Weiner Goes to Hollywood

Relax, Weiner. And get ready for the pseudonymous “David Kahane’s” take on the Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) political comedy revue.

Pure funny!

Read the whole thing…

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

“Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

“That good, huh?”

“At least I didn’t get snippy or anything.”

“Sure you didn’t call anybody a jackass? Didn’t bash Dana?”

“Best behavior, I swear. I apologized to the planet. I even apologized to Huma, just like you told me to.”

“Glad we didn’t have a failure to communicate. Was she there?”

“Are you kidding?”

“Must have been tough,” I mused. “But always look on the bright side of life. Like I said the last time, I’m going to make you a bright, shining star.”

“I think I want to be alone,” he said.

This was bad: I couldn’t lose my star in a green-lit project. “Listen, Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas anymore. Or even Kew Gardens. What’s the matter?”

“Somebody shouted, ‘Bye-bye, pervert.’”

“You say that like it’s a bad thing. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

“Somebody asked if I was more than seven inches.”

I had to calm him down. “I know you. You used to be big.”

“I am big,” he retorted. “It’s the pictures that got small.” He was still fuming. “Listen, Dave, I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more.”

Read more at www.nationalreview.com


Who should decide the health care I get?

Should an insurance company decide what it can afford to give me?

Should a government appointed and paid panel of experts decide what they can afford to give me?

Or, and maybe this is too radical to be acceptable to Democrats, should I decide in consultation with my doctor what I want, need, and can afford?

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

In a blog post on the president’s speech yesterday, Paul Krugman offers a great example of how some on the left think about health-care costs:

And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for. And compare this with a voucher system, in which you have insurance company executives, rather than health-care professionals, deciding which care won’t be paid for.

The ideal, then, is technocratic management where experts who “actually know about health care and health costs” are the ones who say yes and no. And the alternative is understood to be insurance companies deciding what will be paid for.

As Krugman implies, someone must make a decision about “which care won’t be paid for.” Shouldn’t that someone be the patient and his family rather than Krugman’s panel of experts?

Read more at www.nationalreview.com


Alleged bias against women in science disproved

The number of politicized studies pointing to discrimination against women or any affinity group you care to name keeps on growing. The problem with these studies is that they, like the studies about the role of CO2 with relation to climactic effects, depend more on volume than on accuracy. They are trumpeted to a receptive press and a political establishment looking for another excuse to increase its control over people’s lives, and their conclusions become law without any skeptical scientists ever being allowed to examine the evidence, let alone testify against them. If the evidence doesn’t prove the conclusions, or if it is falsified to be more persuasive than it was when raw, in most cases we the public will never know.

So it’s wonderful when science works the way it is supposed to and allows other scientists to challenge the results of earlier studies. That’s what we have here.

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

In “Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science,” Cornell professors Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams provide a thorough analysis and discussion of 20 years of data. Their conclusion: When it comes to job interviews, hiring, funding, and publishing, women are treated as well as men and sometimes better. As Williams told Nature, “There are constant and unsupportable allegations that women suffer discrimination in these arenas, and we show conclusively that women do not.” Put another way, the gender-bias empress has no clothes.

Congress should hold hearings on the merits of continuing to spend hundreds of millions on Title IX science reviews and the ADVANCE grants. This time skeptics like Ceci and Williams must be included. It is hard to see how the gender-bias empire will stand once reason and truth are given a place at the table.

Read more at www.nationalreview.com


Why do Intellectuals Hate Profits, Business and the Free Market?

This is an old article but it still rings true. It begins like this:

“The intellectual has never felt kindly toward the market place: to him it has always been a place of vulgar men and of base motives. Whether this intellectual was an ancient Greek philosopher, who viewed economic life as an unpleasant necessity which should never be allowed to become obtrusive or dominant, or whether this intellectual is a modern man, who focuses his scorn on gadgets and Madison Avenue, the basic similarity of view has been pronounced.”

Nuclear Disarmament Naivete

Thomas Sowell is the terminator to bad ideas. One of these bad ideas, in fact one of the very worst of bad ideas, is nuclear disarmament. Read it all.

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

One of the many words that sound so attractive, to people who do not think beyond the word, is “disarmament.”

Wouldn’t it be better to live in a world where countries were not armed to the teeth, especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons? Of course it would.

But the only country we can disarm is our own. The only countries we might be able to persuade to disarm are countries that intend no harm in the first place. Those countries that do intend to harm others — and we know all too well that they exist — would be delighted to have all their victims disarmed.
Read more at www.nationalreview.com