Leftwing bloggers who wanted to blame Glenn Beck, Tea Party attendees and conservatives in general hit hardest.

A Kentucky Census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" written on his chest killed himself and staged his death to look like a murder, authorities said Tuesday.

...Sparkman had recently taken out two life insurance policies that would not pay out for suicide, police said.

The letters scrawled on his chest had been written from the bottom up, police told a news conference Tuesday. His DNA was the only DNA found at the scene, they said.

First and foremost, this is a personal tragedy and we shouldn't forget that.
Nor should we forget idiots who jumped to some crazy conclusions in an attempt to blame a personal tragedy on their insatiable need to demonize their political opponents.

I'm sure there will be a flood of corrections and appologies coming from the sinestrosphere any minute. Any. Minute.

Nah, I'm just kidding. They'll pretend it never happened or better yet they knew it all along and this is just a rightwing attempt to smear them. The poor dears are always correct and the victims.

Fearless prediction...some lefty will say, "The anti-government feelings stirred up by Beck, Bachman, Limbaugh and the rest drove this guy to hate himself so much for working for the government he took his own life.

Via @andylevy

Posted by: DrewM at 10:26 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Not the 3.5% as originally thought.

As per the norm when a Democrat is in charge, there's plenty of Hope in this Change!

The revised data are still consistent with the widespread view among economists that the recession ended over the summer, as the nation began producing more goods and services. But it also indicates that the burst of activity wasn't as great as first thought, which helps explain why the job market has been so painfully slow to turn around.

Economists believe the economy has continued growing in the fourth quarter, though still at a measured pace -- an annual rate in the 3 percent range. However, the unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in October and is widely forecast to continue rising. Employment frequently lags behind overall output at the end of a recession, as skittish employers ramp up production using existing workers rather than hiring new ones, unsure whether rising demand will last.

Keep in mind, according to the administration the stimulus effect is done. To celebrate, the guys get shirts! "I Spent Nearly A Trillion Dollars And All I Got Was 2.8% Growth!"

Sadly, that's a downright bargain compared to the ROI we got from the 3 BILLION dollar cash for clunkers program. Originally the administration claimed the program accounted for 1.7% of the growth, turns out it was a more, er, modest .81%.

These Democrats are some scary smart people. And by "scary smart", I mean idiots.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:11 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's see, McChrystal provided options of 80, 40 and 20 thousand. Yet, the magic number is 34,000? I guess that's the Peace Prize compromise.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

...

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

...The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.

It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won't keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said.

When did they start sneaking the term "off-ramp" into the discussion? I don't have any military experience (of course, neither does Obama) but having read a fair bit of history I'm pretty sure that "a war of necessity" means you need to win it. Thus the only "off-ramp" is victory.

Now in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm not sold on this idea but then I'm not sending tens of thousands of Americans into harm's way. You can be damned sure if I were, I'd be 100% committed to the idea and not giving myself wiggle room like "off-ramps". A lot of brave Americans are going to come home by being carried off the back of airplanes. If you are going to send them to that fate (and God bless them for their courage in facing it for us), you as the the President damn well better be committed to the mission and them.

"Off-ramps"? What the hell kind of ass covering political crap is that? Sorry but when it comes to a "war of necessity" you are either in or out.

Karzai's ability to deliver on reform and legitimacy is really irrelevant. Either securing Afghanistan is vital to our security or not. If it is, a functioning government helps us to that end but it's absence doesn't change the strategic mandate.

If Karzai doesn't deliver are we just walking away? Well, if that's an option with no costs in a 6 months or a year, why not do it now? Obviously the answer is we can't walk away, now or in 6 months or a year.

So let's drop the "off-ramp" crap and admit the truth, Obama and the Democrats want out. If that's the bottom line, do it today. Don't send in 34,000 troops to show how tough or committed you are. If Obama isn't in it to win, he is neither.

For 8 years of the left has been comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam and they wrong. Until, perhaps, today.

God speed to those who are going and their families, I hope they receive all the support and equipment they need.

Related: Democrats want to start raising taxes to pay for this.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the purse string-controlling House Appropriations Committee, is calling the idea a "war surtax." He said that just as the federal government is expected to pay for its proposed intervention in the health care sector with new taxes, any escalated involvement in Afghanistan should come with a payment plan.

"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News in an interview that aired Monday. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."

David Obey isn't usually such a strict custodian of the public fisc. Pork spending? No problem. Waging a war of necessity? Well, now we have to pinch pennies.

I'm open to correction on this but I don't remember a major war that was paid for as we went. I seem to recall war bonds being sold and huge debt being run up.

The thing is, war is a legitimate national interest that makes sense to go into debt for. Health insurance is a private problem (or should be) that the government should stay out of let alone run up massive debt for.

Democrats really don't get the whole legitimate role of the government thing (in fairness a lot Republicans don't either).

Posted by: DrewM at 08:34 AM | Comments (299)
Post contains 914 words, total size 6 kb.

I'll give Eugine Robinson this much, he's more honest about the true impetus for health care reform than say Obama, Reid and Pelosi are.

He uses the recent federal guidelines which say women don't really need all that many mammograms after all. Turns out, according to the federal task force, they are expensive and the benefits don't justify the costs (being a good liberal he throws in Prostate Cancer screening in the interest of equal time).

Why do we really need to cut down on these cancer screenings? The answer...

The honest solution is a word that cannot be spoken: rationing. Our system already rations health care based on the individual's ability to pay. Insurance companies ration some tests and procedures based on age, risk factors and what often seems like whim. This ad hoc rationing doesn't work very well, and nothing in any of the reform bills even tries to address the basic consensus that makes spending continue to rise: Put a lid on everybody else's costs, but don't touch mine.

Where to begin?

First of all, ability or inability to pay for something is not rationing. The idea that we currently ration health care comes from advocates of a government takeover (one way or the other) of the health care system. When the government is in charge (as in the UK or Canada) there is rationing because there's one provider and they say we have x dollars to spend this year and then divide it up amongst the population.

In the US system, there is a theoretically unlimited amount of health care available, you just have to be willing to pay for it. If you have the cash or insurance, there is always someone willing to take your money and provide you with a service, operation or drug. Your insurance may not cover some things but that's not rationing, that's the contract you signed. If you think they are holding out against the terms of that contract you have legal recourse to force them to pony up. Not so much when the government holds the cards.

Under the current system you can always change insurance companies if you don't like their conditions. Real reform would make that easier by eliminating state control over insurance companies to allow for greater competition (always the key to lowering prices). Yet neither that or tort reform, another huge cost reduction measure, is on the table.

Confession....I can not afford to purchase and operate this airplane (though if you morons want to chip in, I'll give you a ride sometime). That does not mean Waco airplanes are being rationed by the government or the manufacturer. It means, I don't have a quarter of a million dollars laying around (and that's before insurance, maintenance, etc).

When they say the current system is rationing care, it's a word game proponents are playing to make you feel as if you won't be giving up something. The fact is, if you have insurance now, you most certainly will be losing something under the Democrats.

In fact, under the health care reform currently being worked on, these "recommendations" from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force would become law.

Second, Robinson's honesty contradicts something Obama has been using as a selling point for over a year, namely that testing and early diagnosis of diseases would save money.

And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's from Obama's speech to Congress. One is tempted to yell, "You Lie!"

Obviously that was always BS but Obama and the Democrats have been selling the country on the idea they would give everyone more and better service, expand coverage all while lowering costs.

It can't be done (at least not by government fiat).

Instead, Obama is going to take services and money from upper income groups, those with insurance now and the elderly and give it to people who don't have coverage.

Democrats used to be honest and say their goal was universal care, cutting costs never came into the picture (think Howard Dean in '04). Then they found people weren't willing to give up their care and money for others. Now they say it's all about cutting costs, improving service and oh yeah, maybe a little more coverage.

In other words, Democrats simply lie. Kudos to Robinson for at least being honest about it.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:59 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 800 words, total size 5 kb.

There is now another piece of ammo for those staying informed about the war, written by me and Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal.

 The Warrior Legacy Institute announces the release of it's third paper "Who are we fighting in Afghanistan & Pakistan?" as well as an accompanying video. This complements the previous papers and videos on
" A Population-Centric Counterinsurgency Primer" and "Counterterror as Strategy for the Af/Pak Theater".
All of these are written so they can be understood by and educate all Americans regardless of their knowledge about military topics. Our hope is that this will allow them to follow the debate about this vital subject from an informed perspective.





This paper gives a brief history of the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989. It traces the Taliban's origins in the Pashtun regions and their fight to take over the government and impose their strict religious rule country-wide. It follows the ebb and flow on both sides of theborder and the eventual entry of al Qaeda to the theater. It focuses on the tribes that make up the insurgency and their leaders, but is not a definitive look at all of these groups. It also takes a look at the current state of Taliban and al Qaeda in both countries and the areas they control.

Please feel free to share this with your friends families and email lists. There is a video about the Tribal areas of Pakistan below the fold

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 06:05 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 272 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm as happy about the short week as anybody, except right now it feels like we're having three Mondays. Ah well. Here's the update from Ben:

buzzion 96
Red State NY 93
Monkey Sleeping 93
Superfly TNT 93
Peoples Republic of Baltimore 93
Paranoid Polly 92
Truman the Greek 91
Sockpuppet Steve 91
Michael in Mi 90
Jay in Amers 90
Nam Grunt 90
Aewl 90

Also, thanks a lot Texans. I don't think I've picked a win on Monday night all season long. I'm not going to go back and check, I'll just go with the odds on this one.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:41 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:23 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Over in the Katie Couric thread, Ace was doing a free-form jam on the pros & cons of the three Mad Max movies, which have been on heavy rotation the last week or so on American Movie Classics. I just wanted to add a few thoughts and observations to the mix:

Update [ace]: Let me just repost this before Russ continues. There, okay. Back to Russ.
more...

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 09:09 PM | Comments (198)
Post contains 1670 words, total size 9 kb.

Battle of Houston, tied 17-17 in the fourth quarter. So maybe worth watching, despite the very eh quality of the teams.

Posted by: Ace at 07:02 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Bla bla bla just another Monday. Hope the M&Ms aren't all wiped out from the weekends and J-O-B-s.

A Chair Goes to Space
Okay technically just into the stratosphere but 30km is still pretty damn high. This is a commercial for Toshiba promoting their new LCD televisions with LED retroillumination. Be sure and watch the last few seconds when the chair falls apart.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (574)
Post contains 179 words, total size 3 kb.