CHUCK GETS A THIRD ONE

No sooner do I get done posting an observation that completely humiliates and degrades one of the leading Conservative spokesmen (Charles Krauthammer) the idiot in question comes out with an even more despicable column. Having completely run out of ideas (i.e. “lies”) to aid in derailing a health care reform bill to benefit American society he’s decided to dredge up a recent lie and dress it up with some twisted form of “logic”. His assumptions and those of anybody who agrees with him refer to the non-existent “Death Panels” that will be instituted if any kind of change in the current health care system takes place.

He tones down the patently absurd rhetoric and then makes an even more preposterous assertion: Your doctor would rather see you die then undergo any further treatment if your case appears to be terminal. A provision in the proposed health care reform allows for reimbursement for “end of life” consoling which every doctor would gladly pounce on for a few quick and easy bucks. I can’t imagine what the pay is for a physician to offer you alternatives when facing the grim reaper but apparently you doctor is in favor of death (or, as Chuck says” we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.”).

The sum and substance of his column is that there’s so much more profit in it for your doctor to pull the plug that he’s bound to encourage you in that direction. Apparently the fee for counseling you to die is more profitable then continuing to administer treatment. In the Conservative world doctors are only in it for the money. Apparently there’s some kind of bonus in it for them to get in you in the ground rather then treat the illness.

Chuck even cites a personal example though I’m really not sure what course he chose. He claims the decision was obvious, but the rational choice completely contradicts the point of his column. So, allow me to explain my own circumstances when dealing with an end-of-life-consultation:

My older brother was determined to be brain-dead after a brief hospitalization. I sat down with the Chief of Neurology and he explained the situation and the alternatives. I sat down with the family and discussed the alternatives and we decided to terminate any further treatment. I don’t know how much longer the insurance carrier he had would have continued to pay to keep him on the respirator. The cost was never a factor. The doctor I talked to was sympathetic and open to the alternatives. There was no additional charge for that end-of-life-consoling. Frankly, there was more money in it for the hospital if they kept him there rather then pull the plug. So how does the Conservative lie of “Death Panels” or alternative form thereof make any sense? It’s always more profitable to continue “treatment” then to terminate the patient. Why would any greedy, capitalistic doctor choose the path of least riches?

In order to believe any Conservative viewpoint on this matter you have to believe that every doctor (including yours) wants nothing more then to get you “out of the way”. You have to believe that the only reason any doctor (including yours) went to Med school was to make a lot of money. You have to believe that every doctor (including yours) is a pawn of the government and one of his main objectives is to eliminate the infirm and elderly from society. You have to believe that there’s a conspiracy among all the doctors (including yours) to reduce your care and encourage your death. There’s absolutely no other way to interrupt the gross stupidity being asserted by moronic Conservatives spouting such outrageous nonsense.

Even though I’ve just made it crystal clear as to why Conservatives are complete idiots and liars, they will continue to influence a large number of people. Fortunately (and amazingly) more and more Americans are beginning to realize what liars they are. They have become relatively insignificant as their desperation continues to grow. However, they do seem to have enough influence on the American public to further wreck our society. I can only hope that Chuck’s Living Will is adhered to. In his own words “If I have anything so much as a hangnail, pull the plug.” Let’s hope so.

WHY CONSERVATIVES HAVE LOST

One of the leading and realistic spokesmen for the conservative movement isn’t the blowhard Rush Limbaugh or his idiot cousin Sean Hannity but the “distinguished” moron Charles Krauthammer. Chuck is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and has the onerous responsibility of representing the conservative point-of-view. Apparently he makes a decent living spouting any nonsense that appeals to the ignorant masses. So, in order to collect his check, he defends the conservative point-of-view at any cost and will lie like a rug to convince anybody near brain death that there’s some validity in the conservative philosophy.

A recent column of his (read it yourself) makes the idiotic “point” that prevention is even more costly then simply letting people suffer or die. In his opinion column he sites like thinking idiots that preventive medicine will in no way save any money and will actually cost more. I’m going to rip him a “new one” and I certainly hope you have enough functioning brain cells to realize how stupid he actually is. I’m using the word “stupid” because if he actually believes what he says he clearly is an idiot. It’s crap like this that is making health care reform totally impossible. So, here are the indisputable facts:

1) Quote from the column: “The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense.” This statement of his is clearly nonsense. That, or the moron has never heard of (or understands) the concept of vaccinations. Polio has been completely wiped out (he’s obviously too stupid to understand what the Salk vaccine accomplished). Nor does he have the common sense to understand what your annual flu vaccination does. Currently the CDC is feverishly working on a vaccination for the Swine flu. Regardless of how you feel about the coming “threat” getting a shot that will preventive you from becoming infected and spending money on over-the-counter medications to relieve your symptoms and the lost time at work don’t factor in to the obvious costs of being ill. No, (and this is sarcasm for all you die-hard Conservatives) preventing hundreds of thousands of people from contracting the flu and developing further complications is clearly a waste of money.
2) Not vaccinating the general population from something as “simple” as the flu would result in billions (if not trillions) of dollars being spent on treatment and the dreaded “lost time” that conservatives love. What could this idiot possibly be thinking?
3) Again, he quotes an equally moronic “authority”, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf who says.” "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness." The idiot (and I mean the idiot Elmendorf) adds “we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses.” Really? No kidding? Gee if only we did know in advance which patients would develop costly illnesses! I got an idea…why don’t we test them!
4) I was just in for a physical and the doctor tested my blood pressure, my lung capacity, and gave me an EKG. So far so good. Everything’s fine. I could relate the story of a friend of mine who went in for the exact same tests and much to his surprise he found that he had suffered two major heart attacks in the recent past (no, he didn’t realize that. It happens.) His doctor immediately admitted him to the hospital and he had a triple by-pass that saved his life. And, it also eliminated all the potential expenses related to his having a third attack. True, it would have been more cost effective if the first one would have killed him. Sorry about Conservatives.

The whole point of Krauthammer’s ranting is that he’s attacking one of the proposed features of health care reform. Preventive health measures would reduce medical costs in the long run. That seems pretty odd considering insurance companies that provide health care for a profit routinely approve any number of tests recommended by a physician. Whether you or Chuck realizes it or not, if you’ve been to a doctor you’ve been checked for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart and lung damage, and probably a lot of stuff I’m not aware of. And I’ll just through vaccinations in here just to rub Chuck and Doug’s faces in it one more time.

I’m supposed to schedule myself for a colonoscopy. Yeah, I’m putting that off but I’ve decided to schedule one. It’s a standard test guys my age are supposed to get. And my doctor who doesn’t have any overt political affiliation that I know of and actually understands medicine informed me that it’s one of the few ways a cancer can not only be detected early but totally prevented. Obviously my insurance company agrees with him but for a different reason. I have no idea what a colonoscopy costs but my insurer sure does. And they know that the aggregate cost of early detection is more cost effective then shelling out even more money for treatment. Chuck probably hasn’t had one since his head seems to be up there most of the time.

I’m pretty sure, without “researching” the cost of every conceivable test to be administered to every citizen, that the cost of such tests would exceed the cost of treatment. But, I have a solution for that little “sticking” point: as the other idiot (Elmendorf) said, we just don’t know who would benefit from what test if we blindly administered them to everyone. That being the case, why don’t we get a bunch of highly trained, highly skilled people to examine individuals and recommend the appropriate tests. You know, people like doctors!

The entire point of the foolish column was to argue against the case that improved health care would save money by preventing major illnesses. So-called “researchers” have done the work and declared it to be so. Well, those guys can skew (i.e. “lie”) the numbers anyway they want. The guys that depend on accurate, profit making research (i.e. “the insurance companies”) have already done the work and have determined that it’s better to give the tests and vaccinations rather treat the illness, even if they don’t know in advance who’ll get sick.

Billions (oh hell, let’s say “trillions” since that seems to have more impact) have already been saved on preventive health care measures. Even the insurance companies agree with that and that’s their business. You can be sure if a columnist from say “The Washington Post” develops any kind of symptom he’ll be expecting a full battery of tests to determine the cause. After all, diagnostic medicine isn’t part of his job description. Pandering to mindless followers with any kind of drivel that can get him noticed is.

WHEN I’M RIGHT MOST EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG

As I pointed out well before any one else, there will be no meaningful health care reform. Forget “meaningful”…there will be no health care reform. There will eventually be some form of mock health care legislation passed that will be trumpeted as “reform” but nothing will change. The more cynical among us will attribute the failure to the usual politicizing of the issue or be even more accurate by attributing the failing to the usual greed and corruption running rampant in Washington. The trillion dollar a year health care industry has too many palms to grease, too many “donors” to satisfy and too many special interests to placate. Couple that with the almost total ignorance of the general population and what ever measures are passed will be insignificant since no one will really know the difference. But, as usual I understand the real reason things will only get worse regardless of what pitiful changes emerge from the health care debacle.

There isn’t anybody smart enough or committed enough to propose a real plan. Either party coming away from the health care debate without having formulated and enacted a real solution will be proving beyond any doubt that are totally ineffective and useless as leaders. Of course the Democrats will be the biggest losers since they brought the critical issue up in the first place and actually pursued it. But they were too stupid to design a program that could be easily understood and implemented. Nobody even knows what the basic components of their “plan” is.

Taking much less heat will be the Republicans who have made no attempt to have a plan and spent all their time and energy stonewalling any potential improvements. They lose big time if anything substantial happens but that would in no way benefit them. In fact, it’s in their best interest if no plan is implemented. Any meaningful health care reform would only benefit the other party and maybe the country. But that isn’t their goal. They’ve made it their goal to lie about the costs and scare people about the possible consequences in order to be able to point to the failure of the current administration in hope of getting their jobs back.

Both parties suck at what they are being over-paid to do. Democrats achieved control because the previous Republican administration demonstrated clearly they were either too corrupt or too incompetent to run the country (take your pick). Democrats won control because of the ineptitude of the past administration and the promise to change things which they simply haven’t done. The coming failure of health care reform will be ample proof of that.

SO WHAT ABOUT ME

A couple of weeks ago I dropped my wife off at the apartment of her daughter. I walked her to the door, talked a few seconds and got back in my car. I drove to the corner, made a right-hand turn and saw flashing lights from an unmarked car in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over and a police officer approached my side…I didn’t notice another officer had approached my passenger side. The officer asked for my driver’s license and insurance. I asked why I was stopped. He didn’t answer. As I looked for my ID and insurance I asked again. He responded that I didn’t signal when I pulled away from the curb. After I gave him the requested papers the other officer (on the passenger side) tapped on my window and asked me what was in my glove box (where my insurance card had been). He thought he saw something suspicious. I had no idea what he was talking about and when he asked if he could check I said “sure”. He reached in, fumbled through the compartment and came up with something that looked like a button (there wasn’t much else in there and I still don’t exactly what it was he came up with.).

The next thing I knew I was asked to step out of the car. I complied and then went through “standard procedure”. I was lead to the back of car, told to place my hands on the trunk, and an officer then “frisked” me. Somewhere in there yet another policeman arrived. The officer frisking me asked the standard questions that I’ve seen on the TV show “COPS” numerous times:”do you have any weapons on your person, do you have anything that can stick me, etc.”. I said “no” and he went about his business. I was clean.

Meanwhile, the other officer went through my car. A total search. It wasn’t long after that when they realized what I knew all along…they were wasting their time. I explained more then once my reason for being there, where I lived, and why I was there at that hour. One of the officers made some small talk, acted jovial, and they eventually “let me go”. So what’s my point? Pay very strict attention because despite you’re upbringing, you may learn something:

I’m a white man. As white as any Republican or any other Patriot. My wife is black. Her daughter lives in one of those “questionable” neighborhoods. I also have an IQ well over 100. I knew I was stopped because I was a white guy in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time in the company of a black female. My failure to signal when pulling away from the curb was an obvious ploy to try and determine if I had been engaged in some other illegal activity. I knew that at that very moment when I saw those flashing lights in my rear-view mirror. Any rational person would have come to exactly the same conclusion. I was profiled.

No way, no how, will anybody ever convince me that racial profiling doesn’t exist. Not now, not ever. I know, with 100% certainty that I was stopped because I was a white guy escorting a black woman to a residence in a “high crime” area that happens to be populated by minorities. There are a very limited number of reasons (in the mind of the authorities) why such an encounter would be taking place. And I admit, statistically, they would be dead-on. But in this case, they were dead-wrong.

I know that I didn’t have to give permission to the cop on the passenger side of my car to search my glove-box. But I didn’t care. In fact, once the initial “shock” wore off, I figured “what the hell”. I was actually having some fun. Besides I knew that they could give me a very hard time if they wanted to. They did have a “legitimate” reason for stopping me. But when the stop expanded to a personal search and the complete inspection of my vehicle I began to get more then a little annoyed. I was being totally abused for no other reason then I was a white guy observed in the company of a black female in the wrong neighborhood.

Before you even try and use the argument that they had a legitimate reason to stop me ask yourself the obvious question: how many times were you cited for such a violation? The fact is, even though they stopped me for my failure to signal, I received no such citation. No ticket, no problem. Should I be grateful? I’m not sure, but I have to wonder…how many tickets are issued to drivers who fail to signal when pulling away from the curb?

The laws of this country are designed to protect the average citizen from harassment by the authorities. In plain language, the cops just can’t stop you because of the way you look or act. They need justifiable reasons and there are plenty of them. And they know each and every one of them. So, when a Harvard professor is intimidated by the police I now have to wonder if they were strictly doing their job, or if something else might have been in play.

When Harvard professor Louis Gates was arrested I had mixed emotions. I fully understand his position. He was clearly targeted because he is a black man associated with a break-in. Without complete compliance and submission he would be considered a threat. His personal feelings of being assaulted and profiled would fall on deaf ears. But, then again, maybe he knew he was completely justified and would prevail regardless of the circumstances. I, being a white man, unaccustomed to police interrogation didn’t have the comfort of knowing that. I passively allowed an illegal search of my person and vehicle since I knew there was nothing to hide. But that’s not the real point, is it?

I knew that I had nothing that would incriminate me for being where I was, when I was there. As did professor Gates. One of us was led away in handcuffs and the other simply drove home. One was white, one was black. Professor Gates was confident in his understanding of the law and I was squeamish because I knew I was at their mercy. I’d very much like to think that the officer involved did his best to follow the law but now, I have a bit of a problem trying to comprehend that. After all, all I did was drop my black wife off at the home of her daughter and was treated like a criminal because I didn’t signal properly when I pulled away from the curb. Gates had a tough time opening his own door.

It’s a tough and dirty job trying to keep a community clean and I understand that. I don’t want the job, but there is a price you pay to live in a “free” society. Count among many of the costs a restraint on authorities. Yes, I want them to protect me. Yes, I want them to patrol crime ridden neighborhoods and protect the citizens. Yes, I want to know I’m 100% safe all the time. But I know that isn’t a remote possibility. As a citizen of the United States I want to be treated the way the Constitution intended for me to be treated. I want authorities to restrain their power. I want them to respect me as an individual. I very well realize that white guy in the company of a black woman in an unsavory neighborhood would arouse suspicion for a variety of reasons. Hell, it arouses a bit more suspicion in better neighborhoods, but that’s another story.

I’m not a Harvard professor and probably fall pretty low on the social food chain. If I had raised a ruckus I’d probably be writing this from a jail cell since not only would I be unable to post any kind of bail, but I wouldn’t be able to afford any kind of lawyer. I realized that the minute the officer asked me to “step out of the car”. My best choice at the moment was to comply.

I’m not an idiot. I knew that when the officer peering in my window asked to inspect the glove box I was passively giving him permission to search not only that but the entire vehicle. At that moment I had relinquished my rights to “unlawful search and seizure”. And they took full advantage. I could have easily said something like,” there’s nothing there for you to look at” and opened a whole can of worms (or more likely, whoop-ass). The situation could have gone anywhere at that point and it was a hassle I didn’t need or could afford. The very simple fact is that I was intimidated and even though I knew my rights I also knew the potential problems that would ensue if I escalated the situation. I chose the path of least resistance.

In all “fairness” I have to say at the end it turned out to be nothing. The four of us actually joked about the situation and one officer actually appeared sympathetic. When they got to the part of the search when they asked me open my trunk one of them joked,” there’s no body in there is there?” “No”, I replied,” I dumped him last week”. At that point they were going through the motions. And in the end I didn’t even get ticketed for failure to signal when I pulled away from the curb. Do you really think that’s why they stopped me in the first place?

Profiling certainly and unquestionably exists. And I do understand it. It makes sense. Personally, I think the “middle-eastern” gentleman nervously standing in line at the airport poses a bit more of a threat then the 85 year-old grandmother in the wheel chair. So, do I think every “middle-eastern” gentleman should be thoroughly investigated when taking a plane ride? Or, do I think that no “middle-eastern” gentlemen should be “hassled by the man”? I honestly don’t know. But, exactly like the ideals of the Constitution, I would prefer we err on the side of the innocent.

A white guy in a particular neighborhood may very well be soliciting drugs and/or sex from a black woman. A black man in an upscale neighborhood forcing a door open may well be “breaking and entering”. But then again, they may not. The white guy may be reluctant and unsure of his rights. He may be intimidated by the possible consequences of his actions be he right or wrong. The black Harvard professor may be well aware of his rights and have the resources to back up his opposition. He may resent whatever treatment he received. I can’t blame him.

We’ll never know the specifics of what happened between the professor and the cop. They only thing we know with any certainty is that no crime was committed until the police officer actually showed up at the scene and those charges have been dropped. Something happened regarding the black professor and he was lead away in handcuffs. The white guy was basically mute and allowed authorities to blatantly violate the Constitution.

Indeed, in my case the police had variety of issues they could have used to cause me considerable discomfort. I simply don’t know the nuances of the law and I certainly can’t afford to challenge the veracity of those officers. I’m sure they have a hard job and are good at it. They were courteous and polite. They were actually pleasant at the end. They also used their knowledge of the legal system to basically violate the very same rights they are sworn to uphold and protect. They weren’t dealing with a Harvard professor.

In the meantime the President of the United States has weighed in on the issue and resolved the matter with a round of beers. I’m just flipping on my blinker every time I pull away from a curb. I’m more law-abiding then ever. I’ve given my personal incident a lot of thought in the meantime and realized that I was degraded. I failed to stand up for my rights. I failed to speak-up for myself. I feel a little less of a human being for being so complacent. I’m not losing sleep over it, it hasn’t wrecked my life, there’s no long-term effect on my ability to function but, I will be sure to use my signals every time the law declares it. And every time I do, guess what I’ll be thinking about? And guess what I’ll be thinking about every time I read or hear of some issue that may or may not involve racial profiling?

WHY THERE WILL BE NO HEALTH REFORM

The chances of any effectual health care “reform” are slim to none, and “slim” just took the last train out of town. Despite all the talk nobody has come close to “solving” our current health care situation. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to discern the facts of our current system and, frankly, there doesn’t seem to be a lot (if any) factual material out there. I did find a relevant article on the “Slate” website (of all places) that addresses the situation in an offhand manner. It does “confirm”, in a sense, the real situation:

“Take health care. Before this recession started in late 2007, there were 45 million people without health insurance, of whom 21 million worked full time, according to this exhaustive Census report. In 2007, the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell to 59.3 percent, or 177.4 million people, down from 64.2 percent in 2000, while the number of people covered by government health insurance rose from 80.3 million to 83 million. (But the Census definition of "government health insurance" applies only to those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, the military or S-CHIP programs. If you add in the millions of people who work for the government and in public-sector jobs (i.e., teachers), the private sector probably covered about 160 million people in 2007.) Since December 2007, however, the number of Americans receiving insurance from private sector companies has dropped sharply, since the private sector has shed 6 million jobs during that period.”

I tend to accept the above since it is based in fact and has a very logical extension. 83,000,000 people directly have government funded health care. Health care paid by your taxes. Add to that all the government employees and you certainly can conclude that some 160,000,000 people have health care total funded by taxpayer dollars. Since the population in the US is around 306,000,000 it’s a pretty safe bet to say that half the country receives health care funded by your tax dollars. Add to that the 45,000,000 with no insurance and you can easily determine that 2/3 of the American public either receive health care 100% funded by tax dollars or have no coverage at all. That means that only 1/3 of the country actually pays for (or contributes to) the cost of their own medical care. And, since nobody I know actually has 100% medical coverage through their employer, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that just about everyone with medical coverage is paying for it whether they use it or not. Now for the facts:

1) Half the population is already covered by government sponsored (that’s your tax dollars) health care. What part of that is hard to understand? Half the citizens in this country already receive health care sponsored by your tax dollars and, here’s the kicker, the ones with the very best health care your money can buy (that’s Congress…just in case you can’t figure that out for yourself) are making the decision as to whether or not the rest of us should get some kind of minimum care.
2) Consequently 1/3 of the country is paying for their own insurance to some degree and supporting the other 2/3 with their taxes. What part of that is hard to understand?
3) Oh yeah, just to clarify….the “uninsured” in this country (the 45,000,000 with no insurance) will get health care in one form or another if it’s necessary. County and/or state run hospitals generally function under the principle that they can’t turn patients away and are funded by taxpayers’ dollars. So while nobody is truly denied health care in emergency circumstances all those uninsured people do have access to the health care system. And if they can’t/don’t pay, guess who foots the bill?
4) Insurance companies exist for one reason and one reason only. They make money. Lots of it. Some part of your premium pays for all the overhead and executive salaries and bonuses. They pay out less money then they take in because that is the whole point of them existing. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be business. I pay $18.69 a week for some very decent insurance coverage. My employer pays the rest (I have no idea how much that is). Point is, there’s lots of money already being paid out to insurance companies for the health care services that are providing profits to the companies providing the coverage.
5) At some point me (or some other poor soul) may face the prospect of needing a medical procedure not (fully) covered by the insurance. The decision will be made solely by an individual concerned with the bottom-line profits of the provider. So, who would you rather have making the decision? Some guy in Washington who has no concept of money or some guy on the board of directors of a profit-making organization that’s only concerned with the bottom line? There’s tons of anecdotal evidence out there but this site is committed to reason and logic so I’m not going there.
6) The cost of health care will never, ever go down. That’s a simple and obvious fact. It never has and it never will. It will only increase. The reason it will increase is because more and more people will need care as the population ages and, that’s the way insurance companies work.

There is no current proposal that addresses the concept of initiating a national health care policy. Ultimately 1/3 of the population will continue to pay for their own care while supporting the care of the other 2/3 while insurance companies will continue to rake in massive profits at your expense. The only “solution” is to put everyone under the exact same coverage administered by a central agency. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the government can’t manage anything. Go ahead, use that argument and then tell me what a great job they do waging war. Want to privatize that?

Of course relying on the government to run health care is a bad idea since the government running anything is a bad idea. That’s because you keep voting for the exact same people to run things. Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they are totally inept at running the country yet you keep pulling the same lever every time you step in to a voting booth. But that’s another topic. In the meantime, by not allowing the government to institute a policy to provide health care to the population you are clearly, unquestionably, supporting policies that are proven failures. There’s always the possibility that at some future point a competent person will assume office and actually do something constructive. Supporting the status quo will only discourage real reformers from seeking to correct anything. It’s clear and simple: anybody standing in the way of any type of health care reform is directly responsible for the incredible burden that will be placed on all members of society in the future. Like it or not, it is directly your responsibility to encourage reform in any manner. Otherwise it will be business as usual and, as I have clearly pointed out, that won’t be a good thing.

I KNEW IT

When I pointed out in a previous post (which you’ll have to look up yourself) I knew beyond any doubt that President’s current stimulus package would be a total failure. Unlike everyone (without exception) my insightful analysis wasn’t based in any kind of political bias but common sense and overwhelming logic.

I actual tried to read the Economic Recovery Plan and realized that it was simply more political gibberish. If there was anything (anything at all) that was designed to directly help the US economy emerge from the Bush Depression well, I missed it. The gist of the plan was merely an increase spending in every current government program. Billions of dollars were allocated to financing the spending. In the end, the “plan” overtly failed to put funding where it was most needed and would do the most good. Despite the fact I clearly solved that problem (a previous post you’ll have to look for) I knew that it didn’t have a chance. Logic is simply one attribute government officials lack.

So, am I saying Obama’s administration is a failure? Not at all. I am saying that it is simply no different then any of his predecessors (make of that what you will). Complete and total failure to grasp economics, indifference to the best interests of a vast majority of citizens, and poorly thought out. Nothing new here. Admittedly, for better or worse, he did manage to stave off the complete failure of two of the largest businesses in the world and thereby preserved a great number of jobs. The deserved ruination of GM and Chrysler was adverted by government intervention and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs was adverted. Whether it was a good idea (which I adamantly instance it wasn’t) or not is one of those “time will tell” things.

Given the political climate, or should I better refer to that as “given the current political ineptitude” he did the only thing he could do. It was a poor, miserable idea, but I don’t expect anything better from the very people who have failed so completely in the past. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are totally responsible for the mess we’re now in and neither has done a single thing to put American on the right track. Democrats had a bad idea and Republicans stood by hoping it would fail so they could blame the current administration for the screw-ups incurred over the past decades. It was “Quick, Superficial Fix” versus “We Haven’t A Clue”. In the end, America is the loser.

WHY NOT GET IT RIGHT?

So, April 29, 2009 represents the first 100 days in office for the new President or to put it much more accurately and in meaningful terms, the first 14.16% (I included the extra day for the coming leap year) of the President’s term. It’s just as meaningful and arbitrary to express it that way as it is to express it in terms of days. Using percentages does however sound more sophisticated. It’s just as meaningless, but it sounds better. In any event since everyone will be vomiting their opinion on the first 14.16% of the current administration somebody ought to be at least accurate (as far as possible) so I’ll fill that void.

Before I continue I need to make a thing or two perfectly clear. First of all, grading the first 14.16% of this, or any other administration is totally arbitrary without exception. There simply is no standard to measure performance against, most “observations” are merely biased opinion and it simply doesn’t matter. The most significant evaluation can only be made at the conclusion of the other 85.84% of his term.
Second, I have my own, obviously superior ideas as to how certain aspects of the government should be run but I’ll try and restrain myself and be as objective as possible. So here is the best evaluation of the President’s first 14.16% of his term:

1) He doesn’t come off as a complete blabbering idiot. After the last two (actually more) administrations we and the rest of the world aren’t being subjected to phony, folksy “man-of-the-people” bullshit. We actually have some one who is “Presidential” and doesn’t create a universal cringe when he opens his mouth. That’s inarguable quite a relief!
2) On the world stage he has repaired our image to some degree. He has engaged various world leaders, opened dialogues, and firmly stated the position of the US on a variety of issues. Even if some people refuse to accept it, he has demonstrated a higher degree of statesmanship then almost any predecessor in the last thirty-plus years.
3) He’s closing GITMO, removing troops from Iraq and boasting our forces in Afghanistan, allowing stem cell research and, basically, focusing on things that really matter. A lot of what he’s already done or proposed makes sense.
4) Personally, I can’t agree with his approach to alleviating the Bush Depression, but at least he’s doing something and seems to be slowing things down. At least the stock market has stabilized and he’s helped keep a few million people employed, at least temporarily. The shit may still hit the fan on that one, it’s simply too soon to tell.
5) Instead of slowly bleeding us to death he’s proposed massive spending (and borrowing) to alleviate the economic problems and create a stable economy to cultivate. Of course, only time will tell on this one. But, it’s better to inject massive funds in to the economy and hope things get better rather then to simply ignore things as the last administration proved.

In generally I’d have to say the first 14.16% of the current administration has been a positive effort compared to the pathetic cretins of past administrations that have created our current mess. President Obama has at least acknowledged our problems, instituted policies to alleviate them and proposed new legislation that if properly enacted would actually improve the country. That isn’t going to happen, of course. But, if you want to go through the nonsense of grading a President on his first 14.6%, Obama has to get a “B” for above average. It’s just been way too long since a President acknowledged not only that we have problems but are capable of much better. By the end of his term (barring some unforeseeable blunder) the worst he can do is a “C” (still vastly superior to any previous moron) and may actually rate an “A”…but that would require a minor miracle.

Oh yeah, one more thing: As you have noticed (and many will) instead of that idiotic “First 100 days” I’ve been more accurately using the 14.16% standard. I’m a little late in posting this but, undoubtedly, some one will steal that and try and make it their own. Go right ahead, but I’ll call you on it.