Why I Won't Boycott BP

My, it's fashionable to bash BP right now. Perhaps, in time, we will come to find BP deserves the bashing, but right now, what has it done?

There's a giant oil gusher dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, disrupting local economies, and destroying environmentally sensitive areas. Whose fault is it?

To assess fault, you start with the facts -- what caused the rupture? Do we know yet? No, we don't. And just why are we blaming BP? Hyundai Heavy Industries built the Deepwater Horizon platform. It was owned by Transocean, operated under the Marshalese flag of convenience, and leased to BP.

So, if we can't blame BP - yet - for the spill, we can blame them for the failure to clean it up, right?

Wrong. It turns out that BP can't do anything on its own. Herewith, our President, The One, on May 27:

[M]ake no mistake: BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance. I've designated Admiral Thad Allen, who has nearly four decades of experience responding to such disasters, as the national incident commander. And if he orders BP to do something to respond to this disaster, they are legally bound to do it.

BP is not in charge of the cleanup -- the federal government is. Feeling better now? Reassured? President Bush was excoriated for not going to the Gulf for four days in the wake of Katrina, but The One took eleven days to get down there, stopping along the way to hang with Jay Leno and work on jokes for the White House Correspondents Dinner. Where's all the criticism?

The well in question was permitted and approved by The One's administration. The One is in complete control of the cleanup efforts. Let's boycott the federal government! How about we all stop paying our taxes until the feds get their act together, clean up the Gulf, and pay for all the damage they caused!

It may well be that, at some point, we discover the cause of the spill and we can place the blame squarely on BP or wherever it truly belongs. Maybe then, I'll stop going to BP. Until then, however, the rest of you can do whatever you want. If you boycott BP, that's fine with me. Lower demand results in lower prices, and fewer customers means no waiting at the pump.

To whoever started this silly "boycott BP" notion -- thanks! I won't be joining you because the whole idea is ridiculous, but don't let me stop you from making my life cheaper and easier!

We're Number 7! We're Number 7!

Oh boy, the figures are rolling in on The One's stimulus package and that unbelievable recovery we're in! And the Enchanted Mitten is number 7 in the latest rankings!

All 50 states have been studied, comparing The One's projection of jobs created through December 2010 with the actual change in jobs through September 2009, using state payroll figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Do you remember the euphoria when The One said we would create 3.5 million jobs? The actual number, when you add up the state-by-state projections, was 3,460,000. Well, the figures are in so far, and it turns out the nation has actually seen jobs decline -- there are now 2,708,600 fewer people working, or a net loss of 6,168,600 jobs, compared to the projection.

Okay, I know the projection is for December 2010 and we still have a year to go, so it could still happen, couldn't it? After all, we're off to a flying start!

Here in the Enchanted Mitten, we were projected to gain 109,000 jobs. We've actually lost 137,300, for a net loss over the projection of 246,300 jobs. Still, this fine performance (guess we're just not making enough movies, or green products, or green movies, or whatever) only puts us at 7th worst among job losers. Here are the six ahead of us:

1. California, -732,400
2. Texas, -494,300
3. Florida, -371,100
4. New York, -326,800
5. Georgia, -291,900
6. Illinois, -256,900

Yes, we're only 10,600 lost jobs behind Illinois, a gap I think Gov. Tinkerbell and the rest of the Lansing think tank can easily close, but we'd better watch out -- Pennsylvania is only 100 lost jobs behind us, and Ohio is lurking in 9th with a net of 230,500 lost jobs.

I know what you're thinking, and you're probably right. It's not fair to compare Michigan's dismal performance against the failed stimulus, because the Mitten got out in front and started shedding jobs almost as soon as Tink could say, "You're gonna be blown away." But hey, rules are rules, and we have to take the rankings as we find them.

And so it goes. We're number 7! We're number 7!

An Enduring Tragedy

Eight years ago today, we lost thousands of our family, friends, and fellow Americans in an unprovoked, despicable attack that will be forever remembered as this generation's Pearl Harbor.

May we never forget our loss or the murderers who inflicted it.

It's interesting now to go back at look at reactions to the 9/11 attacks. For instance, try this one, from September 19, 2001:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

So the author is saying we should empathize with the 9/11 murderers and try to understand them, to relate to their childhoods or their lack of career advancement potential. They didn't want to kill Americans, they were just poor, or ignorant, or felt they were helpless, or were in despair.

Can you imagine someone making this argument on behalf of gangbangers who kill a child in a drive-by? How about KKK members who burn crosses or kill minorities? Maybe we shouldn't use military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, instead sending Dr. Phil and teams of therapists to raise their self-esteem?

You know what makes the quotation above even worse? Its author is now the President of the United States.

The quotation is from a September 19, 2001 article The One (then The Future One) wrote for the Hyde Park Herald, a local Chicago newspaper. (Hat tip to Red State and to The Incomparable Michelle Malkin for the article).

Compare The One's views with Tony Blair's:

So what do we do? Don't overreact some say. We aren't. We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty. Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime. State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded. Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could. The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties.

But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die. Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked. They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must. Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.

The election of a president with so little understanding of the world, so little appreciation for the lives lost on 9/11, and so much desire to understand and therapize America's enemies is simply part of the enduring tragedy of 9/11.

Obama's Ruse

One of the first cases we studied in law school was Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. The "carbolic smoke ball" was a rubber ball with a tube attached. The ball was filled with carbolic acid. The user inserted the tube into his or her nose and squeezed the ball, releasing the enclosed vapors into the nose, causing the nose to run and the disease to be flushed away. What disease? The carbolic smoke ball was advertised to "positively cure" coughs, colds, catarrh, asthma, eroechitis, loss of voice, sore throat, "throat deafness," snoring, sore eyes, influenza, hay fever, headaches, croup, whooping cough, and neuralgia.

Last night, Americans were treated to a televised version of the carbolic smoke ball when The One took to the airwaves and delivered his "plan" for health care reform. Now that the tsunami of media gushing has subsided somewhat, let's take a look at some of The One's claims.

The One started off by saying "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." He immediately followed this by saying:

As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

So, there will be no cap on benefits, government-imposed co-pay limits, and insurance companies will be required to cover a government-imposed list of procedures at no extra charge. Can you say "premium increase"? Co-pays and benefits are adjusted as a means of negotiating lower premiums. The government is going to prohibit these negotiations, and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. Thanks a lot.

Here are two more:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

If our new government-run health care system will not cover illegal aliens, why does The One try to sell it using a figure -- "47 million without health care" -- that includes nearly 10 million illegal aliens? And why did the House kill an amendment that would that would have explicitly banned health care for illegal aliens? On the same day, the House killed an amendment that would have expressly prohibited abortion funding through government health care. If Congress won't expressly prohibit abortion funding and benefits for illegal aliens, how can we trust the repeated assurances that these things won't happen?

That was a rhetorical question. Of course we can't trust them.

Hey, here's a good one:

Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier.

Let's apply this rationale to the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. They have produced neither energy nor education. Let's get rid of these two departments and use that money to pay down the deficit. When The One does that, we can talk about a government takeover of health care.

Which brings us to another hilarious line:

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.

The One denies this by saying . . . well, actually, he never denies this. Read the speech. He never once disclaims that his intent is a government takeover. Instead, he offers an extended misdirection, which includes this startling admission:

[C]onsumers do better when there is choice and competition.

Huh? Was he kidding? I say, let's take him at his word here and, while our elected representatives in Washington are trying to divine the perfect health care system, let's do three -- that's 3 -- simple things in the interim to increase "choice and competition."

First, allow health care companies to compete across state lines. Second, make health care premiums tax deductible for individuals as well as employers. Third, allow consumers and small businesses to group together to buy health care coverage.

That's it for now -- a one page bill, maybe two pages. Talk about unleashing competition and making health insurance affordable for more people!

Meanwhile, Congress can spend the next four years arguing over whose state gets the building housing the health care "exchange" The One has envisioned.

Look, there are a lot of other problems with The One's health care ruse. How will he pay for it? Even the Los Angeles Times couldn't choke down his ludicrous explanation ("we'll cut out waste and fraud!"):

[T]he president's comments about the savings available in Medicare were disingenuous, as was his assertion that a new tax on insurers would lead them to "provide greater value for the money" instead of simply passing the cost on to policyholders. Obama will have to come up with a more complete approach to paying for reform as the legislation moves forward. He claimed the plan as his own with this speech, but he left some of the hardest questions unanswered.

Wisely, The One has postponed the public option and his insurance "exchanges" for four years, until after the next presidential election. No sense making this an issue, is there?

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company disappeared a long time ago, like the smoke they touted as a cure. One gets the sense that, despite the energy (and desperation?) fueling The One's extraordinary address to Congress, we are being fed a carbolic smoke ball, touted as a cure, but ultimately a fraud and a ruse.

Yikes! Health Care Histrionics Unleashed

It's hilarious that the White House started (then abruptly cancelled) a web site where people could snitch on those who were allegedly spreading misinformation about The One's health care proposals, particularly since the misinformation is largely coming from proponents of a government-run health care system.

Consider the following:

* The "public option" so beloved by The One and his minions was supposedly intended to create competition with private insurers, but now Mark Penn has written that "The subsidized 'public option' was always meant as a transition to single payer, not merely as an aid to competition with private insurers."

* Penn also states that "Americans want universal care as they define it — the unlimited right to have all the health care they need and access to the latest technologies to live longer and extend the lives of their loved ones." Sure, and I'd like a scratch handicap, an invisibility cloak, and the ability to time travel, but those aren't going to happen either.

* The junior senator from the Enchanted Mitten, Debbie Stabenow, said in a recent interview that "The reality is that we need to act when you're talking about 62 percent of the bankruptcies in this country coming because of a health care crisis." This is a flat-out lie. The Fraser Institute did an extensive study of this precise issue, and specifically compared the U.S. to Canada, the left's third favorite paradise (behind France and Cuba). Here are two of their findings:

The most recent data (2006 and 2007) shows that personal bankruptcy rates are actually higher in Canada (.30% for both years) than in the United States (.20% and .27%).

Research indicates that medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of US bankruptcies,and that medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

* As part of her ongoing series, TMAC authored part 2 of "Liberal Lies About National Health Care." Read and learn.

I can't remember who said it first, but I have always believed that while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, no one has a right to be wrong on the facts. Mark Penn surely slipped up when he disclosed the true purpose of the public option (for which he certainly will be taken to the liberal equivalent of the woodshed, perhaps some re-education camp), but at least he told the truth that it is just a path to a single-payer, national health care system. Like all such systems, this will destroy private medicine and innovation, producing long waits for vital medical services and rationing, particularly for the elderly and persons otherwise afflicted and therefore undeserving of special care.

Truth and justice -- more of both, please.