Canaries in the Mineshaft

Miners long ago learned the usefulness of canaries. By keeling over, those hapless caged birds would warn miners of toxic gasses or of too little oxygen before humans could detect (or be harmed by) their presence or lack.

In politics, canaries abound. No matter what political action is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn against it, some who "squawk" their warnings to all. It doesn't matter what political objective is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn the rest of us that the proposed governmental action is detrimental to the nation.

But, political animals are particular beasts -- they only hear the squawking of like-minded canaries and are genetically incapable of hearing the warnings of any canary who isn't politically in tune with them. Thus, it isn't until liberals begin to hear the squawks of liberal canaries that their ears perk up and they begin to take notice, if not heed, of the warnings. (Of course, the same is true of conservatives and conservative canaries. This makes perfect sense as that which is deadly to a conservative is the natural environment of liberals and vice versa...)

Some liberals are squawking, signaling to the rest of the more politically obtuse liberals that the Obama mineshaft is entering territory which may be deadly to liberals.

Robert Byrd, that self-styled defender of the U.S. Constitution, squawks of the dangers Obama's many Czars pose to that beloved document.

When they saw the price tag individual states would have to pay when the federal government stopped paying the bill for the expanded Medicaid under Obama's health care plan, Governors Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Christine Gregoire of Washington, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Liberals all) squawked their shrill cries of warning, perhaps understanding for the first time the dangers of unfunded mandates.

Forty-four liberal canaries squawked (albeit faintly and safely) about cap and tax. Eight Republicans decided that the air in the liberal mineshaft was more to their liking. It remains to be seen whether they will survive their choice.

Mrs. Boxer (who, according to her, is and should be called "Senator" if you happen to be in the military) accidentally became a canary while questioning a witness. Seeing that the witness was black, she mistook the air they shared to be liberal air and sucked in several lungfuls of conservative air. It is likely that she will survive this mistake if she is able to make it back to her natural habitat where the rarified liberal air is likely to revive her.

Even Congressman Grayson, a particularly liberal liberal, is squawking, wanting to know where the money went.

Now, admittedly, these are slight warning to committed liberals, but the number and intensity of warnings is growing. And, while the political class can almost always survive in an environment which would render the ordinary human senseless, the warnings seem to have been sufficient to steer some liberals away from the mineshaft Obama is intent upon leading them into.

Palin Resigns! Pundits Ponder Purpose.

Sarah Palin resigned today, delivering what appeared to be a noteless and impassioned speech in which she outlined her reasons.

Pundits did what pundits always do -- viewed it through the prism of their own political minds.

They ask: "Political suicide or brilliant move?" or "What could her "real" reason be?" or "How does this affect her chance at a 2012 Presidential run?"

These questions are useful when asked about the motivations of a politician. You can never believe what a politician says, as, of course, they're politicians and lie for a living.

Sarah Palin is not a politician. She never has been.

Sarah Palin entered politics to effect change. And, until she wandered into the arena of national politics, she was doing just that.

But, ever since she dared to be a strong, competent woman who didn't toe the NOW line, she has been subjected to attack after attack -- the "politics of personal destruction" on a scale I haven't seen of any other national figure.

Not John Edwards. Not Barney Frank. Not Chris Dodd. NO other political figure -- not those who took bribes, not those under criminal indictment, not those behind bars -- has been under such unrelenting attack as had Sarah Palin.

So, Sarah Palin resigned. She told us why she resigned.

Yet the pundits continue to probe, continue to try to impose their world-view upon her -- even though the former governor has established beyond all doubt that she does not share their world-view.

Sarah Palin told us why she resigned. She resigned because she can't do her job. Most of her time is spent defending herself from frivolous ethics charges (15 currently investigated and dismissed) which eat her time and Alaskan taxpayers' money (over two million thus far).

That isn't what the people of Alaska hired her to do. They hired her to govern -- not to spend all of her time defending herself.

There is no further political calculation beyond this simple one. She, in good conscience, can't continue to be a part-time governor when the people of Alaska deserve a full-time one.

Further, she believes that she will be able to pursue the greater good by bringing her message conservatism to the rest of the country, unencumbered by the duties of office.

She told us this.

Why do the pundits not believe her?

They seem to believe politicians such as Obama when all evidence is that he simply cannot be believed but try to ferret out hidden meaning from Palin when all evidence shows that she speaks plainly.

Pundits.

The Health Care Debate. Do we need more socialized medicine?

I have mixed feelings about this issue.

We have a screwed up system.

For example, I pay around five grand a year for my health care insurance. Just mine. In order to keep my premiums down (!), I have to have a very high deductible -- fifteen hundred bucks.

This results in me essentially not having insurance for anything other than major medical disasters since I'm going to have to go out of pocket for anything which isn't a serious medical problem, and if I have a serious medical problem, I would be able to receive medical care for it whether or not I had insurance.

Huh.

And, in the event that I had a major medical disaster, having insurance isn't going to prevent the inevitable financial disaster, since, like most, I don't have any "nest-egg" to pay my other bills while I'm in the hospital or rendered incapable of working. (Of course, if I didn't have to pay five grand a year, perhaps I could have, over the past several decades of paying that sum, I could have saved enough to tide me over, but, then I wouldn't have insurance and the medical disaster would kill me financially.)

So, in the event of a major medical disaster, I'm pretty well financially doomed with or without insurance.

Huh.

Private insurance spreads risk. People like me who never make claims but pay premiums pay for those who make claims. Private insurance companies (in general) make their profits by taking in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. This provides incentive to delay or deny claims which are properly promptly paid. (Anyone who has had to fight with their insurance company over whether or how much to pay on a claim is familiar with this truth.)

Public insurance doesn't spread risk. Public insurance has a budget. Public insurance, accordingly, rations care. It is the inevitable outgrowth of having a limited budget.

So, no matter if you have insurance or if you're on public insurance (such as Medicaid), you're at the mercy of your insurance provider as to when or whether your particular medical needs will be paid for from a source other than out of your pocket. In the end, both are run by accountants.

Huh.

We all know (or should know) that the government doesn't do anything especially well. Trusting our medical care (a.k.a. our lives and the lives of our loved ones) to the government seems a chancy choice. But, we know that the government will be there tomorrow. (And, if it's not, our medical care is the least of our worries...)

We all know (or should know) that competition between private enterprises results in lowered costs and better service. Of course, it also results in extinction of those who cannot compete or who make bad business decisions. (Ask A.I.G.) We can wake up tomorrow in the hospital staring at an unpaid hospital bill because our former insurance carrier no longer exists.

Huh.

In the end, I have to come down (marginally) on the side of private medical insurance with the "safety net" of public insurance for those who cannot afford private medical insurance -- essentially what we have now.

What "tips" it for me is this: when the bean-counters count their beans and ration care in a public insurance model, they tend to concentrate on rationing (or eliminating) the most expensive care for those who will, if they receive the care, least benefit from it, i.e., those in the last six months of their lives. Further, those bean-counters will ration testing, since much testing results in no medical benefit other than ruling out medical conditions. (Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than exist in the entire country of Canada for example.) Public insurance isn't a fan of "experimental" medical procedures or medicine.

Private insurance companies don't like to pay for testing any more than the government, but, unlike the government, they can be sued in an effort to force them to adhere to the terms of the insurance contract. Private insurers can be forced to pay the huge costs associated with a person in the final stages of their lives -- the government can't. Whether a medical procedure or drug is "experimental" can be decided by a judge or jury rather than a bureaucrat.

So, what tips things for me?

Lawyers.

Obama's (Latest) Foreign Policy Failure

It just doesn't seem like the brightest move to deposit four people allegedly trained by the Taliban or Al Qaeda in a dependency of the U.K. (Bermuda) without, you know, letting them know.

Maybe the Queen can find the reason in one of Obama's speeches in her redundant I-Pod.

Can Sarah Palin save the GOP?

Yes.

Do you remember the first time you heard Sarah Palin speak? How it made you feel?

I do. Electrified. Spellbound. Hanging on every word, every syllable, wondering "Who in the hell is this sudden star?" I immediately took a liking to this new voice.

Then began the relentless, vicious attacks from the left, the condescension of the right's intelligentsia (the Parkers and Wills). They attempted to diminish her, to marginalize her. And, to an extent, they succeeded. But, even with that constant barrage of undeserved attacks from all sides, the faithful flocked to hear her, this new voice that sounded so much like themselves coming from a woman whose life's experiences so resembled their own.

The faithful recognized one of their own. They sensed the genuineness of Sarah Palin.

She didn't just say what people wanted to hear; she said what she wanted to say. She, as governor, didn't do just what people wanted her to do; she did what she was compelled by her fundamental beliefs to do. In the common parlance, she "walked the walk."

Some "conservatives," especially the beltway intelligentsia, decided to essentially ignore Sarah Palin's history of accomplishment in favor of remarking disparagingly about the way she speaks which is, at times, scattershot to the point of being almost unintelligible.

But, even in those moments of meandering mazes of half-finished sentences, for the faithful, there isn't any question as to what Sarah Palin believes -- just a desire that she could articulate it better.

For them, and for me, a President we know to be a conservative is far superior to one who is merely talks like one.

As this remarkable woman becomes more comfortable in her fresh national skin, she will develop the skills necessary to better articulate her positions, positions informed by her fundamental beliefs, and like Reagan, her essential likeability will come through and more people will find themselves willing to listen to her ideas with more open minds. When this happens, those other Republican Presidential hopefuls who are more informed by polls than beliefs will find themselves jockeying for position as her Vice Presidential nominee.

The GOP needs desperately an unifying voice, a voice around which the party faithful can rally. There simply isn't any other voice in the GOP which engenders such support -- support springing almost as much from the belief in her as the ideas she champions.

This is called "trust." The faithful believes in Sarah Palin as we do no other "politician" in the Republican party. We believe that she believes in the ideas and values she champions, ideas and values that we believe in. As importantly, we believe that, if elected, she'll actually do what she says that she will.

That is a powerful combination of forces.

Perhaps powerful enough to save the fractured GOP.