this: I am an admirer of Polanski’s work. I think he’s incredibly talented. If you agree, then we have no quarrel here.

Your beef with me, therefore, comes down to a question of creativity entitling certain elite, talented individuals to special sunset provisions not enjoyed by others. Certain talented convicted individuals, who have been convicted of horrid, damaging, hurtful crimes.

Proceed to make your case.

You know what the difference is between invading countries and molesting young girls? We don’t have any young girls who need molesting.

Headline speaks for itself. But the article is worth reading too. Confusing “love” with respect is a mistake that’s been dangerous since the beginning of the human race.

They love Him like a pit bull loves a bloody rag.

Here’s my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable. But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him.

Ever stop to think what a different world we’d have if democrats “fought” terrorists the way they fight conservatives?

I just have to include the video making the rounds…stop-motion of our “loved” President, and His unchanging, creepy smile.

National Review Online, via Ace of Spades, with a tip of the hat to I Think Therefore I Err.

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
:
Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist…wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Ay-yup…and then it, uh, gets weird.

Is that hope and change working out well for you there, junior? Something about We Are The Change We’ve Been Waiting For?

The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 52.2 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. — meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

The number represents the flip-side to the Labor Dept.’s report that the employment rate of 16-to-24 year olds has eroded to 47.83 percent — the lowest ratio of working young Americans in that age group, including all but those in the military, since WWII.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults — aged 16 to 24, excluding students — getting a job and moving out of their parents’ houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession — in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

Is it unfair, in any way, for me to bottom-line our current plan this way:

We are engaged in a process of using taxes and regulations to make every single business move — that is, every move that would expand a business — as expensive as it could possibly be. That’s every single decision. Every last one.

As a direct result of this, we shall be putting this thing we call “business” in such a state that it’ll do something called “recover” and start humming right along.

Is that an unfair summation? Is it an incomplete one? Did I miss anything? If not…someone please walk me through the steps. Now that we’re in midstream, what exactly are we supposed to be looking for here.

Remember, this is the generation that’s going to be saddled with the $10 trillion in debt. Hope won and fear lost?

It’s an interesting thing about democrats when one observes them across the election cycles: Whereas Republicans and Libertarians more-or-less have their minds made up about whether or not government is to be trusted, and how much, the democrat teeters back and forth on the matter depending on what letter happens to be behind the President’s name.

You’re a terrible person if you aren’t helping them protest and stop just short of advocating a complete overthrow of the government — then all of a sudden you’re a terrible person if you’re not entrusting your most cherished life-and-death decisions to the whim of the lowliest bureaucrat who can read and write.

Which makes it tough to go through the motions of wondering how the mainstream press votes…as if we still had reason to wonder. The interest in photographing caskets returning from the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operation, seems to have just…gone…somewhere…

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 — more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

I’m beginning to understand now what people meant last year when they said Barack Obama has what it takes to unite us. They must not have meant by that there will be less bickering; the events of this summer have shot that full o’ holes. Their meaning must have had to do with conflict between the government and the press that is supposed to be holding it accountable. Like the press was working way too hard to show us what we had a right to see, and they were getting tired of it, so please put Obama in charge so they wouldn’t be working at it quite so hard.

I can’t help but wonder how many PATRIOT Acts a President Obama could get signed into law every single week — if He had a mind to do so. He obviously has bitten off more than He can chew with the health care thing. But the resistance there was true grassroots, whereas the PATRIOT Act backlash was anything-but.

To those of you who thought this was a tad on the obsessive side…and I know you’re out there, I’ve talked to you. (“You were going to make the judge sit through fifteen slides, really??”) This is for you.

In my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, by the Grace of God, of House of Eratosthenes The Blog That Nobody Reads…and let all the civilized world tremble in the face of my wrath…I hereby proclaim in my infinite wisdom, this (hat tip, once again, to Gerard) to be the finest video of the year. In all aspects. The hootin’ and hollerin’, the thigh-slappin’, the solving long overdue problems, the “Yeah Go Get ‘Em”‘s…calculating least common multiples…

Enjoy. Yes, I know it reeks of “staged.” I don’t care. This is a man whose priorities are set properly. Beats the hell out of dismantling nuclear weapons in the very same stretch of days that “Ah’m A Dinner Jacket” guy starts building up his own stock.

William Teach at Pirate’s Cove discusses nitpicking, which means to showcase a comment in someone else’s blog, give it the publicity you feel it deserves.

We’ve done it quite a few times. It’s fair, IMO, because it’s in a public view. The fact that the blog has no control over the commenter and very little control over his product, simply doesn’t enter into it. You know for a fact (barring the possibility that someone’s writing pure fiction under a blog comment) that the thoughts exist “out there,” because you’ve just pointed to living proof; in what quantity and saturation said thoughts exist, is a matter for speculation. And of course it’s alright for you to speculate.

If someone else reads it, and speculates the idea is out there in high saturation when it really isn’t, that’s their problem. Just like if you tell a story about a guy streaking down your neighborhood, and the guy you’re telling it to surmises this must happen all the time. Purely a matter of opinion, and purely his concern.

Now if you’re working hard at putting an unwarranted spin on it, of course that might be a different story.

So we aren’t going to have them…

With President Barack Obama in the chair at an unprecedented meeting of the U.N. Security Council, major world powers on Thursday endorsed his goal of a nuclear weapons-free world and pledged to strengthen the shaky international system for preventing the spread of nuclear arms.

The Security Council unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution that endorses the eventual goal of “a world without nuclear weapons.” It lays out steps for nuclear powers to trim their arsenals, while making it harder for other nations to convert civilian nuclear programs to military ones.

While it isn’t clear how fast this will come about, diplomats and private security experts called it the most significant U.N. action on nuclear weapons proliferation in years.

…but those other guys will. What could possibly go wrong?

President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain on Friday blasted Iran’s construction of a previously unknown uranium enrichment facility and demanded that Tehran immediately fulfill its obligations under international law or risk the imposition of harsh new sanctions.

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” Obama said, detailing how the facility at Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Association. “International law is not an empty promise.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Iran of “serial deception” that he said “will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.”

“We will not let this matter rest,” Brown said. “…Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear programs.”

We will become very angry with you, and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Ah geez, you’re really busting my balls here Hans. Why don’t you take a few steps to your left…

Looks like the sun has set on the era of finger-waggling disarmament diplomacy. Time to put it on history’s bookshelf, right next to the League of Nations. The task before us now, is to find a new way to confront the threat, and then figure out how to explain to our grandchildren the finger-waggling diplomacy was supposed to work…how & why it ever made sense to anyone.

I’m not sure which one of those two tasks is more difficult. One is going to involve people dying, the other one has a real chance of being altogether impossible. Time will tell.

Public school children being taught to worship His Wonderfulness.

Others blogging:

Malkin.

Gerard.

Exurban League has the school’s explanation.

American Thinker Blog.

Rick.

Cassy.

Who’s behind it?

Charisse Carney-Nunes, “writer, speaker and social entrepreneur.”

Gemma Atkinson and Holly Weber.

Once again — everyone looks awesome and wonderful in lingerie/bikinis. It comes down to faces: Gemma is not only more friendly-looking, but possessing of a girl-next-door undertone not reverberating from her counterpart.

What a shame for Holly. I can’t think of a way to improve on that bombshell of a figure — not by so much as a fraction of an inch. But these chins and noses that could cut through glass…I don’t know why they’re so popular. Kind of a turn-off. They suggest a lack of proper nourishment, and an unhealthy adoration of female qualities that civilized people aren’t quite so quick to adore. Perhaps that’s unfair, but like they say; you never get a second chance to make a good first impression.

Gemma 1, Holly 0. Them’s the breaks.

Surprise!

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of people who believe government has its hand in too many areas of American life has reached its highest point in more than a decade.

The question asked by Gallup was, “Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?” Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed say government is doing too much, while 38 percent say it should do more. Five percent are undecided.

The number of people who believe government is doing too much is up sharply from early March, when 47 percent said government was doing too much and 42 percent said it should do more.

The last time the number of people who believe government is doing too much hit 57 percent was in October 1994, shortly before voters threw Democrats out of power in both the House and Senate.

Your required reading for today on ACORN:

Acorn found its way into the mortgage business through the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 legislation that community groups have used as a cudgel to force lenders to lower their mortgage underwriting standards in order to make more loans in low-income communities. Often the groups, after making protests under CRA, were then rewarded by banks with contracts to act as mortgage counselors in low-income areas in return for dropping their protests against the banks. In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn’t been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector.

Given the economic fallout from the long efforts by advocacy groups to water down mortgage lending standards, as well as the controversy surrounding Acorn’s mortgage counseling methods, you would imagine that politicians in Washington would be eager to narrow the scope of the CRA and reduce the leverage that community groups wield under it. But to the contrary, Washington is actually looking to expand the CRA once again.

On Capitol Hill today the House Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Barney Frank is holding hearings on legislation supported by the Obama administration that would bring insurance companies and credit unions under the umbrella of CRA, placing new lending demands on these groups and opening them up to protests and pressure tactics by organizations like Acorn. As proof that Washington is a looking-glass world where basic values and logic get perverted, proponents of the new legislation claim we need more CRA to rein in the bad practices of the housing bubble, which is sort of like arguing that the cure for alcoholism is another martini. Any review of the history of the affordable mortgage movement in America demonstrates the power that CRA had in helping to shred mortgage underwriting standards throughout the industry and exposing us to the kind of market meltdown we’ve experienced.

“The nation was poorer for his presidency and is poorer still for his emeritus shenanigans.”

Nancy Pelosi says the anger in the air reminds her of the 1970’s.

She’s crying — literally — in order to get her way. Right after calling her perceived opponents “Nazis” and whatever else she wants to call ’em. Holding nothing back.

You know, in the 1970’s I was on a school playground, dealing with girls who liked to start fights with the boys, no-holds-barred, and then go off screaming to the yard duty teacher the instant they encountered anything that bore a passing resemblance to return-fire. So let us say our House Speaker is not the only one being reminded of the 1970’s; I’m having strong feelings of deja vous as well.

Do not — do not — f**** with the Morgan-Man…

Today was my court hearing. It’s a follow-up to what happened here. Below you see my 15-slide presentation I had prepared in electronic form, in letter-size print-out form, and in oversize full-color hard copy ready for presentation on an easel. Sixty dollars worth of Kinko’s product, ready to present in combat against a $204 ticket…written out way, way back in June…

So what do you think happened.

A. The judge was overwhelmed by the sheer power and force of my irrefutable logic, that the sign objectively failed to fulfill the non-negotiable standards imposed on it by Sections 2A.12, 2A.16, 2A.22, 2B.03 and 2B.19 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, published by the United States Government and customized by the California Department of Transportation.

B. The judge was unprepared for the extremely compelling case I made that it was simply not reasonable or realistic to expect motorists to see such a tiny road sign, around so sharp a bend in the road, amidst such a great multitude of other distractions. The video really put this case over the top when I captured all those cars ignoring the sign that they probably couldn’t see any better than I could anyway. And then of course, as frosting on the cake, there is the matter that the sign is plainly NOT legal.

C. The judge was completely bowled-over by the sensible arguments I made in favor of u-turns being allowed at that intersection. No one can recall who ever made the dumbass stupid decision to prohibit u-turns at that location, but they will make every effort to hunt down the miserable sonofabitch, and may God have mercy on his soul.

D. The judge had the wind knocked out of her sails by my water-tight argument that for 206 years now, it has been ingrained into the spirit of American jurisprudence a neverendingly hostile reaction to any hint of an all-powerful legislature; and, that an all-powerful legislature is precisely what we create when laws lose all force and effect as soon as they they apply to other laws. We are bound to follow the law, be it sensible or not, especially when we enforce that law against others. The judge was particularly impressed when I quoted Chief Justice John Marshall from the Marbury vs. Madison decision of 1803. Surely that applies to the case at hand, does it not, for if a sign is enforceable at 12″ wide and 17″ tall, when the standards plainly state that it should be 24″ square or higher — why stop there? Make it as big as the ticket I was written for disregarding it. Make it as big as a Post-It note. Why not? Where does it end? And for that reason, you must dismiss this case and yank the sign out by the roots…or else the standards have no meaning…and we are living in a tyrannical government of our own making.

E. The judge dismissed the case when the cop didn’t show up.

F. I’m guilty, and sentenced to a dog’s lifespan of bicycling to work.

This little drama has been going on for three months now. And I can safely say that every single person I see on a regular basis…son…girlfriend…co-workers…UPS guy…lady who does our dry-cleaning…is sick and tired of hearing from me about u-turn signs. And curious about how things were going to turn out this morning. Both. Feeling conflicted. And letting it show.

Meanwhile, I have been consumed in an endless morass of obsession over road signs that are unreasonably small. I’ve become quite a difficult person to have in proximity, and occasionally something of an embarrassment.

But that all ends now.

Maybe.

From Top of the Ticket.

Hat tip: Treacher.

The Editors of National Review Online weigh in on the dismantling of the missile defense shield in Europe…

President Obama knows how to put a smile on faces in Tehran and Moscow: This morning, he announced the abandonment of plans to develop a small missile-defense system in Eastern Europe.

This overturns one of the major diplomatic and national-security achievements of the Bush years. When George W. Bush came into office in 2001, the United States lacked long-range missile defenses. Today, Americans enjoy a rudimentary shield against North Korea as it strives to produce intercontinental ballistic missiles. There is no such protection for the United States or Europe against a similar threat from Iran, but agreements to build a powerful radar in the Czech Republic and to base interceptors in Poland had put NATO on a course for preparedness.

And here‘s Mister Wonderful promising just five months ago not to do this very thing. Perhaps that’s why the Prime Minister of Poland won’t take Hillary’s phone calls. Chalk up another foreign policy defeat for President Sottero.

It’s a funny thing about liberals. One of the many things that makes their decisions wrong much more often than right, is that they’re constantly in search of the “prime time television” moment in which a decision that looks good, instantly, to those who wouldn’t know a good decision if it smacked ’em in the face, has good results immediately as well as in the longer term. This often doesn’t work.

But here’s the twist: This “hawk versus dove” thing comes up, and then they manage to land on the wrong side of both of those goals — which, in other walks of life, are so often mutually exclusive from each other. They manage to make an enormous tactical mistake while looking like dorks. And the “smartest” among them seem clueless about it. It’s as if they really do expect you can disarm yourself, place the blade of the enemy’s knife against your own throat, and everyone all over the place will think that’s a really cool move. Well, here’s some truth for you. It’s not a cool move; nobody thinks it is; you look like a nimrod when you do it; and as far as wise decisions go, it’s boneheaded. To say nothing of dishonorable, when it sends our allies up the creek without a paddle.

I don’t need to elaborate on any of that. Announcing His own decision yesterday, The Holy One used one of my most-deplored phrases…I have no idea where I read it…but I could just go on that. “After an extensive review” or “After an extensive process” or some such.

I recall my mother, who is long dead by now, had another favorite: “At this time” or “At this point in time.” She was a very wise, perceptive woman, and made a point of noticing someone was always up to skulduggery and shenanigans anytime she heard some variant of that phrase. And if you were stupid enough to use “At this particular point in time” around Mary Ann Freeberg, something would be slammed in your face, probably. The door, if it was there, or the phone call would be dropped after a terse but courteous forever-farewell.

I didn’t think much of this at the time. But in the years that have passed, I see she was on to something. There are some sequences of words that honest people have no business using. There are some sequences of words that, if you hear them, you know someone’s snookering you. You’d be ahead of the game just terminating the conversation on the spot. President Obama’s decision, and His way of talking about it, reminds me that my favorite most-loathed phrase does indeed belong in the top slot — I think it does. When’s the last time you heard someone in a position of authority say “After an extensive review”…and then whatever comes afterward is a good idea? No, that hasn’t happened to you. Hasn’t happened to anyone. You know why? Because if it’s a good idea there’s no reason for him to say how extensive the review was — is there? If it leads to good results, the guy in a position of authority can wait, and then point. If it makes a lot of sense when people first hear it, he can stand on that. “After an extensive review” is a phrase used by those who know, down to the marrow of their bones, they’ll be deprived of both of those advantages. And they know you know. And they’re trying to make you forget.

Sorry Mom, I like my phrase better than yours. Living in different times, I guess. I’ll still give you credit for a good idea though.

In fact, I’ve decided to add on to the list…

1. After an extensive process
2. Let me be clear
3. At this ((particular) point in) time
4. In service of a more well-rounded education
5. To serve our increasingly diverse community
6. Smacks of racism
7. Let me (just) say this about that
8. Heteronormative
9. Patriarchy
10. Stereotyping
11. Blue-ribbon panel (commission)
12. Basically
13. Totally
14. Thought/hate crime
15. Separation of church and state
16. His oil buddies
17. (Wall Street) greed
18. Common good
19. Will of The People
20. Disappearing middle class
21. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer
22. Mental/verbal abuse

When there’s time, I’ll go over the What Gave You Away? list of things stupid people say, to put others on the alert to the fact that they’re stupid. Then I’ll go over the list of Words I Totally Hate. There may be redundancy, or there may be far less overlap than I’m hoping…since the Gave-You-Away list is for stupid folks, and this one is for dishonest ones.

Wonder if I missed anything?

Anyway, there’s little point to debating this decision. It’s a disaster. President Obama Himself knows it to be a disaster. You can tell by the way He talks about it.

Update 9/19/09:

From Dad…

23. Let’s move on/Time to move on

From my favorite gal…

24. Trust me
25. (Why) would I lie (to you)?
26. Capiche?

From Blogger Friend Phil…

27. Dialectic

From me…again…

28. Sit down and talk out our differences with our enemies
29. Save money and save the planet (Hey…if the planet’s a goner, what do you care how much $$$ you have??)
30. Xtians
31. Sky fairy/Spaghetti monster

From me, inspired by what Dad said…

32. Distraction
33. Private life separate from his public service

From me, after browsing Feministing looking for some more ideas…

34. Hostile work environment
35. (Basic) human right(s)
36. Loving couple
37. Glass ceiling
38. Making inroads
39. Representative of the community
40. Social justice

It’s only obvious what the old boy is trying to set up…

Guys on the radio are betting by the end of the day, he’s got to eat his words.

I’d take that bet. democrats have no history. Their scandals bother them a little bit for a day or two; they don’t take ’em down.

And Carter will never do anything to give us a better cause to stop taking him seriously, than his one term as our President. Anyone who can forget that can forget anything.

Like, on a hot stove (hat tip to Cassy).

[Olympia] Snowe (Maine), who was one of three Republicans who backed the $787 billion economic stimulus package, was being lobbied heavily by the White House, and some centrists view her refusal to strike a deal with Baucus as troubling. But concerns about how the plan would be paid for prompted her to back away in the hours before its release.

“I do have concerns and I’m not sure they can be addressed before he issues [legislation] tomorrow,” Snowe said.

This leads to an interesting discussion about the readiness, willingness and ability — or lack thereof — of the democrats to use fancy procedural moves to pass the bill through the Senate by simple majority, thereby leaving an indelible fingerprint of the democrat party on our nation’s brand new health care plan.

“Brace yourselves!”

Blogsister Daphne at Jaded Haven: The word “racist(m)” has been bludgeoned into shapelessness, beyond any form of possible usefulness. Just like “shit,” “piss,” “ass,” “fuck” and “damn” lose meaning if you throw them around too carelessly. Now that we’ve elected a President who’s going to get us past all our racial-tension problems for good — Hah! — we find the R-word has been worn out like no other word has ever been worn-out before.

James Taranto has some more thoughts on this.

Neo-Neocon has come up with a new word for people who use the R-word against anyone who might possibly disagree with them, for whatever reason: “Racers.” I like it. Like it a lot. Truthers…birthers…racers. Hat tip again to Gerard.

Update 9/16/09: Jimmy Carter is helping to wear it out too.

Racer.

Sowell.

Hat tip to Linkiest.

Boortz.

Compare and contrast: That oh-so-classy Alan Colmes who gets oh-so-many extra props for being oh-so-civilized and observing proper rules of decorum and enjoying sophisticated good-natured calm cool and collected exchanges of ideas with his good friend Hannity…is indulging in Maher humor. And when people call him on it he says it’s their problem.