I’m not one of those people who live with their nose in their Blackberry constantly responding to inaninty after inanity. It is almost comical to watch these people unable to control themselves and like a monkey in a crack experiment, just hitting that button over and over and over. You know who you are. Well a suicide bomber in Russia got what is perhaps the most annoying text message in history.
An unexpected and unwanted text message from a wireless company prematurely exploded a would-be suicide bomber’s vest bomb in Russia New Year’s Eve, inadvertently thwarting a planned attack on revelers in Moscow, according to The Daily Telegraph.
The would-be suicide bomber was planning to detonate a suicide belt bomb near Red Square, a plan that was foiled when her wireless carrier sent her an SMS while she was still at a safe house, setting off the bomb and killing her. The message reportedly wished her a Happy New Years, according to the report, which sourced the info from security forces in Russia. Cell phones are often used as makeshift detonators by terrorist and insurgent groups.
That is simply beautiful.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Some of you may have missed this story since it was published on the day after Christmas (and a Sunday at that), but Obama’s death panels are back, this time via the president’s fiat regulatory powers. Since it was easy to have missed, I’ve decided to post the story today (Monday) so that more people might see it now that Christmas and the weekend both are over.
You might recall the end of life care policies that were once in Obamacare. You might also remember the political firestorm these death panels whipped up. The pressure was heavy enough that the Democrats removed the policy from the final Obamacare bill.
Well, now that Obamacare is passed, Obama is slipping these death panels right back into existence by ordering Medicare to just make the policy a new rule under updated Medicare regulations.
The controversial plan was originally meant to subsidize doctors if they offered end-of-life care counseling to their elderly or terminal patients. This advice was meant to push terminal patients to accept less than full life-saving care and instead to chose care that would ease them into death.
Granted this sort of counseling is often a necessary (if regrettable) part of the last days of many people’s lives. It certainly makes sense for some very sick people to assess if further heroic care might not be the best use of resources and/or time.
But here is the problem that arises with this whole program: it is government pushing the talk of ending your life. Do you want the same sort of folks that bring you the CIA or the DMV to be responsible to give you end-of-life advice, the kind of advice that could hasten your death?
Is this new directive any different than the one that Democrats took out of Obamacare because the voters were against it all? Well, the guy that wrote the original death panel language that was removed from Obamacare sent out a message to his supporters celebrating Obama’s new fiat death panels in the Medicare regulation. But he urged supporters to keep it all hush hush.
We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are “supporters” — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.
Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.
In other words, the longer the public isn’t aware about Obama’s newest death panel efforts, the longer those that want to end the lives of the sick can keep their new rule. I think that says all you need to know about it all, really.
In fact, that says all you need to know about the left. If their ideas become widely known voters are against them. So, if they find voters voting against them, then they just sneak them in by regulation or judicial order. Democrats and leftists think you don’t deserve to have any control over your lives, after all.
By Neal McCluskey
One of the most regretable outcomes of government schooling is constant, wrenching conflict, as diverse people are forced to fight over the uniform school system they all have to support. Sadly — and in complete opposition to the foundational American value of individual liberty — one of the few ways these conflicts can be resolved is by crushing groups with insufficient political power, keeping them from getting the education they want for their children.
Unfortunately, making it easier to do exactly that seems to have motivated at least some people in Kansas to support their state’s adoption of federally backed “Common Core” standards. Under the guise of removing politics from public schooling - meaning, crippling the ability of those who disagree with them to fight back — some supporters are lauding the standards especially if they are extended to science. Then, the state wouldn’t have to deal with the highly divisive question of how to teach human origins. The assumption, it seems, is that by adopting national standards evolution skeptics in Kansas would be overruled not just by evolution supporters in Kansas, but, de facto, supporters nationwide:
The movement toward national standards — the Kansas State Board of Education joined the program earlier this month — comes with plenty of advantages, said Rick Doll, superintendent of the Lawrence school district.
Among them is snuffing the likelihood of political flare-ups, such as the off-and-on debate over whether Kansas should de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in public schools.
“What we teach in school should not be dependent on the political leanings of a governing body,” Doll said. “With this, there’s less chance of that happening.”
Whether you are the most zealous creationist or the ardent Darwinist, this thinking should frighten you.
For one thing, having national standards will only push the fighting to the national level, threatening to tear apart the entire country with coflicts that could have been contained within state or district boundaries. Moreover, the fighting is likely to be even more intense, because with national standards there’s nowhere to go but out of the country if you lose. And that raises what should be the most alarming point for national-standards advocates: What happens if and when you are not in power? Then everyone will get stuck with not only what you dislike, but what, if you are right, might even be educationally or socially dangerous. But you’ll only have yourself to blame. After all, you’ll have built the nuke suddenly pointing at you.
A liberal blogger writes up a fundraising letter from John Boehner that was sent Certified Mail, luring the recipient to waste her time going to the Post Office to collect it.
This appears to be a deliberate gimmick:
I apologize if sending you this letter by Certified Mail has caused you any inconvenience, but with less than three weeks to go before Election Day I wanted to be sure I could reach you…I NEED YOU TO PLEASE SEND AN URGENT CONTRIBUTION OF $ 50, $ 40 OR $ 25 TO MY CAMPAIGN TODAY…Ms. (blank), I am truly sorry if this Certified Letter has caused you an inconvenience of any kind. But I hope you understand that with time running out and liberals stepping up their desperate attacks, I had to get through to ask for your emergency support.
It’s just that urgent. You see why this is a good trick, and also very annoying.
Apparently, there’s already a name for “annoying messages that aren’t technically spam.” Matt Penniman writes:
Actually, there’s already a name for this (and it’s fairly clever): bacn. It’s “email you want, but not right now”.
But I think I come down with MosBen on this one:
That’s a very clever name, mattpenniman, but confusing. I love bacon and want it all the time, even if I don’t actually have it very often. I don’t really want that newest email from Mr. Plouffe right now. Unlike bacon. mmmmmmmmmm, bacon….
The lefties’ response? How dare they! Racists! Hitler!
In other words, same old same old.
It’s heartening to see folks keep turning out. It’s also enjoyable seeing the Democrats-still running the world by the way-frothing at the mouth impotently. Just as a reminder: They own the White House, Congress, most of the judicial system and nearly 100% of the press and they act like helpless turtles trying to right themselves.
Anyway, what will be the chief side-effect of the rally? Probably the best outcome is that leftists are frustrated, outraged, and stuck. They are the few. They do not represent the silent majority’s opinion. They do not represent American values. They do not represent what made our country great. They do not believe in the resilience and strength of the individual.
And everything they hold dear-bigger government, freedom-infringing rules and regulations, the collective over the individual-runs counter to what Americans define as American. And the regular American is fighting back. And individually, that doesn’t seem like much, but when these individuals gather together again, it’s scary-if you’re a statist.
The lefities are scared. That makes them mean. And kinda boring.
Meanwhile, how did Al Sharpton’s shindig go? Not so well.