August 3, 2010

At WEOZ: More About the Sherrods

The revelations about their tenure at New Communities Inc. that originated elsewhere (go to my Washington Examiner OpinionZone post to find out where) are so stunning that you think they must be made up.

But they’re not. They’re credible, supported by a contemporaneous publication, and have been brought to light by someone who, considering his current position, has demonstrated more than a little courage by doing so.

Just go there, and put one hand firmly underneath your jaw; otherwise, it might hit the floor.

Now here’s a question: What are the chances any of Sherrod’s defenders in the media will report any of this?

____________________________________________________

UPDATE, 12:40 a.m., August 4: The Examiner post (“Former Shirley Sherrod employee accuses her of exploiting black farm laborers”) is based primarily on a Counterpunch item (“The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod”) by Ron Wilkins. Dan Riehl at Real World View provides a graphic assist, showing us a story in a United Farm Workers publication in 1974 about New Communities Inc.’s oppressive and unfair labor practices.

UPDATE 2: Other reax –

  • Legal Insurrection: “The other day, in assessing Sherrod’s claims against Breitbart for releasing the original clip of her comments to the NAACP, I noted that any lawsuit by Sherrod against Breitbart would open Sherrod’s entire life up to scrutiny, and that Breitbart might relish such opportunity.” Really. Bring it on, Shirley.
  • At Conservative Zone, Project 21 member Joe R. Hicks says, “If Wilkins claims are proven to be true, Sherrod owes an explanation and an apology — not only to Wilkins but the other black farm workers she misused.” The heck with the apology; she and her husband owe exploited workers a piece of their $13 million USDA settlement.
  • Confederate Yankee: “Far from being an advocate for black farmers, Charles and Shirley Sherrod abused them mercilessly, treating them in ways that the most ardent racists would have found appalling.”

Tim Geithner Talks Down the Economy by Talking Up the Unemployment Rate

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:52 pm

Lefty blogs that are so pathetically out of touch that they deserve no linkage are pretending that there’s a legitimate recovery going on, and whining about how folks like yours truly are talking down the economy.

They might want to explain how this represents a recovering economy, but they really can’t:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: Unemployment Could Go Up Before It Comes Down
Unemployment Could Rise ‘Temporarily’ As More People Enter Labor Force

While the concept has some legitimacy that might explain a rise of a couple of tenths of a point in the unemployment rate over 2-3 months, it all depends on what you mean by “temporarily.”

The transcript shows that Geither does refer to a possible rise for “a couple of months” but he never specifically predicts when the unemployment rate will come down, or how quickly — or, actually, if it even will.

Geithner’s is nonetheless a de facto admission that the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, the two-year, two-tiered monster that has been almost tolerable for big, crony-connected businesses and brutal on small ones, won’t have the jobs available for a while when those who have despaired of finding work for quite a while try to get back in. Rebound? What Rebound?

Either this is a case of expectations management ahead of Friday’s Employment Situation Report (i.e., say things are getting worse so that if they hold steady or slightly improve people will be satisfied), or things are falling apart faster than Geithner & Co. originally imagined. Despite the deceptiveness of the former, I’d prefer that result over the latter — but I fear it’s the latter.

Latest Pajamas Media Column (‘Dems Deserve No Distance’) Is Up
(UPDATE: Abortion IS in ObamaCare)

/ObamaAndAnyDem0810It’s here. The sub-headline:

They supported Barack Obama in 2008, and voted for his agenda. They’re stuck with him — and that agenda — in 2010.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Thursday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

____________________

UPDATE: One of the points made in the column is that President Obama’s Executive Order supposedly prohibiting any federal funding of abortions in any government-sponsored or subsidized health plan in ObamaCare was proven to be toothless when the state of Pennsylvania “quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania” in “high-risk pools.”

Unbeknownst to me at the time I wrote the column, similar situations had also arisen in New Mexico and Maryland.

After the column draft went to PJM, the administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation to stop it:

Obama Admin Bows to Pressure, Appears to Limit Abortion Funding in Health Care
July 29, 2010

The Obama administration appears to have bowed to pressure from pro-life groups that discovered it had authorized abortion funding in three states under the new high risk health insurance programs created under the new government-run health care bill, President Barack Obama signed into law.

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a new regulation today that it says prohibits the high risk health insurance pools from covering elective abortions with federal taxpayer funds.

However, pro-life groups informed LifeNews.com that the limits do not apply to all aspects of the health care law, just the high risk insurance pools.

The new regulation says the subject of taxpayer funding of abortion under the new health care bill was addressed in the executive order Obama released that pro-life groups said was not sufficient to prevent abortion funding.

It also said the health care bill did not overturn current limits on abortion funding such as the Hyde Amendment, although the amendment does not apply to the health care law.

“These restrictions currently apply to certain Federal programs that are similar to the PCIP program,” the regulation says — though it does not say they cover the high risk pools created under the ObamaCare law.

Steve Ertelt at Life News is absolutely correct in including the tentative language I have bolded.

That’s because what’s involved is a regulation, not a law.

It can be rescinded at any time that HHS thinks the political climate is right or when it thinks no one is paying attention.

If that occurs, based on the fact that three states had already permitted it (because in their reading of the legislation, they were allowed to), abortion goes back in, and nothing short of lengthy and problematic litigation will stop it.

I believe that litigation to stop it would fail. Taking a step that I predicted last year will eventually occur given enough time, the courts would head over into the land of “equal protection” and employ the following illogical “logic” (the fourth, fifth, and sixth points have been revised to reflect current developments):

  • Health care is now a mandatory consumer purchase.
  • Reproductive health care is part of health care.
  • Abortion is part of reproductive health care.
  • Once individuals and families are in a high-risk pool, it’s very difficult if not impossible to affordably leave it.
  • The “high-risk pool,” by not paying for abortions for a large, permanently captive audience, prevents women who MUST have coverage from equal access to a health care service that the courts have long since decided is a fundamental right of women.
  • The Hyde Amendment was only intended to prevent government funding from specific programs from going towards abortion. It was never intended to permanently close off abortion funding, and thus equal access to abortion, from women now effectively forced into participating in the high-risk pool because no other realistic option is available.
  • Thus on “equal protection” grounds, the form of “health care” known as abortion must be available.

Mere months after ObamaCare’s passage, the President’s Executive Order has already been shown to be a toothless ruse designed to give pretend pro-lifers like Bart Stupak and Steve Driehaus false cover for supporting statist health care. Abortion IS in ObamaCare; a mere regulation that can be revoked at any time or which faces near-certain nullification if legally challenged is all that prevents it from becoming a reality.

This sad saga proves that what I contended in connection with Driehaus in October 2008 is indisputably true across the board: You cannot support Barack Obama and claim to be prolife. Because, as seen, in the real world, you’re not.

Positivity: Two transplants later, it’s time for ‘Dance Party’

Filed under: Health Care,Positivity — Tom @ 7:47 am

From Durham, NC:

Published Tue, Aug 03, 2010 05:23 AM
Modified Mon, Aug 02, 2010 11:27 PM

A Georgia girl who received the world’s first combination transplant of lungs and bone marrow at Duke University Medical Center has returned home – healthy enough to start her junior year of high school next week.

Laura Margaret Burbach, 16, who was born with a rare immune system deficiency, endured the two-phase procedure against long odds, first to find a matching donor and then to survive the operations.

Last week, she returned to Madison, Ga., after a full year of hospitalizations and outpatient care at Duke.

“It is great to be home,” she said.

Laura Margaret was greeted by crowds of well-wishers, who lined the route to her house and festooned trees, signs and mailboxes with pink ribbons in her honor.

On Sunday, her first day home, she went out to dinner with friends and then played “Dance Party” on Wii.

“I had never done that before,” she said. “They don’t have too many dance parties at the hospital.”

Laura Margaret arrived in Durham in July 2009, hoping for a bone marrow transplant. Bone marrow is where the body generates its infection-fighting cells, so a transplant would replace her faulty immune system with a healthy one.

But her lungs were in terrible shape, ravaged by years of infections her body could not fight off.

Doctors at Duke proposed doing a double transplant using the lungs and bone marrow of a deceased donor. Such a procedure had not been done, or at least not reported in the medical literature, and doctors needed institutional and federal approval to proceed.

Meanwhile, Laura Margaret needed to get in shape. A 4-foot, 5-inch dynamo, she had been a cheerleader, singer, dancer and school leader before growing so sick she was tethered to oxygen tanks.

In November, she was well enough to be placed on the lung transplant list, and doctors anticipated a long wait for a suitable match. Less than a week later, a donor was found.

Doctors performed the lung transplant immediately and stored the bone marrow for later. In April, after Laura Margaret went through chemotherapy and radiation to destroy her own bone marrow, the donor’s cells were transplanted.

Then began the wait to see whether the marrow would take off and grow. As each day passed, the cells multiplied. After three weeks, Laura Margaret was well enough to be discharged from the hospital. Last Sunday, she was sent home – cured. …

Go here for the rest of the story.