Check this one out:

Let me know what you all think!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

When Linda O'Boyle wanted just a few more months with her family and chose to pay out of pocket for a drug that would work against her colon cancer and allow her to do that, she was dropped from Britain's National Health Service coverage:

Mrs O'Boyle was operated on in January last year for colon cancer and the doctors found it had spread to her stomach lining.

The former NHS assistant occupational therapist, who has three sons, twins
Gerald and Anthony, 37, and Mark, 33, as well as grandchildren Luke,
four, Finn, three, Jemima, two and Darcey, two, then had six weeks of
chemotherapy.

She continued with this until September last year when she and her husband were told the devastating news there was little more doctors could do.

However, her consultant recommended Cetuximab, which could extend her life. But it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales.

It is one of many medicines the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence denies to some patients because of cost.

Mrs. O'Boyle's decision to take it meant she and her husband had to spend £11,000 over two months for care from Southend University Hospital HS Foundation Trust.

Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.

'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'

He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort.

'We were lucky we had the money, it's the people who have no recourse to it that struggle. It is wrong that they are denied the chance.'

Mr. O'Boyle, who said he was convinced the drug had extended his wife's life by three months, added: 'If these guidelines were changed it would be a wonderful legacy for my wife.'

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

Cake Eater Kathy lays it all out.

Nice, huh? A lifetime of taxes to pay for a health care system that actually employed this woman and her husband, only to be betrayed in the end because she was willing to pay out of pocket for a few more months on this Earth. She wasn't looking for a cure. She knew that was beyond her. She was simply looking for a palliative treatment which could extend her life a bit. Just a bit.

She was asked, "How badly do you want to live?" And she replied that she wanted just a few more months with her family. She paid the price for a drug that wasn't available under universal healthcare, and she did it gladly, only to be smacked with a frozen mackerel in the end. Her actions would create a "two tier" health care system, and that, apparently, cannot be allowed, because that would mean she wasn't receiving lowest common denominator health care, like everyone else does with the NHS, and the NHS cannot stand that. She thought she had the right to choose what her healthcare was worth to her, and that she wasn't going to be penalized for her decision. One would suspect, with universal healthcare, that that would be a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

And yet this atrocious system is what some people would have us install here in the US. This is what some people want because their health insurance premiums are too high, and they would prefer not to have to pay them, but would rather let the government run things. It's tidier in theory, but absolutely disgusting in practice.

Again, how badly do you want to live?

Governments with nationalized healthcare systems don't want to give their citizens a choice. Patients are blackmailed, ultimately, into going with the lowest common denominator treatment if the the choice is between that or nothing at all because they don't have spare millions on hand to pay for private care.

But Kathy says it better than I ever could. She has lived it. Go read about what Universal healthcare means for Ovarian cancer patients in Europe compared to the treatment she recieved here in the US. It's shocking and frightening. Definitely something to consider as we go to the polls.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:58 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Oh, my God. That poor woman and her family... and they worked for the system! I know little to nothing about socialized medicine, but I know I don't want it.

Posted by: pam at June 02, 2008 01:52 PM (l6NIn)

2 thankee, darlin'.

Posted by: Kathy at June 02, 2008 06:46 PM (qPNVr)

3 Ban on co-payment? That's sick. No wonder my uncle (second-cousin's husband) in England died - all they did was give him morphine and say, "Go nicey-nice to a Hospice," -they're disgusting.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 03, 2008 09:27 AM (VNM5w)

4 THAT is why I have a problem with the idea of universal health care. Because it rapidly morphs from "safety net for people who are badly off" into "Everyone gets the same minimal standard of care because that's the only thing that's FAIR." In other words: why the hell should anyone work hard or save up money, maybe against some kind of medical emergency, if they're going to be told they get kicked out of any future benefits because they want to use THEIR money for a different/better treatment. (This will also KILL any innovation in treatments - there's no incentive to try new things if they're not "approved" by Mama Government.) If they proposed this kind of system, for, say, food - where everyone's issued a pound of kind-of-crappy hamburger, a couple cans of green beans, and a jug of Kool-Aid a week, everyone would be up in arms. Why do people want it with healthcare? (The other thing that scares me about universal healthcare coming here? I have aging parents. I sure as Hell do not want to be told, "Well, there's a treatment that could ease their pain and extend their lives, but we can't use it." Hell no. You want to see me throttle a doctor, and then go and throttle politicians? That would do it.)

Posted by: ricki at June 03, 2008 09:28 AM (O5SYw)

5 Everytime I hear these healthcare horror stories and how bad ours is, and how much worse it is elsewhere I can't help but wonder - Is there ANYPLACE in the world that has a workable healthcare system? Are there ANY solutions out there to improve ours and put the brakes on rising costs? Is is possible to find a solution that'll use the best of both worlds and make most everybody, if not all the people, happy? Just something I think of when I hear about the problems with our healthcare system. I hear a lot of griping, a lot of arguing, but few workable solutions to fix it.

Posted by: diamond dave at June 03, 2008 09:55 AM (EKSJf)

6 How about this scenario., hardworking mom, a receptionist at a strip mall dental office m-f and a museum guard on the weekends. No medical insurance. Where does she go when in pain? Got any ideas? Try county, take a ticket, no chairs so you get to stand. Takes the whole day to do so which puts said woman at risk for loosing her job. Often, by the time she's diagnosed, she's in deep sh@#$t. hell, lets lay it on thick, she's diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. Are we crying yet? please..my best friend died of ovarian cancer. She was a teacher for the LA Unified school district and although insured, she discovered that at UCLA, reputed to have the best care, (which she paid for out of pocket), those with money were those that received good care. If thats the case what do you think happened to our dental receptionist?

Posted by: royal pine at June 03, 2008 10:45 AM (Bby3r)

7 "...it is available on the NHS only in Scotland, not in England and Wales." Tangentially, this is also one of the many reasons why the UK may be headed for a breakup, and soon. On this subject generally, I always go back to what P.J. O'Rourke said about it: "if you think health care's expensive now, just wait until you see how much it costs when it's free."

Posted by: Dave J at June 03, 2008 07:27 PM (glamO)

8 royal, its a shame many of our government run County hospitals are utter disaster areas, but is the solution really just complaining that rich people get better treatment and should instead get equally sh*tty treatment? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to leave the parts of our medical system that work alone and focus on fixing out government run County hospital disaster zones?

Posted by: the Pirate at June 04, 2008 08:28 AM (73P68)

9 Unbelievable!

Posted by: Lauren at June 04, 2008 12:09 PM (iUfJz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's a Schmap. Keep up with the Delegate count, and where the delegates come from. Hillary and Obama also available.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

I am BEYOND TIRED of idiots (of all political stripes) and their entitlement attitudes. Mrs. Obama says that she is

JUST NOW. RIGHT THIS MINUTE. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE.

Proud of this country and proud to be an American.

Give me a f*cking break, Michelle.  Do you have pride in your position, your career?  Your ability to go and come as you please?  The wealth you and Barry have amassed?

Sounds like pride in your country to me.  Because, really, did you ever stop to consider than you wouldn't have ANY of those things if you DIDN'T live in this country??

But Pete puts it more succinctly:

I am retired from a job that no honest man could ever expect to become rich. Honest men in foreign countries in my line of work live in small apartments and bicycle to work. I live in a paid for home on a half acre near the lake. My car is paid for. We are officially in the lower third of income levels here and I am writing on a (paid for) computer. Suppose Mrs. Obama was living where her husband's father lived. Suppose too that she were not wealthy. Would she have a good job? Would she even have all her girl parts?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:16 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Sorry folks, it's the best title I could come up with... even though this is mostly about HRC....

Steve of Hog on Ice sums up my feelings on the Democratic primary today quite succinctly, and honestly, far better than I imagined I'd ever read on the interwebnetoobs:

It looks like Hillsy may get her big butt beat in today's elections.

I find myself having mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, Obama is kind of a zero, and he's also a socialist, and socialism is evil and stupid and causes terrible suffering. On the other, you have to feel good, seeing a black candidate do this well. I mean, hell, this is progress. As long as he doesn't win, I mean. Socialist and all that.

And then there is the pleasure of seeing a Clinton eat it.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 06:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

No problem at all.

Except that I had to physically stop my hand to keep from marking "Fred Thompson".

And while I am on the subject, the "I voted" stickers are the most awesome thing ever. Especially for those of us who grew up with the idea that getting a sticker is a reward for a job well done.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 03:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Mardi Gras!

Oh wait, wrong post.  Today is Über Tuesday, the biggest primary election day in US history, as the reporter so breathlessly spewed on the AM news show today.

In the past, the single best thing about the-election-day-formerly-known-as-Super Tuesday was that it meant the END of the primary campaign.  Most years, the nominee is well and established by the end of TEDFKAS Tuesday.

So I find it more than ironic that the closest primaries in many years come down to what I will henceforth refer to as "Breathless Tuesday", given all the hype.

I suspect that this means that the few states that actually chose to hold later primaries are doing the "Nyah Nyah" routine.  We shall see.

From my sheltered vantage, high on the cliffs of denial, it looks like McCain is a shoe-in over Mitt Slick-ney and I am really unsure where the Democrats are going.  If anything, I suspect the "blue" picture will be MORE muddled than previously, after today.

Speaking of the Democraps, I heard a mind-blowing commercial this morning.  The gist of it was "Vote for Hillary, because she is not beholden to special interests"

I literally sat up in bed and screamed at the radio (at 5:30 AM, mind you): "What the fuck kind of crack are you smoking and where do I get some?  Do you know what the fuck you just said?"

The (still dozing) hub was clearly not amused.  Of course, at the end of the commercial, the speaker introduced himself as a descendant of Cesar Chavez and announced that Hillary loves farmworkers and poor people, so vote for her.  And I had this moment of clarity.

Of course he doesn't see her as beholden to special interests!  He IS one.  Know your source, peeps.  Know your source.

On the other hand, the same morning news show provided what was perhaps the single most insightful news story of the election. On the ballot today in CA are a series of propositions (94-97) which would force four very large indian tribes here (mostly in SoCal) to hand over a LARGE chunk of their profits to the state in return for being allowed to install more slot machines.  Most folks are actually FOR these measures in that together they will bring the state several hundred million dollars in new revenue without raising taxes on ANYONE (except the gamblers, so to speak).  The opposition is mostly funded by some Vegas casino owners and some racetracks that also have gaming.  Clearly, this would be HUGE competition for them, so they are naturally against it.

Both parties are officially "neutral" on these propositions, and a lot of people are confused as to what they mean.  So the local NBC channel did some investigating...

What amused me, though, was that the reporter cut right through the BS in reporting the story.  He explained the meat of the propositions, laid out who the supporters and detractors are, pointed out that the propositions require state audits of the casinos, and summed it up by saying "Some people say we should ask the casinos to give the state MORE of their profits, but supporters point out, this is more $$ than the state is getting now"

But back to Breathless Tuesday.  I will likely not vote, as my registration is not updated, and even after filling out the proper forms at my old polling place, LA county would likely discount my vote anyway.  But we shall see.

If I were voting today, this is what I would be voting for:
President: John McCain (but with much regret.  FREEEEEEEEDDDDD!)
Prop 91: No
Prop 92: No
Prop 93: No
Prop 94-97: YES

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

Fred was the man.

Let's face it.  Dropping all the hype and the hyperbole, Fred was the only candidate LIKELY to punch the hippies.  And turn the terrorists into nuclear waste.

Because the truth is, I am a one-issue voter:  National security.  As far as I am concerned, the rest of this bullshit can take care of itself.

Abortion? I could care less what you do with your body

Gay Marriage? See above.

The Economy?  Market forces will foster self-correction.  Together with greed, that's how the market stays afloat, not some shitty presidential policy.

So for me, it's all about Security.  Iraq, terror, the border, all of that.

With Fred out of the race there's no candidate that I trust to have the balls to pull the big trigger.  Period.

Forget the Democrats. They're tripping over their ownselves trying to beat each other out of the middle east, and forget regulating the borders, after all, they want Mexican votes. And they'll say whatever they need to say to get them.

And what about the Republicans?  Huckabee is a whiny-ass pussy, Giuliani is not really sure what he wants, Romney is a slick used car salesman (AND he was Governor of Massachusetts, so his conservative credentials seem rather fake to me), and that leaves John McCain.

Eight years ago, I was on the McCain train when he ran against GWB for the nomination.  Then, he seemed like Fred, the only one who was willing to kick ass and take names.

Which frankly, IS the best job description for the President of the United States, IMO.

Today, I am not so sure.  McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14 antics, among other things, have made me re-think my McCain-iac status, but all in all, today, I think he's the best candidate with regard to what I consider to be the PARAMOUNT issue facing our nation. He's the only one that I think would NOT be a pussy.

So I'll be supporting McCain.  With a little "s". 

Fred, why oh why were you such a lazy asshole?  You could have won the whole thing.  Late start or no.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:12 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Goodbye, Fred.

You should have punched more hippies. God knows somebody needs to.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 07:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Fred was the VERY FIRST candidate to submit a position statement on Cuba to "Candidates on Cuba" a forum on Cuba sponsored by Babalu Blog.

But you expected as much from the man who made this video.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

1 RUN, FRED, RUN! That's cool; I hadn't heard yet!

Posted by: pam at January 14, 2008 08:50 AM (l6NIn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So you may have seen that there was much hoo-hah about a float honoring the 2008 Beijing Olympics in yesterday's Rose parade.

I was front and center for the spectacle, and my take on it may surprise some of you.

We left the house at 5:15 am, drove to a nearby church, parked the car and had a lovely pancake breakfast, then we walked to Colorado and Orange Grove, where our seats were located in the Grandstands, just to the side of the HGTV booth.  We were asked to be in place by 6:30 AM so that the Parade organizers could stage the "opening number".  We were in our seats at about 6:15.  I people-watched until the parade got going, and hubby took a catnap or two, wrapped in our warmest USC gear and sitting on a thick blanket instead of a cold metal bench....

What happened was that a protest was organized wherein people were supposed to stand and turn their backs on the float as it passed, a sign that you disagree with China and it's human rights abuses.  There was a pro-float group on our left, and an anti-float group on our right.

Here is the very beautiful and fun float in question:

First of all, where we were, VERY few people stood other than the few who were present specifically for that purpose.  Most of us were too busy taking pictures of an adorable float and the acrobats and dancers hired to accompany it down the parade route.  The few who did stand were real assholes about it, getting in front of people taking pictures and trying to be dickheads.

Which really detracts from a message of human rights and peace, in my book.

I hadn't really known how I was going to react.  I am no fan of China's human rights practices, but at the same time, I had no animus against the float itself or the actors and dancers paid to make it fun.  As the float passed us, and the spectacle unfolded, I came to a realization:  The Rose Parade is not a venue for politics.  The parade is about fun and spectacle and celebration.  It's a moment for the thousands of kids who raised millions of dollars  JUST TO BE THERE IN THE PARADE to enjoy their (cold) morning in the sun.  It's a celebration.  It's for the kids.  Kids and politics shouldn't mix.

There were two beautiful little girls sitting in front of us.  They were enchanted by the lion dancers and plate spinners and acrobats.  As the float in question passed, and the little girls couldn't see it, they were debating their favorite floats.  One preferred the circus float and the other preferred the Princesses and Rose Queen with their bouquets and big pearl crown.  They could give a crap about China.  They just wanted to see the floats and dance to the bands.  Which is what the Parade is all about.

So keep the politics out of the Parade.  Protest before the parade, stage a vigil at the float viewing sheds tomorrow and the next day, but keep it away from the magic of New Year's Morning.

Our kids have so little innocence anymore, and are severely short on magic.  The Rose Parade gives them at least a couple hours of kid fun.

And for the record, this protest was, IMO, a truly cheap political stunt.  Why, you ask?  Well, first of all the float wasn't funded by the Chinese government, it was funded by a coalition of American companies and individuals, most notably the Avery-Dennison Corporation, a worldwide manufacturer of paper and office products based here in Pasadena.  Furthermore, the float didn't promote the Chinese government, either.  It promoted the 2008 Summer Olympics, which will be held in Beijing.  And don't the Olympics themselves promote equality and human rights?  So if they were protesting the idiocy of the International Olympic Committee being bullshitted about human rights improvements by the Chinese government, I'd almost understand the sentiment, but protesting China just makes it a cheap, opportunistic stunt staged for the TV cameras.

More pictures of the Beijing 2008 float can be seen along with the rest of my 2008 Rose Parade pictures here on Flickr.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.

Tony over at A Red Mind in a Blue State has some interesting thoughts on the state of the economy and how it's reported:

Will it stop? The unending media hysteria about the economy?

The story this morning is that Internet plus brick and mortar sales are up 2.4% this season.

Given the incessant drumbeat of bad economy, bad economy, bad economy-- I thought the tag on the story would be, hey, not bad!

But no. For whatever reason-- incompetence, latent Bush-bashing, the inability to ever report good news-- the headlines were mostly negative. Sluggish. Poor. Disappointing.

How could 2.4% growth in the "teeth" of this mortgage meltdown, etc. be deemed disappointing?

I think Tony has a point. Sales ARE up. Doesn't that mean people have the $$ to spend? Or does it mean that they'd rather sink farther into their credit bills so the kids can have the Wii and the computer and the new iPod?

Either way, it means they plan on having a place to keep what they bought, so people must be somewhat more than negative-feeling about the whole housing/mortgage/ interest rate business.

Even more interesting was the item about gift card sales. I wonder what the total figures would be with those included. Especially as sales of gift cards increased ALONG with the direct sales increases reported.

What do you think?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:26 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

In the 80's and 90's we had Limousine Liberals.  Now we have Gulfstream Greenies:

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.--emphasis mine, Ed.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks for the laugh, as usual, Chris:

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular,"

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest,"...

Bet you can't guess. Answer below the jump!

h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit more...

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Some rules are real, and some are fake. The trick is knowing which is which. Fred evidently has a knack for this. From Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics:

There are two types of rules in the world. On the one hand, there are real rules. These are the rules that you need to follow, or you will be in big trouble. Stay in school is one of them. You can't do much without a high school diploma - so that is a real rule. On the other hand, there are fake rules. These are rules that most people follow because they think there are negative consequences for disobedience, but actually there are not. In fact, the ones who break the fake rules are often celebrated as trail blazers.

Bob Dylan comes to my mind when I think of those who break the fake rules. In the mid-60s, there was this rule that songs could only be three minutes long, and they had to have three verses and a chorus. But Dylan did these six minute songs that had five plus verses and no chorus. And whose ears don't perk up today when they hear the first bars of "Subterranean Homesick Blues?" Another rule said that folkies could not play rock. That just did not happen. But Dylan hired Levon and the Hawks, and went electric. At first, he was booed everywhere he went (except in the South). Eight years later he went on tour with the exact same group - now called the Band - and received 6 million ticket requests for 600,000 seats.

If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.

I think Thompson might be breaking what really are fake rules. As I mentioned above - the perpetual campaign is only a means to the real campaign. You play the game by the rules of the media to earn your way into the real contest. But there may be other ways to get to the real campaign. If there are, the media's rules are indeed fake. There are no consequences to breaking them. If you find another way into the real campaign, you can break them all you like.

On a side note, if Fred handle Congress just 1/10 as well as he handles the media, we might be in business.

Read the whole piece. Jay has interesting things to say about how Fred is winning over voters and turning the tables on Rudy Giuliani in the polls. Personally, I suspect the ONLY reason Rudy is ahead in the polls and backed by strongly conservative voters is that they thought he was the ONLY one who could defeat Hillary/Obama. And really, that's how many Republicans see this primary season: pick the strongest candidate. Fred is clearly a strong contender who has the potential to beat whoever the Dems put up. So as Fred brings out his platform, more and more folks agree that he might have the winning horse in the race. And they're walking away from Rudy in DROVES.

h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit, who has a great round up of recent Fred-related buzz

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 3 kb.

My Mother always told me that people who pick on you are just jealous. Same applies to the Presidential race. Jackie Mason NAILS it:

h/t Fred, of course. Well, Sean Hackbarth blogging at Friends of Fred.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That was outstanding! And maybe, if not Tancredo, Jackie for vice president? Hey, the guy was right on.

Posted by: Erica at October 19, 2007 05:48 AM (QPJM+)

2 Hahahaha! GAWD I love Jackie Mason!

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at October 19, 2007 06:36 AM (PvqFn)

3 LOL... he does nail it. But Fred could step it up a bit.

Posted by: Jenn at October 19, 2007 09:22 AM (sSCF/)

4 I love it! (and Fred, too)

Posted by: Tammy at October 20, 2007 06:39 PM (rRfK1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dear Former Vice President Gore,

First of all let me congratulate you on winning this year's Nobel Peace Prize.  Of course, that accomplishment would be so much more meaningful if the award hadn't become synonymous with the "Annual Best Politically Correct Jerkwad" award, which the Nobel Committee seems to have merged their award with. I suppose, however, that sharing this honor with the last American to win the prize, former President Jimmy Carter, gives you a real sense of just what this honor means, and how your legacy will be cherished in your decline.

But I have a serious question for you.  What in hell does your Global Warming crusade have to do with promoting Peace on Earth™? I mean do you believe that the only way to stop war is to make it so cold that we'd all rather stay in our own caves rather than shoot someone? Or maybe you believe that anecdotal psychology theory that aggression (which is of course, anti-peace by definition) increases as the temperatures rise? Let's grant for the purposes of this argument that your incoherent, incomplete, and hypocritical pseudoscience is correct, and that people DO make the Earth warmer by a significant amount. Given that, your crusade against Global Warming is admirable, even, perhaps noble. But this is the Nobel PEACE Prize. Not the Nobel "Make the Earth Happy" Prize. It's October, not Earth Day. Explain to me how your actions have anything to do with peace.

Unless somehow being against global warming is really just a fancy synonym for "Troops out of Iraq Now".... because that has something to do with peace. But it really doesn't rise to the level of a Nobel Prize. And here I speak from experience. I went to Caltech. I've met Nobel Laureates. I've been taught by them. And here's the thing: They are FREAKING BRILLIANT. They are committed to their science without any hope of reward, which is what Alfred Nobel left the $$ to recognize in the first place: tireless champions of the greater good, representing different disciplines of the Humanities and Sciences. Not attention seeking environmental hypocrites who champion the environment because it is a safe niche to occupy in the cutthroat social darwinist biosphere of US politics.

I have another question, but this one is for the Nobel Committee, so be sure you pass it along to them when you go for the medal ceremony: If algore has contributed significantly to "Peace on Earth", then why did you recognize him for the Global Warming Awareness crusade? I would think his MOST significant achievements lie in other fields. After all, he invented the internet, technology which has contributed more towards interpersonal, international, and intercultural understanding than any other scientific or humanitarian contribution of the modern age. Isn't that important enough?

I know you're a busy man, especially as you now have to plan a trip to Oslo and contemplate running for President again to add to your incredibly busy fundraising schedule, so I'll close here. However, in closing, I'd like to thank you for the endless amusement you and your family have provided me over the years, not mention answering my questions about the top speed of a Prius (let your son know how much I appreciated that one, will you?). Keep it up!

Best,
CTG

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:47 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You didn't miss a thing with this one - ROTFL!!!

Posted by: Greta at October 12, 2007 09:51 AM (Xl4tG)

2 *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

Posted by: Janette at October 12, 2007 10:21 AM (5R+zg)

3 Heh.

Posted by: Richmond at October 12, 2007 10:47 AM (tBuZu)

4 Damn girl; next time tell us how you really feel.

Posted by: Stacy at October 12, 2007 11:06 AM (92p8H)

5 Price of a Prius: $22,175 Price of a Nobel "Peace" Prize: $3.6 million CalTechGirl Skewering Al Gore like a hunk of meat on a shish kebab: Priceless

Posted by: Phoenix at October 12, 2007 11:26 AM (4N2f4)

6 you rock!

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at October 12, 2007 11:27 AM (+MvHD)

7 As we say in Cuban-ese, Te la comiste!

Posted by: Amanda at October 12, 2007 11:49 AM (ay+rD)

8 "top speed of a Prius..." ROFLMAO! Well said!

Posted by: Teresa at October 12, 2007 12:59 PM (rVIv9)

9 BRAVO BRAVO!! Excellent. I do so want to know what global warming has to do with...world peace? Albore will never answer this and neither will his friends who participated in this fiasco.

Posted by: Raven at October 12, 2007 07:58 PM (BvJsz)

10 Hi Caltech Girl, First of all I LOVE reading things from Techers. They are the best! I am shamelessly prejudiced, since my own Techer received his undergrad and grad degrees in EE from sunny Pasadena. He loved his Page House experience too. I am also waiting to see if an MIT girl will also surface with similar sentiments. My other son just graduated from this illustrious Cambridge institution, yet I favor Caltech. In any event, you sound like you have a great head on your shoulders and are NOT infected with the usual PC liberal left (cesspool) mindset. Let the liberal, self appointed elite know that NOT everyone is fooled by their self promotion.

Posted by: Adina Kutnicki at October 15, 2007 10:36 AM (d/RyS)

11 "Of course, that accomplishment would be so much more meaningful if the award hadn't become synonymous with the "Annual Best Politically Correct Jerkwad" award" -when i picked myself up off the floor, i realized i'm going to be laughing at that for an awfully long time. Kudos.

Posted by: still Unreal... at October 16, 2007 08:34 AM (8dDAl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dafydd laments the loss of honest debate and cross-party friendships.  You might disagree with his theories, but you have to admit that a lot of conservatives have lost a LOT of liberal friends to BDS over the last 7+ years....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 05:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

The American Spectator reports:

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine".

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

But not surprising.

Let me sum this up for you, in case you don't understand just what's at stake here: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented by the FCC in the earliest days of TV and radio, when small media markets were dominated by a handful of stations, or in many cases, just one station. And, as is often the case when you have a media monopoly, FCC regulators were concerned that all views wouldn't be broadcast fairly and some candidates for office might lose out because of a lack of coverage.

Fast forward to 1987. It was the end of the Reagan era, and the rise of mass communications in the US. In 1987 the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine because the market had grown so much that there was enough market pressure to allow for opposing viewpoints to be presented, not to mention an increased expectation of such presentation from the media-consuming public. With so many opportunities for coverage and so much media to keep track of, enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine became obsolete and the policy was ended.

In the two decades since, the US has seen an exponential increase in the amount of political speech broadcast through the media. Commercials, debates, opinion and news shows, radio talk shows, etc. have all increased the public's awareness of political issues and political thought. Admittedly, much of this increase has been on the conservative side of the fence. However, the financial disaster formerly known as "Air America" clearly highlights that this is likely due to purely market forces; that Americans want to hear conservative political thought in the media more than they want to hear liberals.

You can come up for your own explanation for that one. I'm sure it's not hard to think of a dozen reasons why, but left-leaning media (other than, it can be argued, mainstream "news") is simply not commercially viable in this country.

Faced with the fact that they can't compete in the open marketplace, what do the liberals do? As usual, they try to level the playing field... to their advantage. If the market won't admit "liberal" political thought, then it's time to simply break down the doors to the market. With the Fairness Doctrine bulldozer.

While it might seem, naively, that the more speech accessible to the masses, the better; in reality this is nothing more than censorship. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of political speech that can be presented for either side to an amount that can be feasibly presented by the media in consideration of their need (under the FD) to present opposing viewpoints. Is that what we want? Sound bites and snippets? Well, if that's all you're getting anyway, and your opposition has a three-hour talk show, you might just say yes, and damn the consequences.

Let's look at this economically, too: the consumer prefers conservative media (e.g. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), and we know this because these ventures are commercially viable. By limiting the supply of the preferred goods, and forcing the consumer to take some non-preferred goods (Liberal media) instead, the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine forces the consumer's choice. Sounds a lot like Communism to me...

Let me ask you this: Why is it ok to have NO Fairness Doctrine for 20 years while the left consolidates their power base and makes in roads into the MSM, but the SECOND that conservative media shows some strength, it's time to put it back? Why is the playing field level until the other team goes ahead? Why didn't ANY of these things matter until people started to challenge the status quo?

Funny how the First Amendment gets bought and sold by the left like so much cattle, depending on whether they're winning or losing.

h/t FRED who makes his own case for a Free Press.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:29 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.