About Us

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Name: Disgruntled in NY
Email: disgruntled.blogger1@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is There a 'Right' to Healthcare?

 
Tags: healthcare  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Day 1 of my life as a government informant?


If I had time to post comments on the current healthcare proposals all over blogs, I think I would post them and use flag@whitehouse.gov as my confirmatory email address.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shhh, don't tell the government...


Still trying to get video embedding to work (I recall it worked once, months ago).

Nope, didn't work.  Well, if you go here you'll see the video I was trying to dump into the blog.

I'll have to try to find the lyrics and audio of Perry Nunley's "Grandma Got Run Over by Obamacare" as well.


Tags: Obamacare  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Day 1 of my life as a government informant?

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Day 1 of my life as a government informant?


Does this mean I may need to "report" Disgruntled in NY?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Controversy Over Woods' Wind Resolved?

More groundbreaking news from Deadspin:
After what seems like decades of secrecy and lies, America demands to know: Who cut the cheese? Now we may finally have our answer. The conspiracy goes far deeper than any of us could have imagined....and it really stinks.
Read the whole thing here.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's the Matter With Thomas Frank?

Read here about the WSJ's most intellectually dishonest columnist.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oh no, we seem to have wandered into 'controversy' on Woods' Wind


CBS takedown notices? Lawyer denials? Deadspin has a roundup.

I'm pretty sure this type of story never would have occurred with Nicklaus or Palmer, much less the greats of the game prior to them.  That's probably due to the wall-to-wall media world in which we live.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Frenzy Over Woods' Wind"

 
Update:  See the video here.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Daily Show" Clip

Heh.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Health Care is Better

 
 
Tags: healthcare  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: In which I respond to Jeff Jacoby's Boston.com op-ed on "Read the Bill"

 
I think the "read the bill" issue is resonating with many voters because it is an issue that does not require any specific knowledge or expertise to understand.  Voters by necessity delegate decision making authority to elected officials who are supposed to immerse themselves in details needed in order to determine a prudent course of action (for example, with respect to healthcare or any one of a number of other different complex issues).  Many voters are upset with those of their representatives who don't "read the bill" because such representatives appear to have abandoned the trust that many (most? all?) voters have placed in them to make decisions on their behalf.  Although there may be times of true emergency when it will not be possible for all of our representatives to have read every word of a statute they vote for, healthcare is most certainly not one of those times.  Many bills are passed before they "see the light of day" because, as we know sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another "imagine if Bush had done this" moment


First, it is my pleasure to note the addition of "Disgruntled in NY" as a blogger to the Displaced Hoosier site.  I'm sure Disgruntled's observations will add insightful and entertaining material.  My hunch is that Disgruntled's posts and commentary may address current events and political, financial, economic (and sometimes bodily function) matters, so it should be interesting.  Bring it on, Disgruntled!

With that in mind, I offer the following short post on somewhat current events:

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker has a short post concerning a photo coming out of the whole Gates-aquiddick fiasco.  You can check it out here.

Lifson’s commentary nails it.  My only addition is the observation in the photo caption I’ve added above.

I did not pay a great deal of attention to the whole kerfuffle over Gates (who I had never heard of until this incident), but I did hear a short clip of Officer Crowley being interviewed after the matter blew up due to BHO’s intervention.

Based on the comments I heard from the Cambridge cop and current resident of the Oval Office, I’d have no trouble voting for Crowley over Obama.  Crowley showed infinitely more common sense, class, wisdom, and PR savvy in his statements.

Hmmm, Palin-Crowley ’12?  I’m open to new possibilities if it means getting rid of the current DC crowd across the political spectrum.....


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paul Krugman makes two remarkable admissions

The episode of This Week with George Stephanopoulos that appeared on 7/26/09, Nobel Prize Winning Economist/Journalist Paul Krugman made two remarkable admissions.  (See it here at  http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8176490
First, at -03.23 of the clip, there was the following exchange about the healthcare proposal:
George Stephanopoulos:  "What would you consider a bottom line victory?" (at -03.23):

Paul Krugman:  "In a way, since I have my own goals on healthcare, I can’t say what my final, what’s the least I’ll accept, because that then becomes a negotiating point.”

The amazing thing about Krugman's statement is the extent to which he expressly sees himself as a policy maker with a role negotiating the final shape of any new healthcare bill.  He is afraid to say what he wants because that would be used to negotiate against him.  It seems to me that, as a Nobel Prize winner, as journalist for the NY and as a pundit generally, he could be more useful in the process by using his extenive analytical skills to explain to me and the rest of the hoi polloi exactly what we should want to get out of any healthcare bill.  However, instead of seeing that it is his role to explain what is going on, he obviously believes he was put on this earth to influence the shape of the healthcare bill.  He has completely thrown out the window any pretense that he is an objective commentator on the debate.
Second, at -03.23 of the clip, Krugman said the following:  "There is a theory, which I subscribe to, that if you get universality, cost control will follow through the political mechanism. Massachussets has a universal healthcare system that has zero cost control. It was a disaster from the cost control point of view. Now Massachusetts is getting serious about cost control because once you’ve established that you no longer have the safety valve of dealing with rising costs by making more people uninsured, then you have to deal with the problem."
Here, Krugman seems to be saying that the Democratic goal is to adopt a wildly expensive plan that cannot be paid for and that, once everybody is covered by it, there will pressure to rein in the cost (i.e., rationing) in order to ensure the continued viability of the healthcare system.  In fairness to his point, he believes (I think without much rigorous academic research to support him) that, right now, increased costs lead to a decrease in the number of people who are insured.  His other message here is that Democrats want to adopt an overly expensive plan now in order to get rationing later.  This is very much like the Reagan-eraargument (ironically derided by Krugman and his ilk) that tax cuts would increase the deficit and the ballooning deficit would put pressure on government spending and reduce the size of government.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive