Once There Was ‘A Christmas Story’

Christianity, Family, Hollywood, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

From “Once There Was A Christmas Story,” Now on WND.COM:

“Set in the 1940s, ‘A Christmas Story’ depicts a series of family vignettes through the eyes of 9-year-old Ralphie Parker, who yearns for that gift of all gifts: the Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

This was boyhood before ‘bang-bang you’re dead’ was banned. Family life prior to ‘One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads’, and Christmas without the ACLU.

If children could choose their families, most would opt for the kind depicted in this film, where mother is a homemaker, father is a regular working stiff, and between them they have zero repertoire of psychobabble to rub together. …

Lucky is the little boy who has such a family. Luckier still is the lad who has both such a family and…a BB gun…”

POSTSCRIPT: Bob Clark, the director of this magical movie, and his son, were killed by an illegal alien. This says as much about modern-day America as does the dissolution of the prototypical family unit depicted so magnificently in “A Christmas Story.”

My libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society, is back in print. The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy (or copies) now!

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,
ilana

Updated: The CBOafs (They Really Can't Count)

Barack Obama, Business, Government, Healthcare, Reason, Regulation, Socialism

In trying to sell the viability of BO’s Health plans, the oafs at the Congressional Budget Office (CBOafs) posit at least one scenario that doesn’t wash. Check the tables attached (via the WSJ). The CBOafs would like you to believe that an employer will choose NOT to drop a $10,000 health benefit for a paltry penalty of $750, thus saving $9,250, in the case of a high-valued employee. In an employer’s market??! Where are they living? Have they even surveyed the private sector?

This is, it would seem, a postulate ObamaCare is premised upon. The bastards.

NA-BC960A_BIZHE_NS_20091222215544

Update I (Dec. 23): THEY REALLY CAN’T COUNT. The “CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday,” the correction of which “reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019,” confessed the Chief CBOaf. The entry, tucked away on the “Director’s Blog,” made select TV headlines today.

Call me simple, but with the prospect of merging one Bill (The House’s) that’s estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years (according to the “nonpartisan” CBOafs) with another (The Senate’s) priced at $871 billion over the next 10 years (CBOafs again)—I’m unclear how the cost curve, as they put it, will be bent.

Updated: The CBOafs (They Really Can’t Count)

Barack Obama, Business, Government, Healthcare, Reason, Regulation, Socialism

In trying to sell the viability of BO’s Health plans, the oafs at the Congressional Budget Office (CBOafs) posit at least one scenario that doesn’t wash. Check the tables attached (via the WSJ). The CBOafs would like you to believe that an employer will choose NOT to drop a $10,000 health benefit for a paltry penalty of $750, thus saving $9,250, in the case of a high-valued employee. In an employer’s market??! Where are they living? Have they even surveyed the private sector?

This is, it would seem, a postulate ObamaCare is premised upon. The bastards.

NA-BC960A_BIZHE_NS_20091222215544

Update I (Dec. 23): THEY REALLY CAN’T COUNT. The “CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday,” the correction of which “reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019,” confessed the Chief CBOaf. The entry, tucked away on the “Director’s Blog,” made select TV headlines today.

Call me simple, but with the prospect of merging one Bill (The House’s) that’s estimated to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years (according to the “nonpartisan” CBOafs) with another (The Senate’s) priced at $871 billion over the next 10 years (CBOafs again)—I’m unclear how the cost curve, as they put it, will be bent.

Updated: The Nanny State, Literally

Family, Healthcare, Regulation, Socialism, Welfare

Both the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House healthcare Bills have provisions that allow “children” to stay on mommy and daddy’s plan until they are 25 and 26 respectively.

The Nanny State, Literally. Keep ’em in short pants and diapers forever.

Lacking in the literature are studies of what the welfare state does to family dynamics across generations. Why, the recent expansion by BO of the entitlement plan known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, gave me a renewed hatred of Our Children.

Newsweek distills some of the differences between the two Bills in a table titled, “Our Non-Wonky Guide to Merging the Senate and House Health Bills.”

THE HOUSE BILL: H. R. 3962

THE SENATE BILL: H. R. 3590

Update: Michelle Malkin beat us to it; she blogged the “Big Nanny’s slacker plan: Mandating insurance for adult ‘children'” yesterday, calling this “generational theft” “the slacker mandate.”