Yep . . .

Higher Ed crisis!

The cost of higher ed is rising faster than the cost of health insurance . . . let's pull an all-nighter to solve the problem!



It is interesting to note that Democrats are in the process of "disadvantaging" non-governmental education loan companies . . . sounds a lot like the likely problems with making non-governmental health insurance companies compete with a "public option."

Back to the drawing board on same-sex "marriage"?

Yesterday, Maine voters became the 31st state body politic to reject same-sex "marriage," but Maine is unique in that the defeat at the polls came after a majority of the Maine legislature had approved of the concept.

Thus, the results of yesterday's referendum in Maine have national significance inasmuch as they lay bare the political strategy of homosexual activists like Tim Gill ("They won't know what hit them."-- The Atlantic). In sum, it's a little disingenuous to contend that the so-called legislative route is/was, pardon the pun, out in the open, as is implied in this TIME story. After Maine Gay-Marriage Defeat, Activists Look Ahead - TIME From the article:

In order to counter that argument [that homosexual marriage is being "foisted" upon Americans by "out-of-touch" judges], [attorney Mary] Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage there decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers who were friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than by decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign."

I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote, and another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda. The latter looks more like a coup than republican government.

He invented climate-alarmism profiteering

Gore’s Dual Role - Advocate and Investor - NYTimes.com From the article:

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

It's one thing to be in business and another thing to be intimately involved in crafting the policies that lead to GOVERNMENT contracts. And you gotta love the word-smithing of "global warming pollution reductions." Read: Carbon Dioxide. Which reminds me of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

The audacity of spendthriftiness

Wow.
Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. By a lot. - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency:

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.

In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.

Waging Obama's non-war

BBC NEWS--"US warned on deadly drone attacks":

The US has been warned that its use of drones to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan may violate international law.

UN human rights investigator Philip Alston said the US should explain the legal basis for attacking individuals with the remote-controlled aircraft.

He said the CIA had to show accountability to international laws which ban arbitrary executions.

Drones have killed about 600 people in north-west Pakistan since August 2008.

At first I was struck at how this article hardly referenced our current Commander in Chief, but Obama is mentioned in the next-to-last sentence:

Mr Alston's warning came as US President Barack Obama reviews US strategy in the Afghan campaign.

Which leads me to think that drones may perfectly illustrate Obama's uninspired war-by-proxy strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sloppy policy thinking

I came across a great post (and seemingly great blog) via Post Politics this morning.

The writer is pointing out that some women resist Feminism because of its Big Gov't baggage more than its presumed stances on "social issues." From the article (The Libertarian Side of Global Feminism? « Cosmopolitan Conservative):

As a social conservative in America, you would think that my main issue with feminism would be abortion. However, it is feminism’s deep commitment to socialism that bothers me the most. Feminists believe that to empower women, you need to weaken men. In order to help the poor, you have to take away resources from the rich through taxes, lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws or quotas. Feminists believe that in order to change society, the federal government has to step in and pass a law. It’s as though freedom, wealth and liberty are in limited quantities and must be rationed out to the masses in different levels determined by arbitrary perceptions of discrimination.

If feminists spent more time trying to alter society’s perceptions instead of bullying people through lawsuits, mandates and laws, I believe that a lot many more Americans would embrace the movement. However, feminists have allowed their cause to be co-opted by the Democratic party in order to maintain political power and relevancy. They’ve sacrificed the “principles” of their movement for short-term gains. Allowing a political party to take o[]ver your movement only weakens it. (Sadly, that comes from watching Republicans all but destroy the fiscal conservatism on the right. )

As I thought about how easy it is to blur party and principles, I was thinking about the perils of sloppy thinking on policy. For example, her last point about the GOP and fiscal conservatism. It is tempting for all of us to put on the ideological cruise control. And thermodynamically speaking it does not work to just rubber stamp the activities of Political Party.

The Pup tent Dems

Interesting email from my inclusive friends at Democrats.com:

Dear Ned,
After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.
And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.
The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.
These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.
Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option . . .

I have missed the poll that showed "an overwhelming majority of Americans support 'a robust public option'" (though the quotation marks in the original email are indicative of hair-splitting, I think), and I like how they put the word Democrats in quotation marks when referring to those Democrats who are bucking purported overwhelming majorities.