Quick Roundup 524

Monday, April 19, 2010

Tell your friends!

This weekend, I finally got around to making life easier for people who want to use social media to share posts from this blog. Each post now includes a single "share" button that works with many (if not most) commonly-used bookmarking and social media sites. Holding your cursor over the button (or the word, "share") will bring up a list of options.

Tyranny of the Mean

Stella Zawistowski takes note of yet another way ObamaCare will harm those who need more medical care than average:

[T]he health care "reform" bill is capping the annual limit of money that can be put into a tax-free health-care flexible spending account at $2,500, starting in 2013. Proponents of the limit argue that the average amount put into such accounts is much less than that -- only $1,400 (of course, I'm sure people would put more money in if it could be rolled over from year to year and thus used to insure against serious, unforeseen events). So who are we really hurting by imposing it?
The people who need "access" to more medical care than average and want to spare their personal finances, that's who.

Asked. Answered.

A multiculturalist reporter gets her head politely handed back to her on a platter after asking a dishonest question that any American should find offensive.

Clinton's Ideological Altruism

Bill Clinton's recent remarks purporting a connection between the tea parties and "violence" (the latter term also being a dishonest, but ubiquitous leftist fallacy) are notable for whom they hold responsible for domestic terrorism:
He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.

"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said.
So if you make an argument against the government claiming ownership over your own body, no matter how good (or true) it might be, and some kook uses it as an excuse to commit a crime or an act of terrorism, you are responsible.

In addition to this line of reasoning being a trial balloon for censorship, it is also a distraction from the fact that our government has just passed a law injurious to freedom (which is vital to our survival) and which, by rationing medical care, poses a real threat to our lives.

It's not an obscenity!

It's a type of beer brewed in a town in Austria. And, yes, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Thanks for the recommendation and the laugh, Craig!

-- CAV

No comments: