The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.

The rupture, which has not been publicly announced as it unfolded, is wrenching for some of those who’ve learned about it and admire both organizations.

“We’re kind of reeling,” said Patrick Hurd, who is CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia — recipient of a 2010 grant from Komen — and whose wife, Betsi, is a veteran of several Komen fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer.

“It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

Planned Parenthood said the Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, going to at least 19 of its affiliates for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services.

I keep seeing people argue that suddenly women won’t be able to get mammograms and will instantly die of the scourge of breast cancer without this funding. The problem, of course, is that Planned Parenthood doesn’t actually do mammograms.

After the video above aired, Planned Parenthood had to backtrack on Richards’ claims, and accused Live Action of manipulating the video where Richards’ specifically (and magically, without an edit) claimed that women would lose access to mammograms they weren’t providing anyway.

I still don’t like Komen, and I still think it’s offensive how much they’ve commoditized breast cancer into a line of pink products from every politically correct company in the United States, but at least they aren’t funding an abortion mill any more.

Since the Constitution defines our freedoms negatively, states and individuals retain all rights that are not explicitly delegated to the federal government. The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, because the Constitution is silent on drugs, states alone have the constitutional power to regulate drugs.

She’s right, and you really should hit up the link to read the rest of it.

And here’s what I had to say about the matter a month ago (in case you forgot) in relation to the commerce clause and prohibition:

The bottom line, as both Katie and I put it, is simple. Since the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government enforcement powers for drug use and abuse (clearly, or they wouldn’t have passed the 18th and 21st amendments to control the drug known as alcohol), that power resides with the states to regulate as they see fit.

End of story. There is no argument on this.

Gina could choke me any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I personally favor voter ID laws as long as they are carefully implemented in a way that doesn’t create an unreasonable barrier to voting and doesn’t involve any sort of fee for getting a valid ID. (Which would serve as a poll tax.) And I understand some of the concerns being raised by opponents. We can have a civil and totally valid debate on that, and we should. But the most frequent defense I hear from too many opponents is, “this is a non-problem. There are so few proven instances of voter fraud that this is clearly a trumped up issue.”

Here’s why this a hollow argument to me.

I agree with Jazz’s argument wholeheartedly and this should be required reading for anyone who doesn’t.

Source

Here, my friends, is the most important graph you will see all day.

Those are surface temperature readings for the past 10 years. No smoothing. No manipulation. No hiding of declines. Nothing removed for the sake of removing statistical anomalies, just raw data plotted out.

Do you see an increase in temperature there?

Of course you don’t, but then again, you probably aren’t in the global warming industry.

And in spite of that data, which clearly indicates there is no upward trend in temperatures, and that despite the claims that temperatures have been rising consistently for the past six decades, the past decade has been free of any rise in temperature, we will still have to watch the global warming industry deny the veracity of this report.

They always tell you the numbers don’t lie.

Surely they don’t; but the people presenting them? Well they lie. And when they don’t lie, they just ignore and obscure.

The truth is out there. Global warming is bullshit. If you don’t think it is, then ask yourself a simple question: why did they stop calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change?” It’s so that everything that happens validates their point. Hot summer? Climate change. Cold summer? Climate change. Rainy spring? Climate change. Dry spring? Climate change. Heavy hurricane season? Climate change. No hurricanes? Climate change. Blizzard? Climate change. Mild winter? Climate change.

Ask yourself this simple question, and ask it at any of your global warming acolyte friends.

If global warming is a scientifically valid theory, what falsifies that theory? In other words, if what proves it does in fact prove it, does the opposite disprove it?

If I have a theory that you can jump into a pool and not get wet, and you say that’s ridiculous, you can easily prove me wrong by jumping into a pool and coming out soaking wet. If you come out wet, then my theory can be proven wrong. It’s a valid theory.

You cannot have a theory that cannot be disproven. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science.

You can’t say every weather activity is proof of global warming when you claim that it all is on all extremes. A hot summer and a cold summer can’t both be proof of the same theory. Logic dictates that if one proves it, the other disproves it.

And that, my friends, is why you see a consistent and continuous effort to hide data that doesn’t follow along with their assertions. And it’s not just because they have academic credibility to lose, it’s because there’s a lot of money in the global warming industry to be lost if its proven to be the bullshit it really is.

And I don’t know if private accounts are the answer, but what I do know is that nothing changed and, as predicted, the problem has now grown, so for all of you “hands off my Social Security” types including the idiot Republicans like Mitt Romney who say that you dare not touch Social Security and who criticized Rick Perry for calling it a Ponzi scheme, well, where’s your fix? Step up to the plate, folks, because now’s the time.

A lot of Ayers’ crap is, as expected, typical radical babble.

But hey, this is the buddy of our President. An unapologetic terrorist who consulted with the enemy in a time of war about starting a revolution in his own country.

Nothing to be concerned about, though. If you’re concerned that the President is chummy wummy with this guy, then obviously it’s your problem.

So now, of course, the question is if putting targets on a map on a political website is inciting violence, what is outwardly calling for the murder of someone?

Where are all the “heated rhetoric” critics that popped up after Gabby Giffords was shot?

Now… If we’re going to make the argument that a job is a right, and people have a right to employment, how do we arrive at that?

A right, by its nature, cannot require the action of another person or entity to be so. A right is something that is inalienable, that is inseparable, from being a human being. Your right to free speech, free exercise of religion, and so on are not a burden or responsibility on me in any sense.

But what about employment? If you have a right to a job, that means the government or, more directly, the citizenry, must provide you one. If I have to provide a job for you, that satisfies your right, but doesn’t it turn me into a slave to you, with a perpetual obligation to you without any consent on my part?

I thought we fought a war about stuff like this, didn’t we?

You do not have a right to anything that requires the provision of said right by another party in this country or on this planet, for that matter. Your rights should be freely exercisable at no expense to others. Once your “right” commands I do something, provide something, or pay for something, it’s no longer a right for you, it’s slavery for me.

Simple.

And if you haven’t read the book, Jesus Christ, what are you waiting for?

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama tried to keep the pressure on Congress to consider his nearly $450 billion jobs bill, saying it had been two weeks since he sent the bill to Capitol Hill “and now I want it back.”
“I want it back, passed, so I can sign this bill and start putting people back to work,” Obama said Tuesday.
So why have Democrats delayed action in the U.S. Senate on President Obama’s stimulus bill?
   
WLS Radio’s Bill Cameron reports his own party has delayed action in the Senate and talked with Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, about the reason why.

“The oil-producing state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies, “ Durbin tells WLS Radio, “There are some senators who are up for election who say I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people. So, we’re not gonna have 100% Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bi-partisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”

There are no oil subsidies. That’s a flat out lie. Also, if Durbin would like to end all energy subsidies, I say go for it. The fact that the American people cut a check to every crap form of green energy out there means that every one of them would go under in no time. If you want to make sure the “evil big oil companies” stop getting subsidies, end them. End all of them. For all energy companies.

Oil will still be standing. As will coal. Why? Because they don’t need subsidies (probably the reason they don’t get them). Try and make that same case for “green energy.” In fact, I dare “green energy” companies to live by the same “subsidies” (which are actually tax deductions that any company that makes any product can get) that “big oil” gets. I dare you, greenies. I double dog dare you. Make it work. Turn your check-taking asses into corporate tax adjustments and see how long you survive.

Durbin’s pinning this on “big oil” is just laughable. The plan isn’t getting excitement from Democrats because even the biggest dopes in the Senate can see that the bill is not a job creator. No one buys the crap coming out of the White House anymore. In 2009, when we were told we had to pass the stimulus immediately, we were told 8% was outrageous and can’t be allowed to happen. If the unemployment rate hit 8% tomorrow, every Democrat who said we have to pass the stimulus to keep the unemployment rate from getting there would be dancing in the streets touting the success of the stimulus.

Enough is enough.

Even Democrats are starting to see it.

And before you argue about subsidies, you need to educate yourself, and bear in mind this was in 2008, so the numbers are most likely more offensive now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

Like I said; stop handing over checks to all of them and let the “alternative energy” companies use deductions that the oil companies use. That ought to make the situation nice and fair.

A wise man once said, “If it’s viable, it doesn’t need a subsidy. If it needs a subsidy, it’s not viable.”

Translation: “Don’t upgrade! You’ll have exactly the same experience as the article headline I’m commenting on says you will!”

Moron.

The cost of health insurance continues to climb for companies and workers, with annual family premiums this year growing at a pace triple that of 2010 and outpacing wage increases, according to a survey.

As the United States continues to grapple with a stubbornly weak economy, family premiums in employer-sponsored health plans jumped 9 percent this year and single premiums rose 8 percent, compared with 2010′s 3 percent and 5 percent, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual study, published Tuesday, found.

“We’re probably on a more modest side … but even with a 5 percent increase in a premium (that our workers saw) this year, they didn’t get a 5 percent raise,” said Jeff Franck, a compensation and benefits manager at Altru Health System, which employs about 3,700 people in North Dakota and Minnesota and participated in the survey.

Health insurance, unlike other industrialized countries, is largely provided by employers. Although the latest Census found more Americans losing company-sponsored insurance, almost 170 million Americans were on employer-based plans in 2010.

Kaiser and the Health Research & Educational Trust surveyed 2,088 randomly selected public and private employers large and small earlier this year.

The survey found that, on average, employees are contributing 28 percent, or about $4,129, a year toward employer-sponsored family plans. That is 131 percent more than a decade ago.

Of course everyone scratches their heads as mandates increase, pre-existing condition clauses disappear, and “kids” can stay on their parents’ insurance until 26.

Gee, I have no idea why insurance is getting more expensive. We passed the “Patient Care and Affordability Act” to solve this, didn’t we?

It’s like I said months ago. You may be able to keep your plan, but through all the new mandates and requirements, they’ll just price you out of it anyway.

Source

On the season premiere of CBS show “Two And A Half Men,” Ashton Kutcher was using his MacBook Pro, adorned with stickers of companies he funds (including Hipmunk and Flipboard).

I didn’t see any disclosure, yet those stickers clearly represent something a blogger would have to have disclosed.

Why the double-standard for television stars and shows? How can they get away with something that bloggers, who generally have much smaller audiences, cannot?

By the logic of the left that says that “Republicans boo’ed a gay soldier” after two people in the debate crowd boo’ed a question at the last debate, the leftists in this crowd just boo’ed Jesus.

After all, you can’t boo the question, only its subject matter. If they were booing gays because the question was about gays, then the lefties in the video were doing the same in booing a man making a statement about Jesus.

Two can play that stupid game.

Want to make a cable-news Democratic party-strategist squirm? Ask her what she means by the “fair share” that must be paid by the rich. (No point further tarrying over what she means by “the rich,” since we already know they are billionaires and millionaires who jump about in corporate jets while somehow making only $200,000 a year.) In response to the “fair share” question, you will hear how Bush single-handedly destroyed the economy. You will hear about the diabolical Republican plan to desert the elderly, starve the young, and exploit everyone in between. You will hear a vague concession that “the rich” must be allowed to keep some semblance of their wealth — enough, at least, to keep them in the game of “paying it forward” to future generations of government wards. But what you won’t hear is a number.

This week, I had the pleasure of watching the Fox Business Channel’s Stuart Varney expertly press the Obama Left’s glib evaders on the subject. How much is a “fair share,” he doggedly inquired? A quarter? A third? Should the rich have to split their take 50-50 with Leviathan? Or is their success such a blight on social justice that the government (and the Teamsters, and the teachers’ unions, and the basket-case blue states) should get something much closer to all of it?

No answer. They cannot answer it.

The rise of the party-strategist class — driven by the imperative to fill yawning gaps in the 24/7 cable-news cycle — has contributed little to the coherence of our public-policy debate. It does, however, have its value: Its members will always show you what they most fear.

In this instance, they are deathly afraid of that number. The “fair share” can never be quantified — not in theory, not in practice. Conceptually, it is a non sequitur, because it gets the Left’s premise exactly backwards. To peg the rich man’s “fair share” at anything greater than zero would be to admit that the wealth is his in the first place. Having intensely focus-grouped the matter, the strategists are quite sure you’re not ready to be told that all wealth belongs to the state, and that since it is theirs, not yours, “fair share” is whatever they decide under the exigencies of the moment.

Of course, no one seems willing to address the people paying nothing. I don’t know precisely what definition of fair share includes 0%, but that being said, he’s exactly right. Once it’s stated that you have a fair share in what you earn, they’re admitting that what you earn isn’t just uncollected government funds, which is how they treat your income now. Simply put, putting a percentage, however rough, on “fair share” clarifies the argument that they believe they’re entitled to what you earn and you merely have anything through their provenance.

I’m also tired of government using the concept of “asking.” The government does not ask for anything. It takes, by force, what it believes it is entitled to. Think about it; the idea of being “asked” something implies you have a right to refuse. Where is your right to refuse someone’s cockeyed idea of “fair share?” You don’t have one, and you never will. When someone in the government says they’re going to “ask” you for something, it means they’re going to take it from you, like it or not, by threat of force.

Source

When Erich Campbell passed two Florida Highway Patrol cruisers parked in the median near Tampa International Airport in December 2009, he flashed his headlights to warn oncoming drivers of the radar patrol.

Then, to his surprise, one of the troopers pulled over his silver Toyota Tundra and ticketed him for improper flashing of high beams.

“Literally within one minute, they had me stopped on the side of the road,” recalled Campbell, 38, a former electrician and full-time student.

In August, the Land O’Lakes, Fla., resident filed a class-action lawsuit in Tallahassee against the highway patrol and other state traffic-enforcement agencies. He seeks an injunction barring law enforcement from issuing headlight-flash tickets, plus refunds and civil damages for previously cited motorists.

Campbell’s lawyer, J. Marc Jones, claims his client’s First Amendment right to free speech was violated. “The flashing of lights to communicate with another driver is clearly speech,” he said.

The good news is that they’ve stopped citing drivers for flashing their headlights, so that’s nice.

My question is: on what grounds do they even think it’s legal to pull people over for headlight flashing? In the two stories I’ve read on this, I’ve not read one legal justification. The only thing I keep seeing is a promise that it won’t happen again and a lot of chatter from the guy’s lawyer.

What legal grounds do the police have for stopping people for this?

Just seems obvious to me. Am I the only one?

Source

But why a Ponzi scheme? The distinguishing characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is its intent to defraud. Charles Ponzi, and his modern cousin Bernie Madoff, meant to rip people off. Whatever disagreements we may have over policy, no one believes that FDR meant to rip people off, and neither do modern liberals who wish to maintain the program.

But most of those who refer to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme are not thinking intent so much as effect. What makes the Social Security/Ponzi references so common is the similarity in the way they are financed. In both cases, early participants receive payments, not from interest on their own investments, but directly from inflows from later participants. If you were describing the mechanics of how Social Security’s financing works, it wouldn’t be illogical to refer to a Ponzi scheme.

And, also like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security paid early participants incredible returns on their money, because they contributed to the system for only a few years but received a full retirement’s worth of benefits. A person who retired in 1950 received around a 20 percent annual return on the taxes he paid (which happens to be exactly the same return that Madoff promised to his investors). Put another way, that person received around 12 times more in benefits than he’d paid in taxes. That helps explain why Social Security became so popular: it was simply an incredibly good deal.

[…]

Similarly, like a Ponzi scheme, there really isn’t any actual investment going on with Social Security. While the trust fund has a $2.5 trillion balance it can call on to pay benefits, this fund won’t be of any help to the taxpayer. When Social Security goes to redeem bonds in the trust fund, the Treasury must raise taxes, cut other programs, or borrow the money—exactly the same steps as if there weren’t a trust fund at all. The trust fund records how much we have borrowed from Social Security but, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, “trust fund balances convey little information about the extent to which the federal government has prepared for future financial burdens.” While legally important, the CBO says, the trust fund has “little economic meaning.”

The biggest difference may be that Social Security can go on forever while a Ponzi scheme can’t, but that’s mostly because Social Security can force you to participate. If Madoff could find enough people willing to accept a 2 percent return rather than a 20 percent return, his plan could keep going indefinitely.

Wow. Makes you wonder what right-wing apologist talking point spewer this guy is, right?

Andrew G. Biggs is the former Deputy Commissioner for the Social Security Administration.

If you’re going to tell me he doesn’t know what he was talking about, you’d better have a better piece of paper on your wall than he does.

Source

Now comes payoff time.

While many details of the deal were not immediately divulged, the UAW press release shared some of the positive highlights of the deal:

• “Significant” investments and products for GM plants.

• Wages and benefits that “reflect the fact that it was UAW members who helped turn this company around,” said Joe Ashton, UAW vice president

• Improved profit sharing

The new jobs include opportunities at powertrain plants in Warren and Romulus, as well as Wentzville, Mo., people familiar with the talks said. GM will also reopen the former Saturn assembly plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., the people said.

Profit sharing will now be based on income from all GM’s North American operations, not just U.S. plants, a person familiar with the deal said. With the new formula, the average profit-sharing check from last year’s $5.7 billion North American profit would have been between $5,000 and $6,000, instead of the about $4,000 workers received, the person said. The union claimed profit sharing would be more transparent. Indeed, the bonuses will be based on a simple chart that lists ranges of profits and corresponding profit-sharing payouts, the person said. The bonuses will have a cap.

The contract also increases the entry-level wage, the person said.

More money for people to produce cars people don’t want. Payback to the unions, who donate almost exclusively to Democrats.

Them having their jobs saved wasn’t enough. Now we have to pay them for the privilege we bestowed upon them.

In the meantime, we’re looking at a $12bn to $18bn loss on GM, so at the same time the company is about to lose a buttload of money that pretty much no one thinks we’ll ever get back, we’re going to give the workers more.

Outstanding. Sign me up.

The current mail system of the United States is “no longer financially sustainable,” and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is looking for billions of dollars in cuts to its services.

The postal service announced Thursday it was considering closing nearly 250 processing facilities, cutting equipment by 50 percent and slowing mail delivery in an extreme cost-cutting effort. It is looking for $3 billion in annual savings.

And as the president and Congress search high and low for ways to boost job creation, up to 35,000 people could be laid off as part of that effort.

“We are forced to face a new reality today,” said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe. “With the dramatic decline in mail volume and the resulting excess capacity, maintaining a vast national infrastructure is no longer realistic.”

Since the advent of email and other electronic communication, the postal service has seen a steady decline in its use. More than 43 billion fewer pieces of mail are sent now than they were five years ago. First-class mail has dropped 25 percent, and the transmission of stamped letters is down 36 percent over that time frame. The postage purchased to send first-class mail is a primary source of revenue for the USPS.

The American Postal Workers Union blasted the move.

“The Postal Service should be urging Congress to address the cause of its problems – not slashing service and demolishing its network,” union president Cliff Guffey said.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. Advocates for the Postal Service keep saying that “since e-mail and electronic communications” blah blah blah. None of this is new. E-mail has been around (for public consumption) since… What… 1980something? Bill paying over the phone and electronically? I’ve been doing that for years.

The obvious question is that since all of these things that are currently killing off the Postal Service have been around so long, what have they been doing about it? What have they been doing to increase awareness and change their business strategy in the face of technological innovations that have been cutting into their business for 20 years?

In fact, here’s a chart from the AP:

Mail volume has been flat since 2000, and revenues have been plummeting since 2003. None of what the Postal Service faces today happened overnight. Where was the strategy to cope? Or did they just assume they could lose whatever they wanted and the White Knight of Government would just come and save them?

And now lawmakers are doing exactly that, echoing the American Postal Workers Union in demanding Congress step in to fix the mess, and by “fix the mess” they, of course, mean “Give us more taxpayer money.”

So when the business model starts to fail, you don’t fix the business model, you just increase the subsidy. That’s government. You just throw other people’s money (YOUR MONEY) into a pit until the pit is full of your money. Whether or not the service provided is useful, effective, or viable never enters into the equation. This is government. Government invests for a political return, not an economic return. If the Post Office is to be saved, then money is not the answer, an adjustment of their business plan is. Until that happens, the money they throw in, (YOUR MONEY), is just being tossed into a black hole.

And you have no say in the matter.

Source