Chicago Politician Urges Karzai to Fight Corruption, Bring Good Governance

Incumbent Afghan president Hamid Karzai was sworn in Thursday for a second five-year term. President Barak Obama, a product of the ethically pristine world of Chicago politics and ACORN, urged the Afghan leader to fight corruption and bring good governance. I’m not kidding, but I am smiling.

Obamacare: From Pro Choice to No Choice

100,000 = number of applications available for iPod users. 1 = number of health care benefits packages available for Americans under H.R. 3962 which passed in the House of Representatives last night by a 5 vote margin.

The world today is all about more choices. Think about it. The past 25 years has been an era of "choice explosion". We can find just about any product we want on the internet, and we can get the best prices by one-click comparison shopping and online auctions. If we don't like the limited selection of produce on the shelf at the local Safeway, we can buy organically grown vegetables and exotic fruits from countries we've never heard of at Whole Foods. We can tailor our individual investment portfolios to meet our unique financial goals by choosing among thousands of highly specialized mutual funds and ETFs. Even iPhone owners who like the 100,000 apps but are frustrated by ATT's poor service coverage have a new choice. The Droid has landed.

We have lots of choices in health insurance today too. eHealthInsurance for example, offers over than 10,000 products online, from over 180 companies. Yet in an age where we have more choices than ever, in just about every aspect of our lives, the President and Democrats in Congress want to force us into a "one size fits all form of health care". That isn't my opinion. The House bill is now in the public domain, and you can verify this yourself.

The nearly 2,000 page bill is way too complicated for the average person to read and comprehend, but major provisions in the bill are now being widely reported by media outlets representing all sides of the debate. (I'll credit the House leadership for at least posting the bill on the internet, but shame on them for ramming the vote through on a straight party line vote on a Saturday night when few Americans would be watching.)

You and every other American will be required to enroll in a qualified plan (Sec. 202, p. 91-92). The qualified plan will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 18 months after the bill becomes law (Sec. 224,p. 118). Betsy McCaughey put it this way in a column that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: "That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later." The qualified plan will feature basic, enhanced, and premium levels. The co-payments and deductibles will differ, but the benefits will be the same in all three levels. One size fits all. I'm already hearing the bill's proponents contending that the three levels of copay/deductible options constitute "choice".

Many people have described Obamacare as "socialized medicine" and "a government takeover of the health care industry". Liberals chafe at that, and argue that since private health insurance firms will continue to exist (at least in the short run), Obamacare opponents are guilty of hyperbole. Call it whatever you want, but this much is undeniable. Under this bill, the government will define the product. The government will set the price. And the government will define the market (i.e. everybody). If not socialized medicine or government run health care, what term do you use to describe an industry where the federal government defines the product, the price, and the market?

Unemployment Hits 10.2%

It's official. Unemployment is now over 10%, and underemployment is 17.5%. Wonder Boy called the unemployment rate "a sobering number that underscores the economic challenge ahead". Unfortunately, sobriety has not kicked in yet. He's spending this weekend pressuring moderate Democrats in Congress to join the self-proclaimed progressive wing of the party in passing a health care package that the CBO says will raise taxes by $729.5 billion over the next ten years.

And that stimulus package? The one that was supposed to create 3 million jobs and prevent unemployment from rising above 8.25%? Since its passage, the US economy has lost around 3.5 million jobs.

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Should Stop Blocking Proposals for Transparency on Health Care Legislation

Before Congress votes on a health care bill, there should be a full scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office, and it should be posted online for at least 72-hours for public review.

There is a bipartisan resolution in the House proposed by Rep. Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat, and Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, (and co-sponsored by 67 Republicans and 31 Democrats) that would require this. Nancy Pelosi is attempting to block it. A similar proposal has already been killed by Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee.

It is not unreasonable to ask members of Congress to read the bill before they vote on it. Nor is it unreasonable to allow a few days for the public to review the bill. We're talking about legislation that would fundamentally restructure about one fifth of the US economy and that would cost almost a trillion dollars under even the most optimistic projections by proponents. The bills working their way through both houses are incredibly complex, changing by the hour, and are thousands of pages long.

Rushing a vote without a public review of the final language would be extremely arrogant. It would behoove the Democratic leadership to recognize that Americans have a very low opinion of Congress these days. The President's poll numbers are continuing to drop as well. Transparency in the health care legislative process might help stop the bleeding.

The 2009 Version of the Tuck Rule

I'm not blaming the Raiders loss last night on the blown call that reversed Louis Murphy's touchdown. They missed too many other opportunities to win the game. But why do the Raiders always wind up on the receiving end of so many bizarre interpretations of the rules? The film showed very clearly that Murphy caught the ball, had possession, maintained possession, hit the ground with his butt and both feet, then the ball came out. Touchdown Raiders, right? Uhhh, apparently not.

Read what the official, Carl Cheffers had to say to the press about why he reversed the touchdown.

Cheffers: We had a situation where the receiver caught the pass in the air and as he is coming down to the ground, he is actually going to the ground. That’s a defined term in our rule book, a player, a receiver who is going to the ground. The rule book says, if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, with or without contact by opponent – so that can be on his own; In this case, he got hit by an opponent – he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That wasn’t the case. What we ruled, what we saw in replay, was that he was going to the ground, as he came down the ball came loose, he lost control of the ball, the ball skidded along the ground, he eventually completely lost control of the ball. So, by rule, by what we saw in review, it’s an incomplete pass.

Q: So, this has nothing to do with him having both feet down – it has nothing to do with that, it has nothing to do with making a football move? It’s just what you said there?

Cheffers: Yeah, he was up, I think if I remember, (on) one foot, he was getting contacted prior to his second foot coming down. By definition in our rule book, he’s going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it’s incomplete.

Q: It was pretty clear-cut?

Cheffers: Pretty clear-cut.

AFC West Predictions - 2009

This is hard....

San Diego 9-7
Oakland 6-10
Denver 5-11
Kansas City 3-13

Ground hog day. The Chargers will win the division and get knocked out of the playoffs in the second round, capping fifty years with no Championship ring. Phil Rivers is a solid QB, but no Eli Manning. He's got some reliable targets, especially Antonio Gates, and is aided by a good running attack. Health on the offensive line could be an issue. The defense is wobbly. They play well at times, but disappear when needed the most (see playoff tapes).

The Raider's offense will be marginally better than last year. Jamarcus Russell played his first full season in 2008 and finished the year showing some progress. This year we'll find out if he is legit or not. Darren McFadden was injured for most of his rookie year last season, but is healthy now and should put up big numbers. With McFadden, Bush, Fargas, Rankin, and O'Niel, the Raiders have what may be the best RB group in the division. (San Diego may still have the edge here, but LaDanien Tomlinson isn't getting any younger and Darren Sprolls is too small to be an every down back. This year's fourth round pick, Gartrell Johnson, may be the next bright light for Charger fans). The Raider's WR position has gone from the worst in the AFC West last year to possibly the best in the division. I'm dead serious. Chaz Schillins, the second year kid out of San Diego State is big, strong and fast. He clicked with Russell his rookie year last season and impressed everyone in camp. He'll miss the first few games this year because of a broken bone in his foot, but he'll be a big part of the offense when he gets back. Rookie Louis Murphy out of Florida had an awesome camp and preseason. He looks to me like a Chaz Schillins clone. First round pick Darrius Heyward Bey won't catch many balls, but with his speed, he'll clear the field for Schillins, Murphy, Higgins, and the TE's (mainly Zach Miller and Tony Stewart), and the backs (look for McFadden to line up wide often). The center and right side of the offensive line will be no better than last year (bad), and maybe worse. The defense has not changed in any material way since 2008, so we can expect more of the same. The Raiders will once again be one of the worst teams against the run in the NFL.

Denver sucked last year. And with the loss of Coach Mike Shannahan, QB Jay Cutler and WR Brandon Marshall, they will suck even more. On defense, the Broncos look like, well, the Raiders actually

Kansas City...what can I say? Matt Cassell is an upgrade at QB, but he is still nothing more than a career backup. He put up impressive numbers filling in for Tom Brady last year in New England, but no one will confuse the Cheif's offensive personnel with the Pats. Defensively, the Cheifs remind me of the Broncos, who remind me of the Raiders.

One of The Last Honest Democrats

Ted Kennedy's politics were the polar opposite of mine, but as I've grown older I've come to respect him for the way he stood for what he believed in. Kennedy was an unabashed liberal, and he wore that mantle with pride and passion.

Very few liberal Democrats on the national stage have the guts to stand in front of voters and brandish their liberal records. Kennedy's Senate colleague from Massachusetts, John Kerry is a case in point. During Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, he ran as far away as he could from his liberal voting record. President Obama is another example of a stealth liberal. Can anyone recall a single campaign speech where Obama called himself a liberal (or "progressive" as the left has re-branded itself)? Can anyone remember Obama calling for nationalization of the banking, health care, and automobile industries during the campaign? I don't think so. But now that he's in the White House, he has been pursuing the most ambitious left wing agenda of any president in my lifetime.

Kennedy was an open, honest, and tireless advocate of big government. One of his signature causes was what he called "nationalized medicine". He didn't use weasle words like "the public option" or health insurance reform. He wanted the government to take over the health care industry. Instead of being deliberately opaque and misleading, his approach was to argue his case clearly, with no ambiguity. He preferred the path of honest persuasion rather than clever deception.

He also was skilled in the art of compromise and negotiation. He passed legislation by working with some of the most conservative senators he served with during his long career. One of his closest friends in the Senate was Orin Hatch. I remember how he showed a lot of class by speaking out on behalf of Dan Quayle's intelligence and legislative ability when the media was showing it's true stripes during the 1988 election.

Thirty years of electoral history (and confirmed by the latest polls) have shown that most American's don't share Kennedy's big government philosophy, but we can all be appreciative of his contribution to the marketplace of political discourse.