. . . but I have to be at work at 0430 tomorrow, so consider this an open thread and start a topic!
Prisoners may be anesthetized before force-feeding http://t.co/tOPt4v9IN5
— Israel News (@IsraelNewsNow) June 18, 2014
From The Jerusalem Post:
Prisoners may be anesthetized before force-feeding
Changes added to bill to make it safer for prisoners, but doctors still refuse to uphold it.
By LAHAV HARKOV | 06/18/2014 15:26
Prisoners who go on hunger strike may be anesthetized before being force-fed, if a bill on the issue passes its final vote Monday.
The Knesset Interior Committee prepared the legislation for its second and third (final) readings Wednesday, adding significant changes for the prisoners’ comfort and safety. For example only a doctor can administer the IV or gastronomy tube, and the procedure may only take place in a hospital.
Still, the Israel Medical Association instructed doctors not to uphold the law if it passes.
As such, many in the Knesset see the bill as impossible to implement and a form of posturing toward prisoners in an attempt to get them to stop their hunger strike.
The committee reached an article in the bill saying that a doctor should try as much as possible to get the prisoner to agree to be force-fed by explaining to him the adverse effects of his hunger strike on his health and detailing the force-feeding procedure. If the prisoner still does not acquiesce, the doctor can use reasonable force to coerce him into the treatment and must try to do so without causing pain and suffering.
More at the link.
OK, let me be blunt here:
- if the Palestinian prisoners starve themselves to death, the Palestinians will be outraged; and
- if the government force-feeds the prisoners, the Palestinians will also be outraged; but
- if the Palestinian prisoners do starve themselves to death, at least they won’t be problems any longer.
The answer is obvious: if the prisoners want to hunger strike themselves to incapacity or death, let them! Why interfere?
Patterico was surprised to see that even The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obamacare subsidies push cost of health law above projections. Why, it’s almost as though the Democrats either:
- Didn’t have the foggiest notion of what they were foisting upon the country; or
- The Democrats were deliberately lying through their scummy teeth.
Good thing we passed it, so that we could find out what’s in it!
There is a kerfuffle going around these days about Hillary Clinton, and her work as a young attorney in Arkansas. Mrs Clinton defended a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, and she wound up arranging a plea bargain which got him off with time served, which had been about two months in the county jail. And the Conservative Tribune has the audio tape of an interview in which Mrs Clinton was telling an interviewer, Roy Reed, about her legal experiences, and in which she told Mr Reed about what a great job she did. Mrs Clinton believed that her client was guilty, something she made clear in the interview, which would be a violation of attorney-client privilege.
Now, I absolutely support the right of a criminal defendant to legal representation, and as his attorney, it was Mrs Clinton’s job to get the best deal she could for her client, whether she believed him to be guilty or not. But what amused me was the tape itself:
Your Editor is a Southern boy, having grown up in Kentucky, but I don’t really have much of a Kentucky accent. Why? Because I was born in California, and my mother was from Maine, and by the time we moved to the Bluegrass State, in March of 1962, I was just shy of my ninth birthday, and much of my accent was already set. My sisters, both of whom are younger than I am, have stronger Kentucky accents because they really hadn’t been talking for all that long when we moved to Mt Sterling.
Yet, in this tape, Hillary Clinton, born in 1947, growing up in Chicago and having gone to school in the Northeast, worked in Washington, and not having moved to Arkansas until 1975, when she was 28 years old, has a pronounced Arkansas accent.1 I’d call that an affectation, speech or conduct not natural to oneself, to try to blend in with the Arkansans who had elected her husband to be their governor. Yet, despite eight long years of her being our First Lady, years in which I saw her on television many times, not that long removed from the Natural State,2 I had never noticed any sort of Southern accent in her before listening to this tape.
The woman is nothing but a phony, and a complete hypocrite.
"It's just a matter of time before we can get married." — my husband to the dog
— Susannah Breslin (@susannahbreslin) June 17, 2014
My question is: will he have to divorce her first, or can all three of them be married? And if it’s all three, will she be married to Fido, too?
From Liberty Unyielding:
Wendy Davis: Republicans dislike ‘people who don’t look like them’Shades of Obama’s “bitter clinger” remark: From the Daily Caller:
By LU Staff on June 10, 2014 at 10:04 am
Wendy Davis, the Texas Democratic candidate for governor, says Republicans dislike “people who don’t look like them or come from where they come from.”
Like Obama, Davis’s remark was made “off-mic,” except that — as with Obama — it wasn’t. In Davis’s case, an audience member at her Human Rights Campaign PAC fundraiser in Austin captured the comments on a cell phone. They surfaced on YouTube over the weekend.
In the video capture, which appears below, Davis can be heard opining:
You need look no further than what happened in Arizona with their anti-immigration bill and the withdrawal of tourism and the impact to their economy as a consequence of what ideological thinkers did to that state.
And the same is true with the conversations that are going on in the … Republican convention right now. They’re talking about whether they should soften their language on immigration, but we all know where they are because they’ve been talking about it on the airwaves for the last couple of months.
And we know what they really believe and think about people who don’t look like them or come from where they come from. [Emphasis added]
Read more here And here’s the video:
But think about what state Senator Davis, the Democratic nominee for Governor in Texas, is complaining about. She is whining that Republicans, who support people like Senators Tim Scott of South Carolina (a black man) and Ted Cruz of Texas (an Hispanic man) and Marco Rubio of Florida (an Hispanic man), and Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (an Indian man) and Nikki Haley of South Carolina (an Indian woman) and congressional candidate Mia Love of Utah (a black woman), don’t like her, a cute blonde white woman very much, and are supporting a wheelchair-bound white male instead.
Senator Davis, that cute little blonde white woman, came to prominence with an eleven-hour filibuster against a bill in Texas to strengthen abortion laws. Gosh, since a higher percentage of pregnancies among black women and Hispanic women end in abortion than those among non-Hispanic white women,1 you’d think that, if Republicans really did hate everybody but whites, they’d support liberal abortion laws, since such actually hold down the black population to a smaller number.
Senator Davis’ real complaint? She’s behind Republican nominee Greg Abbott by a large margin, about 12 percentage points when this article was written,2 and a Public Policy Polling survey in April even had Mrs Davis trailing Mr Abbott among women voters. Perhaps, just perhaps, Texas voters and other Republicans are looking at the candidates’ positions rather than their sex or the color of their skins.
- Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%. However, because non-Hispanic white women are a much larger percentage of the total female population, and the abortion rate for black women winds up being five times that for white women. I will point out here that both links are to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. ↩
- The numbers on the linked source may change over time. ↩
The First Street Journal has pointed out, more than once, that the waiting list scandal in the Department of Veterans Affairs medical care system was simply the common practice among single-payer health care systems in the developed world to contain costs. Americans are not used to such things, wanting, and expecting, and normally getting fairly prompt medical care.
And now comes confirmation of our point, kind of from the back side, from the Congressional Budget Office. As Fox News reported:
Fiscal hawks are warning that new legislation passed in both chambers of Congress this week in response to the Veteran Affairs scandal could cost taxpayers more than $500 billion over the next decade.
A Senate source told FoxNews.com on Friday that lawmakers “passed a bill they didn’t read which led to Congress issuing a blank check with real consequences for the country down the road.”
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget rang the alarm bells over the bill on Thursday, releasing a statement saying the Senate version of the bill “violates every principle of good budgeting, and could add substantially to the national debt.”
The group claimed the bill could create an entitlement program bigger than Medicare Part D (the prescription drug program), citing in part nonpartisan congressional budget estimates.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that preliminary costs for just one provision of the bill — which gives the VA authority to contract with private health care providers to ensure veterans get care — would exceed more than $35 billion through 2016. The CBO also estimates that the provision could ultimately cost $50 billion per year.
“If the program were permanently extended, and fully phased-in costs grew with inflation, the total cost could exceed $500 billion over the next decade before interest,” the CRFB warned.
Translation: enabling veterans using the VA health system to get the prompt attention which they deserve, and to which Americans believe that veterans, and everyone else, is entitled costs more money, a lot more money.
Congress had mandated that the VA provide what most Americans expect: prompt care. In order to qualify for bonuses, the VA medical care administrative leadership had to cook the books, and use tactics which made it appear that veterans were getting prompt appointments, when they were not.1 More, bonuses aside, they had to make it look like they were doing the jobs for which they were hired. But the VA never had the resources to provide the care that the Congress had mandated, and now we have the (supposedly) non-partisan CBO telling us just how much more that the care everyone expects will cost.
Your Editor has, twice now, endorsed having the United States go to a single-payer health care system, because we are unwilling to impose market discipline and deny medical care to those who cannot or will not pay for it, but I have always noted that such would provide much worse health care. We at The First Street Journal are brutally realistic about these things,2 and understand that nothing is free, that everything has to be paid for, by someone, and that if you believe you can buy something cheaply, cheap is exactly what you’ll get.
- Whether any federal employees ought to qualify for bonuses is another matter entirely. Federal employees are already paid more than their private sector counterparts, and the ones eligible for bonuses are at the top of the federal pay scale. If they believe that they just have to be paid more, then they are welcome to try their luck with private employers. ↩
- This sentence does not imply that any of the other authors on this site have endorsed the single-payer idea, but every one of us recognizes just how crappy single-payer health care coverage would be here. ↩
From The New York Times:
The Fog Machine of War
Chelsea Manning on the U.S. Military and Media Freedom
By Chelsea Manning | June 14, 2014
OK, let’s stop right there. Former PFC Bradley Manning, now properly referred to as inmate Manning, received a name change order from Leavenworth County District Court David J. King, who noted that neither the government nor anyone else objected to Mr Manning’s, and his legal name is now Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. The First Street Journal objects, because it is an attempt by Mr Manning to persuade people that he is actually female, a clear falsehood, but it is his legal name now. However, we wonder why Mr Manning was able to petition the court in the first place; that should never have been allowed.
FORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. — When I chose to disclose classified information in 2010, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others. I’m now serving a sentence of 35 years in prison for these unauthorized disclosures. I understand that my actions violated the law.
And that’s as much of inmate Manning’s opinion article that I am willing to quote.1 What I want to know is, why is a federal prisoner allowed to send articles outside of the prison walls,2 and why would The New York Times, supposedly our national newspaper of record, print anything this prisoner wrote?
This prisoner stood before the Army, and took the oath of enlistment:
I, Bradley Edward Manning, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
He broke that solemn oath! He should be given no credit, anywhere, by anyone, for anything, and he certainly should not, now or ever, have anything he ever says or wants to say printed in The New York Times or in any other responsible journal.
The New York Times enjoys the complete protection of our First Amendment, and has a right to print anything it chooses, but it has violated its own slogan, because nothing that Mr Manning writes is fit to print. The Times has soiled itself by printing that article.
- The Other McCain: Dateline: Fort Leavenworth