Healthcare Horror

with Mary Katherine Ham


H/T Hot Air

Last Call at the Spectrum

In January 2008, the Wachovia Center announced it would be demolishing the Philadelphia Spectrum after 43 years. In the intervening year, the folks at Wachovia, recognizing what this venue has meant to the Delaware Valley, have arranged a series of concerts and sports events to send off the City’s beloved Spectrum in style. That series of special events is drawing to a close this week, and I had the privilege of attending one of the more uniquely Philadelphia-flavored events last evening: Last Call at the Philadelphia Spectrum featured a concert headlined by Philadelphia pop legends Darryl Hall and John Oates, who were joined on the stage by the Hooters and Todd Rundgren. With the event hosted by John DeBella and Pierre Robert, the radio deejays who defined the Philadelphia music scene in that era, it was like stepping back in time to the late seventies and eighties: arguably the heyday of the Spectrum.

Having nineteen years pass since the last time I had stepped into the Spectrum (for an Eric Clapton Concert), I had forgotten that, for all its capacity of some 20,000 seats, it really was an intimate space to enjoy a concert. The event opened with the Hooters, a band I had seen often in the smaller club venues back in the eighties. The Hooters were, and still are, a great party band, and their trademark sound featuring the mandolin and the “hooter” gives all of their songs a signature stamp. They had the crowd on their feet, and it was obvious from their enthusiasm, and the fact that the crowd sang along to all of their songs, that this was audience of local music faithful.

Todd Rundgren took the stage next, and to my mind, concert promoters would have done better to schedule him first. Rundgren’s heyday was the early seventies and his music, especially his playlist for the evening, falls decidedly in the more “psychedelic” camp; a genre not quite as appreciated by the crowd who had come to see Hall and Oates. Though they played “I Saw the Light” and “Open my Eyes”, Rundgren mostly stuck to deep album cuts instead of the crowd pleasing “Hello, It’s Me” and “Bang on the Drum”, a decision with which the always opinionated Philly crowd made their displeasure known.

Hall and Oates opened their set with a spirited version of “Maneater”, showing off a professional and talented band in the best possible light. Unlike with Rundgren, the Hall and Oates hit list is so deep, there was no danger of coming across a song that wasn’t immediately and intimately familiar to every member of the audience. The standout number was “She’s Gone”, a song that defined the duo and earned them the moniker that stuck with them throughout their long career: “blue-eyed Philly soul.” It was also a song which, Darryl Hall related, had not been performed live since the year of its release. That was followed up by a satisfying version of “Sarah Smile” that evolved into a rocking showcase for solos by the lead guitarist and saxophonist.

After their first set, the Hall and Oates and their band came back on stage and were joined by Eric Bazilian and Rob Hyman of the Hooters (on bass saxophone and “hooter”, respectively) and Philly boys Charlie and Richie Ingui of Soul Survivor for a rousing rendition of “Expressway to Your Heart”. The audience, in a true moment of Philadelphia cynicism regarding our own Schuykill Expressway, was particularly spirited in singing along with the chorus of “It’s too crowded! It’s much too crowded!” Todd Rundgren then joined the rest of the ensemble for a set of seventies era Philly Soul classics highlighted by “Didn’t I Blow Your Mind This Time” and “Back Stabbers” and closing with an encore performance of “Disco Inferno” that left the crowd on its feet.

A uniquely Philadelphia send off for a venue that holds a special place in the hearts of Philadelphians. Goodbye Spectrum. Thanks for the memories.

The Untied States of America, Part II

One of the effects of Administration’s implicit endorsement of the marginalization of half the country is that it not only legitimizes the far left fringe, but it emoboldens the weak-minded, intellectually lazy bullies who can't come up with legitimate, logical arguments for their positions and conveniently resort to character attacks on their opponents as a means to "win" an argument. See this enlightening thread for a vivid illustration of this dynamic on a local level and how it turns neighbor against neighbor.

On a broader local level, the race card has, perhaps inevitably, been played in the Philly DA race. The article is worth quoting at length so you can judge for yourself whether charges of racism are warranted or are just another attempt to smear a white Republican for the very great crime of being a white politician running against a black politician in a heavily Democratic city:

Three prominent African American supporters of Seth Williams, the Democratic candidate for Philadelphia District Attorney, today accused his Republican opponent, Michael Untermeyer, of "lacking the racial sensitivity" required of a top prosecutor "in an ethnically diverse city."

Untermeyer, who is white, immediately branded the charge "ludicrous" and "a smokescreen" meant to obscure examination of the campaign's substantive issues.
"This election isn't about race ... What's important is that we have the third highest homicide rate of any big city" in the nation, and a bail system that is broken, he said.

Untermeyer showed up uninvited, unannounced and unwelcome at a news conference called by State Sen. Anthony Williams, NAACP President J. Whyatt Mondesire and Rev. Audrey Brunson, president of Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

The GOP candidate said he was there only to defend himself, but his presence in the meeting room at the National Constitution Center led to a brief flaring of tempers over whether he had a right to speak at an event planned and paid for by his opponent's supporters.

The allegations leveled today by Anthony Williams, Mondesire and Brunson stemmed from a comment Untermeyer made two weeks ago in a televised debate. The moderator cited what appeared to be a statistically disproportionate number of blacks from Philadelphia on Pennsylvania's death row, and asked if "racial profiling" figures into the D.A.'s decisions to seek the death penalty.

"The question is, is there racial profiling, and the answer is no, there is no racial profiling," Untermeyer had answered.

Williams, the senator, quoted today from a 2003 Pennsylvania Supreme Court study of racial and gender disparities in the criminal justice system. The high court, he said, had found "strong indications that Pennsylvania's capital justice system does not operate in an evenhanded manner."

Labeling someone a racist is a terrible smear, and the cavalier way it has been done in the last ten months is criminal. Obama’s insertion of himself into the heart of the Skip Gates vs. the Cambridge police matter, despite his "not having all of the facts" and his subsequent and continued silence on all matters racial, speaks volumes; for Obama, and quite possibly Obama alone at this point, has it within his power to put an end to this this harmful, divisive and inappropriate tactic. And yet he chooses not to. And by choosing not to address inappropriate charges of racism, the first “post-racial” President implicitly endorses them. I have no doubts that this is an intentional strategy on behalf of the administration, especially in the wake of Cambridge.

Commenting on the Barack Obama who addresses the nation as a whole versus the Barack Obama who addresses his wealthy, liberal elite fundraisers (video posted By John Lewandowski on PAWatercooler, here) Jay Nordlinger explores this divisiveness a little further in this post, wherin he dismisses the idea that Democrats all think for themselves:

O’s New York commentary reminded me of the notorious Washington Post line, that conservative Christians are “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” When you think about it, Obama has a pretty easy time commanding people — millions of them, including important people in media and academia. Including, almost, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee! But some of us, he cannot command — and he seems not to like or respect us all that much.

Long ago, I grew tired of the conceit that Democrats think for themselves, while the rest of us just take orders from some politburo: composed of Rush, Fox, and whoever. All my life, I’ve heard Democrats quote an old Will Rogers line: “I belong to no organized party, I’m a Democrat.” Ha, ha, ha! Oh, aren’t we grand, we Democrats? We beautiful, smart, unorganizable Democrats! Well, Rogers may have had it right at one time; but in my own time, the Democrats have been a pretty disciplined bunch — and pretty ruthless, when it comes to dissent. When it comes to odd-men-out.

I have 30 more things to say, of course, but here’s one more: Do you recall President Bush insulting Democrats, as Obama has insulted us, explicitly? Sometimes our post-partisan president can be a rather nasty piece of work.

Nordlinger continues with a follow up post, further making the case for a bigger sheeple population on the left:

I think about what I call the “shaping institutions.” For the last several decades, virtually all of them have been controlled or dominated by the Left — meaning, education, K through grad school; the movies; entertainment television; popular music; the big newspapers; the small newspapers (!); television news; etc.

Conservatives have to swim against a pretty strong stream. And we’re the ones who are supposed to drift along? I don’t think so.

And then there's this delicious anecdote:

Sometime in the late ’70s, Norman Mailer came to Zellerbach Hall at UC-Berkeley to give a talk. The place was sold out. This was during the period when he was writing pieces refuting Germaine Greer. He walked onstage wearing cowboy boots, Levis, and a shirt and jacket . . . and he had a rolling sort of John Wayne gait.

As he stepped up to the microphone, he said approximately the following: “I know that about half of you here tonight hate my guts because of my stand on feminism. So let’s get that out of the way. I want you to hiss me. I want you to let all of your feelings toward me out. Come on, hiss me!”

And the most spine-chilling hiss arose from the audience. It lasted ten seconds. I’d never heard anything like it before, and I haven’t since. It was authentic and deeply felt. And when it subsided, Mailer leaned into the microphone and said, softly, “Obedient bitches.”

The grim reality is that we are a deeply divided nation, and that we are divided on the very question of what our nation should be. We have drifted far from the pure representative republic our founding fathers originally envisioned. As congress has repeatedly overstepped it's constitutional limits over the years, conservatives should find themselves just as guilty of this big government creep as liberals, since conservatives have only been successful (when they HAVE been successful) at slowing the encroachment of big government rather than stopping it or reversing it.

What exists in this country today is a fundamental difference of opinion on the role of government in American life. About half of the country seems to be in favor of government solutions to just about every problem; the other half seems to be adamantly opposed to more government intrusion in their lives.

Conservatives have what’s left of the Constitution on our side while Liberals are engaging in a fundamentally dishonest campaign. If they want to change the foundations of our country, if they want to toss out, en mass, the limits that the Constitution places on government power, they should be forthright in their campaign. But this is not what they are doing. They claim that the changes they are seeking will leave America intact but this is an outright falsehood. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that what the liberals in power are proposing is a paradigm shift tantamount to a bloodless revolution. And they are counting on the majority of people to be the weak-minded, unthinking sheep that has allowed this big government creep to advance this far. Instead of engaging debate on their agenda, the Administration and liberals in congress are resorting to an organized campaign of bully tactics: silencing their opposition with charges of racism or marginalizing the opposition. In case you didn’t recognize it, this is Chicagoland politics on a national scale.

Here's Andy McCarthy on the Corner discussing the outrageous existence of a "Pay Czar" (A "Pay Czar"! In America! Who would have ever thought it???):

What they're trying to establish is the power to control compensation levels, period. In fact, more and more Democrats are making the insane argument that doing this, and much, much more, is within Congress's purportedly limitless constitutional power to "promote the general welfare." This is really scary stuff, and I'm afraid I don't see a silver lining.

I'm gonna plagiarize Mark Levin here. Mark has been recounting how, when FDR foisted social security on the country, his administration told the public it was an insurance program. This was legally dubious — the government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy insurance — so his Solicitor General told the Supreme Court it was a tax, an argument the justices bought.

The moral of the story is that the public pretty quickly loses track of the legal niceties involved when government power expands. They just get used to the idea that this is something government does, and they accept it. That, I think, is what's going on with the pay czar . . . and health-care "reform" . . . and auto-company takeovers . . . and government taking equity positions in banks . . . and . . . and . . . and . . .

Thinking people of all ideologies should be asking themselves why this Administration needs to silence the opinions of the right instead of engaging them.

The Untied States of America

Remember this?

In the days immediately following the election of Barack Obama, some fluffy lefty launched the website 52to48withlove. It was a noble idea--that just because the liberals won the election that we were all in this together. That we were all Americans who had the best interests of this country in mind.

What a difference a few months make.

It was barely a month after Obama took office when the stimulus package was rammed through with nominal "bipartisan" support from the senate's most notorious RINOs. Conservatives who were opposed to this extravagant spending pacakage and skeptical of the "stimulating" benefits were told in no uncertain terms by HRH Nancy Pelosi to sit down and shut up. "We won".

Since then, things have decidedly gotten worse. I've never been a person who has bought into the notion of the cult of the Presidency--I've always had contempt for the mindset of people who blamed George Bush for everything and blindly re-elected the same idiots to congress year after year. I also never saw Bush as a cult of personality, except as a target of unreasonable hatred on the left. Conservatives surely had plenty of reason to be displeased with Bush, especially on the "compassionate conservative" domestic problems. On the right side of the aisle, we are not afraid or averse to question our leaders.

Not so on the left side of the aisle. A true cult of personality surrounds Barack Obama and his followers believe he can do no wrong. As his weak leadership of this country progresses, the uber-liberals in congress are running the show; Obama is merely a front man for the ideas of the radical left.

As Obama's Presidency progressed, it became more and more obvious that the moderate he ran as was very differrent from the radical that he was. True polical junkies were always aware of this; indeed, many of us are heartsick that our worst expectations of this administration are coming to pass. As this radicalism became more and more apparent, as the power grab became more and more obvious, small government conservatives became more vocal in their opposition to the change our liberal leaders were selling.

And as that voice of opposition grew louder, the tactics to marginalize the opposition grew more radical and obscene. Here, Penn Jillette talks about being screamed at by his idol Tommy Smothers for merely appearing on Glen Beck's television show. It's ironic that Smother's TV show was taken off the air due to organized protests to stifle his free speech when he and his brother spoke out against the Vietnam War. The irony, apparently, was lost on Smothers (h/t Ht Air)


We are silencing free speech by labelling it "hate speech." Here's a local example, where at Temple University, Dutch Parliamentarian, and maker of the anti-Islam film "Fitna" Geert Wilders, is protested protested as delivering hate speech. Wilders speech is not only "hateful" in the minds of these PC drones; it's downright dangerous---not to Wilders himself, who requires 24/7 police protection because of his courage to express his views, but to the Muslims on campus who allegedly have been having "hate and fear thrown at them" for an entire week, simply because this man was coming to speak on campus. (for more on Geert Wilders' appearance at Temple, go to PAWatercooler here, here and here.)


Fully half of the country, the conservative half, to be sure, has been smeared as racist. This would be less alarming if we were talking about the far left fringe; the punditry and the netroots of Kos, Salon and Huffington Post.

We talk about our opposition to the administration's policies, and we are labelled racist; we talk about how conservatives are being systematically marginalized and we are paranoid. Ho hum, nothing new.

But now this is coming directly from the White House.

Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod have begun a campaign to deliegitimize Fox News as a news organization The President, being interviewed on NBC, tried to maintain some kind of plausible deniability and tap danced around the direct question; but later capitulated and said,

"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet than that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

This is decidedly unPresidential and incredibly divisive of an already divided nation. It is damaging the very fabric of our country, perhaps irreparably. It is one thing for a liberal pundit to call Fox News "Faux News", it is another for the White House to do it. It is one thing for one of the Kos Kidz to label conservatives racist, it is quite another for this idea to be repeatedly and implicitly endorsed by the White House.

Yes, Mr. President. There is no need for your to lose sleep over marginalizing fully half of the country. No need to lose sleep over your dismissal of the voices of half of the population.

Philly ACORN Shocka: Not the beacons of morality we've been led to believe after all

In three minutes, Congressman Steve King (R, IA) lays out the criminal enterprises that ACORN was involved in---serious and provable allegations---yet, incredibly, he could not get congress to act on simply defunding ACORN, much less investigating them, until Giles and O'Keefe ran their sting.



Here's Andrew Breitbart, the media mastermind who took O'Keefe's and Giles' video and "figured out a strategy to get the media to cover a story they wouldn't otherwise cover." The big question Breitbart asks of the media: "Can you afford to continue to have egg on your face by continuing to refuse to investigate ACORN?" Good question. We're all waiting to see how the media responds.



Here's James O'Keefe narrating the edited version of the Philly video. Even without the audio of ACORN's Katherine Conway Russell due to the ongoing lawsuit, the video is pretty damning. Indeed, it's unfailingly obvious that the moralistic ACORN spokespeople who proudly took to the airwaves to brag about Giles and O'Keefe being "thrown out" of the Philadelphia office is exposed as another outright lie.

That ACORN was and remains a corrupt organization, an enforcement arm of wrongheaded liberal policies such as CRA and questionable get-out-the-vote-by-any-means tactics, cannot now be denied. The only questions remaining about ACORN is how deep does the corruption go, how far up the Washington food chain does it spread and what other corrupt activities were they involved in?

Even in the face of all of this evidence, and the allegations that surfaced before the sting, it still remains to be seen whether a true investigation will ensue, or whether that, too, will be quashed, for fear the scandal of ACORN reaches into the highest echelons of American power. That is something that should outrage every American regardless of his political affiliation. Standing up for ACORN is tantamount to endorsing corruption and criminal behavior. We know and can almost understand the self-preservation instinct of the ACORN employees, but what of their supporters outside of the ACORN organization? What is their motivation?

Does any means justify the end, with the end being the accumulation of Liberal Power? Because I can't think of a single other reason to defend this organization. Claiming ignorance, or that the sting investigation was motivated by racism, or that the video was doctored or cut in a way to make ACORN appear in an unfavorable light, is simply laughable in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

Three cheers for Brietbart, O'Keefe and Giles for having the courage to keep up the pressure. All of America should be watching this unfold. And all of America should be outraged that this organization has been funded by our tax dollars for so long.

Sweatin' to the Socialists

In my in bin today

Back to reality after a week in Paradise

Having spent most of my life in the drear of Philadelphia, it's nice to know that places like these actually exist. The view above is from under my own personal palm tree in Labadee, Haiti.

This was my husband's and my first cruise, and this was our ship, Royal Caribbean's Liberty of the Seas, the largest ship on the sea, at least for the next month, until they launch their next ship, Oasis of the Seas, which will hold 2,000 more guests than our 4,000 capacity boat. Here's a few more of the Ship:





Our Ports of Call were St. Martin:




Puerto Rico:



And Royal Caribbean's private stop, Labadee, Haiti:



A great vacation. Now back to reality.

Twinkle, twinkle, dimming stars

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Before the United States was voted out of contention in the first round of voting by the IOC this morning (with Tokyo and before Madrid it should be noted) this video is just part of the breathless hype that passed for news on the Today Show this morning. "The Obamas were rock stars today!" gushes Alan Abrahamson to Matt Lauer. "The United States of America is reaching out to the rest of the world. Is the rest of the world ready to reach back?" is what Abrahamson wrote regarding the Chicago bid. How quickly during the course of this interview that became "Obama is reaching his hand out to the rest of the world...."

And what's up with that bid? For the first time ever the United States Government is going to underwrite the entire shebang? How much was that going to cost the American taxpayer?

HuffPo had another piece entitled "Oprah, Michelle, Obama Light up Copenhagen. Star Power Enough for Chicago's Olympic Bid?"

"She really is amazing. Besides the significance of an African-American president and first lady, she's impressive at any level," said David Robinson, who admitted he was a little star struck after meeting Mrs. Obama on Wednesday afternoon. "With her education, with her dignity, the way she carries herself, she's tremendous."

Don't forget "clean and articulate" too, David. Like when she talked about the great sacrifice she made by jetting to Copenhagen for the children. Or when, she told the IOC about her father teaching her a great right hook while gang violence in the streets of Chicago was playing all over the internet. Tremendous indeed.

Over on the right, where we are somewhat less impressed with the star power of the Obamas, most of us figured that the Chicago bid was in the bag. Why else would Obama risk so much political capital, why would he rush to Copenhagen when healthcare, Afghanistan and Iran hung in the balance, unless he was assured that he could bring home a much needed victory?

We were wrong. It looks like even we underestimated Obama's colossal ego--so sure was he of his power to charm the world with his words that he was willing to risk humiliation on the world stage. Or perhaps he made a fundamental miscalculation: perhaps he did not take into account the effect of his nine months of non-stop apologizing for the shortcomings of America, sucking up to our adversaries and abandoning our allies.

As an American, I don't hope to see my country embarassed in front of the world to satisfy my partisan distrust of the Obamas, but he made this Olympic bid all about him. The trip to charm the International Olympic Committtee was unprecedented by an American president and was not meant to be a victory for America, but political payback for the Chicago Daley Political Machine and a feather in the cap of a President who hasn't really tasted success since he passed the stimulus bill. It was a silly, frivolous move by a man who really has bigger issues to address; issues on which he cannot vote "present."

Did General McChrystal get a troop committment yet?

Has Iran stopped enriching uranium?

Is the healthcare matter settled?

Is unemployment dropping?

Is the economy recovering?

And how much did this jaunt around the world cost the American taxpayers?

Star power is waning. The world sees the Emporer has no clothes.