Raise of hands: Do you believe the CIA?

Raise your hand if you believe the CIA did a good job of collecting and analyzing intelligence leading up to the Iraq war in 2003?

Now I need to see a raise of hands for those of you who believe the CIA's latest data on health care are also accurate.

So where am I going with this? Take your typical non-thinking citizen who blames the CIA on bad intel before 2003, yet believes the data collected by the CIA about world health care are accurate. Just because Cuba says it has a certain infant mortality rate, and the CIA reports it, it must be true.

Your typical non-thinker will not see this as anything to worry about. The CIA -- if it must exist at all -- must have lied about what it knew in 2003, but would never screw up "facts" that support the desire for universal health care, if such a utopian system can even exist in the real world.

Well, Richard Cohen, one of the world's biggest idiots (how does this guy actually get his stuff published?), relies on the CIA data. It must be friggen' true, since it backs up his belief system that the U.S. has one of the world's worst health care systems in world.

According to the CIA, our system -- in some categories -- is no better than Cuba's. And of course Europe is where it's at, dude.

For statistical refutation, we need only refer to the CIA's World Factbook (no lefty think tank, to be sure) and check the health statistics. The United States is 49th in life expectancy. Our proud nation bests the Libyans in this category but not Japan, France, Spain, the United Kingdom and, of course, Italy. You not only live about two years longer in Italy, but you eat better, too.

That's where I'd end my research. If the CIA says it's so, it must be so. Richard, you do realize that most of that data is self-reported? That very little critical analysis goes into that fact book? That the GOP is not really babbling total nonsense about health care when some of its members say that we have one of the best health care systems in the world?

But in the mind of a liberal, facts are bent to support a mythical world view.

Keep up the good fight, is my advice to all you thinkers out there who value intellectual honesty. We are winning.

In the meantime, I'd like to know how many people travel to Cuba for health care? Or even Italy? Do you know why Italians spend less on heath care? Want to eat while in the hospital? Then mama needs to bring you a meal, 'cause the hospital ain't going to do it. Just one small example.

Next time I need surgery, I'll be in Roma, man...

Kieth Olbermann: the least of the least

At least FoxNews admits it's conservative. Try getting anyone over at MSNBC to admit they're liberal (so far left in my opinion that every commentary oozes with arrogance and condescension).

The image below is in honor of Kieth Olbermann, critic of anything Republican and/or conservative, who was "suspended indefinitely" for making political contributions -- against network policy -- to Democrat candidates. Oops.

Well, in this case, "suspended indefinitely" meant only two days.

Remember when Olbermann was foaming at the mouth because the owner of FoxNews contributed money to Republican candidates. While the amounts may be different, the principle is the same.

But Olbermann is the hypocrite in this case.

Not sure the democrats get it, yet

The Associated Press is reporting on a 60 Minutes interview with President Obama:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is acknowledging in the wake of this week's election rout that he hasn't been able to successfully promote his economic-rescue message to anxious Americans.

Sorry, "dude," but we got your message and rejected your plan. How come you can't see that yet?

The story continues:

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand."

Oh my. Yes, we do understand. Can you understand us? I'm not sure.
It is going to be an interesting two years.

Election results speak for themselves

As expected, the Republicans took control of the House. The graphic below pretty much sums up the mood of voters. But the Democrats, as of Wednesday morning, kept control of the Senate, but with only a one seat margin.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 60 days, before the new Congress convenes.

Promises by Nancy Pelosi didn't work out so well

Remember back when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House? She promised no more deficit spending. Since then, the Democratic-controlled Congress has added $5 trillion to the deficit.

Remember when the Health Reform bill was passed, and she stated it would create 400,000 jobs "almost immediately." So how did that work out?

But you know, we Americans get the government we deserve. Most people don't care or don't pay attention or don't know how our system of government works, because our schools are failures after 40 years of government and union meddling, and I have to put parental apathy in that category too. Many parents expect the school system to be nannies or babysitters.

When our founding fathers made the provision that only land owners could vote, they must have had something in mind.

Now don't even go there. I'm not against women voting, but I can hear those wheels turning out there. My point is that land owners in those days were more educated and were more involved. That's all.

When more people -- especially young people -- can name the latest American Idol than the Vice President, you know we are in trouble.

Across the country, anger, frustration and fear among voters as election nears

It's time for real change.

From the Washington Post:

Travel through the political battlegrounds in these final days before Election 2010, and it becomes clear how much the tenor of this recession-plagued country has changed in the two years since Barack Obama was elected president on his message of hope and change.

A far grimmer mood now pervades the electorate, one shaped not just by the immediacy of the economic distress that has hit virtually every household, but by fears that it might take years for everyone, from the average family to the federal government, to climb out of the hole.

Anger is one word that is often used to describe the electorate this year. But one word alone cannot adequately capture the sentiments expressed by voters on doorsteps and street corners, at community centers or candidate rallies. Along with the anger there is fear, worry, nervousness, disappointment, anxiety and disillusionment.

The impact will be felt Tuesday. Republicans are poised to reap the benefits of the enormous dissatisfaction with the status quo. How deeply and how broadly remains for the voters to decide, but there is little doubt that the outcome will change the balance of power in Washington. The winners should take little comfort from the results.

Dissatisfaction with Republicans also runs deep, and voters have conflicted expectations about what should happen in Washington over the next two years. Politicians of both parties will remain on trial.

But the Old Jarhead thinks, and I tend to agree with him:

Even if Republicans sweep next Tuesday and control both the House and Senate, it will not fix our problems. At best, it will slow the degeneration. Every penny of spending—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ARTS, NPR, healthcare “reform,” veterans, defense, education, farm subsidies, homeland security and on and on, has a dedicated constituency that will fight tooth and nail to save it, far harder than forces who want to limit spending will fight to cut it.

Almost every voter has a financial conflict of interest in favor of more spending in one or more areas. And most of the public is economically and politically ignorant, so supporting things like trade restrictions and taxes on “wall street” (big business) and “the rich” (small business) that hurt the economy and job creation will continue.

So the problems get kicked down the road until they get too big to kick, and disaster strikes. They are very close to being too big to kick. When you have an electorate that is better able to tell you the name of the “American Idol” winner than which party controls congress, or the name of one Supreme Court Justice, or who their legislators are, what do you expect except a disaster?

It is time for real change: Get money out of politics. If our politicians could not accept big contributions from big donors, and had to use ONLY public money, it would be worth it. If lobbyists could not influence policy with donations, then we might get some policy that makes sense.

That would be real change.