Howard Portnoy already covered this story, but I thought I could add my two cents. First, I don’t think this guy was a zombie (he probably wasn’t), but just in case this guy was Patient Zero, there are a few things I would like to say. One, keep abreast of what’s going on in your neighborhood. One day you’re reading that some lone guy is eating another man’s face, the next day, a horde of the undead is smashing down your door. Be vigilant! However, given that you visit this site and are reading this post, I think you have that taken care of.

Second, don’t underestimate a zombie outbreak! You think you’d have plenty of time to get things together and get organized. You are wrong! It doesn’t take much for civilization to collapse and a swarm of walking dead certainly meets the criteria of a civilization ending threat. In fact,  according to researchers from Carleton University and The University of Ottawa, there is support for the theory that a zombie outbreak would lead to societal collapse unless immediate and decisive action was taken to combat the zombie menace. Considering the government’s response to Katrina, what faith do you have that such decisive action would be taken and such action would be carried out properly?

Finally, just in case civilization does collapse, be ready and willing to keep going. There won’t be much to live for except your duty to carry on the species. Hot Air MIGHT still be around, I’m pretty sure AP would be lost to the zombie hordes (I’m not bullish on beta-males surviving the zombie onslaught) or to suicide (lets be honest, if one bad poll can make him nervous, how would he react to a million walking ghouls?), but Ed has a family to fight for and his living in MN might allow him to escape to cold climates where the undead can’t follow. If he can keep the site running, then their might be hope for us after all.

With tongue firmly in cheek, I do hope you enjoy the post.

Ten days after she was born, Bella came home from the hospital. As doctors explained to us how to best prepare for her death, we chose to celebrate her life. And we did, every, single day. I remember when we first brought Bella home; we hung a sign in our living room. It read, “Happy 1-Week Birthday Bella.” As the weeks went by, we changed the sign from 1 to 2 to 3 weeks. Eventually weeks turned into months and now, thanks be to God, years. We fought for her each step of the way, giving her every opportunity to do well. She beat the odds and has been doing so ever since.

As I reflect on this last year of her life, it has been amazing to see how many people Bella has touched and the issues that have been discussed in the public sphere as a result of her condition. In the middle of winter, when the world found out that Bella had been hospitalized, the response was overwhelming. Our inboxes and mailboxes were flooded with notes of encouragement, prayer, and support. People in all walks of life from around the country united around the witness of a three-year-old little girl. We even got notes that said, “I don’t agree with you politically, but thank you for being a voice for the special needs community.” She brought unity and refocused us on what was really important in the midst of a heated primary season.

When her hospitalization hit the news networks, commentators started discussing important issues surrounding the special needs world, such as the legal struggles that occur when special needs children aren’t given fair medical treatment or any treatment at all. A whole host of issues were brought to the forefront of the debate, dealing with families, the pro-life movement, the special needs community, and so much more. It was as though people realized that the pro-life movement doesn’t end at birth, but it continues at the bedsides of the disabled, the elderly, and the vulnerable. Bella put a face to the helpless, those whom society looks upon as “useless.” When did we become so utilitarian that we measured worth in terms of “ability?” Bella is able to do the most important thing in life more perfectly than I will ever be able to: love.

As people started to learn more about Bella, we discovered that more and more people were bringing their special needs kids to our campaign events. We even met several beautiful children with Trisomy 18. They talked to us about their struggles, and all were different, but there was a common thread in all of their experiences: the irreplaceable joy and love their child brought into their lives.  In a world too often focused on instant gratification and personal satisfaction, it is no wonder that these lives are considered “inconvenient.” Joe Klein talked about just that in an article he wrote for TIME several months ago: “I am haunted by the smiling photos I’ve seen of Isabella with her father and mother, brothers and sisters. No doubt she struggles through many of her days — she nearly died a few weeks ago — but she has also been granted three years of unconditional love and the ability to smile and bring joy. Her tenuous survival has given her family a deeper sense of how precious even the frailest of lives are. …. I also worry that we’ve become too averse to personal inconvenience as a society—that we’re less rigorous parents than we should be, that we’ve farmed out our responsibilities, especially for the disabled, to the state—and I’m grateful to Santorum for forcing on me the discomfort of having to think about the moral implications of his daughter’s smile.”

Bella has opened our eyes to many things: the importance of treasuring each day, how to hope even in the darkest of circumstances, that faith is our foundation, and most importantly, what pure, unselfish love looks like. So as we look back on another year of life, another year of miracles, we are filled with gratitude and hope. We are grateful for one more year of life with our precious girl. We are hopeful that through the witness of Bella’s spirit, people will continue to be inspired, challenged to think about the “moral implications” of my sister’s smile.

Happy 4th Birthday Bella

Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX and yes, he is also Dr. Burgess) questioned Secretary Sebelius on several key factors, including the unelected 15-person panel, their potential recess appointments to avoid Senate confirmation, and the ultimate effects of this panel in reshaping the health care system.  Burgess does not let Sebelius off the hook, but pushes her on the IPAB’s power and lack of judicial oversight. The entire exchange is worth watching:

Sebelius touts that the IPAB is only a “fail-safe” and only makes recommendations if Congress does not act:

But Sebelius was defiant against claims that IPAB risks usurping the power of Congress to make changes to Medicare. “All final decisions remain in the hands of Congress,” Sebelius said in her prepared statement. “If Medicare costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, it’s Congress’s choice whether to accept those recommendations, or come up with recommendations of its own to put Medicare spending on a stable, sustainable path.” She reiterated her argument from yesterday’s Budget hearing that IPAB serves as a “backstop to ensure Medicare remains solvent for years to come.”

However, former OMB Director Peter Orszag has a quite different analysis regarding the IPAB with this interview, highlighted by Naked Emperor News for Breitbart TV:

Orszag clearly emphasizes ”[the IPAB] has an enormous amount of potential power.”  Orszag goes on to explain, “The proposals take effect automatically unless Congress, not only specifically votes them down, but Congress specifically votes them down (with 67 votes) and the President signs that bill. So, the default is now switched in a very important way.”

Orszag has repeated this in other forums stating that the IPAB was the most important part of ObamaCare (all emphasis mine):

The Medicare Commission, or Independent Payment Advisory Board, would have the power to override Congress if it rejected cuts to the entitlements programme for seniors, said Mr Orszag, a key architect of the reforms signed into law this week.

“This could well turn out to be as consequential for health policy as Federal Reserve policy was for monetary policy,” he said in an FT View from DC video interview. “The commission will put its proposals forward and if Congress does not act on them, or if it votes them down and the president then vetoes that bill, they will automatically take effect. Huge change.”

So, who is right?  Sebelius or Orszag?  My money is on Orszag. The fact is that no matter what Congress does, the IPAB will always have a way to enforce its “recommendations” and override Congress. Sebelius is intentionally misrepresenting the IPAB as being similar to the MedPAC board, which does indeed only give recommendations to Congress. Why would they need to have a duplicative board? Truth is, they are not the same and Sebelius knows it.

With the Democrats zeal to ram through ObamaCare, they created a monster and then stripped themselves of any oversight of said monster as clearly explained by Orszag.  If only the Democrats had read the original ObamaCare bill, didn’t scoff and snear at Republicans’ warnings, and didn’t believe their own rhetoric, it wouldn’t be so imperative to repeal the IPAB.  But wait, can they?

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

To review, Powers said that President George W. Bush’s veto of the bill that included the end-of-life provision was “not true.”  I reported at Big Government, Big Journalism, and HotAir that Bush vetoed that bill which Powers, the MSM, and lefty bloggers tried to use as cover for the end-of-life provisions in the newly revamped wellness visits paid for by Medicare.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop the left and MSM from continuing to use that false talking point given to them by the Obama administration as seen in The Hill’s piece:

However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

Ironically, the administration attempted to use Bush as cover, when, in fact the policy was enacted by means of a congressional veto override.  And that brings us back to our beloved Kirsten Powers and her latest.  After 4 days of knowing the truth about the veto, Powers took my advice and tweeted:

Powers cites the WSJ as her source, which did correct the story as I noted in my original post.  And I do hope that’s the case, because so many news outlets had the same narrative/talking point–which also could mean that they all got the same memo.

Additionally, The Hill and the Politico have not corrected their stories.  The Politico actually goes out of its way to further advance the bogus blame by interviewing Richard Sorian, assistant secretary of Public Affairs for HHS and allows him to spew more propaganda elaborate:

Sorian also clarified that it was the Bush administration that first implemented regulations regarding end-of-life counseling. The wellness visit began as a “Welcome to Medicare” exam, which was created by the Republican-led Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In 2008, when Democrats held the majority, Congress passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, which modified the exam to include end-of-life planning. The Bush administration first implemented regulations that included the end-of life planning as part of the wellness visit created in MIPPA.

B-,b-,b- but it was Bush.  Not.  It was a congressional veto override that enacted that law.  Period.  And I’m sure that Sorian knows that.  They all do.  Now, where do we go from here.  I’ll tell you.  If Kirsten Powers can issue an apology on Twitter, I’m sure the Politico and Jason Millman of The Hill can too.  So, we will wait a few more days.

Crossposted at Big Journalism (link fixed)

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled. However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

However, what The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law.*  The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.

For the record, here is the text that the Democrats changed:

(b) Revisions to Initial Preventive Physical Examination-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) by inserting ‘body mass index,’ after ‘weight’;

(ii) by striking ‘, and an electrocardiogram’; and

(iii) by inserting ‘and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual’ after ‘paragraph (2)’;

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

Updated:  *President Bush did not sign this bill into law as the congressional record mistakenly notes.  After Congress overrode Bush’s veto, President Bush was not required to sign the bill to enact it.

Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.

But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.

“We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system,” Brodsky said.

To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.

“Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy,” Brodsky said.

Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.

Not many people would argue that being an organ donor is necessarily a bad thing. That doesn’t mean that any of those people should be forcibly made an organ donor. Yes, this law apparently will let people opt out. But are all New Yorkers going to be notified first? Will they have a fair chance to opt out, or is this going to be done quietly, so that as few people as possible notice that it’s happened? And what happens if too many people opt out? Will they remove the ability to opt out?

This is just a horrible idea all around. There’s too many questions, and it seems like too much of a slippery slope. While I can understand Mr. Brodsky’s reasons for wanting to do this, it still is wrong. The state does not own our bodies. They belong to us. (I know, it seems like an obvious concept, but look who’s governing our country right now. Apparently it’s not all that obvious.) And if someone doesn’t want to be an organ donor — either for religious reasons, for personal reasons, or because they just don’t want to for no reason at all — then that is their right.

And there’s more to worry about with this bill. Just a few days ago, Peter Orszag confirmed that Obamacare would impose rationing. Sarah Palin’s warnings about the so-called death panels were true. How long will it take for these death panels to make decisions based on the waiting lists for organ donations? Let’s say you’re fighting cancer. It’s advanced, but there’s still a chance you could beat it with aggressive but expensive treatment. Now, be honest. Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility that your treatment would be denied so that your organs could be harvested?

I know, it sounds far-fetched. And this forced organ donation is only taking place in New York… for right now, anyways. What if Democrats in Congress think that this is just a great idea? Would you really put it past them? I know I wouldn’t. If they did, the aforementioned scenario is not that unbelievable. Slippery slopes exist, my friends. It may start off as a well-intentioned state program in New York, but who says that’s where it will end?

Richard Brodsky is currently running for New York Attorney General. He is a typical liberal Democrat who thinks that everything belongs to the government — apparently even your body. Politicians who think this way are dangerous, and hopefully, Richard Brodsky will find himself without a job come November.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

From the top, absolutely not in order of importance:

Olympics and more Olympics:

Via NRO:

Michelle’s tearjerker speech.  Who’s crying now?

I’m also asking as a daughter.

See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.

You see, in my dad’s early thirties, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  He believed that his little girl should be taught no less than his son, [like this has anything to do with the Olympics coming to Chicago.  Really, this is about me and my story and my dad's disability which is also my story].  So he taught me how to throw a ball and a mean right hook better than any [other] boy in my neighborhood [IOC members glance at Barry: is that a bruise?] But more importantly, my dad taught us the fundamental rules of the game, rules that continue to guide our lives today: to engage with honor, with dignity, and fair play. [..., arm twisting, knee-capping, mail fraud, bribery, etc, etc...  And, Dad's gone now, but he's still with us in spirit, and he still votes.  Just like some of your dead members could if they lived in Chicago.  In fact, maybe Chicago can host the first "Post Mortem Olympics," with Election Day Decatholon: Voting six times and counting four.]

Barry still has a chance at the Olympics: maybe they’ll make sitzpinkling an Olympic event.
General Stanley McCrystal may become the object of a man-crush, just not the kind the guys around Obama are used to.

In an oblique acknowledgment of the tricky political terrain, General McChrystal said there had been no pressure on him from military superiors to scale down his troop request [...]

As if in an afterthought, he added, laughing, that there was no certainty he would always be so free to speak so plainly. “They may change their minds and crush me some day,” he said.

Charles K. gives credit to Barack Obama:

Indonesia and Samoa waiting for some of Harvey Weinstein’s compassion, but maybe his moral GPS doesn’t show distant places with no cameras.

Obama banking on his marvelous persuasive skills, like the ones he used on the IOC, to get Iran to toddle back to community of nations.  At some point, maybe someone will brooch the subject of Nantanz.

This conservative’s healthcare plan: Congressman Grayson’s career meets the voter death panel.

And last, but not least, Jim Treacher’s Top 10 Reasons to Take That Job With Letterman. [Content warning, although if you've lived through the Clinton presidency, you'll wonder what I'm talking about.]

This proposal concerning our organs, made by Obama’s “regulation czar” in his 2008 book, is an outrage, amounting to organ donation without consent:

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

Read on. This idea is a real horror. It has nothing whatever to do with the merits of organ transplants or a person’s beliefs regarding this personal issue. It’s about one group making the decision for others.

Sunstein elaborates on the concept of “nudging”:

“We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

Very progressive I’m sure. But what gives one entity — especially the government — the right to nudge an individual, through default options built into regulations and laws, toward a particular course of action? Who are they to make a judgment on our credit cards, our snacks, or our kidneys? The whole “nudge” concept presupposes that one group knows what’s best for the rest of us. It’s elitist to the core.

Cross-posted here.

For example, Obama has argued that a new healthcare system is necessary to spur an economic recovery. He also has offered up healthcare as an antidote to rising deficits. Earlier this week in a conference call with religious leaders, Obama laid out a “moral” imperative for revamping the nation’s healthcare system. . . .

At other points, Obama has portrayed “meddling” insurers as a reason for scrapping the existing system.

There is doubtless some truth to the claim that Obama is trying to be too many things to too many people. That, I maintain, is not his problem. Rather, it is his marketing strategy.

As salesman-in-chief, Obama should be following the lead of Ron Popeil and other fellow hawkers of products and services that consumers don’t need and probably won’t work as advertised. In short, Obama needs to make an infomercial.

But before he hits the airwaves, the president needs to rebrand his product — give it a catchy name people are likely to remember. ObamaCare is a good start, but it is little too clinical-sounding. More important, it doesn’t have the authentic ring of something with a zillion attachments that people really don’t need or want. My recommendation is the ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe®.

I am even willing to give the president a head start with the scripting. The commercial could go something like this:

Hey, do you ever have one of those days when your back hurts but you can’t go do the doctor because you don’t health insurance? How about when you have to write out expensive premium check after expensive premium check? That can really be a drag! [Video: Person sitting at desk, filling in check, pained expression on face; lifts and waves wrist that is obviously sore from writing.] How about figuring out what to do with an aging parent who’s a drain on your pocketbook and simply refuses to die?

Well, you don’t have to put up with those problems any longer. [Video: Sweeps clutter of insurance policies, checkbooks, medical bills off counter top.] Hi, I’m Barack Obama, President of the United States. And I’m here to tell you about a revolutionary, space-age health care plan that is guaranteed to give you piece of mind and eliminate all those pesky health-care worries. Best of all it will SAVE YOU MONEY! [Video: Points at viewer.] Introducing the ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe®!

I know, it sounds too good to be true. But the ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe® will do all the following and more:

• Reduce the deficit. [Video: Two congressmen looking at piece of paper, smiling, and shaking hands.]
• Insure everyone. Go ahead and use what little cash you’ve got to buy an IPhone. The gov’s got you covered!
• Provide the moral support you need when terminating a parent’s life support. That’s right, you can just pull the plug and . . . [Sound: Studio audience chiming in] FORGET IT! Mom or Pop is off to her or his final reward. And you get to inherit all their cash!

Now I know you’re used to paying whopping premiums each month. You’re probably saying right now, “Barack, I can’t afford the ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe®.” That’s where you’re wrong! [Video: Points again at viewer.]

While most insurers would charge you $5 trillion or $3 trillion for service this great, the United States Government is slashing prices. We are offering you, the American people, FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY, the ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe® for three easy payments of $500 billion each. You heard me! That’s less than you’d expect to pay to save the planet from climate change.

So don’t delay. Call your congressman now. Lines are open. Tell him or her to vote for ObamaCare-o-Matic 9000 Pro Deluxe® today! You can’t live without it!

And if you act within the next ten minutes, we’ll throw in not one, but two, living wills at NO EXTRA COST.

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

One of the columns is by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal. The other is by Joe Klein of Time magazine.

Henninger’s column, titled “In Government We Trust?”, begins with the observation that Barack Obama assumed the presidency at a time when the bottom was falling out of the housing market and the economy was listing badly. Soon after Obama took the Oath of Office, news of the Madoff Ponzi scheme broke, and so did the back of the American people’s trust in government and the good will of their fellow men.

So what does Obama do to restore that trust? He strong-arms through Congress a $787 billion-dollar stimulus package written by Nancy Pelosi and Friends and bloated with pork. Within days of passage of that bill, Obama turns his sights on major twin issues that were cornerstones of his campaign: health-care reform and energy reform. Like a kid set loose in a candy store, he offers sweeping and unprecedentedly expensive prescriptions for change (the change we were told we could believe in?) in these areas, with little more than the roughest of blueprints to communicate his plan to the American people.

And when concerned Americans of all political stripes — not just conservatives, as has been widely misreported — start voicing legitimate objections, what does the agent of change do in response? He scolds them from the White House podium, and stands mutely aside as his Congressional colleagues and the mainstream media assail them as “angry mobs,” “liars,” and “un-American.” And so here we are, at the present juncture, the President’s approval ratings understandably tanking, along with confidence in his health-care proposal.

Which brings us to Joe Klein. How does Joe diagnose the current problem? The title of his column, “The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists,” provides a hint, though before he gets to his main point, Joe offers as a warm-up act a human-interest story starring his own parents. (There seems to be a lot of these heart-wrenching personal accounts coming from the liberal press these days, the implication seeming to be If you don’t have a real argument, appeal to the the reader’s compassion. Then again, we do have a president who values empathy.)

The short version of Joe’s family saga goes like this: Both his parents are 89 and in failing health, and he and they must deal with the grim realities of preparing for the inevitable fate we all face, including ensuring that they have a durable living will. I went through the same painful dealings with both my parents in the last two years, so understand, I am not making light of Klein’s plight.

What I am making fun of is the fatuous conclusion Klein’s twisted logic brings him to: Because the majority of American people have decided not to embrace Obama’s health-care plan wholesale, Klein’s parents will not get free end-of-life counseling, and somehow because of this Republicans are nihilists.

First, as a public service, a news flash to Klein: Since 1990, health care institutions have been required by law to provide new patients with written notice of their right to make a durable living will, and are required moreover to treat patients  whether or not they have a will in place. So your parents are covered should they be hospitalized, transferred to a nursing facility, or whatever. That obviates your having to have a conversation about durable living wills with your dad. (Klein writes that he doesn’t “have the standing” to broach such issues with his father in whose eyes Joe is “still just a kid.” Second news flash to Klein: Your father is not the only person who sees you that way.)

As for Klein’s conclusion that Republicans have become nihilists, I lack the psychiatric credentials needed to make an accurate evaluation. So instead, I hazard a guess: I think Klein is substituting a highfalutin multisyllabic word for a rather basic emotional impulse. And that is the feeling that conservatives are spoiling all the fun. Klein believes in a mythical figure with wondrous powers who promised to take good boys and girls to a new special place. The mythical figure is called an obama and the mythical place of blue skies and gumdrop trees is called the Remade United States of America.

And now thanks to some evil gremlins called Republicans, the trip is off — no matter how hard Joe claps.

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

The President thinks we need to have a conversation about this.  One “guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.”

As usual, he displays naked arrogance.   Here’s a little newsflash, Mr. President: America has been having that conversation all along, and without the benefit of your input.   Every family at some point struggles to deal with amazing – and expensive – medical advances that extend life and with our inevitable mortality.  In my family, those conversations have had two very different outcomes in the past few years: for one, the family member empowered to make the decision chose to withhold food and water from someone when she reached the end stages of terminal cancer, in order to hasten her death.  She died in the hospital, which was perfectly agreeable with this plan; the doctor actually suggested it.  In the other, the patient himself decided to receive food and water only so long as he could take it by mouth; no feeding tubes or IVs for him!  He died in his own bed at home.

A “democratic conversation?”  Hardly.  There was nothing democratic about this.  The family didn’t vote, and certainly no outsiders had, or should have had, any input.  Everyone didn’t agree on the best course of action, but what I can promise you is that there was no political channel, normal or otherwise, that could possibly have improved those situations.  Terri Schaivo’s situation notwithstanding, the vast majority of families in this country are perfectly able to resolve disputes among ourselves.  We do not require or want government involvement.  For families that do, let them duke out in court who gets to decide; for the sake of those few, we do not need a law that affects us all.

Guidance?  I don’t want guidance.  From doctors, I want information.  From scientists, I want research and new medical advances.  And ethicists can stick to their cosseted, insulated, ivory tower lives and stay out of mine.  Or better yet, get a real job.  As for government – who presumably would organize and guide these “democratic conversations” about who gets voted off the island- surely it has better things to do than micromanage our deaths?

If the government ran neutral PSAs encouraging people to consider what they want in end of life care, I’d support that wholeheartedly.  Seeing these illnesses played out in our immediate family has certainly provoked my husband and I to make our own decisions so no one else will have to – the Engage with Grace project was a useful tool.  What I do not want to see is legislation of any sort.  It’s one thing to say, “I want to die at home,” and quite another to be told “Go home and die.”  And no matter how gently prospective legislation may “guide” us, it will still have the force of law behind it.  Once such a law is implemented, it’s easy to imagine future amendments steering us more in whatever direction the current administration wants us to go.  Laws are directives, not conversations.  Anyone who’s ever dealt with government bureaucracy knows that today’s “guidance” is tomorrow’s “death panel.”  As Althouse wrote:

Conversations! Damn! As if the government does not have power! Oh, but it’s “not determinative,” you say. It’s just “some guidance.” He said that, see? Ugh! Spare me! We’re right to be afraid now, while the man is burbling about conversation. You know damned well he’s about to say and now the time for conversation is over, and we must pass legislation. Before, he was all quick, shut up, it’s an emergency, pass the legislation. People freaked, so then he deemed the period of freakage part of the conversation, and there, it has occurred, and now: shut up, pass the legislation.

Soon it will be my turn to be the decision maker.  It’s sobering, terrifying.  I’m seriously in doubt about my wisdom in this matter.  What I do not doubt is that I can make a better decision for myself and my family than any government official or committee.

A few months ago, President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama said this about his grandmother:

President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.”

Which is why he now wants the government to take more of a hand in those decisions. Which is why, apparently, we should listen to him.

Then yesterday, during his “townhall” meeting in Colorado, Obama said this:

“I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it’s like to watch somebody you love, who’s aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that,” an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with “the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma.”

And thus, we have a new definition of chutzpah: A President of the United States who complains about the expense of alleviating his dying grandmother’s suffering, and who then uses her death as evidence of his compassion.

You may not have run for office specifically to pull the plug on grandma, Mr. President, but you’re obviously not going to let her get in your way.

P.S. Speaking of hip replacements, Biden’s a pretty swingin’ guy.

This despite having access to the best medical care he can afford.

All the living high on the hog while the rest of the country developed new recipes for grass and tree bark certainly hasn’t done him a whole lot of good.  His parties at the Magnolia Pavilion inside the Korean Workers Party compound in P’yongyang are the stuff of legend…and all of it true, nonetheless.  His having North Korean diplomatic missions abroad providing massive volumes of Courvoisier and other expensive treats to satisfy his high-end tastes in food and drink consumed massive amounts from the foreign affairs treasury as well as the overall national treasury.

Officially, the Korean Workers Party is still making sure every office, factory, and home has one of the official portraits of the Dear Leader in the most prominent place.  Usually at least a foot higher than any other object on any given wall or room.

And then there is this most recent video capture…

and this one from a few months ago…

And, there is this one…first time available on the internet…from my private collection…the Dear Leader in 1992, on his 50th Birthday…

Yep…he has aged poorly in the past decade or so.

A dying tiger can be a most dangerous animal.

The concept of suicide is one that often fascinates man. There are few more ponderous actions than that of a living being making the choice to no longer exist. Scientists have long analyzed situations in nature where animals appear to intentionally insert themselves into situations that result in their death, but are still unsure if anyone other than humans truly contemplates taking their own life. It’s the third leading cause of death for people between the ages of 10 and 24, according to the CDC. Most people have known someone who considered it, though psychiatric organizations tend to concur that the majority of such aired sentiments are in fact cries for help. Widely publicized cases like the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide only caused more confusion, by showing that some people end themselves without the presence of depression or despair.

With this in mind, it’s fair to ask ourselves if there is such a thing as prolonged passive suicide. It’s highly debatable. Some claim that refusing to take care of oneself is, in itself, an attempt at early self-inflicted death. Self-destructive behavior like substance abuse, reckless driving, binging/purging, and eagerness to provoke confrontations with strangers, leads to a supposition that the person is looking to meet their end. If someone with diabetes refuses to take their insulin shot, and dies as a result, most would postulate that the person had been suicidal(or extremely lazy). Wouldn’t it be apposite to apply this same standard to a culture?

For some years now, I’ve come to describe Western culture, European more than American in most cases, as being suicidal. It occurs to me that when people choose not only to make life harder for themselves, but to make life easier for those who would take all that they have, they are engaging in a prolonged passive attempt to end themselves. When Western culture refuses to address the common religious beliefs of a vast group of murdering psychopaths who blow themselves up in order to kill people, destroy buildings, and bring down civilization, they are suicidal. Ignoring the most glaring catalyst out of political correctness is roughly equivalent to keeping your weapons unloaded after your house is broken into. When one of the core tenets of a culture is the freedom of speech, yet that same speech is legislated into oblivion in order to avoid offending the very villains working to dismantle the infrastructure protecting the right to free expression, outside observers must be left scratching their heads. Does that culture have any interest in surviving? If so, why are they helping to undermine their own stability?

Taking this larger perspective into consideration, is it the time to decriminalize suicide? Putting aside the various arguments offered over the years, could one cite their ultimate fear of the future as justification for their refusal to live any longer? In the turbulent 60s and 70s, a sentiment began to float across the lips of younger generations, in reaction to their perception of the state of the world. Some couples said they would not have children because they would not want to bring them into a world that, according to them, had been so wracked in turmoil. Having been born in the early 80s myself, I can only be glad that my parents did not subscribe to that attitude. However, is it a legitimate reason to postpone, or even rule out altogether, your procreation? If so, is it not also a legitimate rationale to apply to the suicidal?

Now, some may look at this bit of text and think I’m advocating the ultimate surrender. Am I channeling Patrick Henry? Give me liberty or give me death? Not at all. Please don’t misinterpret this query as an ultimate abdication to the forces that seek to enslave us. Ghandi was into that(regarding the Jews of the holocaust, no less). I am not. My emphasis is largely to explore where the euthanasia debate is at. With possibly the most serious culture war we’ve seen in decades going on around us, my goal is simply to ask whether suicide as a concept has become an acceptable choice. Perhaps this question could be directly linked to the result of said conflict. When Europe, and America in many ways, chooses to finally grab extremist Islam by its collar and knock the hell out of it, maybe enough self-confidence will be restored in the populace to clearly rule out taking one’s own life as unacceptable. Alternatively, might we see a world where, with a renewed sense of individuality, we’re encouraged to be free to make our own decisions regarding our own lives?

Some believe that euthanasia will lead to the cheapening of life, much in the same way many believe abortion does. Before that can be truly settled, we need to stop allowing our way of life to be cheapened through the hand-wringing cowardice of those who value image over liberty.