A single mother who cares for her three young children and her elderly mother is shot point blank as she sits in her car.
The woman — to satisfy a-Bob, Baldy, and their fellow wallowers in the politics of identity — is black and hispanic.
I would say for no reason was she killed but there is a reason. It’s not robbery or a drug deal gone bad. The reason is she was wearing a blue uniform, the uniform of the New York city police department. Which is also the reason that the Black Lives Matter cynics have remained silent, if they’re not silently rejoicing.
“Where are the demonstrations?” asked NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill at her funeral. The divine Peggy Noonan elaborates:
Unnamed but a clear focus of Mr. O’Neill’s remarks was the radicalism and rage of the Black Lives Matter movement, coupled with a national media too often willing to paint the police, in any given incident, as guilty until proven innocent. This sets a mood that both excites and inspires the unsteady and unstable.
Dateline: the No Man’s Land of Chicago
A neighborhood activist, age 58, trying to quell the gang banging and offering hope and jobs — is shot dead on the streets of Chicago. Now that is bad to the bone. Kill the good guy because he is doing good. Depraved.
“People are so cold-hearted. How could you take somebody’s life? He helped everybody. I just don’t understand,” Patricia Carter, the victim’s niece, said. (Read & Weep)
Police are NOT targeting and killing black men
“With a few notable exceptions, violent criminal attacks are the best predictor of whom police might shoot in America.
“In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands,” the [Washington Post] reported in 2015. “Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats,” National Review reports.
The perfect is the enemy of the good
I have no patience for my Trump uber alles friends who pillory Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell as “traitors.” (Lookin’ at you Shameful Hannity and Loo-ser Dobbs.)
Republicans are too independent-minded, sometimes, for their own good. Democrats, by contrast, have that union mentality. They fall into line. As Fred Barnes writes: “Politics is a team sport.”
You don’t abandon your team just because you don’t get everything you want. … You hold your nose and vote for an imperfect measure. … But too many Republicans aren’t comfortable as team players. To them, it’s shady and unprincipled to vote for something about which you have serious doubts.
Same dynamic at work in the Wisconsin legislature, especially over highways. A former Dane County Republican chairman described it as “herding cats.”
Blaska Policy Werkes Rule #256: In a legislature of 100, it doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what 51 think. (Profundity, thy name is Blaska!)
Clueless in Michigan
An assistant professor of history at the University of Michigan prescribes the cure for what ails the Democrat(ic) party, via Sunday’s New York Times:
The Democratic Party must reaffirms its commitment to economic and social justice, even as it seeks to speak to the needs and interests of rural citizens, the struggling lower middle class, the laboring poor, etc. …
It was the “et cetera” that got me. The same old Marxist taxonomy. Add your own “people of color,” et cetera. Same old identity politics.
Now let’s parse the Lefty buzz words (“dog whistles,” if you will) “economic and social justice” — polite words for socialism. This verbiage is curiously bridged by: “even as it seeks to speak to the needs …” of the afore-mentioned list of subgroups — the class, order, family, genus, and species of that phylum known to most of us as “Americans.”
“Even as it speaks” acknowledges, however implicitly, the antagonism between the cause — the socialism of “economic and social justice” — and the audience: Americans sliced into ever-thinner lab specimens.
Platinum Subscriber bonus effluvia — The Squire was never Trump but elated that Hillary lost. If that is not equivocating, nothing is. But I gotta say, if Kim Jong-un himself dropped a dime to say he’s got dirt on my election opponent, I’m listening. And what is this about canoodling with an “enemy?” The Cold War is over. Vlad Putin is a cold-hearted sonofabitch but so was Harry Reid.
Kim Jong-un himself, huh? You would take help in a political campaign from foreign governments hostile to the US, our interests and our allies? Folks that would be more than happy to then blackmail you? You don’t see a problem with that? That’s just STUPID. And, I gotta say, not very patriotic. What is happening to you Republicans? Comparing Reid to Putin? Bizarro-world stuff. The GOP is unhinged; I didn’t think you were quite there yet, Dave.
not any worse than comparing walker, trump any conservative to hitler. take a look in the mirror Bob
Don’t believe I’ve ever compared anybody to Hitler (despite Trump and his supporters’ blatant authoritarian tendencies).
You got me pegged wrong. I’m not an identity politics kinda guy. But you probably needed somebody else to blame for your own shortcomings. No surprise.
Got to call O’BS on that one Ballsy. If you are not an identity politics guy then you are not a Democrat or you are dishonest.
Just above you sits ABob quivering like an airedale at constant imagined dog whistles. Sit Bob!
Remember when Bernie, O’Malley and Hillary tried to say “All lives matter?” They got woke real fast by the Obamanauts. Remember? Ah, good times.
Absent a message, your party is reduced to saying “What’s your minority? Here’s your victimhood.” Vote Democratic now and redress and reparations later.
Without grievance/identity politics there would be no way for Democrats to show their virtue. None.
Think about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At heart I’m a pretty conservative guy, by the classical definition I learned in Dr. Bob’s class in 1969. And because I vote for the best candidate rather than the party, the claim of identity politics is bogus. Heck, I even voted for Nixon, Ford and Bush I. But the current state and national crop of “conservatives” don’t meet my standards. Nor do most of the D’s. So I guess you are right, I’m not a Democrat. Nor am I dishonest. Bad assumption on your part based on your own identity bias.
Please define my identity bias and tell me what it has to do with my judgement on your dishonesty.
Is English a second language for you, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? See above for the answers to your inquiry.
It just seemed to me that the Obamacare replacement whatever its name does not really address the main issue facing Americans – higher and higher costs – from the $20 aspirin to the $100000 prostate cancer treatment. It is definitely clear that costs are out of control except for computers and TV sets. I will agree with Rand/Ron Paul and blame the Federal Reserve on that one. But anyway, we got a group of Republican Senators in 2015 (minus Collins) to repeal Obamacare – why won’t they do it now? It is a bit of “blow the whole thing up”, but I kind-of think that’s why we got Trump, the quintessential bull in the china shop. Sometimes you have to burn up the forest to get new growth.
The big question is, having 7 years to come up with a better plan, why didn’t they ?
Your last statement may be true, but is that “new growth” what you really wanted?
Leave it to a privileged professor to overlook the obvious, especially when holding forth on a subject–the “laboring poor”–with which he’s had no direct experience. Does he really think that the members of that class who voted for Trump would succumb so easily to the blandishments of Democrats trying desperately to re-brand themselves as champions of white, working class men? After decades of promoting identity politics, sucking up to the preening narcissists in Hollywood, and pandering to every whim of the coastal (and academic) elites? Naturally a history professor at the U. of Michigan would work on the assumption that such folks are as gullible as they are misguided. I read that “etc.” a little differently than you did, Dave. It struck me as a spontaneous expression of conempt–a dismissive wave of the hand– for the “deplorables” so long ignored–if not demonized–by the Democratic Party: ” … rural citizens,the struggling lower middle class, the laboring poor–you know, THOSE people.”
Apparently you don’t know what “identity bias” (your term) is either. And yes, English is my first language but I’m fluent in French as well.
Te desiderari in parte, inepta.
You and blaska both “identified” me as something I’m not, hence your bias. What I am is someone that doesn’t think the bluster and hyperbole on either side doesn’t much good, nor is the divide and conquer tactics used (see WI Act 10) do much for society in general. If you want to call me dishonest, fine. But it isn’t true, nor do you have any proof. Just like I could say you are the stupidest guy in the Great Lakes States. I can say it, but can’t prove it, and it may not be true. Hint: I think that honor goes to my state senator.
Molon labe. Feel better?
I live in the south east so by your logic you are geographically biased. See? Not very coherent.
Food for thought from Twitter user @jrbergsten
Yesterday, I tweeted this in response to somebody’s Health Insurance babbling:
“Until insurance providers need customers more than customers need insurance providers nothing will change. Meanwhile, soundbite away.”
This seemed to get a bit of response, so here’s the longer version written the weekend before:
Here are the actual issues with US health care as it stands today:
1. There is no control on or understanding of cost. A person seeking care has no idea what the cost might be, which is understandable to a point when the treatment requirements may vary considerably. Complex care justifies some difference in cost, but overpriced “thousand-dollar cotton swabs” doesn’t.
2. The reason there is no control is because there is no accountability, because the perception is that “insurance will cover it,” so patients generally don’t care (and to some degree exhibit glee) when they see outrageous bills that are then “discounted” and largely paid for by insurance. We see similar behavior in student loans, where college costs skyrocket simply “because they can.”
3. The reason health insurance costs are so high is because there is no effective competition either (cost and coverage being set by regulation), so these companies grow internally to outrageously large size with no interest in efficiency. Note, I am not talking “profits,” or even “executive salaries.” I’m talking tens of thousands of employees, in hundreds of buildings, with hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure, doing what exactly?
(In passing, a friend who works for one of the Dental insurance companies, said they have over 25,000 DIFFERENT contracts with dentists, employers, and unions. This is so complex that they haven’t the ability to even tell whether a given contract is profitable, or even break-even).
4. A contributing reason for this inefficiency and size is that the insurance industry has placed itself in the middle of EVERY medical transaction, taking a piece off the top each time, just like a taxing agency. They are in the middle of patient care, medical malpractice, prescriptions, preventative health care, workplace-related injury, disability, and so on.
5. Because of the “tax agency” nature of current insurance, they can be in an adversarial relationship with everyone – their customers, their providers, their employers, and so on. Since there is no real interest in either customer service or efficiency, as soon as one attempts any transaction that doesn’t involve paying for insurance, it’s a prolonged, difficult battle. I’ve personally witnessed cases where insurance companies, if they can be reached at all, seem willing to spend thousands to deny the payment of a few dollars.
6. Once health insurance became “obligatory,” companies no longer have to worry about revenue, so they turn their attention to maximizing profit. This has resulted in poorer coverage, higher deductibles, forced changes to lifestyle, and so on.
7. Finally, as in other major industries, they have the resources to lobby and get laws and regulations passed and candidates elected to favor them over constituencies. Meaning, there is no way they can or will be coerced to change. To think otherwise, or to propose a solution that would seem to jeopardize them is illusory.
So, it’s hopeless.
But, let’s for a moment assume it isn’t. What might be better? In priority order:
1. All governments need to get out of the business of legislating obligatory health insurance. Without this, nothing else can be done as there is no impetus to change. Insurance companies need to be put into a position where they must “work for their money.”
2. Insurance needs to get out of the “discount healthcare” business. The original intent of insurance was to cover one against unexpected, catastrophic events, just as auto and home insurance do (or should). The popular belief that paying thousands of dollars per month justifies saving ten dollars on a prescription is ludicrous beyond belief. Insurance shouldn’t pay for “minor” health-related costs. A huge amount of overhead and infrastructure, on the patient, practitioner, and company would be eliminated. This would also force providers to be competitive as the cost of these services would come out of patient’s pockets.
Presently, the only groups that I am aware of that do this are some “faith-based” insurance alternatives, where the group pools their contributions against claims by their membership. Is this working, or a scam? Really don’t know.
3. Health care needs to become competitive and providers need to charge the same for identical service, so that published costs are known or reasonably estimated before treatment commences. Yes, the rich will get better health care if they are willing to pay for it, but that’s true already.
4. With competition and accountability, cost saving tech will lower patient costs as opposed to simply increasing profits.
5. Some mechanism is needed to control the cost of life-saving medications. At some point, some modicum of ethics and humanity are needed in what should be a humane industry.
6. Insurance companies should NOT be disbanded, imprisoned, capped, re-regulated, and so on. What is needed here are reasonable alternatives and freedom of choice. They should be allowed to compete on their own merits.
Is this a naïve belief in efficient markets? No way in hell. I am of the firm belief that, thanks to “middlemen” it has become impossible to make an honest living in America, so I am positive that, even with changes, the brightest and most avaricious amongst us will figure out a way to game the system. But, perhaps in the meantime…
And yet somehow Europeans manage to have universal and better healthcare at a lower cost than we have. Different countries do it differently. Some are government single payer, some countries have 2 or 3 heavily regulated insurers that everyone buys from. No one there worries about comparing costs. No one worries about unreasonable premiums or deductibles. No one worries about personal bankruptcies caused by healthcare costs. No one there would trade it for our system. Sometimes the free market is neither efficient nor works.
Bankruptcy is the tort lawyers fault. Good Democrats all.
Splat the Hack has no answer.
Splat the Hack? Not bad but it sounds like a command.
What’s the question Bob?
Pingback: Key Reads July 19, 2017 | RightWisconsin