A lot of people cite the “universal” health care mandate in the state of Massachusetts as being revolutionary; it’s being viewed as a model for other states. Businesses don’t view it as anything but a burden and the state wants to increase this.

The state’s bill for providing healthcare to employees of large companies increased 14 percent in the last fiscal year, to $636 million, according to a report released yesterday.

The state report shows that while healthcare reform has extended coverage to thousands of people in Massachusetts, many employers still rely on state programs to provide healthcare benefits for their workers. The findings also underscore what is likely to become the next battle in the ongoing implementation of healthcare reform: getting employers to contribute more toward health insurance, even for part timers and seasonal help.

“There are a lot of companies that have set up their employment-benefit systems so the state pays for their workers’ healthcare,” said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care for All, an advocacy group that helped establish the healthcare reform law. “They ought to pay some of the freight.”

Pay more? Gee whiz. What do we suppose can happen here with all this? What happens when these companies close shop and move out of MA (to NH as many are doing every single week)…

…the law also established a minimum standard under which a company would be deemed to provide a “reasonable” contribution to healthcare coverage - if 25 percent of a company’s employees enrolled in a company plan or if the firm paid 35 percent of the premiums. Those that didn’t meet that threshold must pay $295 per employee into a pool for the uninsured.

Yesterday, some advocates said the Patrick administration should raise those levels, so companies have to contribute more or pay the annual fee.

Massachusetts is learning, quickly, that $295.00 is not sufficient. A lot of people TOLD them this ahead of time but did they listen? NO.

“The administration has to raise the threshold,” said the Rev. Hurmon Hamilton, president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization and pastor of Roxbury Presbyterian Church. “It is socially offensive for Wal-Mart to be making millions of dollars in Massachusetts and have employees who facilitate that profit be kept healthy by the state. That’s what I call freeloading.”

Socially offensive? Go bite yourself Reverend. YOU’RE socially offensive for even suggesting this. Does this idiOt consider the amount of money Wal Mart pays in ALL the other taxes- to the local communities, the state? I would venture to guess he has no damn clue. As for freeloading? Bullfucking shit.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, is the top company on the list. The state found 5,021 Wal-Mart employees used state health coverage at a cost of nearly $14 million in the 12 months ended June 30, 2007. That includes care provided to dependents of employees, but does not count employees without Social Security numbers.

Now who do we suppose has no SS number? Hmm. Every baby born in the US must get their SS numbers before they reach age 1; parents of newborns are sent home from every hospital with the required paperwork to start the application process for the number. Do we have to SPELL this out? Are we talking about forcing businesses to provide health insurance for….illegal immigrants?? I think so. That’s what this is all about. Let’s talk about freeloaders, Reverend. He, and others like him, want us to
consider health care as a service owed to citizens without regard to their ability to pay for it. Instead, charging businesses and others the costs is preferred. They’re going to push companies right out of the state if they keep this up. Then who pays???

The scary headline of the day:

Many states appear to be in recession
The finances of many states have deteriorated so badly that they appear to be in a recession, regardless of whether that’s true for the nation as a whole, a survey of all 50 state fiscal directors concludes.

The situation looks even worse for the fiscal year that begins July 1 in most states.

“Whether or not the national economy is in recession - a subject of ongoing debate - is almost beside the point for some states,” said the report to be released Friday by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oh my.

By mid-April, 16 states and Puerto Rico were reporting shortfalls in their current budgets as the revenue those budgets were built on - typically, taxes - fell short of estimates. That’s double the number of states reporting a deficit six months ago.

The NCSL said the news is even worse for the upcoming fiscal year, with 23 states and Puerto Rico already reporting budget shortfalls totaling $26 billion. More than two-thirds of states said they are concerned about next year’s budgets.

Yikes. It’s not good folks.

Massachusetts is one of the states shown in the graphic above that has a problem. Yet they allow these foolish and wasteful expenses to be paid for out of the tax payers’ pocket.

State lawmakers are responding to warnings of a fiscal meltdown by larding the budget with $1.3 billion in new spending - much of it pork - that would double next year’s deficit and shower money on golf courses, merry-go-rounds and local parades.

A Herald review of House budget amendments shows that individual lawmakers have proposed hundreds of millions in new expenses, even as their leaders and the state treasurer have cautioned that revenues could drop sharply in the months ahead.

Among the spending requests:

• $1.5 million by Newton Rep. Kay Khan to repair an irrigation system at a Newton golf course;

• $250,000 by Dorchester Rep. Martin Walsh for the Hub’s First Night celebration;

• $100,000 by Holyoke Rep. Michael Kane for his town’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade;

• $50,000 by Kane for a merry-go-round at a state park in Holyoke.

“There’s been all this talk of a $1.3 billion deficit, but I guess we found out where it’s really going,” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones, who has railed against excessive spending. “It’s frustrating, but it’s not surprising.”

They defend these expenses as needed items and reject the call for cutting back on the budget, like the peons must do in order to buy their food and gas:

Democratic legislators defend their proposals, saying that many of the amendments would pay for legitimate needs such as elder care and substance abuse treatment.

They also argue that the spending items that often bring criticism - the proposals for gazebos and local summer festivals - are a reflection of the myriad requests they get from constituents.

“I strenuously disagree with the notion that this is irresponsible,” said state Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D-Revere). “We have an obligation to the people of our districts to advocate for things that are important to them.”

Reinstein’s $50 million in requests include tens of millions for elder care and home heating assistance. She also proposes $150,000 for repairs to a local park and $25,000 for summer programs on Revere Beach.

State Rep. Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) proposes $125 million in new spending, the second most in the Legislature. She said much of the money would pay for special education services - both to expand key programs and help communities cope with ever-rising costs.

We all have wish lists. When times are tight though, and the money isn’t or shouldn’t be rolling in at the speed of roller coasters, we have to make some sacrifices. Trim out unneeded expenses. Cut back on wasteful spending. Budget better.

But who am I to speak of such things? I don’t live in MA (THANK GAWD) and this is one reason why.

“Surprise, surprise, surprise!” says Gomer Pyle.

Thousands of Massachusetts public high school graduates arrive at college unprepared for even the most basic math and English classes, forcing them to take remedial courses that discourage many from staying in school, according to a statewide study released yesterday.

The problem is particularly acute in urban districts and vocational schools, according to the first-of-its kind study. At three high schools in Boston and two in Worcester, at least 70 percent of students were forced to take at least one remedial class because they scored poorly on a college placement test.

It can be said that this is true of most public school graduates, but I do find there is a difference between what MA and NH produces in high school. It’s a sign of poor teaching and parenting issues. Dousing school districts with more money isn’t the answer here. Teacher unions, tenure and low expectations are the problem. Accountability should be mandatory. But it’s not. Until these simple things are fixed, expect to see no change. School districts should use this info and go after those who are not doing their job. I haven’t read the data but I can bet there are similar links to all these students….within the schools themselves. Find the link, break it and improvements will come.

Saturday the Boston Globe published an article that leaves me scratching my head in amazement. This is about illegal immigrants being deported from the New England region- according to the Globe these people haven’t committed any crimes.

Federal immigration agents in New England are deporting a smaller percentage of immigrants who have been convicted of crimes than in 2005, drawing criticism from immigrant advocates who say the agency is “chasing landscapers” and other workers who do not have criminal records.

Officials for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement say their policy is to pursue criminals, from violent gang members to fake document peddlers to child predators, and they assert there are valid reasons that deportations might not reflect that. The criminals they pursue include legal residents, immigrants here illegally (a civil offense), and even US citizens.

Umm….’cuse me? An illegal immigrant is breaking the law by virtue of residing on our soil. A civil offense is still against the law. Let’s not sugarcoat it.

Bruce Foucart, special agent in charge of the agency’s office of investigations in Boston, which covers New England, said the immigration agency has not shifted its focus - which is still fighting crime - and rebutted allegations that the agency targets immigrants indiscriminately.

But he said deportations could not be expected to increase every year, partly because they are often subject to court decisions.

It can take years to deport someone; some criminals are still serving jail sentences or are awaiting trial, and others are fighting deportation in court. Some accused criminals do not show up in the statistics because they are deported before their cases go to trial.

Sometimes illegal immigrants are arrested as part of a criminal investigation, and then are not charged with any crimes, which can skew deportation figures, he said.

The massive raid last March at a New Bedford leather-goods factory, which made backpacks and other gear for the US military, was an example, he said.

Fighting crime is part of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission. People who are within the US borders without proper documentation are breaking laws, and therefore committing crimes. It’s pretty simple for some of us…but others twist it and make this into something it shouldn’t be. I guess, in the eyes of the Boston Globe, some crimes are not worthy of punishment.
And some criminals, who make their crime a matter of survival are enabled by the state to continue being criminal and are rewarded with free housing, health care, food stamps, and perhaps college tuition…all at the expense of tax paying, hard working peasants American citizens of said state.

MA Gov. Patrick Deval is trying to override the MA Legislature to offer free higher education:

He says it’s “a question of fairness.” You can see his point: Take an American kid who lives just over the border in New Hampshire, whose two parents work in Massachusetts and pay state income taxes here. This kid should be considered a “nonresident” and get soaked for $10,000 a year to go to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

On the other hand you have an illegal alien who just drifted into the state two days ago, with three or four aliases, no health insurance, driving an unregistered, uninspected, uninsured vehicle and waving a piece of paper saying he has “the equivalent thereof” of a Massachusetts high school diploma.

Because he’s illegal, if the alien works at all (a very big if indeed), he has to get paid under the table. This means he reports no income, and thus would be eligible for a full scholarship, paid for by law-abiding American citizens.

Yes we can . . . rip off the stupid taxpayers again.

I doubt Deval will be successful. But try he must…to be “fair” to the disadvantaged criminal illegals. The heck with everyone else, especially to law abiding citizens.

UPDATE:
Jay Tea at Wizbang points to an editorial at the Boston Globe, supporting Gov. Deval’s efforts to get free tuition for illegal immigrants. Jay has a thought:

I have to wonder if the Glob’s position on illegal aliens has any connection with the immigration status of many of their delivery people. I also think it’d be enormously entertaining to send an investigative team (much like the one the Glob sent to stake out Mitt Romney’s lawn) to check the status of the Glob’s “independent contractors” who distribute their paper, and deliver it to the homes of their ever-dwindling subscribers.

Wouldn’t that be fun?

I’m game! We should drive down to Boston and follow up on this ourselves; do our own investigative reporting on who, exactly, delivers the Glob to the peasants of MA.

I generally refused to bring my sons to any doctors who practiced medicine in the state of Massachusetts. For good reason. This is nothing new, what Michael Graham reports of today in his op/ed at the Herald.

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Read the comments.

It’s not just happening in MA. I’ve heard of this in many states; I know some people in Alaska whose children were badgered the same way. And in Vermont. Since the APA and other medical groups endorse the health and safety of the children, these questions are asked many times. Just because you’re the legal guardian (AKA as the parent) of the children gives you no special rights to put an end to this. Parents are simply TOLD to leave the exam room for a while. I am interested in hearing from NH citizens who may have experienced similar stories. THIS is what we can look forward to under a National health care system as desired by Hillary.

There is no freedom anymore in America. When our doctors start harassing our kids an an attempt to discover personal and private family information,–not illegal or criminal information– about us, the parents, we have lost yet another reason to want to bring children into this world. I find it very odd that so many Democrats fuss up about spying on our enemies and potential terrorists; yet they remain silent on forms of spying such as this. I guess parents and their lifestyle are a bigger threat than anything else right?

You have to C this to believe this.

Plenty of college students grumble when they get a mediocre grade and feel that they deserved better. When Brian Marquis got a C instead of an A-minus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, he made a federal case of it.

Literally.

Marquis, a 51-year-old paralegal seeking bachelor’s degrees in legal studies and sociology, filed a 15-count lawsuit in US District Court in Springfield in January after a teaching assistant graded a political philosophy class on a curve and turned Marquis’s A-minus into a C. Marquis contends that the university violated his civil rights and contractual rights and intentionally inflicted “emotional distress.”

No commentary needed. I am emotionally distressed that this can even happen.

Or as Fox News put it, Airport ‘Art’ Stunt Bombs.

An MIT student wearing what turned out to be a fake bomb was arrested at gunpoint Friday at Logan International Airport and later claimed it was artwork, officials said.

Star Simpson, 19, had a computer circuit board and wiring in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport. “She said that it was a piece of art and she wanted to stand out on career day,” Pare said at a news conference. “She claims that it was just art, and that she was proud of the art and she wanted to display it.”

Well, I guess she did stand out, alright. And she would have stood out even more had she arrived to career day in a coffin.

On the other hand, the Logan airport security force does not exactly win any prizes for alertness, which would be a concern had she been wearing an actual bomb. Ms. Simpson waltzed into the airport to an information desk asking for information on an incoming flight, having not been previously stopped. She then walked back outside, and at this point the booth attendant decided that it might be a good idea to get the attention of a state trooper standing nearby.

At that point, Ms. Simpson discovered that her “artwork” - a battery-powered rectangular device with nine flashing lights (and holding Play-Doh in her hands) - was no laughing matter:

The trooper, joined by others with submachine guns, confronted her at a traffic island in front of the terminal.

In the words of Major Pare:

“She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands and not to make any movement, so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device,” Pare said. “Had she not followed the protocol, we might have used deadly force.” Simpson was “extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used,” Pare said.

***NEWS FLASH***
Well it’s official now, Ms. Simpson has won a 2007 Darwin Honorable Mention, as recorded here:

MIT student narrowly escapes death by submachine gun.

(21 September 2007, Boston) The woman later claimed that strolling around an airport while wearing a fake bomb was “art” but this kind of artistic performance is apt to be short-lived. Particularly if you choose Logan International Airport: two of the passenger jets hijacked on 911 took off from Logan.

The student was apprehended at gunpoint, and forced to surrender her flashing circuit board and ball of Play-doh. “She’s lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue,” said police

In honor of her Darwin Honorable Mention, I would present Ms. Simpson with the following consolation prize, which is modeled just below here.

Wha?? Massachusetts is giving the peasants back some freedom? To chose?

Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes yesterday said she plans to give the 4 million drivers in Massachusetts a taste of auto insurance competition next year, letting them shop around for the best deal for the first time in 30 years.

Instead of approving one set of rates that every company must charge, which has been past practice, Burnes said she plans to let companies set their own rates for 2008, under close supervision from the Division of Insurance.

The new rate-setting process will start April 1.

Oh my. Will the peasants be able to handle this? Will they know how to do this??

Burnes called the new system “managed competition,” but offered few details about how it would work. She said details would emerge when she issues regulations covering the competitive rate-setting process.

I knew this wasn’t quite what the head line made it out to be. That’s a new one. Managed Competition. Fercryinoutloud!

In a telephone interview, Burnes said companies would file their rates with supporting analysis, and they would take effect unless her office rejected them.

She said companies could base their premiums on such factors as driving record, the number and severity of at-fault accidents, and traffic violations.

She said she would view “with extreme skepticism” any rate proposal based on socioeconomic considerations, such as education, occupation, home ownership, or an individual’s credit score.

ok I can support this thinking. Education and credit ratings have little effect on one’s driving ability. AGE does have an effect and I do think younger and elder drivers should be considered a much higher risk…and they should have a higher rate to compensate for this.

Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where regulators set all auto insurance rates. Since 1990, 35 companies have abandoned the state because of its insurance system, according to the division. Many major national insurers, including Progressive Corp., Geico, and Allstate Corp., currently shun the state because of its heavily regulated system.

Several other states, including most recently New Jersey, have opened their markets to greater competition in the past decade. The moves have attracted more insurers to those states and often have resulted in lower rates for good drivers. But in some cases, rates for young and urban drivers have risen. Young drivers tend to have higher accident rates because of their lack of experience, while rates in urban areas are higher because of greater congestion, theft, and fraud.

Burnes vowed to protect young and urban drivers as Massachusetts moves toward auto insurance competition.

Heh…MA has very few insurers who will work with the strict and nanny state like rules. The insurance companies were loosing money left and right when doing business here…it’s no wonder they abandoned ship. I can only hope MA learns from past mistakes and allows the insurance companies to INSURE peasants based on the real risks. Friends from school, who live in MA, are paying 5, THAT’s FIVE, times the amount I pay for auto insurance; these friends are my age, have the same driving records and all that. We compared policies and they were PISSED off to see how little I pay vs. what they are FORCED to cough up.

Nanny state-ism doesn’t work. Take away the competition and you take away incentive to do better. In this context it means insurance companies leave the state and there are less resources to turn to. MA drivers have no concern about driving safely…
the good drivers who never get into accidents pay the same as those who cause multiple accidents. Managed competition is a start in the right direction but I bet it won’t last long. This is MA after all, the Nanny State of the USA.

Yesterday I posted about Massachusetts wonderful volunteer program: Where state workers are given up to 12 days a year, PAID, to volunteer their tax funded hours to certain organizations the Governor sees worthy…today there is another article in the Boston Herald about how much this actually COSTS.

A much-hyped program that gives state workers up to a dozen paid days off per year to “volunteer” in a wide variety of community activities gives another perk to employees who already have one of the most generous benefit packages in the country.

Massachusetts is tied for sixth nationally in the number of paid holidays for state workers with 13, including the Suffolk County-only holidays Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day.

Yes…people who work for the state and who live in certain counties get two more paid days off than the others who live in different counties…that’s not important here though.

Critics say the program is ripe for abuse and could result in lower productivity and increased costs.

A Herald analysis shows that if the 80 employees in the governor’s office took full advantage of the program, the one-year cost would be $217,000. The taxpayer cost just for Patrick, who makes $140,000, to take all 12 paid volunteer days would be about $6,400. There are 50,000 state workers eligible to participate in the program.

It’s not known HOW many state staffers would actually take “advantage” of this paid volunteerism, but it’s safe to assume MANY will. WHO wouldn’t take a Friday off, to “volunteer” a few hours and be paid for it…then enjoy the long weekend? And look at the numbers! That’s A LOT of freakin money going down the tube!

“Beyond the loss of productivity for days off, consider the cost of tasking other state employees with making sure their co-workers aren’t just extending their weekends,” said state GOP spokesman Brian Dodge. “With bright ideas like this one, the stream of wasted money directly attributed to Deval Patrick is quickly becoming a raging river.”

Exactly. The costs to oversee this program will more than likely be MORE than the costs of paying the state workers! But, alas this is Massachusetts…much like our federal government, entire departments are created just to make sure other departments are doing their job. One serves the purpose for the other. All on the citizens hard earned money. Will the citizens see a benefit to this? I highly doubt it!

The Herald describes this program as a perk for state workers. It is just that…because by far the majority WILL abuse it. Fridays will become paid days off under some false and phoney excuse of volunteer activity (”I cooked for soup kitchen” or “I went to the local nursing home and read to the old people”–> yea for five minutes)…the state workers will get a long weekend out of it at the expense of tax payers, WHO, by the WAY, are busy WORKING to PAY those state workers for the day OFF.

Gov. Patrick would be smarter to close down state offices for a day, unannounced ahead of time. And assign the workers to various projects- working in the soup kitchens; going to the many nursing homes and senior centers and participating in real activities; he could make a real environmental impact by making the state workers go around and clean up highways and roads (the MA Green Team!!)…the possibilities are ENDLESS!! But he would have to do it on days the workers are expected to be at work and he could not, ethically, call this volunteering. No.

The Gov. could set an example. HE could shuffle his schedule and take a Saturday and truly volunteer HIS time to some needy organization. That’s right. Take a DAY and work, for FREE. Unpaid! The satisfaction factor might be pretty high though and he could share this excitement and goodwill with others. SOME might be inspired to follow suit. It’s disturbing, to me, that states actually do this. Pay people to volunteer. It’s an oxymoron to say the least. Soon, this paid volunteerism becomes a chore; an expected duty, vs. the individually driven ideal to give of one’s self to another in need. Little satisfaction will come from such a chore. It will become just another day at work really.

Read Michael Graham’s Post about this stupid idea:

Now the Americorps system comes to the Massachusetts state government. State employees who don’t show up for their taxpayer-fundeed jobs can still get paid–if they show up to perform “volunteer” works at hospitals, senior centers, etc.

So I show up at a community center for 8 hours, I get paid for it, and that’s “volunteering?”

No, Gov. Patrick, that’s called working.

Every day, millions of Americans take time out to actually volunteer–coaching Little League, visiting sick neighbors, helping through their church or synagogue, etc., etc. They won’t get paid, they won’t get a check, their employer won’t let them do it on the clock.

That’s service. That’s charity. That’s what most Americans do.

I so agree!
Ideas like this take the very real human trait and NEED to help others out of the equation…if the price is right it will be done. Sometimes the things we CAN do for others are priceless. Let’s keep it that way!

From dictionary.com:

Volunteer
1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.
2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.

I volunteer for a few projects and activities. I joined a local hospice provider in South Maine. I help them out 16 hours a week or 2 eight hour shifts. I go to people’s homes and assist with end of life care giving. I do this on my own time, at my own free will. I have to juggle my personal schedule around; I make a few sacrifices in order to fit this in…but I get a lot of personal satisfaction when I do these things. Besides, it’s the American thing to do.

When I read this article, it felt like a hard slap in the face:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s vast expansion of a program allowing state workers to take up to a dozen taxpayer-funded days off per year to volunteer has critics raising questions about oversight, administrative costs and potential conflicts.

Under the program, 50,000 state workers can get paid one day per month to volunteer at senior centers, hospitals or non-profits, serve on committees or chaperone school field trips. But some pols say the perk is ripe for abuse and will lead to costly red tape.

“Essentially we’re paying people to do this volunteer effort on the taxpayer dime,” said House GOP leader Rep. Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading). “Call me a cynic, but a lot of this volunteering I’m sure will be taking place on Fridays and Mondays. I think it leaves a lot of unanswered questions.”

Patrick is aggressively pushingworkers to take part in the State Employees Serving as Volunteers (SERV) program. SERV was originally created by former Gov. William F. Weld as a little-known perk limited to school volunteerism.

But Patrick held a highly publicized launch event to announce a broad expansion, a day after state workers handed out free brown-bag lunches to Beacon Hill collegeagues to promote the effort.

Patrick spokeswoman Cyndi Roy said there’s “extensive” oversight including verification from groups getting the volunteer help. She said the state anticipates no additional administrative costs.

The program also bans volunteers from working for religious and political outfits, as well as lobbying organizations. “Allowing state employees to volunteer is one way to give them a sense of investment in their community,” Roy said.

Opinions? Is this a good thing? Is it mandated volunteerism? Can we expect state workers to be “re-assigned” duties on any given day vs. true volunteering? Is this ethical? And, is it a waste of tax payer money?

Yesteday, I wrote a post regarding an editorial in the Boston Globe which managed to blame Israel for the latest conflict between Fatah and Hamas.

Blogger Harry Forbes (h/t James Taranto) did a little historical research and discovered the slick pirouette that the Globe has executed with regards to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

From a Globe editorial of August 13, 2005 titled The Road Through Gaza , we read:

Some Israelis protesting the planned pullout from Gaza settlements are using scare tactics that are too common in the Mideast. ”A Jew-free Gaza welcomes Al Qaeda,” shouted one banner at a massive rally in Tel Aviv on Thursday. Even some political leaders who should know better are fanning the flames.

But to argue, as Benjamin Netanyahu did in resigning from the Cabinet, that disengagement from Gaza would create ”a giant base for terrorism” is to argue that there should never be a two-state solution to the conflict. Denying Palestinians a homeland has been counterproductive for both peoples. Denying them even the hope of a homeland would be a road map to war everlasting.

Another protest frequently voiced by the Israeli right is that the withdrawal, scheduled to begin on Wednesday, only rewards Palestinian militants for the second intifadah — five years of attacks and other violent resistance to Israeli control. But this stance is backward-looking and self-defeating. It encourages Palestinian hard-liners to make the mirroring argument: that any moves toward a lasting peace by Palestinian leaders only reward Israel for its occupation. Taken together, these positions are also a prescription for eternal strife.
…
Begun as a unilateral move announced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the step has since attracted a level of coordination that is encouraging on its own terms.

But yesterday, the Globe editors wrote:

They [i.e. the Gazans] long suffered from Israel’s suffocating occupation, and then from Ariel Sharon’s foolishly unilateral withdrawal in 2005, a move that allowed Hamas to bid for power with the misleading claim that its rockets and suicide bombings had driven Israeli soldiers and settlers out of Gaza.

(emphases mine)

Comparing these two statements makes it evident that yesterday’s Globe editors are echoing the arguments of the Israeli opponents of the withdrawal in 2005 which the Globe at that time condemned.

But rather than recanting and agreeing that the Israeli right was correct in 2005, the Globe silently declares their previous editorial arguments as now inoperative and instead only condemn the Israelis for having withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza.

This at best represents invidious bias - and at worse, malice - against the State of Israel.

James Taranto and others have pointed out the magnificent liguistic gymnastics of the authors of today’s Boston Globe editorial titled Senseless in Gaza.

The editorial begins appropriately enough by observing that the citizens of Gaza are the losers in the battle between Fatah and Hamas:

Both sides are labeling the fighting in Gaza between the nationalists of Fatah and the Islamist movement Hamas as a civil war. Whether or not the mayhem fits some abstract definition of civil war, there is a struggle for power, one that Hamas at present is winning. But the 1.4 million Palestinians living in the impoverished cage of Gaza are the principal losers in this power struggle, and not merely because civilians have been caught in the crossfire or because Hamas gunmen have been shooting down peace marchers in cold blood.

But after this promising start, the authors immediately veer off the road starting by attaching the familiar victim label to the residents of Gaza. They then lament that the impending victory of Hamas means that these victmized people “stand to lose whatever hope remained of achieving independence and a decent life in a viable Palestinian state” - although they also note in passing that “Gazans were victimized as well by the corruption and misrule of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah cronies”.

By this slight of hand, the authors have rhetorically managed to detach these Gazans from their elected leadership and also evade mention that Fatah and Hams draw their recruits from the ranks of these same residents.

Not content to rest here, the Globe editors then proceed to round up the usual suspects, which in the Middle East of course means Israel. Speaking of the Gazans, the authors state:

They long suffered from Israel’s suffocating occupation, and then from Ariel Sharon’s foolishly unilateral withdrawal in 2005, a move that allowed Hamas to bid for power with the misleading claim that its rockets and suicide bombings had driven Israeli soldiers and settlers out of Gaza.

So following the impeccible logic of the Globe editors, Israel is to blame because of their occupation of Gaza - and Israel is also to blame because they withdrew from Gaza. In other word, Israel can’t win - they’re to blame regardless.

We already know about BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Looks like the Globe has also contracted IDS.

As a public service to the Globe editors, should their Lemocrat™ friends in Congress succeed in forcing the U.S. from Iraq this fall, I’ll spare them the need to come up with a new editorial for the upcoming Presidential election season as Iraq descends into chaos and genuine civil war.

With remarkable prescience, they’ve already written their editorial. All it will take is a bit of tweaking:

[The Gaza Strip] Iraq long suffered from Israel’s the U.S.’s suffocating occupation, and then from Ariel Sharon’s George Bush’s foolishly unilateral withdrawal in 2005 2007, a move that allowed Hamas Al Qaida to bid for power with the misleading claim that its rockets and suicide bombings had driven Israeli American soldiers and settlers contractors out of Gaza Iraq.

Globe editors, may I introduce you to the miracles of Boraxo…

Wouldn’t it be nice to have all your gas paid for, by the peasants who elected you to office?

As gas prices soar, taking a toll on many Bay State families, taxpayers have shelled out nearly $200,000 to pay Beacon Hill lawmakers to drive themselves to work, a Herald review has found.

With prices at the pump topping $3 statewide, 68 members of the House and 14 senators have already received more than $1,000 in travel pay this year, with some hauling in nearly $7,000.

The 68 House members who have put in for the daily travel reimbursements have scored an average $1,524 so far this year, while the 20 members of the Senate have fetched an average $1,616.

Western Massachusetts lawmakers top the list, with some making $90 a day to drive to the Golden Dome. The taxpayer-funded payments are based on mileage and are not adjusted to rising and falling gas prices.

The people of MA are being screwed over and I bet 80% don’t even care…and I bet most of them think their elected reps are some how entitled to this special perk.

How does NH handle this?

Barbara Anderson, who heads the taxpayer watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation, said per diem payments are a “silly,” outdated concept created when the Legislature was part-time.

“I’d rather it be like New Hampshire, where they get paid (a yearly stipend) plus mileage,” she said. “But in Massachusetts they get everything.”

heh. No…this is Massachusetts where wasting money is more important; it justifies high taxes.

Speaking of taxes and Massachusetts, they want to grab as many bucks as they can…and NH residents who travel to MA can look forward to “paying” for the privilege to drive on the highways of MA…

BOSTON, MA. — Massachusetts lawmakers are debating a plan to place tolls along the New Hampshire border at Interstates 93 and 95 and Route 3 to help pay for Massachusetts’ crumbling roads and bridges.

The sponsor of the bill said if Massachusetts residents have to pay tolls in New Hampshire, it makes sense to do the same for New Hampshire drivers using the Bay State roads and bridges.

The proposal would put tolls on I-93 in Methuen and on I-95 in Salisbury, and another on Route 3 at the New Hampshire border.

Every road that leads drivers into NH, from MA, Maine and Vermont are not toll roads; drivers can reach all local cities via un-tolled highways…yes, we do have tolls but only for folks heading north. Quite a ways up actually. There are tolls between Manchester and Concord; between Nashua and Manchester- but there are also smaller high ways many of take to avoid these tolls, and trust me, many MA residents take as well. It’s a game. Wherever it thinks money can be made, MA is there. Now NH residents can pay for the gas of MA state reps.

Cradle to College Education in Massachusetts. Sounds sweet huh?

Governor Deval Patrick plans to unveil a proposal today to make Massachusetts’ community colleges, among the priciest in the nation, free to all high school graduates in the state by the year 2015, according to documents obtained by the Globe.

The proposal is the centerpiece of Patrick’s vision for a “cradle to career” education system that would dramatically expand the concept of public education in Massachusetts.

The plan, which he will outline during commencement at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, would also provide preschool for all children, extend the school day and year, and guarantee two years of community college paid for by the state.

Free eh? By whose definition?

But Patrick’s ambitious plan includes neither price tags nor funding proposals as the state struggles financially. Instead, it calls for a commission that would be charged with transforming the plan into reality.

Of course they won’t talk about funding this. Everyone knows it will fall squarely in the lap of the tax payers. And the costs will be astronomical.

Universal health care, and perhaps universal college education, could sink the state of Massachusetts into a hole it will never come out of. By doing this, these expensive colleges will no longer be able to support the excellent education they DO deliver year after year. Whenever something, anything, is taken over by a government it reduces quality and becomes bogged down with latent bureaucracy. The freeness of this will creep back to haunt- not just with even higher taxes and YET another state government dept of something-or-other, but with the colleges themselves. The professors and staff will see lower salaries and benefits, lower standards of achievement and face oversights galore. What’s wrong with expecting people to take personal responsibility for their higher education? Instead, they are making another entitlement program.

A pompous, elite and snotty editorial in today’s Boston Globe.

THERE WASN’T a whisper of opposition last week at the state Public Health Council as Massachusetts General Hospital presented its plan to replace some old buildings with a $498 million complex that will include a larger emergency department, 71 surgical suites, and 150 new beds. The council approved the plan unanimously, but the expansion raises the question of whether the state can afford to rely so heavily on healthcare providers who combine quality with high costs.

So let’s keep the old dilapidated and almost dangerous buildings up and running…let’s create the circumstances that led to some of the out-patient building problems at Walter Reed, right? Let’s keep things affordable for the state of socialized health care. Let’s keep the peasants of Massachusetts where they belong.

When the new building is completed in 2011, MGH will have 1,052 beds, still fewer than at its peak of the late 1980s. The hospital downsized in the 1990s in the expectation that the strictures of managed care would reduce demand. It did, but mainly for lower-cost beds in community hospitals. Massachusetts residents demanded that their insurance plans continue to give them access to MGH, the most prestigious hospital in the state.

MGH is an excellent hospital. There are very few with the level of care and outcome that can match this place, world wide. And people from all over the New England region come here for care and surgery and other treatments. When patients have the choice, they chose MGH. They may be stupid, the people of MA, but they’re not dumb when it comes to which hospital is best.

Under almost any circumstances, patients go to MGH, a trend that has caused chronic overcrowding in the emergency department. Dr. Peter Slavin, the hospital’s president, said it is trying to encourage use of other hospital emergency rooms, but for many people in Boston and points north, the MGH habit will be hard to break. The council recognized this in approving the expansion project.

Part of the reason for the upgrade is to expand the ER department and make it MORE accessible. But the editors of the Boston Globe, and other snobbists of the Bay State, want the peasants to go to less known and less quality driven hospitals. THIS is socialized health care mind set at it’s best, FOLKS. You see, a stay at MGH costs more because patients get better CARE and services. And very few of these services are frills.

Many boomers are picky about their accommodations, as Slavin observed at the hearing. To make them comfortable, the new rooms will be single-bed only, with space for family members to sleep overnight. This amenity will increase the cost of a hospital stay — and will hinder access to healthcare if it helps make health insurance unaffordable.

Oh Gawd damn MY. How dare a citizen of the Great Nanny state, MA, demand a private room!?! After all, this is an AMENITY that is usually afforded to people like the Editors of the Boston Globe, and state representatives, and Mayors and even the Governor and his staff. Again, let’s not allow the peasants to invade into this elite world. And let’s not consider that patients DO heal faster, experience less hospital-acquired infections, have far better medical outcomes, than patients who share rooms with 1 and 2, but usually 3 others. Patients tend to be discharged quicker when they heal faster. This equates to LESS cost in the short and long term.

Slavin is right that the people of Massachusetts expect much from the hospital: the best of care no matter how difficult the case, the training of physicians, and advances in medical research. But government, business, and consumers in the state can only afford so much. The long-term cost trends at MGH will be evident in a year or two, when private insurers negotiate their rates with the hospitals. If rates don’t moderate, more and more people could find themselves priced out of the splendid new facilities approved last week.

So the Nanny Staters have a choice. Health care for all- but only at hospitals where masses of steerage class people are holed up together in ward like rooms with no privacy and little comfort. Where community acquired infections spread like wild fire, not just hospital acquired. Where med errors occur more because nurses face a dozen patients in 3 rooms. Where patients have to listen to doctors tell other patients they’re medical diagnoses and treatment plans, where privacy means little.

This is an example of what state sponsored health care looks like. Let’s not change it. Let’s not try to do better. Will the Great Nanny State of Massachusetts forbid it’s steerage class citizens from being admitted to MGH? Time will tell. But you can all rest assured, the elite class of the Kingdom will always continue to get their care at MGH. Let there be no doubt about that.

Down in MA a woman was in her home, in her own bed, sleeping soundly. A man entered her room, didn’t turn on the lights or speak. She assumed he was her boyfriend; he was not, but he was her boyfriend’s (twin) brother. He went to her bed and had sex with her. After the act when the lights went on, she realized he wasn’t her boyfriend.

She claims he never told her he was not her boyfriend. She pressed charged against him for rape. The state of MA declared this event not to be rape, because the act was not fought…he didn’t force her and she didn’t fight. Rape, by deceit does not exist according to the state. It was rape as far as I’m concerned…and some state legislators are looking to change this law.

Two state lawmakers are drafting legislation that would make using deceit to have sex a form a rape.

The move comes a day after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a man who tricked a woman into having sex with him could not be convicted of rape because no force was used.

The woman said her boyfriend’s brother climbed into bed with her while she was asleep and pretended to be her boyfriend. She said she would not have consented to sex if she had known who it was.

State Rep. Peter Koutoujian, (D-Waltham), and Sen. Stephen Buoniconti, (D-West Springfield), both former prosecutors, said yesterday they are working with the victims advocate group Jane Doe Inc. to draft an amendment to the state’s rape law.

In its ruling Thursday, the SJC said the use of force is required to convict someone of rape under the state’s current rape law.

Hmm. I don’t think I have ever heard of a case quite like this. Thoughts??

The Great Nanny State of Taxachusetts, seeking to remove even more freedom from it’s peasantry.

One in 10 children and adolescents suffer from mental illness, according to a 2001 report from the US Surgeon General, but fewer than one in five of these children are treated.

Pending state legislation would help by ushering in an era of reform. Today, lawmakers will hold a hearing on An Act Improving and Expanding Behavioral Health Services for Children in the Commonwealth. As its long name suggests, the bill is a sprawling plan that calls for change in schools, preschool programs, insurance coverage, and in state government.

The goal behind this sweeping approach is to reach children wherever they are and give them uniformly excellent care.

The bill would put the state Department of Mental Health in charge of children’s mental health, so responsibility would no longer be scattered across agencies. So whether a child was on welfare, detained by the Department of Youth Services, or in public school, their quality of care would be consistent.

…and we all know how state governments fare when it comes to health care oversight. Every child who has a temper tantrum will be labelled as mentally ill. Parents will lose their right to raise their child as they see fit; medical professionals will face mandated “treatment” and will have to deal with yet another layer of paperwork/oversight bureaucracy and red tape. The state will have more control over the lives of it’s citizens. More children will get lost in a system like this.

More taxes to go wasted on unneeded “programs” for a very small percentage of the population. And the people of MA will once again love this idea. They don’t know what freedom is because they have been totally indoctrinated into the government-knows-best complacency mindset. It takes a village…to remove personal responsibility from the very people who could so use a good dose of it.

How many strikes does it take to be out?

Boston police Commissioner Edward Davis vowed yesterday to implement a new policy that would boot cops off the force after just three suspensions - a new reform that comes as federal prosecutors outlined the case against a cop who racked up six suspensions before his arrest on charges he used his badge and gun to shake down a man on behalf of drug dealers.

This is in violation of the human rights of municipal employees everywhere!! Of course we the peasants, who probably don’t make it in our jobs after the 3rd suspension, have no such rights; not to mention being held accountable for poor performance and all that.