Tom Coburn Refers to Nancy Pelosi as “Nice”???

Dr. Coburn, I think you’ve let your inherent propensity, as a physician, to be forgiving cloud your choice of words, at least, if not your judgment.

Nancy Pelosi is “nice”? Nice???

Senator Tom Coburn, a physician from Oklahoma, is right about one thing as reported in Tom Coburn Knocks Fox News, Says Nancy Pelosi is a “Nice Person” – Political Hotsheet – CBS News. A lot of the people listening to him didn’t agree with him and don’t think Nancy Pelosi is nice. And, it’s apparent from watching the cable news channel that a lot of people at Fox News don’t think she’s nice either. And, he’s also right that many of the people who don’t like Nancy Pelosi, people who don’t think she’s nice, haven’t met her. I haven’t met her … and have no desire to do so.

For a number of years now, I have watched Nancy Pelosi spew her political rhetoric which is frequently grossly inaccurate as well as vindictive and vitriolic, that is, when she can get a few words out of her mouth in a consistent and non-bungling manner. These include her comments about former President Bush, the war in Iraq and her criticism and attacks on those who oppose her and her views.

I do imagine that during a one on one encounter, Nancy Pelosi could be “charming”, even disarming … but “nice” … no. It’s easy to be mesmerized or “charmed” by snakes, … but they’re still snakes. Nancy Pelosi may be charming … but she’s still Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi may even be likable … but she’s still Nancy Pelosi … and represents nearly everything I’m opposed to. And, trying to force what she believes on me is not something that I consider nice.

Throughout the years, I’ve met a lot of  “shuck and jive” street hustlers who were both likable and even charming. Regardless, I wouldn’t trust any of them any further than I could spit. Nice, as an adjective to describe them, never came to mind.

Nancy Pelosi may be charming. She may even be likable …, but “nice” … no.

I’d suggest Senator Coburn reconsider his choice of adjectives in describing Ms. Pelosi.

Nice refers to, not only how a person is, but “what they do”. I don’t consider a lot of what Ms. Pelosi is doing as “nice” … far from it.

Maybe Senator Coburn is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, has been in Washington too long and loosing some of his objectivity. He, at least should consider reviewing a dictionary before choosing his adjectives. I will admit he’s a lot more of a gentleman than Nancy Pelosi is a lady. I wouldn’t even demean female dogs by comparing them with Nancy Pelosi. I had a female dog for many years and wouldn’t degrade the memory of her in such a lowly manner.  He should also keep in mind that, in his future encounters with the “nice lady”, the sharp sting in his back could be the knife the nice lady was hiding … figuratively or literally.

Maternal Healthcare Crisis as a Justification for Healthcare Reform

Today, I had an article pointed out to me published on the website of an organization called It was under the heading of Human Rights. The article,  A Maternal Mortality FAIL in the U.S., was written by a Harvard professor, Alicia Ely Yamin.

The article states that Ms. Yamin ” is currently a Joseph H. Flom Fellow on Global Health and Human Rights at Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program, and an Adjunct Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health.”

To support her thesis Ms. Yamin claims that “the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times greater than in Greece.”

To further support her contention, she also claims that “African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.”

Then she goes on to iterate Amnesty International’s assertion that “this is not just a public health scandal; it reflects widespread violations of women’s human rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom from discrimination, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Patterns of marginalization and exclusion in this society are exacerbated by a discriminatory and dysfunctional health system.”

After a little more haranguing, she finally gets to her point, “Join Amnesty International USA in calling on President Obama to establish an Office of Maternal Health to lead government efforts to reduce the appalling U.S. death rate for women having babies.”

If you click on this highlighted link, it will take you to an Amnesty International site where you can sign and submit a form letter. So, have at it, but … before you do …, think … and do a little of your own research.

A little “googling” will, fairly quickly, reveal some sites that present some data on maternal mortality. Maternal mortality (most recent) by country presents data gathered by UNICEF between 1985 and 1999 which was published in 2002. WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/The World Bank Estimates of Maternal Mortality 2005 is self explanatory and more recent.

Data is data and, unfortunately, can frequently be cherry picked to try to prove one’s point … if one is so inclined.

For instance, let’s look at Ms. Yamin’s claim that the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is five times that of Greece’s. She needs to check her math. A look at the 2005 data reveals that the U.S. rate is 3.67 times that of Greece, down from 8 times that of Greece in 2002.

A little “cherry-picking” of data will quickly reveal that while Greece’s maternal mortality rate between 2002 and 2005 has increased by 300%, the U.S. maternal mortality rate has only increased by 37.5%. Does this mean that Greece’s maternal healthcare system has collapsed along with their socialist economy?

And what does this prove? The incidence of maternal mortality is so minuscule in the countries cited that slight changes can produce exaggerated and preposterous claims. Between 2002 and 2005, maternal mortality in both the U.S. and Greece varied by two to three deaths per 100,000 births.

Frankly, comparing Greece’s rather homogeneous population of 11 million with the rather diverse U.S. population of 300 million is a bit of a stretch. Review of the data reveals that the U.S. maternal morbidity rate is actually on par with other industrialized nations which, quite frankly, is rather remarkable considering its diversity in many ways. And, I think the U.S. Constitution was designed to guarantee individual freedom with the right to make choices, good or bad, and not an inherent “right to the highest attainable standard of health” as conceived by and forced upon the population by a central government.

In 2002, U.S. maternal mortality per 100,000 births was 8 … the same as Germany and Japan. In the short span of three years the numbers changed to 11, 4 and 6 for the U.S., Germany and Japan, respectively. Does this mean that, in three short years, the U.S. has degenerated into a chaotic state of crisis brimming with anti-feminine discrimination, while Germany and Japan have become absolute models of virtue and feminine equality?

Of further interest, while, from 2002 to 2007, the birth rate in the U.S. increased from 13.9 to 14.3 per 1000 population; from 2003 to 2009, the birthrate in Greece declined from 9.79 to 9.45/1000. During the same period Germany declined from 8.6 to 8.18 and Japan declined from 9.61 to 7.64.

Could there actually be causes other than Ms. Yamin’s claimed U.S. “violations” of women’s inherent ”
right to the highest attainable standard of health” and “widespread violations of women’s human rights“?

For instance, illegitimacy, … excuse me … births out of wedlock, in the U.S. currently is 26% for Caucasians, 50% for Latinos and 70% for African Americans. The overall illegitimacy rate for the U.S. in 2007 was 39.7% compared to a reported 20% in 2004. I think that has something to do with “freedom of choice” along with  a lack of “responsibility”. Should the government control that too? And what does Amnesty International have to say about that?

In 2004, when the overall illegitimacy rate in the U.S. was around 20%, in Japan, it was about 1%. A current rate, although the year was unspecified, for Greece is 9%. The most recent data I could find on Germany was about 23% in the year 2000.

So, Greece, with a low illegitimacy rate, falling birth rate,universal healthcare and relatively homogeneous population has seen its maternal mortality rate triple. Germany, with a moderately high illegitimacy rate, falling birth rate, universal healthcare and, again, a relatively homogeneous population has seen its maternal mortality decline by half. Japan, on the other hand, also with universal healthcare, an extremely low illegitimacy rate, markedly falling birth rate and very homogenous population has only decreased their maternal mortality rate by 25%.

What does all of this prove? Nothing … the same as Ms. Yamin’s irrational, albeit Amnesty International inspired, rant against the U.S. But, it might bring to question some of Ms. Yamin’s more irrational contentions.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but … don’t women, as a rule, avail themselves of the healthcare system a lot more than men. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing women for following recommended guidelines regarding their health, but it hardly makes a case for the healthcare system discriminating against the very people who use it most frequently. It could also be the reason that the healthcare costs for women are more than for men. Anyone with a ounce of sense knows that it cost more to drive your car 20,000 miles than it does if you only drive it 10,000 miles. That doesn’t mean you didn’t need to drive it more, but you should expect it to cost more.

And, why would a system with an overwhelming number of women as a part of it discriminate against its most frequent users, women? If anything, the greatest conflict within the system is trying to balance the desires and needs of the changing lifestyles of the women that work in the system with the desires and needs of the changing lifestyles of the women that use it. Physicians, both male and female, in private practice frequently find themselves trying to work out this quandary of staff versus patients while frequently neglecting their own lives and families.

I do think that the more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to make educated and informed decisions about her health. It would be nice if young women would wait to make important life changing decisions about their personal health and welfare until they are older and more capable of making more informed decisions. It might have a tremendous impact on the data. I haven’t seen the demographic breakdown regarding the ages involved in maternal mortality, but I was taught that a teenage pregnancy was “high risk” by definition. I wonder if that has anything to do with the data.

Shoddy, sophomoric propaganda, … even from a Harvard professor …, is still … shoddy, sophomoric propaganda. And picking Greece, a failing socialist economy with rising maternal mortality, for comparison was just plain dumb.

My Director of Medical Education would have filed this article under the heading of “worthless crap” … more suitable for brainwashing a class of first graders than being brainlessly assimilated by adults. But she does know her usual audience, right?

Amnesty International … it figures. Ms. Yamin, Harvard University … SHAME!!!

Obama, Obama … Wherefore art thou, Obama???

Or subtitle: “Is This Dud(e) Totally Whacked … or still snorting or smoking something?”


Third planet on the left or totally out of the solar system?

Well, he certainly isn’t functioning like he’s in the United States much less Washington, D.C. … well, maybe Washington, D.C. It seems to be disconnected from the rest of the country also … maybe another galaxy.

Egocentric, narcissistic, referring to himself in the third person …

Are these the characteristics of a person functioning on all cylinders? Is he, was he or has he ever functioned on all cylinders?

Maybe the president is watching too much MSNBC. They seemed to be the only “major” cable news network that didn’t comprehend the ramifications of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. After the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, conceded the race, CNN and Fox News understood what had happened, but those loons on MSNBC … Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews … totally out in left field … figuratively and literally. I turned to MSNBC after the election was over just to see their response. It was like watching Saturday Night Live, hilarious … except the joke was on them. They were clueless.

It does appear that a majority of Democrats in Congress got the message and understand it. That, at least, is somewhat comforting since they control both houses of Congress although, thankfully, not as much as before the Massachusetts senatorial special election. It’s amazing how the sensation of being dunked in an ice cold lake can clear the mind to near sobriety … even those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who have acted in the past year like Roman dictators inebriated with the sense of absolute power.

But not Barack Obama …

He goes on national television and has a temper tantrum … a “hissy” fit … like an over-indulged three year old who’s had his pacifier removed … which he was dreamily nursing on in his personal (induced?) alternate universe. Unfortunately, even after rudely and abruptly being denied his comforter and presumably awakened, he still couldn’t separate his dream state from reality.

I used to think that the President, Mr. Obama, was simply an inherent liar.  Now I’m beginning to have some doubts. I’m beginning to think that this poor man may simply be confabulating his own version of reality … much as he did in his two literary works.

Yesterday, in Ohio, he angrily complained about being falsely accused of cutting Medicare. But, aren’t there over $450 billion in Medicare cuts in his baby, the pending healthcare bill? Isn’t Medicare Advantage going to be eliminated in all states except Florida if the Healthcare bill were to pass?

He angrily defended his government transparency policy? Maybe he missed all of those sweetheart deals that were cut behind closed doors out of the public view, only to be the latest in the lack of transparency that has been prevalent since he ascended to the presidency.

Just a few examples …

The list seems to be endless. His angrily proclaimed perception … versus reality.

Could we be witnessing the first president with Munchousen Syndrome,  a person disguising himself as lucid and brilliant … while actually being delusional and disturbingly mediocre … promoted out of absolute obscurity to a position totally out of his capacity by a population hungry beyond rational thinking for simply … something different?

I think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama may have another first to his credit in addition to being the first black president.

He may be the first president who is completely delusional … totally out of touch with reality.

Quite possibly, out of this country’s inherent kindness and generosity (which he seems to repeatedly fail to recognize), he should be, simply and quietly, sent back to South Chicago, that comforting womb which nurtured his kindred delusions and Marxist rantings in absolute … and impenetrable … obscurity) where he can also find undeniable comfort in again attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, his self proclaimed father figure and consort in delusional Marxist proclamations and rantings; and, not in the least, where he can do no further harm … hopefully. Pax vobiscum.

Now, there’s some food for thought.

Beware eBay Buyers: eBay Blocking Negative Feedback for Sellers!!!

One of the things that I had presumed to trust in using eBay has been an honest evaluation of transactions by buyers and sellers. I realize that on either end of the transaction this may not always be the case. Using the feedback mechanism as a tool of retribution by both buyers and sellers has been a form of abuse over the years. But, in the past, a prudent purchaser through due diligence could frequently sort through the maze of charges and counter-charges and come to a frequently accurate conclusion of where the truth may lie.

Today, I encountered a situation that totally astonished and frustrated me. eBay blocked my multiple attempts to leave negative feedback.

On 9 September 2009, I purchased an item on eBay and, as usual I received an invoice for that purchase. Nine days later, around the time I was expecting delivery through media mail, I received a notice of “shipment”. That’s right. Nine days after purchase … with  no explanation of delay …, my item was shipped. Five days later, yesterday, 23 September 2009, I received the item.

I don’t consider myself an unreasonable person. As a matter of fact, I encountered a similar problem about a week before. Another seller took about a week to ship an item. But, at least, this seller sent a message at the time of shipment stating that the shipment had been “returned” as undeliverable and was being reshipped. I accepted these excuses or reasons and chose not to leave a neutral or negative feedback even though shipping information didn’t support his contention.

I don’t know who thinks that taking nine days to process an order and arrange shipping is reasonable but I don’t. Period. That’s my standard and no amount of communication with a delinquent seller is going to resolve that sentiment.

But, eBay won’t allow you to leave a “negative” or even “neutral” evaluation of the seller.

I went to the feedback discussion boards and quickly found an entry related to this problem. Following the chain of comments I found some lame reason or excuse that a person had to “wait seven days” before leaving negative feedback. Well, seven days from when?

After taking the time to enter your feedback; 1) rating the seller as either positive, neutral or negative, 2) entering a comment and 3) going through the star ratings, you then click on the button” submit feedback”. If you’ve entered a neutral or negative rating, you’re taken to a page where you have to check on of three comments; 1) that you’ve communicated with the seller to try to resolve the “conflict”, 2) that you’ve allowed enough time for the item to arrive or 3) that your comment is factual and you’ve avoided personal remarks.

Well, “Choice #1” was unnecessary and irrelevant as was “Choice #2”. I was unaware that the seller was taking nine days to ship until that in fact was the case and once the item was shipped it did arrive in a timely fashion. Choice #3 was the most appropriate. My comment, “The seller took nine days to ship.”,  and evaluation was correct and factual. I understand that thinking it’s totally reasonable for sellers to ship promptly is an opinion but it’s my opinion and that’s what the feedback is supposed to be about.

For some reason after repeatedly clicking on the “Continue and leave feedback” button, nothing happened. After going back through the “revise feedback” process, still a dead button. The little highlighted red arrow point to the evaluation line “positive, neutral or negative” glares at you like you’re committing some cardinal sin that is totally unacceptable to eBay. It won’t even allow you to change from “negative” to “neutral” … again a cardinal sin.

I understand that eBay is trying to protect its sellers from harrassment by unreasonable buyers, but where’s the protection for the buyers? Making buyers jump through unnecessary hoops to protect sellers is simply poor policy.

One of the comments was that this policy was designed to protect “high volume” sellers. Well, if high volume sellers are having acute or chronic problems with a high volume of disgruntled buyers, what protection is there for daily buyers on that seller’s site when complaints about the seller are being blocked or delayed for weeks and months?

This is simply a poor implementation of a poor and one sided policy, designed to protect shoddy and unscrupulous sellers from legitimate complaints. It makes the ratings provided by eBay, at best, suspect and more realistically worthless.

Whoever is responsible for implementing this decision should carefully consider the ramifications of their one sided policy. 70% of the American economy is based on consumer purchases. EBay’s business is 100% based on consumer purchases. If eBay can’t figure this out, all of their business is based on “BUYERS” …

No buyers = no sellers!!!

Blocking negative feedback will eventually come back to haunt the powers that be at eBay. Eventually, enough buyers will encounter a bad seller and try to leave negative feedback and realize that the ratings they are depending on for honesty are totally worthless.

And, they will stop using eBay. Then it will be “Goodbye, eBay”. No buyers … and no sellers.

Larry Swedroe of CBS Slams Jim Cramer

This is a hoot!!!

Here we apparently have a participant of a major broadcast network’s financial site criticizing a participant in another major network’s financial cable channel and website.

Like … who the hell is Larry Swedroe?

“Wise Investing”???

Giving his narrow arguments in his article, Why You Shouldn’t Listen to Jim Cramer – CBS, Mr. Swedroe pointed out some studies by TWO people, college professors, about individual investors that indicated they didn’t do that well. He also had a major gripe about Jim Cramer recommending at a luncheon that people should avoid index and mutual funds.

What I gathered from Mr. Swedroe’s warnings regarding Jim Cramer is that Mr Swedroe thinks individual investors are a dumb lot and are really stupid if they don’t allow people like him to manage their money for them.

Let’s see. Mr Swedroe works for the Buchingham Family of Financial Services, has written several books, and previously worked for Prudential Home Mortgage and CITIBANK … with more than 40 years of experience in “managing financial risks for major corporations and individuals”. It’s sounds like he is and/or has been a direct competitor of Jim  Cramer when Cramer was also a “money Manager” as someone mentioned in the comments.

I suppose Mr. Swedroe’s crystal ball is better than everyone else’s.

Like an awful lot of people, I listen to Jim Cramer and watch his show, on the average, several times a week. Sometimes, I agree with him … and, sometimes, I don’t. I think that, like those who generally do well who listen to Cramer, he isn’t my only source of information. Occasionally, I have gotten tips that have made money. I’ve found it’s usually extremely nice to be owning a stock when he recommends it on his show. Selling into the pop that usually occurs after his recommendation can turn a handsome profit. On at least one occasion, I’ve been one of those who bought a stock after hours on his recommendation and turned a very nice profit several days later.

I’ve also been on the receiving end of getting into a stock that he slammed and not being aware of his thumbs down until after my purchase. That was a costly lesson.

Some of the commentators of this article brought up the Jon Stewart episode where Cramer was shriveled into a contrite, castrated and castigated shell of himself on the Daily Show. I felt the pain and humiliation that Cramer was experiencing and couldn’t understand why Cramer didn’t just tell  Stewart to “shove it”. Since Jon Stewart is such an egocentric, self-aggrandizing prick, I kept thinking, “Who is he to criticize Jim  Cramer?”

Back to Mr. Swedroe …

So, we have a “money manager” working for a “financial services” company, working for a competing network and website, who has worked in the “mortgage industry” (Is this really something you’d want on you’re resume right now?), and who has worked for CITIBANK (another glowing item on his resume??) who is advising the public not to watch Jim Cramer of “Mad Money” on CNBC. Imagine that.

wow. (I left off the capitalization of the “w” on purpose. I’m underwhelmed.)

All I can say is that I’m one of those millions who have been watching Jim Cramer for a good while. Mr. Swedroe hasn’t convinced me with his weak arguments and tangential insults that I am guilty of being a moron for doing so. I learn things from watching Cramer and I am entertained. Jim Cramer isn’t my only source of information. To the contrary, I have found it can be costly at times NOT to watch Jim Cramer.

I’m not an NBC fan but CNBC dispenses a lot of useful information and the information is multifaceted, not monolithic. Frankly, CBS and anything associated with it has been sharply declining in credibility in my opinion since Walter Cronkite stopped doing the evening news.

Mr. Swedroe … go suck an egg.

Is Sonia Sotomayor a Poorly Veiled Misandrist?

One morning, a month or so prior to Ms. Sotomayor being confirmed as the newest Supreme Court justice, I was watching “Kiss Me , Kate” on TCM, and, while Kathryn Grayson was singing “I Hate Men”, ironically … or possibly appropriately … enough, Sonia Sotomayor came to mind.

Ms. Sotomayor’s repeated statements about Latina women having better judgement than “white” men was abruptly brought to mind. It seems apparent by her own repeated admission that she holds “white men” in lower esteem than she does herself and her beloved Latina womanhood. Many people have excused her “slip of the tongue” as simply that … a mis-statement or “slip of the tongue”. Well, was it a misstatement, a “slip of the tongue”? Or … was it a more profound admission of her true feelings … a bantering admission of her core beliefs … brought own by a  lapse in judgment or a sense of empowerment that no one would think anything of her admission, that there would be no consequences for her crass gender prejudices?

The most often repeated defenses of Ms. Sotomayor’s expressions is that, as above, she mispoke … or that she’s highly qualified for the Supreme Court because she completed college summa cum laud and graduated from a prestigious law school. Frankly, her apparent “good” grades really seem to be the only excuse that I’ve heard people express such as the journalist from Los Angeles who defended her on Mike Huckabee’s show a while back.

Somehow, Ms Sotomayor’s defenders would have one believe that a “superior” intellect is a sole qualifying trait. Quite frankly, World History is replete with repeated examples of individuals with supposed “superior” intellect … but also, quite frankly, of very dubious character. Aaron Burr was an extremely intelligent man, a vice president of the United States … who, by the way, wanted to make himself king or something of the lands of the Mississippi River. I think we would describe that as a grandiose personality. Benedict Arnold was an obviously intelligent person. But, that didn’t stop him from betraying his country. Napoleon Bonaparte was obviously intelligent, a brilliant military strategist, who wanted to conquer the world … who turned the French Revolution into the instrument of his aspirations to be Emperor of Europe. Ah, but she’s a woman. So were Catherine de Medici, Marie Antoinette, Salome and Lucretia Borgia.

Personally, I’d rather have a person of average intelligence who has a sense of tolerance and justice as well as a hefty dose of common sense. How many supposedly intelligent people have you met who seemed to lack a ounce of common sense, or who were so egocentric that they lacked any understanding or tolerance for others?

But she is a lawyer, she knows and understands the law. In all probability, no one knew Roman law better than Julius Caesar when he made himself dictator of Rome.  Did you know that Fidel Castro was a law student … who in turn … systematically destroyed the legal foundations of the country he was determined to establish himself in absolute control over … and ruthlessly destroyed anyone who got in his way?

So, What is a “misandrist”? Well, it a person, typically a woman, … who hates men … like Ms. Sotomayor’s “white” men that she so jovially derides … as in the “white” men, … men like the Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Did she mean her Latina women have better judgment and wisdom than THOSE “white” men? Frankly, I’d like to see Ms. Sotomayor come up with one Latina woman to equal those men.

So. What’s my beef with some off-handed statement that Ms. Sotomayor made … reportedly more than once ..on various occasions?

Well, back in high school I took French. Having done well the first year, I decided to take a second year of French. It turns out that our first year French teacher had moved on and we had a new teacher to take her place. On the first day of class, our new teacher comes in and one of the first statements to come out of her mouth was, “I hate men.” Seriously.

This woman, it turns out was recently divorced and, unfortunately for the little boy, had one small child, a son. I shudder to think how he’s turned out, poor kid. This woman wasn’t a comedian and wasn’t kidding. In all honesty, I don’t remember a lot about the rest of the class that day … other than, by the end of that class, I was determined to get out of it. And I did. I wasn’t going to leave the outcome of my future in the hands of that self proclaimed “misandrist” … no way.

The woman obviously had issues and I didn’t make any trouble for her. I simply dropped the class and signed up for something else. I told my parents about the teacher’s statement and they both agreed with my decision. I only hope for the sake of her child and her own well being, as well as that of my classmates, that this woman moved on and got over her bitterness and hatred. But, I honestly have my doubts.

So, Sonia Sotomayor’s presumed offhand, but repeated, statements about Latina women having better judgment that “white” men really struck a chord. Was it a joke, a generalization, or a inappropriate but profound expression of her core beliefs?

Frankly, it bothers me that our legislators have simply brushed aside people’s concerns about this woman’s inherent character and have placed her in the nearly unique position of an associate Supreme Court justice. I find it hard to believe that, out of the millions of lawyers that practice in this country, she was the best choice. What does that say about the legal profession?

I suppose when buying votes is your goal, pandering to the Hispanic community by Barack Obama shouldn’t be unexpected.

Barack Obama and John Kennedy: Headless Horsemen or Headless Chickens?

One glaring similarity …

Kennedy wasn’t in control of what was going on in Washington and neither is Obama. Kennedy’s honest critics point out that he was basically punted around by senators and representatives who were old pros in Washington. Does anyone have any question about who’s actually controlling policy and spending … Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

The classic example is Obama’s current approach to earmarks or “porkbarrel spending”. It’s gone from being one of his main campaign promises to neutralize John McCain’s pledge to …, “Well, I’ll deal with that later.”

For the Democrats, it’s gone from being “something evil only the Republicans did” to “additional necessary stimulus”. “It creates jobs” is the argument. Well, it created jobs back then too. So, what’s changed?

Maybe, Obama’s promises to rein in porkbarrel spending were just slips of the tongue like “Bible hugging and gun toting” or “typical white person”. Maybe someday the people who got teary eyes and tingly legs will wake up and realize what they’re smelling isn’t roses.

The only similarity between Obama’s White House and the “Headless Horseman” is the lack of a head. At least, the “Headless Horseman” had a directed and focused purpose. Obama’s White House is more like a headless chicken, flailing around in circles and a multitude of directions while the body is being rapidly drained of blood.