June 16, 2005 by s.z.

Quote of the Day From the Newsday story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results: Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, described the autopsy as "a dagger into the heart" of the campaign to keep Schiavo alive. "It shows that when you want to see something, you can make yourself believe it," he said. "Or if you come with a big ideological bias, then you are willing to go around saying anything." But more than two months after demonstrators decamped from Schiavo's hospice, their convictions were undimmed. "To say that she was not interacting is ludicrous," said Randall Terry, the anti-abortion activist who has served as a family spokesman. "It would mean that every family member and every friend that came out of that room lied to us." 7:43:00 AM

TownHall Leftovers Pt 2: And the Rest Now, let's turn our attention to Michelle Malkin's Town Hall column, The snobs on 'The View'.  It's about how last month Barbara Walters said that a woman made her uncomfortable by breast feeding her baby (and not covering up) while sitting by Barbara on a plane.  So when Barbara Walters gets on an airplane accompanied by her hairdresser -- what world-famous, Very Important Person doesn't? -- you can imagine the distress of being seated next to an ordinary mom who had the nerve to nurse her child in Barbara Walters' presence. The nerve! (Or, rather, the newve .) [...] How dare that hungry baby make Barbara Walters and her hairdresser feel "uncomfortable"? Selfish child. Don't you know who Barbara Walters is? After being forced to endure the insufferable sight of a woman providing nourishment to her child, the feminist icon Barbara Walters (winner of the International Women's Media Foundation's Lifetime Achievement Award, the Women's Project and Productions' Lifetime Achievement Award, and the NY Women in Film and Television's Muse Award) reportedly pronounced it "gross and disgusting." Really? I just can't imagine Barbara saying something was "gross" (or "gwoss"). But here's part of Michelle's blog entry about this column: Corrections: One significant, two minor. In my column, I wrote that Barbara Walters "reportedly pronounced [the airplane] incident 'gross and disgusting.'" Walters writes to say that she did not, in fact, use the words "gross and disgusting" to describe breast-feeding. (The quote came from The Calgary Sun, Ted Byfield, June 12, 2005.) I will also note the correction in my syndicated colum next week and apologize for the error. As Emily Litella would say, "Never mind.".  But Michelle says that "one of my main points getting lost in the noise."  So, let's not dwell on Michelle's lack of fact checking, and move on to her main point. When millions of parents complained about the outrageously inappropriate exposure of Janet Jackson's breast during a sexually explicit Super Bowl performance last year, they were immediately branded "prudes" by elite liberals in the media. Why aren't those same supposedly progressive commentators bashing the ridiculously priggish Barbara Walters and company now? I don't know, Michelle.  But I can make some guesses. 1.  Perhaps progressive commentators don't watch "The View," and don't actually pay that much attention to Barbara Walters. 2.  The incident occurred last month, and what with the discussions of the problems at Gitmo, the talk about the Downing Street Memo, and overwhelming concern about the missing white woman, they had other things on their minds. 3.  You regressive commentatators made such a big stink about the Janet Jackson breast that it sounded like the world was ending, and so progressive commentators had to address the over-reaction.  You haven't made as big a deal about the Barbara Walter thing ... yet.  Using the Google Scientific Test of Measuring Stuff, we find that when we search for "Janet Jackson" and "breast," we get 441,000 results.  However, when we search for "Barbara Walters" and "breast," we only get 15,000 (and many of those are about Walter's work for breast cancer awareness). When you can get BarbaraBreastGate up to 200,000 hits, the progressive commentators will have to pay attention to it, and maybe some of them will make fun of Barbara. But hey, if it will make you happy, Michelle, I will call Barbara a prig right now.  Yes, breastfeeding is natural and healthy, and good for babies.  And yes, even if the woman can't find a blanket to cover herself with, she should still be allowed to feed a hungry child.  Barbara's comment was stupid -- but so is making such a fuss over a comment on a show that nobody seems to watch anyway. Michael Jackson coda: If only Michael Jackson had been breast fed and properly nurtured when he was a baby, then maybe he wouldn't have grown up to be such a freak.  Thanks to our liberal, secular society, it's a breast-feeding woman who gets censured, while Michael Jackson is free to go back to being creepy. Now, let's turn to Tony Blankley, with the other important news of the day: The moral light of Paris Hilton. For those with a gloomy view of our civilization's future, a small beam of light has broken through the clouds. Paris Hilton has announced she plans to retire from public life and raise a family. According to the Associated Press, the Zsa Zsa Gabor of our times has observed that "I don't enjoy going out anymore. It's such a pain. It's everyone saying, 'Let's do a deal! Can I have a picture?" I'm just, like, "These people are such losers. I can't believe I used to love doing this." Out of the mouths of babes. Translated into non-Valley talk English, Ms. Hilton, suddenly wise beyond her years, has rejected materialism, the culture of celebrity and the moral shortcomings of the demimonde found in chic urban clubs.  Um, sure.  Or it means that Ms. Hilton is sick of working for a living, and wants to go back to just being a rich, coupon-clipping socialite. (Um, Tony, if she was rejecting materlialism, she and her shipping-heir fiance would be donating their money to the poor, and she wouldn't be telling Newsweek about her "Paris Hilton perfume, jewelry, nightclubs and dog accessories, not to mention her movie career."  But hey, if it makes you feel good to think that Paris is following the advice of "Gertrude Himmelfarb, Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Heritage Foundations," then more power to you.  And to Paris.  Michael Jackson coda: Michael could learn a thing or two about good values from Paris Hilton.  In fact, Jackson should give his daughter Paris to Paris Hilton and her fiance Paris, so that little Paris could get the kind of decent, wholesome, unmaterialistic upbringing recommended by Jerry Falwell. And in conclusion, here's Ann Coulter with Losing their heads over Gitmo.  It's about how Florida Senator Mel Martinez is a traitor to George Bush, because Martinez recommended closing down our facility in Guantanamo. Martinez explained his nonsensical call for the closing of Guantanamo by asking: "Is it serving all the purposes you thought it would serve when initially you began it, or can this be done some other way a little better?" There are Arabs locked up at Guantanamo, no? Admittedly, not enough. (And not under what any frequent flier would describe as "harsh conditions.") Still and all, Arabs are locked up there. That is what we call a "purpose." And locking up some Arabs is a good purpose.  But locking up all of them (and under real harsh conditions, with lots of torture, sexual humilation, murder, and stuff) would be a super great purpose.   Okay, besides being about how Martinez is a stupid, stinky, traitor; and how the Gitmo prisoners are treated like guests at an exclusive luxury spa instead of being put in Iron Maidens and racks like they should be; this column is also about how Ann is the real victim, because she has had to suffer the torture of airline travel.  Besides the crack about how frequent fliers (like Ann) think the prisoners at Gitmo have it pretty good, Ann also says the following: No cold meals, sleep deprivation or uncomfortable positions? Obviously, what we need to do is get the U.S. Army to serve drinks on commercial airlines and get the airlines to start supervising the detainees in Guantanamo. American soldiers make do with C-rations. Dinner on an America West flight from New York to Las Vegas consists of one small bag of peanuts. Meanwhile, one recent menu for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo consisted of orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepe, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Sounds like the sort of thing you'd get at Windows on the World – if it still existed. Do American soldiers make do with packaged meals?  Occasionally, yes, but not as a general rule -- after all, we're paying Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown, & Root millions of dollars to supply food services to the troops in Iraq.  (Sure, $186 million in payments is being withheld until KBR provides proof that the meals the government was billed for were actually served, but I'm pretty sure that some meals were served, and they weren't C-rations.) Oh, and the prisoners at Gitmo generally eat the same fare as the soldiers, so it's not like the prisoners are being served glazed chicken while the soldiers are eating canned chipped beef.  And does America West only give you peanuts on a flight from New York to Vegas?  Apparently so, due to their new cost-cutting measures.  But if only Ann could afford to travel first class, she could have an omelet and granola for breakfast, or Caesar salad and lasagna for lunch or dinner.  And even in coach, they'll give you a sandwich if you pay $5 for it.  It's really sad that we live in a country where our Ann Coulters are being starved when they travel, while prisoners at Guantanamo get peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Michael Jackson coda: By failing to torture the prisoners at Gitmo, we've emboldened perverts like Michael Jackson to prey on our innocent children, and to get lots of plastic surgery.  The only way to keep God from destroying America like he did Sodom and Gomorrah is to lock up all our Arabs. 6:52:50 AM

Town Hall Leftovers Pt 1: Stossel As promised, here are the Town Hall columns that didn't make yesterday's edition, because they weren't about Michael Jackson.  While they still have their own wingnutty charm, I will help to bring them up to code by adding a Michael Jackson reference (kind of like how Kathleen Parker did with her column about French metrosexuals).  I'm sure the columnists will thank me for helping them to appear relevant in today's post-Michael Jackson verdict world. We start with the highly anticipated The government helping out in the bedroom by John Stossel.  While you guys were on the right track by suspecting that Stossel would rail against government-mandated smoke detectors or government-imposed sodomy, his real gripe is that poor people are allowed to have sex. Here's John: You know some people pay for sex. But did you know some people are having sex -- and you're paying?   You pervert! Government health insurance now includes trying to improve people's sex lives. I'm all for improving folks' sex lives, but with our tax money? So, Stossel is all for improving folks' sex lives?  I didn't know that.  But it turns out that it's true. If you do a Google search for "John Stossel" and "mustache" you get such results as: John is my hero. Look at that lucious mustache uuuummmmm!!!!! Who wouldn't love it, a man could get lost in that forest of black fire. -- Save John Stossel Cached If you don't know John Stossel by name, you'd probably recognize his face, ... and what can be described accurately, if not fairly, as a porn-star mustache -- John Stossel Cached ABC's John Stossel is a man on a mission: to teach Americans about the ... He had the looks -- his puppy dog eyes and bushy mustache make him look like Tom Selleck  -- Brill's Content Cached As we've learned from such fine media analysts as Brent Bozell, Google searches prove whatever your point happens to be -- and mine is that Stossel is a love machine.  Anyway, back to his column about how government insurance for poor people should only cover treatments for worthy conditions, such as, oh, apoplexy. Government insurance is the first problem. Insurance was designed to protect us from the unexpected: floods, fire, severe illness, catastrophes that cost more than most of us can pay. But today, people expect insurance to cover everything, even routine things like eyeglasses and dental treatment. This is a terrible idea. Insurance is a lousy way to pay for anything. Once some faceless stranger is paying for what you do, you don't have an incentive to control costs. On the contrary, you have an incentive to get as much as you can and leave the other person with the bill. Yes, ever since I got insurance, I have tried to get as much medical treatment as I could, scheduling a bunch of really expensive procedures just because they would be partially reimbursed by my insurer.  So far this year I've had brain surgery, a heart transplant, a root canal, and rabies treatments.  And the best thing is, I've left somebody else with most of the bill! Government insurance is worse than private insurance. A private insurer has an incentive to cut costs; every dollar wasted comes out of profit or must be recovered by raising prices, which drives customers away. Government just raises taxes or increases debt. So, how to make the government insurance program for poor people solvent without involving the rest of us?  I suggest that John get with Thomas Sowell, and maybe the two of them could come up with a system whereby the poor could pay for their medical care by selling their surplus organs to rich people (but it would be a free market system which would allow the poor to hold out for the best offer). So when our bloated government picks up the tab for poor people's health costs, guess what it buys: Viagra! In 2004, Medicaid spent $38 million on drugs for erectile dysfunction. There was outrage recently when people learned the government health program was paying to give Viagra to sex offenders. When that hit the headlines, officials started cutting off subsidies for rapists' erections.  But why should taxpayers have to buy Viagra for anyone? Because Pfizer CEO Henry "Hank" McKinnell is a Bush Ranger and "presidential pal" who personally donated over $92,000 to Republican candidates, PACs, and the GOP just last year? Because the Clinton administration told states they have to. Oh. Current federal officials have kept the policy. They wouldn't agree to a television interview about it, but they told us that the law requires that drugs approved by the FDA must be covered by Medicaid.Many doctors defend the policy. "Erectile dysfunction is not fun, it's a disease," Dr. Steven Lamb, who wrote a book about Viagra. "It needs to be treated. It needs to be paid for."  I gave him a hard time about it: "Sex is a government entitlement now? . . . Do you ever think about budgeting? What the taxpayer pays?"  "What we're trained in is to be your advocate," he said. "I do not take costs into account." If Stossel was a doctor, he'd make sure that poor people only got the drugs and medical treatment that they could pay for out of their own pockets.  Hey, if they wanted to live, they would work harder to earn the money for the drugs they needed.  That's what the free market is all about. If you had to pay for your own medical care out of your pocket, you might choose to forgo some expensive treatments in order to have money for a nicer home or for better education for your children. Yes, some people choose to forgo sex in order to buy nicer homes.  How to do you think that Stossel got that cool car he drives? But when the government taxes you to pay for what other people "need," you don't get that choice. You are forced to buy Viagra for some man you've never met. Hey, I'm already paying for a war that I never wanted, so finding out that I'm helping some poor, old men to have sex just doesn't fuel my ire the way that Stossel hoped it would.   Does he really need Viagra? John, why don't you do a "20/20" undercover investigation and find out.  I think it would be a great one for sweeps week -- you could try to arouse these men, and see if they could get it up without the little blue pill.  It would be informative, sleazy, AND Libertarian. Do you really need the money for other things? Is that the new criteria of how we decide where our tax money goes?  Because I need my Iraq war money for other things.  If you are pursuing happiness, as our founding document says you have the right to do, your most important need is to be free to determine your own values, make your own choices and live your own life. You need a government that will protect your contracts, so that you can make money, acquire property and keep it once you have it. And you won't get all that if you have to pay ten cents in taxes each year for Viagra for poor people. Hey, I don't know if it's a good idea to have Medicaid cover Viagra or not, but I do know that there are a lot of things I'm more concerned about.  Stossel, go investigate this:  About 36 million people are hungry in America, he said, and in Texas, one out of four children and one out of five adults is at risk of hunger. "At risk is when a person or family doesn't know where their next meal is coming from," Bush said. About half of the people Texas food banks see are working people, said Bush, including some who hold two or three minimum-wage jobs. "They can't get through the month on minimum wages," Bush said. "There is some legislation pending to exclude working people from feeding programs, but we shouldn't penalize or punish people because they get a job. Many of the people who frequent the pantries of our food bank are underemployed. They are truly the working poor." Oh, and the Bush quoted in this article was Robert Bush, director of the East Texas Food Bank. I couldn't find where President Bush addressed Hunger Awareness Week. Work on finding out why people who work 3 jobs need to frequent food banks to feed their families, Stossel. That's more important than why poor people get tax-payer funded Viagra. Now, for our Michael Jackson coda: Michael Jackson's trial on charges of child molestation are just the inevitable outcome of using tax-payer money for Viagra. When we place sexual gratification of Medicaid recipients above the pursuit of happiness of regular folks who could have used that 10 cents to raise their families, it opens the way for rich, liberal, Hollywood celebrities to be found not guilty of targeting child cancer survivors for their own gratification. 5:26:48 AM