Apparently, Obama is planning yet another public relations blitzkrieg on health care reform, trying once more to convince a skeptical public that the just-passed bill is really, really awesome. Consider, though, the impact of what the Democrats have done. Megan McArdle, via The Atlantic:

One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi’s skill as a legislator. But it’s also pretty worrying. Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances…
What I hope is that the Democrats take a beating at the ballot box and rethink their contempt for those mouth-breathing illiterates in the electorate. I hope Obama gets his wish to be a one-term president who passed health care. Not because I think I will like his opponent–I very much doubt that I will support much of anything Obama’s opponent says. But because politicians shouldn’t feel that the best route to electoral success is to lie to the voters, and then ignore them.

She’s right. More Americans opposed this bill than supported it, but the Democrats pushed ahead anyway. The arrogance that demonstrates is quite telling. Democrats know best about what is best for you…you don’t. And they don’t expect you to notice when they enter into secret deals with big drug companies that will keep drug prices high, or when their fight against “special interests” curiously ends when it comes to their own trial lawyer constituency (with respect to tort reform), and to unions. They don’t care what you think, besides, and they expect to get away with it all.

219-212. The Yeas have it. 34 Dems joined with the entire GOP caucus in voting no. I don’t have much else to say, really. Your premiums will continue to rise, it’s likely to cost much more than they claim, and states will probably have trouble paying for the Medicaid expansion. But hey, who cares about silly little things like that when we can realize a great liberal dream?

I will say, though, that at least we know now that there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. Bart Stupak, Democrat from Michigan, held out his Yes vote because he wanted stronger abortion language included. Of course he and his cohorts cave at the eleventh hour, citing a meaningless executive order Obama issued promising to make sure federal funds weren’t used to cover abortions. The GOP, in a rare bit of cleverness, forced a vote on a Motion to Recommit which contained Stupak’s own amendment on the abortion issue. If the motion passes, the bill fails. This forces Stupak to stand up and rail against the motion to recommit and, in effect, his own pro-life amendment. He votes no on it, and the lie that is the pro-life Democrat is exposed.

But, that’s of little consequence when 1/6th of the economy has just been turned upside down via legislation produced behind closed doors. No?

…just not now, before it passes. Behold, why the CBO’s preliminary analysis from yesterday is an absolute joke:

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party’s message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

Oops. Sucks when the veil is lifted sometimes, doesn’t it?

Make it real hard to pass their bills:

Here was Democrat House of Representatives kook member Dennis Kucinich just three days ago, in a Cleveland Plains-Dealer op-ed:

I voted for this version of the health care bill, and it passed in committee. It was a compromise, but a reasonable one. However, the version of the bill that reached the House floor was considerably watered down. It had a severely weakened public option and the employee-retirement waiver had been stripped. It no longer constituted an incremental step forward that would provide relief to my constituents, so I could not support it. The version of the bill that passed the Senate was even worse.

Absent a strong public option or legal protection for states that wish to pursue single payer, the bill that the president is proposing is a step in the wrong direction. Even with the few modest improvements in the bill, the insurance companies will still have dozens of loopholes to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill.

Read the whole thing. So this UFO afficionado voted against the House bill because it wasn’t socialist enough, and he told readers in the Plains-Dealer that the Senate version was even further away from what he couldn’t support.

Now, after some White House schmoozing and bribes, the goofball has decided gee, he will vote for the Senate version that, days before, he had just trashed. So much for principle, right? This is why people hate politicians and loathe the city they lie and pontificate in. He thought it was a bad bill before…now, he’s seen the proverbial light and the “call of history” negates all that? Only a schmuck would buy that.

Did I mention his might be the deciding vote on this abortion? Yeah, it just might be.

Let me just say, for the record, that I do not own a gun. Of any kind. I’m not a hunter, and besides that I’ve never felt the need or desire to have a handgun. I feel pretty safe as is (though I understand why those living and working in certain areas would not). In my opinion, too, some people purchase guns not out of necessity or fear of personal safety, but simply because they can. There is probably a sense of empowerment that comes with owning a gun, and I suspect that is what drives some to buy them. I’m not suggesting that is wrong; rather, simply pointing out that in some cases the desire to “protect the family” is secondary to the desire to actually have such a weapon in one’s possession. I have no studies to back that up, and I’m too lazy to search for some…simply an observation based on those I know and talk to.

With all that said, the uproar over Virginia’s move to allow concealed carry in restaurants has been a little over-the-top. Some of the comments I’ve read seem to suggest that this will turn Virginia’s eating establishments into wild west saloons, with families huddled under tables as bullets rain overhead. That seems incredibly unlikely to me. Fact is, people were probably packing heat in those same restaurants before anyway, so the practical effect of such a change is virtually nonexistent. (Just like the move to raise the speed limit…people are driving well over 70 now, and have been.) Plus, I suspect most gun owners are well-educated about their firearms and schooled in the areas of safety; buying a gun doesn’t mean you suddenly have wanton disregard for human life. It would seem that most would want to learn how to use it properly. And, there is something to be said for the sad truth that gun free zones don’t equal safe. In the Columbine and Va Tech situations, you could argue that law-abiding citizens were put at a decided disadvantage due to policies that perps never follow themselves. (I’m not advocating guns in schools, merely pointing out that those with criminal intent don’t tend to follow laws and regulations.)

So, I think it’s much ado about nothing. Personally, if I were in elected office I wouldn’t choose this particular battle to fight, but that being said I don’t see a big problem with it, either.

Hey that’s according to a study, so its gotta be accurate ‘n stuff:

Volunteers who bought up to $25 worth of ecofriendly stuff from the green store shared less money ($1.76) than those who purchased from the conventional store ($2.18). (Just to be clear, the volunteers were not given a choice about which online store to patronize.) For the green buyers, altruism in the dictator game decreased. More alarming, when the green buyers were then given a chance to cheat on a computer game, and lie about it to the scientists in order to win more money—basically, to steal—they did. Buyers of conventional products did not. And in an honor system in which they took money from an envelope to pay themselves their winnings, the green buyers stole six times more than the conventional buyers did.

Follow the link for more details on how the study was conducted. Bottom line: greenie weenies are simply bad people and are not to be trusted. In other words, they’re like vegans.

I kid. Actually, as the article explains, this isn’t all that surprising. Those that bought the green products had done their good deed, so naturally they had banked some brownie points with themselves, or built up enough internal goodwill, that doing something bad was now OK. They’re kind of rewarding themselves for the good they did. People engage in that type of balancing act all the time, in all sorts of areas. The money piece:

It was especially striking that the moral balancing occurred in an area of life—being generous with money, cheating on a computer game—that has nothing to do with green behavior. “This suggests that if we want to change people’s behavior for the better, we have to be sure it doesn’t backfire,” says Mazar—starting, perhaps, by eliminating the halo of self-congratulatory, smug virtuousness that surrounds green behavior.

So greens-who are more than likely liberals-are smug, pompous jerks? Who knew? Good luck getting that to change…

Indeed. What a pioneer this woman is for getting pregnant, taking the RU-486 abortion pill, and talking about her experience as it happens on a forum better known for pithy commentary regarding the truly mundane. But don’t accuse her of doing it as a PR stunt…I’m sure this, the YouTube video, the CNN appearance, and the book she’s writing (look out, Ernest Hemingway!) are all just odd coincidences. Uh huh. She claims that no one wants to talk about such a taboo subject, suggesting that the visceral reaction to her effort is proof of just that, but I think the big problem here is the fact she talked about it while it was happening. The lackadaisical attitude that demonstrates, as you will see in her video below, is utterly repulsive. ‘Yeah, theoretically it could’ve been a baby, but whatevs.’ Disgusting. It’s not the same as having a miscarriage (one is a conscious decision), and trivializing it as such is an insult to those who’ve gone through that hell.

Two videos for your viewing, um, pleasure. First up is the interview on CNN, then her YouTube debut. Some people will do just about anything for a cheap 15 minutes, I guess…too bad the death of an unborn child is seen as such an opportunity:

Yes, those poor eschewers of all things animal-based. Every vegan I’ve ever known has been, well, a little on the strange side; they often give dirty hippies a bad name. How could you not mock them? Have you seen the crap they eat? I wish I could say only in Great Britain, but unfortunately this insanity is likely to spread:

VEGANS and teetotallers are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under legislation championed by Harriet Harman, the equalities minister.

Members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists…

The commission added that the recently founded International Church of Jediism, with 500,000 followers worldwide who base their philosophy on the Star Wars films, would not qualify. Beliefs had to be heartfelt.

Too bad, Star Wars nerds. Better luck next time the Equality Minister(!) engages in the stupid. Frankly, if standing outside movie theaters for days, dressed in costume, doesn’t prove your beliefs are “heartfelt”, I’m not sure what will. I’m not for discrimination, obviously, but this strikes me as going a little overboard. It’s the slippery slope in all its glory. Why not just say discrimination in all forms is wrong and be done with it?

And how to determine what is “discriminatory”? Would every restaurant have to offer veggie burgers? Would schools have to offer something other than milk with lunch, for all the vegan offspring? (Tang, maybe?) Would tossing a steak at a vegan-out of love, naturally-now be a hate crime? Will vegans and Scientologists now be given preferential treatment during hiring due to a history of discrimination, at the expense of the Star Wars “fans”? They already have no hope of ever attracting a woman…are we really prepared to put them at a disadvantage regarding employment, too? Frankly, Jedi mind tricks and the Force are bound to come in a lot more handy on the job site than Mr. Lettucehead’s Squash-Tofu Casserole Surprise. Right?

…let real child starve to death:

A computer-addicted couple let their real life baby starve to death while they raised a virtual daughter online, police said today.

The couple spent 12 hours a night at internet cafes while their three-month-old daughter was left home alone at their apartment in Suwon, South Korea. They were arrested today.

Police said they had become hooked on living online and were raising an avatar daughter through their profiles on a Second Life-style game called PRIUS.

Sometimes there are no words…