Some films just beg for a remake...

In the age of CGI and state of the art special effects, what could be a better choice than Clash of the Titans?

Greek mythology meets geek technology. What's not to love?


And while some films need an updated treatment, still others are best left alone....



H/T to Jack P. I've been dying to find a reason to post this.

Flu

Sucks.

Who Wore it Best: White House State Dinner Edition

Amidst the economic crisis and 10.2% unemployment, the President and the First Lady inspired hope with a lavish gala that was the Obama’s first state dinner, letting the unemployed and downtrodden know that yes, the glitterati do still exist in these tough times, if only amongst the Washington and Hollywood elite. And, boy do they know how to party!

Not to be outdone by her husband in patronizing the guests of honor, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Mrs. Gursharan Kaur, ‘Chelle was up into the wee hours of the morning in the days preceding the event, personally supervising “the compilation of a guest list 400 names long, the creation of a menu of global cuisine, ‘possibly including a curry dish’” and scouring the pages of Woman’s Wear Daily for an Indian-American designer — any Indian-American designer – to produce something with an “Indian flair” sans her signature Klingon Belt. The Divine Mrs. O decided to rock this opulent number by relative unknown Naeem Khan, marking “a shift into more sophisticated, luxurious, and regal attire, rather than the playful, accessible, less-polished clothing she's worn thus far.” Indeed, J. Crew is soooo last January! It’s time she started dressing like the royalty that she is!

Sorry, ‘Chelle, but even with your trademark “guns” blazing, this number dresses our dining room better than it dresses you! Our readers say that this dazzling number would look better on their Thanksgiving table, and can be had for a mere $24.95 (set of 8 napkins included) at any Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Patrick Murphy: Catholic Church should not tell Catholic Congressmen how to be Catholic

Patrick Murphy, the Democratic blue lap dog from Pennsylvania's 8th District is outraged that the Catholic Church won't give Rhode Island Congressman and JFK nephew, Patrick Kennedy Communion because of Kennedy's pro-abortion abortion stance:

"We don't legislate at the orders of the Vatican, we legislate what is in our conscience and what we think is good for our country," said Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat and Catholic who, like Kennedy, supports abortion rights. Murphy spoke at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., where he received a John F. Kennedy New Frontier Award from the late president's daughter, Caroline Kennedy.

It has apparently not yet occured to Murphy, who was "deeply hurt" when the Catholic Church refused to bless his marriage in 2006 for his own pro-abortion stance, that the Catholic Church does not legislate at the orders of the U.S. Congress.

I have seen the future with Universal Healthcare and it is Montgomery County

Want to see a little glimpse of the future with Government-run healthcare?

Check out this article from Monday's Times Herald:

Montgomery County’s proposed budget for next year calls for county workers to pay a portion of their health care benefits, and if approved could force employees in low-wage positions to seek second jobs to help pay their bills, according to Sheriff John P. Durante.

In a letter to the commissioners, Durante opposed the idea of employees having to pay for medical benefits that have traditionally been the sole incentive for taking a county job. He also doesn’t support the idea of eliminating holiday pay or raises.

Now look at the comments: At this posting, this article boasts 51 passionate responses. Fifty-one comments, on a newspaper website where the readership can barely be roused to make four comments on an article that hangs out on the "most commented" bulletin board for two weeks.

When I first read Durante's letter, my initial reaction was that the County Employees should just "suck it up", since out here in the private sector I've been paying for a portion of my benefits for several years now. It's the same basic discussion I had with my Teamster husband when his Union was threatening to strike over having to pay a portion of their benefits several years ago. Like the County, his Union had a Cadillac benefit plan, and like the County, the whole family was covered.

Unlike the County, however, my husband was making a great wage. Most, if not all County employees, take these jobs at low pay with the trade off being the great benefits. Therefore asking them to pay for a portion of their benefits, just may, as Durante points out, force them to take a second job to pay for them.  (Again, check out some of the comments on this article and ask yourself if you'd want to do some of these jobs at this pay.)

Now my point here is not to discuss WHY the County is cutting employee benefits to make ends meet; it's to point out that they ARE and what the ramifications are when the government entity on which you rely for your benefits mismanages taxpayer money on such a scale that the only place left to cut--indeed, the most politically expedient place to cut--turns out to be employee benefits.

This is what happens on a small scale; a scale the size of a county in Pennsylvania. Imagine it on a nationwide scale. Imagine if the federal government was responsible for paying for your healthcare and suddenly ran out of money. By all means, keep rooting for that "public option" if you think the Feds are doing a good job with prudent spending and that the money train will just keep on rolling.

Healthcare reform, such as it exists in congress, does not address any of the factors that keep driving healthcare costs up, such as restrictions on buying over state lines, EMTLA, illegal aliens, malpractice insurance, over-litigation and the practice of defensive medicine. No, the government's solution to controlling costs is simply controlling and rationing care. The plan will fail, sooner or later, probably sooner. And when the Feds' plan fails, it won't be about finding a second job to fund a portion of our insurance premiums; it will be the total collapse of our entire healthcare system.

Take a good look at what's going on in Montgomery County.

Then call Arlen and Bobby and tell them to vote NO on healthcare reform.

Looks like Liberals picked a bad month to give up sniffing glue....

November hasn't really been a good month to be a liberal. Consider:

1. Republican victories in Virginia and deep blue New Jersey,

2. Gaping holes exposed by Major Nidal Hassan in our national security that were created by nothing more than political correctness,

3. Dithering on Afghanistan continues; soldiers die.

4. Gitmo not closing in January 2010. Maybe ever.

5. 9/11 mastermind KSM gets constitutional rights and a civil trial in the city where he killed over 2,000 civilians so Obama Administration can put the Bush Administration on trial at the expense of national security.

6. Obama, the famous Constitutional scholar, publicly declares the outcome of KSM’s trial already pre-determined. Oops— must’ve forgotten about that pesky “due process” thingy.

7. Bow to Chinese leader: Bad form. Again.

8. New government created mammogram and cervical cancer screening guidelines that smack of health care rationing just in time for the health care reform vote,

9. Health care reform now more “strongly opposed” by 2 to 1 of those who “strongly favor”

10. Stimulus money goes to fictional congressional districts, creates or saves thousands of fictional jobs.

11. The leaked emails from Global Warming World Headquarters suggesting data manipulation: “I don’t see the trend….”

12. Sarah Palin’s approval numbers virtually identical to Obama’s.

13. The final insult and most deeply felt blow: Saturday Night Live skewers Obama with an incisive skit over his Administration’s spending proclivities.

One can only conclude that November 2009 has been a very bad month to be a liberal. And it has been a very good month to be a conservative.

And yet. There is still much much more to be done. We are still fighting a majority in the House and Senate, a mainstream media that has simply become the propaganda arm of the Administration and a vocal, hysterical and dedicated far left that put these radical leftists in power. We must not lose focus: the biggest battle facing conservatives, indeed the biggest problem facing ALL Americans who honor our Constitution, is the defeat of the abomination called "Health Care Reform."

Keep the pressure on. It's working; they are crumbling.

People Magazine names Mr. Pink "Sexiest Man Alive 2009"

Ok, ok, I know it's Johnny Depp. But really, couldn't they have found a better, shall we say, sexier picture than this one for the cover? Tell me he's not channelling Steve Buscemi.

And really?  Johnny Depp?  He was Willie Wonka.  Jack Sparrow.  Edward Scissorhands.  Characters I love, but not sexy.  At least back in his "21 Jump Street" days there was something a little dangerous and edgy about him. 

But not anymore. Johnny Depp is best know now for his strange roles and his burning desire to move to France.  "21 Jump Street" Johnny would kick "Willy Wonka" Johnny's ass around the block.  But I guess it is a sign of the times.  Real men are a little too threatening anymore.

When we welcomed in the age of Obama, we also welcomed in the age of the Metrosexual. The age of safe, slightly prissy, unthreatening men.  Now, don't get me wrong---I have no problems with some of the guys on People's Sexiest Men list: Bradley Cooper, Robert Downey Jr., Gilles Marini, Chris Daughtry. Those guys are sexy. But...

Adam Lambert???

John Cho????

Jerry O'Connell???

WTF?  How is it possible that these guys make a "Sexiest Man Alive" list when last I checked, these real men were still drawing breath?

More suspicous cancer testing guidelines announced

First let's kill all the women.

Fox News:

In what some see as further attack on women’s health care, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended Thursday that women delay cervical cancer exams, also called Pap smears, until the age of 21 and that women younger than 30 undergo cervical cancer screening once every two years instead of an annual exam. The organization also said that women age 30 and older can be screened once every three years.

The recommendations, the college said, are based on scientific evidence that suggests more frequent testing leads to overtreatment of irregular Pap smears, which can harm a young woman's chances of carrying a child full term.

Reaction to the recommendation has been mixed.

“I think it’s bad timing with the whole health-care reform effort going on and the mammogram recommendations that came out earlier this week,” said FoxNews.com managing editor of health Dr. Manny Alvarez, who opposes the new mammogram recommendations. “But these particular guidelines don’t fall into the criteria of saving money. These guidelines have to do with minimizing injuries to women that are of reproductive age.”

But Dr. Elizabeth Eden, an obstetrician/gynecologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine in New York City, disagrees and says it's another attempt by the government to cut costs on preventative medicine.

“I think it’s a bad idea,” she told Fox News Friday. “I think a large number of adolescents are sexually active and by the age of 21 we’re talking about what could be five or six years removed from their first sexual experience.”

This is indeed suspicious news, especially since the government was quick to recommend that young girls be immunized with Gardisil--the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine--because it is most effective before they become sexually active. Like say at 12.

But PAP smears, which detect cervical cancer--it's ok to forgo them until age 21.

Oh, and those breast cancer screenings? Wome aged 40 - 49 were not the only group hit by these new recommendations. Despite these findings on Medscape.com,

Film mammography is associated with decreased breast cancer mortality rates, particularly in women aged 50 to 74 years, based on evidence to date. Women aged 60 to 69 years appear to have the greatest benefit

The USPSTF recommends mammography only every other year for women aged 50 - 74 and not at all for women over 74. Granny's on death's door anyway; why waste valuable dollars on screening for a disease when she is statistically most susceptible to it?

As soon as you figure out that government run healthcare is not about saving lives, but about saving money, then you will understand the implications of rationing.

Until then, please take a number and step to the front of the room when the death panel calls your number.

Life imitates "State of Fear": The greatest scandal in modern science

Breaking right now: JK over at Three Sources links to James Delingpole at the Telegraph (UK) who has the scoop on Climategate:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Read all of Delingpole here.

Andrew Bolt at the (Australia) Herald Sun updates that this story indeed seems to be genuine:

8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley University of East Anglia CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."…

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

For all of the delicious evidence, click here and read on, Global Warming sceptic. Read on and rejoice.

And it was a mere 24 hours ago that Al Gore appeared in A Very Special 30 Rock: the Green Week Indoctination Episode. Coincidence? Or Michael Creighton's revenge?

GOP needs to embrace Conservatism

If they really want to win elections, that is. From my column in today's Pottstown Mercury:

For years, voters have lamented the fact that there is no difference between the parties; that Democrats and Republicans are all the same. And for the most part, they are right. GOP party leadership is married to the conventional wisdom — mostly born of liberal punditry — that true conservatives cannot win elections. They are afraid of committing to conservatives lest they be seen as "extreme."

By putting forward these weak candidates, from John McCain on down, the GOP has made their brand undistinguishable from the Democrats. Uninspiring candidates do not bring voters to the polls on Election Day.

Here's a memo to the GOP: You exist solely to win elections. These "safe," moderate candidates you have mincingly embraced, these entrenched incumbents: we're done with them. The worst has happened — we are utterly out of power. You can't scare us into voting for RINOs anymore.

Sarah Palin's book tour is infuriating the feminists

There is much to say about Sarah Palin, but I think that the most apt observation to come out in recent weeks is that she is a litmus test. In some she inspires an almost Obama-like devotion; in others an irrational seething hate that makes the ire directed at George W. Bush look almost like affection in comparison.

I am one of those who falls somewhere in the middle, though far closer to admiration than ire. I was excited about her entrance into the Presidential race, but I was disappointed that she was plucked from relative obscurity before she had a real record of accomplishment to fall back on (and I do admit, she had a more complete record and more executive experience than our current Dear Leader). I also felt that wasting one of our rising stars on a McCain candidacy was lunacy. And now it's too late.

I have not read Sarah Palin's book yet, though I probably will eventually. From all of the accounts I have read about it, though, from those of the snarky left to those of the worshipful right, my impression is that this book seeks to be a "reintroduction" of Palin to the American public. The problem is that in reality, you only get one chance to make a first impression.

I could say more about Palin, and probably will in the future, but for now, I'd like to comment on a column by Donna "Alpha Male and Earth Tones" Brazile that appeared today in the form of an advice letter to Sarah Palin:

Governor, despite our many political differences, I would like to encourage you to use your book tour not just to sell books but to also motivate women to run for office and help set a new tone in American politics. You can make a difference.

Although women are the majority of voters, we continue to lag behind and are underrepresented in American politics. In fact, American women rank an embarrassing 71st in the world when it comes to holding elected positions. It's time we hurry history to encourage more women to enter politics.

Perhaps Ms. Brazile, whose most famous advice was successful only in making Al Gore look like more of a tool than he already was, is unfamiliar with the media campaign against Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin's story is not going to "inspire" women to go into politics; it's going to send them in the other direction, running for their lives. The complete vilification of Palin on the national stage was horrifying to watch. And the fact that it was mostly orchestrated by liberal women is an hypocrisy that feminists choose to ignore by talking about how "stupid" Sarah Palin is. They based their argument, I believe unfairly, on painting Palin as an incompetent Barbie Doll. The editors who chose the cheesecake cover photo for Newsweek were women. They are absolutely foaming at the mouth over Palin's overwhelming popularity because she a symbol of repudiation of absolutely everything they stand for.

These feminists are using the very methods to destroy Palin that they have whined for years about men using against them. And they don't see the hypocrisy. And even if they do, they don't care. It's more important to marginalize Palin. She's too dangerous to the feminine mystique.

Palin's experience serves as a cautionary tale to conservative women that there is no low to which the feminists in the media will not stoop to destroy you for the audacity of putting yourself forward as a viable candidate. Don't think Brazile doesn't know this and wasn't part of the public pillory against Palin.

Though mistakes were made in Palin's introduction to the nation, both by the McCain campaign and by Palin herself, it's important to remember that it was the feminists who really destroyed her.

Still more on those suspicious new breast cancer screening guidelines

Here's what was missing from Dr. Nancy Snyderman's report on the new Government guidelines on breast cancer screenings: a little journalistic objectivity.

Lu Ann Cahn of Philadelphia's NBC affiliate apparently did not get the memo from Corporate. Of course, the execs at GE who run NBC are very busy this week running their Green Week indoctrination programming, so perhaps they were slow in getting that directive out to the affiliates.

I'm suspicious of Snyderman's whole report because it is a complete about face from her previous position--indeed a position that was held only 24 hours before and was pushed and promoted for years. That Snyderman read, evaluated and digested this report whole--and without a single qualm, could get on television in so short a period and unequivocally endorse these new guidelines without even addressing the objections of cancer specialty groups stinks to high heaven. Completely missing from Snyderman's report yesterday was the acknowledgement of the American Cancer Society's position on these new guidelines, which is completely at odds with the position Snyderman takes:

The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. The American Cancer Society feels that in both cases, the lifesaving benefits of screening outweigh any potential harms. Surveys of women show that they are aware of these limitations, and also place high value on detecting breast cancer early.

However, it was more than clear that she read it, since she answered it specifically when she was countering the anecdotal evidence of those people who found breast cancer by early detection with the warning that "1,900 got an unnecessary dose of radiation."

That one in 1,900 may not be "worth it" for the U.S. Government to endorse testing for women in their 40's. But if that one in 1,900 was you, your mother, your wife, your sister or your daughter, would it be "worth it" for you?

UPDATE:
Hot Air reports that the very same USPSTF was very worried about the decline in breast cnacer screening just six short months ago. Here's Ed Morrissey:

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella? If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.
The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives. The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.
One final thought. Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention. Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening? And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

More on those suspicious new breast cancer screening guidelines

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

I'm posting a different clip than I promised earlier because Snyderman basically parroted the same line that Dr. Susan Love did on the earlier clip with Brian Williams.

In this clip, watch how tense Snyderman is. It's almost like she's a hostage desperately blnking morse code to the people getting the ransom demand, so uncomfortable does she seem completely contradicting what has basically been her mantra ever since she joined the Today Show: testing, vigilance and more testing. The clip begins with Snyderman giving lip service to those survivors who caught breast cancer by self exam who are outraged at this advice. Right after Snyderman claims that “these stories MATTER,”she then systematically explains precisely why they don’t matter. For every one story like this one, you have “1,900 who got an unnecessary dose of radiation”. Mammograms are no longer the life saving diagnostic tool they were yesterday; today, they are giving women unnecessary -- and dangerous -- doses of radiation.

When Ann Currie wonders what is the harm in doing breast self exams, Snyderman responds, “Here’s the problem with self exam: A lot of women were taught to do this search and destroy mission on their bodies.” And let’s not forget, that the Chief Health Hysteria Officer for the Today Show IS Dr. Nancy Snyderman. Part of her job description is scaring Today Show viewers into doing these very exams. Sometimes I think that The Today Show serves no other purpose than to make people paranoid about health issues, which was why it was no surprise to me when they added Snyderman to their cast of regular contributors in the last year. And the now we are to believe that after all that, its just not worth it. But for those women who do find lumps doing self exams, Nancy Snyderman says that’s “GREAT.”

We get to the real money question at about 3:37:

“Do these new guidelines give insurance companies a way out of covering yearly mammograms for women?”

Snyderman’s answer? It’s a non-answer really, but she is careful to point out, like a good little comrade, that this report “was NOT TIMED to the idea of reimbursement because we are going through health care reform debates. The report came out just because it came out.” Well, when you put it that way Dr. Nancy, as long as I hear it on state controlled media, I feel much better about this report

“If we’re talking about how well we spend money in this country, and the yield is low...would we be better off to take that money and spend it elsewhere?”

Ann Curry: “Do you think that influenced this finding?”

Dr. Nancy: “No! No no no no! Absolutely not!”

The American Cancer Society heartily disagrees with all of this "science" arrived at by the "experts". One may assume that the American Cancer Society also conducts "science" with their own "experts". Oh, look. They do indeed:

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.

“In 2003, an expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society conducted an extensive review of the data available at the time, which was not substantially different from the data included in the current USPSTF review. Like the USPSTF, the Society’s panel found convincing evidence that screening with mammography reduces breast cancer mortality in women ages 40-74, with age-specific benefits varying depending on the results of individual trials and which trials were combined in meta-analyses. And like the USPSTF, the American Cancer Society panel also found that mammography has limitations – some women who are screened will have false alarms; some cancers will be missed; and some women will undergo unnecessary treatment. These limitations are somewhat greater in women in their forties compared with women in their fifties, and somewhat greater in women in their fifties compared with women in their sixties. We specifically noted that the overall effectiveness of mammography increases with increasing age. But the limitations do not change the fact that breast cancer screening using mammography starting at age 40 saves lives. “As someone who has long been a critic of those overstating the benefits of screening, I use these words advisedly: this is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over, be she a patient, a stranger, or a family member.

“The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. The American Cancer Society feels that in both cases, the lifesaving benefits of screening outweigh any potential harms. Surveys of women show that they are aware of these limitations, and also place high value on detecting breast cancer early.

Read the whole ACS response here.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the foremost breast cancer advocacy group and they have a scientific advisory board, too. Their response:

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure wants to eliminate any impediments to regular mammography screening for women age 40 and older. While there is no question that mammograms save lives for women over 50 and women 40–49, there is enough uncertainty about the age at which mammography should begin and the frequency of screening that we would not want to see a change in policy for screening mammography at this time.” Komen’s current screening guidelines can be found at www.komen.org.

Nope. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here at all.

New breast cancer screening guidelines are a little suspicious on the eve of socialized medicine

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

MSNBC:

NEW YORK - Most women should wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years, a government task force said Monday in a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing recommendation of annual screening starting at 40.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For nearly two decades, the cancer society has been recommending regular mammograms beginning at 40.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC's resident health hysteria reporter was just on the Today Show pushing the government's line on this based on "years of research" and "bringing us up to the world standard". Up, in this case, may be the wrong directional modifier since we are actually lowering our standards for testing by moving the age to begin testing to age 50 instead of 40. I will update the post later with Snyderman's propaganda schpiel later on when MSNBC posts it online. Wait until you hear Dr. Nancy Snyderman talk about how this will be "politicized" by the radiologists, because "they have a dog in this fight." Just like those surgeons performing unnecessary tonsilectomies so they can soak their patients for more money, eh, Dr. Nancy?

Indeed, it is revealing that in the video clip above, Dr. Susan Love tells Brian Williams about how bringing us up to the world standards "are in line with what everyone else in the world is doing where they have government run screening programs."

I'm sure that lowering these standards has absolutely nothing to do with implementing socialized medicine and rationing health care. It only sounds like just that.

When getting robbed is your fault

This is State Rep Tim Briggs (D-149) talking about a new gun law he is going to be working to get passed this year. (If following the link, it's the last clip). This proposed law says that if you have a reasonable expectation that minors will be in your house, you must lock up your guns. If a minor takes your gun and uses it in a crime or takes it to school, the liability for the crime will be on you.

This would be almost an impossible law to enforce, except after the fact of a stolen gun, therefore rendering moot the whole "keeping our kids safer" logic. But there are two things I find incredibly offensive about this measure.

The first is that old saw that we'll have to convince the "sportsmen" to pass this important legislation for the "chilllldruuuunnn". My husband is a hunter and has a boat load of guns. The fact that we don't have enough room in our gun safe to store them all is besides the point because this law is not about hunters or hunting rights. Proponents of this law are only talking about the sportsmen so that they can paint this as a reasonable request due to the fact that people cannot hunt in their own homes.

I have one gun: a .357 Ladysmith. And I keep it right next to my bed for self protection. If somebody is breaking into my house, the time I spend unlocking my safe and removing the trigger locks on my gun can mean the difference between life and death. Now my husband and I have no minor children anymore, however, we have a reasonable expectation of having minors in our house. ALL AMERICANS DO. That's just one reason that this law is inane and unenforceable, except as a punishment after the fact.

The second stems from the comment Mr. Briggs makes at the end of this clip--that he wants to be sure that if his children are going into your house that they don't have access to guns. Most gun owners I know do not, as a rule, keep the guns in the toy box or next to the Play Station. I think gun owners should have a reasonable expectation that Mr. Briggs' children are not going to be going into areas of my house where they are not welcome.

I grew up in a household that was very gun neutral. My step father was not a hunter, however he was a cop and he regularly left his revolver on a cabinet in the dining room. As children, the five of us never had to be told not to touch the gun. We were taught respect, and as part of that respect, we were intelligent enough to figure out we would get our butts kicked if we even thought about touching his gun. Nowadays, we forgo teaching our children respect in favor of self esteem. There are no real repercussions for children who disobey their parents or their teachers, and indeed, many parents fight for their children if they have been disciplined, regardless of whether they have earned the reprimand.

This is just a small part of what ails our nation, but it is a significant factor of the gun control issue---especially when the anti-gun crusaders start talking about doing it "for the chillldruuuunnnn".

Mr. Briggs says that "everyone" he has talked to about this measure is very supportive. Contact Tim Briggs and let him know that "everyone" does not include you. His contact information can be found here.

East Norriton's own NY-23 Part 3

Back in early July, sitting East Norriton Supervisor James Staufenberger removed his name from the ballot for re-election. He left the naming of his replacement to the East Norriton Republican Committee. Staufenberg announced his decision with the following statement that should have sent the red flags flying:

“Good government is better than bad politics. There are things going on behind the scenes,” Staufenberg said. “It’s puppet masters in the background.”

If that wasn't enough, when asked why she thought Staufenberg was pulling out of the election, East Norriton Republican committee chairwoman and Supervisor Kandy Heckman said,

“I’m not really sure. He got disgusted,” Heckman said. “Jimmy is not a political person. It was a tough primary. He believed he was elected to represent all of the township and not a handful and he got discouraged.”

Here is exclusive video of crack reporter Carl Rotenberg grilling the interviewees with hard-ball follow up questions to these very leading statements:



Allegedly, one of these disaffected GOP Committeepersons with took it upon themselves to patrol the St. Titus parking lot and remove the "offensive" Pro-Life Voter Guides from cars in the shortly before the general election. It's important to note that the Pro-LifeVoter Guides, produced by the ProLife Coalition, endorsed ALL Pro-life candidates on the ballot last election day, not just Papiernik. Yet these guides were removed, and not without incident, from cars in St. Titus Church parking lot as the lot was vigilantly patrolled by those with a vested interest in preventing any endorsement of Papiernik from being placed on cars in the parking lot.

What's interesting about this dynamic is that apparently, while it is unacceptable for the Catholic Pro-Life Union to endorse Catholic, pro-life candidates by putting flyers on cars in the parking lot of a Catholic Church, it seems to be quite all right for the East Norriton Board of Supervisors to send out an official mailing on the eve of a primary election to residents flat out calling Barry Papiernik and the East Norriton Residents Organization liars. Barry Papiernik and the East Norriton Residents Organization are the same people who, coincidentally, publicly and vociferously challenged the Board's rubber stamping of the Einstein project.

The substance of the mailing is neither here nor there in my opinion; what matters here is that the East Norriton Board of Supervisors sent out blatant campaign literature for the pro-Einstein incumbent disguised as an official township mailing on official township stationary. Even the envelope in which this mailing arrived was marked "Important Township Information" in bold lettering on the outside. I'm not really sure about election law, but this seems to violating at least one, perhaps more, election laws.


Here is a sign with blue tape placed over Barry Papiernik's name. This occured at several polling places on election day.

And here is exclusive video of crack reporter Carl Rotenberg connecting the dots on all this political intrigue:

It's important to remember, as well, that the pro-life angle of this campaign was not small. One of the very large hot-button issues, and indeed one of the major objections to Einstein moving into the neighborhood, was whether or not they would be providing abortions at this facility. As was reported previously (see parts one and two of this report here and here), Democratic candidate (and now east Norriton Supervisor) Harris Dainoff has a father that is an abortion provider with privileges at Einstein. Democratic Candidate (and now East Norriton Supervisor) John Zurzola has a wife that works for an Einstein affiliate. In all the County, could the Democratic Committee come up with not one candidate who did not have ties with the incoming hospital?

This is Harris Dainoff.

I know, he's adorable, right? At 27, he looks like he'd be more comforable in his hockey jersey than in a business suit. And I'm sure Harris Dainoff is a nice kid with good intentions. But are you telling me that this recent law school graduate has the experience to stand up for his newly adopted community against the very special interests that funded his campaign?

Here is crack reporter Carl Rotenberg's great follow up to this controversial election:

Old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning, a dedicated group of volunteers and a well-financed campaign chest helped get two Democrats elected to the traditionally all-Republican Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

The purpose of the GOP Committee is to win elections, not to keep entrenched members in power and facilitate cronyism. When it's purpose becomes muddled, when it loses it's focus, that is when the GOP loses seats. And that is what happened in NY-23 and East Norriton and countless other localities we are not aware of. And when the GOP's committee members are faced with allegations of actively campaigning against an endorsed candidate, it's time for the the Party Leadership to do some investigating, and if need be, housecleaning.

Bob Kerns, are you listening?

The fact that the two Democratic candidates, now the new East Norriton supervisors, are affiliated with Einstein and were well-funded with special interest money should surprise no one. This is Democratic electioneering 101 and it's not the only reason Republicans lost those seats. It's not even the main reason. The GOP lost those seats because the community's newspaper dropped the ball in informing it's readers. They lost because entrenched local politicos were desperate to remain in power. And they lost because the the GOP Committee was not paying attention to what was going on on the local level.

But the biggest losers are not the GOP. The biggest losers are the people of East Norriton.

Back in Black...and White

After a seven month absence from the print media, I'm excited to announce that I'm the new contributing columnist at the Pottstown Mercury. My first column for the Merc can be found here.

Here's a taste:

We've all been there:

Dining in a restaurant or waiting in a checkout line, when a parent in close proximity to us says, "No," to a toddler, and all hell breaks loose. Time grinds to a halt as we watch with growing frustration while the parent gently attempts to cajole, bargain and reason with the out-of-control child to no avail. As we smugly tell ourselves that we would never tolerate such behavior from our own children, a large part of us — a very large part — wishes the parent would give the kid what he wants so he would just shut up already.

And when the parent does just that, we praise the blessed silence while we "hmmph" in our own superiority, knowing full well that it's the child who is really in charge.

In November 2008, it was conservatives who were those harried parents. Utterly beat down after almost eight solid years of unbridled, relentless hatred directed against President George W. Bush, we were ready to give in, too. After all, Barack Obama was such a pretty toy and they did seem to want him more than anything else.

Read it all here.

Smerconish dissed in multimedia

My husband informs me that, after prefacing his remarks with an "I don't like to talk about other radio show hosts, but...." national radio talk show host Mike Gallagher opened his show yesterday with a rant of disgust aimed directly at Philly's most prominent faux conservative, Michael Smerconish. I have been unable to locate a link to the clip, but I am told that Gallgher's ire was directed at a Smerconish because he's a guy who made his fortunes on the backs of conservatives and has abandoned them now that he has hit the national stage.

Then Philadelphia Magazine released it's "Power 50" issue this week(full article only available in print at this time). Conspicuously missing is Michael Smerconish. And when I say conspicuously, I mean that there is actually a sidebar in the article stating exactly WHY Smerconish did not make the Power 50 this year: specifically, since he's gone national, he only devotes a few minutes a day to local issues. Gee, you would have thought that Philly Mag would have squeezed him there somewhere, especially after he was good enough to give them such a no-holds-barred interview and photo shoot (link NSFW) back in the spring. I guess he really bought that line when they said, "Of course we'll respect you in the morning..."

Meanwhile, Smerconish's own site is alternating a plug of his interview with Dede Scozzofavva and a scribbled piece of advice from BFF Chris Matthews. And does that new, stylized, red white and blue logo seem a little -- I don't know -- a little hopey-changey?

Decide for yourself:

What a long way he's come from the drive time conservative of the late nineties, to the NYPD Cap delivery boy for Fidel Castro to Howard Stern wanna be reduced to having in depth discussions about his toilet. Sell out.

Every day is a bonus

Thank you to our all our veterans. Because of you, every day in freedom is a bonus for all of us.

H/T Veronique deRugy on the Corner

East Norriton's own NY-23 Part 2

As I find out more about the East Norriton's supervisor race I originally posted about here, I become more and more puzzled about this "old fashioned campaigning" article that appeared in Saturday's Times Herald. A quick perusal of the campaign finance records for winners Harris Dainoff and John Zurzola reflects a campaign well financed by union interests.

Zurzola and Dainoff combined raised about $30,000 for their bid for the "powerful" East Norriton Supervisor slot. I am not in any way suggesting that unions should not be permitted to donate to political campaigns. However, it is interesting that with the limited campaign finance records I have, on Zurzola's report alone, I was able to identify some $6,100 in donated from 13 different unions. Unions that would, presumably, all have jobs building the new Einstein Hospital.

It is also noteworthy that a New Jersey-based engineer, Thomas Beach, Jr., donated $1,000 to Dainoff's and Zurzola's bids for supervisor. The engineering firm of Mr. Beach, Remington, Vernick and Beach, raised eyebrows in Pittsburgh back in February of 2008 when some local municipalities suddenly dropped their long-time engineering firms and hired Remington, Vernick and Beach. From the PPG:

"When I asked for a proposal all I got was a rate sheet with the costs plus 10 percent," Moon commissioner Marvin Eicher said at the time.

When Robinson switched engineering firms Feb. 11, it was done on a 3-2 vote amidst charges that the information provided was sketchy and the move seemed pre-determined.

The firm hired was Remington, Vernick & Beach. It replaced Lennon Smith Souleret, which had served the township for 16 years.

The move so disgusted Commissioner Jerry Brouker that he walked out of the meeting. He said he believed the hiring had been decided before the board even talked, and said that "right and reason went out the window tonight."

In both cases, the three voting for the contract were Democrats, and the two voting against were Republicans. In neither case was anyone critical of Lennon Smith Souleret; both board chairmen said the move was made to save money.

In neighboring Kennedy, meanwhile, the HRG engineer that had served the township left the firm to take another job last summer. Kennedy, which is heavily Democratic, dropped HRG and hired Remington, Vernick & Beach.

Coincidence? Perhaps. The Philadelphia-based firm recently opened a Pittsburgh office and is aggressively looking for work. Its parent firm, New Jersey-based Remington & Vernick, is a large firm with a long list of awards and projects to its name. And in Robinson at least, its proposal really was the lowest in terms of dollars and cents.

But Michael Vennum isn't buying it. A failed candidate for Robinson commissioner, he does believe that money was a factor -- but thinks it's more about money contributed to statewide Democratic candidates.

"It's curious to me how a New Jersey-based firm comes into Pennsylvania, starts contributing bucketloads of cash to statewide campaigns and now is getting work here," Mr. Vennum said.

And the firm does indeed make heavy contributions, and primarily on the Democratic side in high-profile Pennsylvania races.

(...)

There are two ways to look at that.

On the bright side, the firm boasts of having friends in government, which can help it obtain grants for its clients and can help streamline the regulatory process. "Mr. Remington himself said they were well-connected politically," Mr. Brouker said.

On the dark side, it smacks of a practice called "pay for play," in which professional firms fill political coffers and get government work in return.

Such activity is legal unless there is a direct quid pro quo -- an agreement ahead of time that a contract will be given in exchange for a contribution -- but has become enough of a concern in New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania that dozens of municipalities have passed local ordinances forbidding it, and New Jersey in 2005 passed a statewide law to limit it.

Press coverage of the problem in that area has repeatedly focused on Remington & Vernick and its subsidiaries

"In addition to the hidden costs of this practice, pay-to-play also promotes the selection of contractors based on their political contributions instead of their professional merits. It's been a prime source of political corruption in New Jersey and Philadelphia," said a May 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial supporting laws curbing the practice.

The editorial went on to say the proposed limits "would impact firms such as Remington & Vernick of Haddonfield, which has received as much as $1 million in no-bid engineering work from Cherry Hill Township over a three-year period and has been a generous campaign donor to both the Camden County Democratic committee and to township candidates."

I'm not suggesting here that the campaign contributions of Thomas Beach, one of the principals of Remington, Vernick and Beach, are some kind of pay to play. But I am saying that the idea that this was some kind of a grass roots, old fashioned, knocking-on-doors political success story gets more far-fetched with each passing moment. There was big special interest money backing the Democratic Lawyers' bids for the EN supervisors slots.

Mr. Zurzola's wife is an admissions counsellor for Belmont Center, a fact that the Times Herald reported in their "meet the candidates" article that ran on September 8. Conspicuously missing from that article, however, is what "The Belmont Center" is:

Belmont Center for Comprehensive Treatment is a 147-bed private psychiatric hospital offering a full array of services for the treatment of behavioral health and addictions disorders in adolescents, adults and older adults.

Oh, yes. And I forgot to mention: It's part of the Einstein Healthcare Network.

Mr. Dainoff's father is an abortion provider in South Jersey who is also affiliated with Einstein.

I think that this information would have been material to East Norriton voters to help make their decision on election day.

Which begs the question: what was the purpose of this fluff piece that ran in Saturday's Herald? Why were the connections of these candidates ignored or glossed over by the Herald? As Dainoff himself said,

[I]t was important that the new supervisor’s board carefully monitor the construction of the new hospital to insure Albert Einstein Healthcare Network fulfills all its obligations to East Norriton. The Philadelphia-based hospital has agreed to build sewer facilities to handle sewage overflows in the Germantown Pike neighborhood and off-site traffic improvements to ease traffic generated by the hospital.

Cronyism and connections are nothing new in politics, to be sure, but these facts came to my attention solely because of Saturday's TH whitewash article and are now particularly newsworthy in my eyes simply BECAUSE of that article. In the interest of full disclosure, a perusal of Mr. Papiernak's campaign finance report will reveal my donation of $25 to his campaign. And because I know the candidate and had a bit of familiarity with the obstacles he faced in his bid for supervisor, the Saturday Whitewash piece just raised a huge red flag with me. That's why I am pursuing it.

Barry Papiernak was fighting a battle on two fronts: the well financed Philadelphia Lawyers and the entrenched old boys (and girls) network in the East Norriton GOP committee. These are facts that may, perhaps, have benefitted the good people of East Norriton before the election, had an enterprising reporter, with an ounce of curiousity, had the gumption to pursue them. They are facts that I have accumulated with little more than a laptop, fax machine, telephone and public records. Resources, I'm sure, that Carl Rotenberg at the Times Herald has access to as well. Stay tuned.

I report so the Times Herald doesn't have to.

East Norriton's own NY-23

If there was one message from election day 2009 that seemed to resonate, it is the struggle for the soul of the Republican Party between old guard GOP cronyism and Conservatives. The movement began with the purging of Arlen Specter, but there is still much work to be done. That struggle was vividly illustrated in NY-23 in the race between Scozzofava, a liberal RINO and Hoffman, a non-district resident and conservative. Both parties are paying very close attention to this phenomenon (and the Dems, at their peril, focus exclusively on NY-23 and ignore the implications of the NJ and VA gubernatorial races. But it’s all good.) I see the defeat of Hoffman was not so much a defeat for conservatism, but as a defeat for the entrenched business-as-usual GOP, as the Democrat won that office simply because of an unfocused local party.

The struggle seems to be with the GOP old guard, those entrenched Republicans in politics for sake of preserving the power base to which they have become accustomed. The old guard is getting in the way of newcomers, many of whom are true conservatives and threaten the old boy network; they are dedicated only to keeping themselves and their cronies in power despite the wishes of their constituencies. And they will go to great lengths to maintain that power, including campaigning for the opposition. Scozzofava was not the only Republican who undermined her own party this year.

In this year’s East Norriton supervisor’s race, we had our own old guard Republicans in conflict with a party outsider. Republican Barry Papiernak ran a clean, positive campaign for supervisor based on opposition to the controversial Einstein Hospital construction project impending at the old Woody’s Golf Course site. Mr. Papiernak spent $3,400 on his entire campaign. He was defeated by a mere 14 votes by a pair of Democratic Philadelphia lawyers who spent over $30,000 on their campaign for supervisor.

Let that sink in for a moment: $30,000. On a local supervisor’s campaign.

Who are these guys? See here. And this is Dainoff's father.

It’s important to remember that these Philadelphia Lawyers only won by 14 votes. And they only got that far because the East Norriton Republican committee was actively campaigning against Mr. Papiernak. The following flyers were mailed out to East Norriton households and were handed out at several polling places by local Republican Committee members.


Shenanigans characterized this campaign, which included, among other things, lawn sign shenanigans and Lewis McQuirns, the incumbent candidate Papiernak defeated in the primary, placing blue tape over Papiernak’s name at a polling location, and Republican committee members and supervisors actively overheard vocally campaigning for “the two Kevins.”

Here is the a nice snapshot of the Old Guard in action: the East Norriton Board of Supervisors:

"I'm not going to let you speak".....?? Really? No wonder they are so desperate to remain in power.

Further adding to the intrigue, in a head scratching piece appearing in today’s Norristown Times Herald, Carl Rotenberg praises the “old fashioned campaigning” that won the election for these two Philadelphia Lawyers.

Old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning, a dedicated group of volunteers and a well-financed campaign chest helped get two Democrats elected to the traditionally all-Republican Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Democrat John Zurzola topped the East Norriton field with 1,291 votes and running mate Harris Dainoff received 1,271 votes. The two lawyers, who practice in separate Philadelphia law firms, beat Republican Barry Papiernik, who received 1,257 votes; Republican Kevin McDevitt, who received 1,216 votes and Independent candidate Kevin Dyson, who received 455 votes.

Clearly, the tone of this article is “Rah! Rah! Democrats are making inroads into Republican territory! Pay no attention to other elections which may reflect Dear Leader’s sagging approval ratings!” But what puzzles me is that all of the information cited above is out there for public consumption. In fact, the Times Herald has received all of this information in great detail. Yet, this is the piece it runs as a follow up to the election.

Is the Times Herald in such great financial shape that it can afford to ignore a legitimate news story, about which it has detailed information, in favor of a fluff piece on the victory of a couple of Philadelphia Lawyers who outspent their opponent by 10 to 1?

Is that the real story here? I think not.

Don't Jump to Conclusions II

Sunday Telegraph:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.

There's still a possibility that it was PTSD.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez on the Corner

Don't Jump to Conclusions

The President cautions us about the Fort Hood shooter:

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said in a Rose Garden statement otherwise devoted to the economy.

However, it is ok to say that Hasan "acted stupidly."

What Tuesday meant to Republicans

Thousands of words have been written, but nothing quite captures the message like this, eh?

Get to work

Just to be clear, I was not inclined to indulge the Septa strike from day one. Now, hearing TWA union boss Willie Brown whine about how he's the "most hated man in Philadelphia" and listening to him call Mayor Nutter "Little Ceasar" for "bringing nothing to the table" and claiming "He has destroyed any good faith we had to try to negotiate a contract," I'm really done with this tone deaf union.

Does the TWA remember remember the tears of Philadelphians as the city was forced to close the libraries? How about the city pools? How about closing some of the city's fire stations, for God's sake?

Maybe you think that this is all about power hungry unions who are feeling their oats in a Democratically controlled union sympathetic national leadership. Or perhaps you are thinking that that they are just being greedy, looking to secure their pensions and a 4% raise in an age when most private sector employees have seen their pensions frozen or eliminated and have seen cuts in their pay (if they are lucky enough to still be employed).

You are missing one important subtlty.

As with seemingly everything these days, race is, of course, a factor:

Observers familiar with the delicate, racially tinged interplay between SEPTA and the TWU see more at issue than money. Brown is a first-term president facing an election in 10 months. In taking his membership out on strike, observers said, he shows he's tough enough to stand up to SEPTA.

Many union workers are African American, the agency managers largely white. Everything between the sides filters through a prism of suspicion and distrust. Last year, Brown said contract negotiations would center on getting workers "the respect and dignity they deserve."

Yesterday, he hammered at what he said was an unfair disparity in how SEPTA funds pensions for managers and workers.

"We were forced into a strike," he said. "We will stay out as long as it takes to secure our pension."

"Forced into a strike," indeed. They held the city hostage over the weekend with the threat of transportation shortage during a potential World Series victory. They are blocking service at those suburban bus and rail stations that are running and what public transportation is running is running with heavy delays. Traffic for commuters is a nightmare not only in the city, but in the surrounding counties. A train fire on the R5 Paoli Thorndale line shut the line down yesterday; Septa claims this was an electrical fire; however, most of the public's initial reaction was suspicion that this incident was union mischief. What does that thought process say about the relationship between the TWA and the City they serve?

But back to those "racially tinged" negotiations. I'm not sure I can see how race plays into this, other than as a another bludgeon the union is using in order to guilt money out of the government where there is none. I'm done with this overplayed strategy, too.

As this strike rolls on, let's not forget one important thing: Septa survives only because they are heavily subsidized by tax payer money. If they win, we lose. And the longer they don't win, we lose. The union knows this and they don't care.

Give me the bat, Wendy

Here's the secret of every Michael Moore film ever made: editing. It's all a matter of using the right clips with the right music in the right order to evoke the desired emotional response.



Sorry if you've seen it before, but it's too good not to share.

H/T Jonah Goldberg on the Corner