I'm not disappointed because I know we'll have lots more snow to deal with before winter ends.
**********Charity giving: who cares? A visual guide to giving.
I found a few surprises.
**********Starting Monday morning fellow blogger Skip Murphy from GraniteGrok and I will start the Great Blogger Weight Loss Challenge. We both tip the scales at over 240 pounds (I won't say how much over...at least not until after the official weigh-in tomorrow).
My goal is to return to my normal weight of 195 pounds, a place I haven't been since just before Deb and I were married about four and a half years ago. (No, I am not blaming her. Well, not much. It isn't like she forced me to eat what she cooked, is it?)
**********Here are a few more reasons to like Sarah Palin.
I'm becoming more convinced she should run for President in 2012. I bet she'd be able to get more done in a half term than many other presidents have managed to get done in two. If nothing else she would make more than a few heads in both the Democrat and Republican parties explode.
I'd pay a dollar to see that!
**********I've wondered about this, too.
**********I like the idea of this proposed constitutional amendment:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Go to the link and let Glenn Reynolds know what you think about it.
Our representatives in Congress should abide by the same laws as the people they represent. To do otherwise makes them believe they can walk the halls of power with impunity, knowing the laws they pass do not necessarily apply to them and further separating them from the very people that elected them.
Could it be this is the reason such an amendment was proposed?
**********Bogie tells us about her sweet new ride, replacing her increasingly problematic Nissan Xterra.
**********Apparently Republican Scott Brown's run for Teddy Kennedy's vacant seat in the US Senate is picking up speed and support.
It looks like Democrat Martha Coakley isn't going to have the cakewalk she thought she was in this race. If nothing else Brown is running to be “the 41st senator to stop” ObamaCare. In Massachusetts that might be a winning strategy considering the record of MassCare, with major cost overruns, higher taxes than projected, and more expensive insurance premiums than promised. (Many, including me, look at MassCare as a preview of ObamaCare, and we don't like what we see. Neither does Brown.)
**********The New England Patriots played the Houston Texans in Houston today. This was a must-win game for Houston, as a loss today would lock them out of the playoffs and end their season.
Unfortunaly the Texans prevailed, handing the Patriots a 34-27 loss. But the Texans are not assured a playoff spots because it requires the loss of two out of three teams other teams playing today.
At least the Patriots already had a playoff spot secured before this game.
**********California: Like, it is so over.
Unfortunately Californians have only themselves to blame, voting for an increasingly liberal agenda, more onerous regulation, higher taxes, and tying the hands of the state legislature and the governor to adequately deal with budget shortfalls.
Is it any wonder people and businesses are leaving in increasing numbers? Of course some of those leaving are taking their liberal Californian beliefs with them, endangering the states to where they move with the same damn foolishness that condemned California to its fate.
(H/T Ed Driscoll)
**********Is it any surprise to find out Obama's presidential campaign wasn't as grassroots as claimed? Instead it was no different than any other modern campaign, depending upon big money donors to fill the campaign coffers.
**********From Bob Parks comes this bit of hypocrisy from the Left:
Not even when it's richly deserved?
Remember when dissent was supposed to be patriotic? Well, it seems that only applies when a Republican is president. Now that Barack Obama is in the White House, criticism of him is "un-American" and "traitorous."
**********I've noticed this too, and it's become quite annoying. The problem is that legitimate comments get buried in the noise.
**********Over time it has become evident that ObamaCare is unlikely to pass the constitutionality test While the Democrats may argue the commerce clause allows Congress to force this on the American people, there is plenty of precedent that says just the opposite.
On the other hand we have to remember that Congress has had no problem with ignoring the Constitution since it came under the control of Pelosi and Reid, particularly since Obama took office. They see it as an inconvenience to be circumvented when and where they can in order to reach their goal of turning the US into a Euro-socialist state, and a failed one at that.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
**********Gee, don't you hate it when people won't cooperate with your superior knowledge about what is and is not real? How about when Earth's climate refuses to cooperate with the now-discredited warmist theory of AGW? How rude!
(H/T Pirate's Cove)
**********Is this another preview of the future in regards to the effects of Obamacare? If the Mayo Clinic in Arizona can no longer afford to take Medicare patients at the present poor reimbursement rate, what does that imply should the proposed 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements take effect?
This is making concierge medical practices look more attractive all the time. The patient pays an annual retainer to the medical practice that covers a certain number of office visits and treatments/procedures per year. Those retainers are far less expensive than top to bottom insurance coverage, meaning almost everyone can afford them. The only health insurance anyone would need to buy would be for catastrophic care, and I think we'll find the cost of that would be a fraction of what health insurance costs today. A visit to the doctor will generate no insurance paperwork, the cost to provide the service is far cheaper than it is for the insurance company to cover, and the doctor can actually spend time with the patient because he/she isn't providing fee-for-service, which usually limits the doctor's time per patient to 5 or 10 minutes, tops.