First out of the gate, Larry Elder at Jewish World Review delivers the bitter medicine on Obama’s approval numbers:
Palin’s Poll Numbers Falling! But What About Obama’s?!
Stop the presses (or the tweets)! Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s numbers are falling! Why not concern ourselves with that as 2012 nears. What about Obama’s numbers right now? They are tanking — big-time. A recent “news” article stated, “While the president remains personally popular …”
Is he?
Certainly the Gallup Poll — the go-to polls for most cable news shows — put Obama’s “favorability ratings” among “adults” fairly high. There is, however, another prominent and respected polling firm: the Rasmussen Reports.
Look at CNN, the organization that markets itself as real, nonpartisan news. In a recent three-month period, there were 26 instances in which a CNN newscast used the words “Obama” and “approval” and “Gallup.” But the words “Obama” and “approval” and “Rasmussen” appeared in only one CNN news show.
Next, Christopher Neefus at CNS News discusses Obama’s new science czar. My dear God, what the hell have we done?
In the 70s, Obama’s Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Court
Giving “natural objects”—like trees—standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.
According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. ”The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote.
“Slight changes in the legal notions and diligent application of the legal machinery are all that are necessary to induce a great reduction in pollution in the United States,” Holdren added.
Next, Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator asks a very pertinent question:
Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die?
Sorry Mike. Say Goodbye to Hollywood. Close your Parkinson’s Foundation (waste of scarce resources, to wax Singeresque). Just go home to the wife and kids, cut off these expensive meds and please die. Quietly. And for heaven’s sake, get yourself buried in private. We don’t want any of this Michael Jackson type-hoopla disrupting our favorite programs. We have lives to get on with. […]
You see, the philosophy behind ObamaCare, as promoted just a week ago in the New York Times Sunday Magazine by Professor Singer, is the hard cold necessity Obama sees for government to ration health care for people like, well, Michael J. Fox. As Mr. Singer says: “Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another.” And quite obviously, with Mike Fox’s QALY [Quality-Adjusted Life Year] being what it is (and Singer is a big proponent of using QALY to judge the worth of a life), the time to cut his treatment off was... yesterday. Actually, a lot of yesterdays ago.
This is what President Obama believes when he says “there’s a whole bunch of care” that someone—this would be the government—will have to decide not to employ in treating someone like Mike Fox. What about the idea that Michael J. Fox—not to mention his wife and children, extended family and friends who might actually love the little lug—think Mike’s spirit should count for something here? After all, he did an entire documentary on The Adventures of an Incurable Optimist. In the President’s words: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules....” […]
For Fox, this issue now falls precariously close to the old caution about being careful what you wish for. Once upon a time in America the issue of “life” was about the death penalty for murderers. Then it was abortion. Next it was about stem cell research. Now, it’s about whether Michael J. Fox’s life has sufficient QALY points to justify letting him live.
Recent Comments