Let’s be honest – regardless of what label one applies to him, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) manages to make that entire group look bad. In case anyone wanted a list of his potential rules violations, the NYT has cordially provided it. My favorite highlights are included below
These include:

–Approval of the purchase of four first- and business-class commercial airline tickets for a June 2008 trip during which he met with his mistress in Argentina.

— Personal use of state-owned aircraft for trips such as the birthday party of a campaign contributor in Aiken, and flying from Myrtle Beach to Columbia for a ”personal event,” including a haircut.

— Reimbursing himself nearly $3,000 using campaign contributions, including about $900 for expenses to attend a Republican Governors Association meeting in Miami and a hunting trip in Dublin, Ireland, several days later.

As Angry Diesel Engineer astutely noted: “What an idiot! You can’t take the gubernatorial helicopter to Supercuts, because your new do will get all messed up when you get back in the thing!”

The bigger news is that my good friend Angry Overeducated Catholic has begun his descent to madness. Rather than condemning Sanford’s inability to follow the laws of the state he governs, AOC has been reduced to shouting “ZOMG Democrats are teh sux0r!” Witness gems like:

AOC on Sanford’s purchace offirst/business class tickets to meet his mistress:
Note that this would apparently have been legal if he’d flown coach. (Or used his own money, naturally.) Well, or, let’s be honest, if he’d been a Democrat, although possibly only if he’d also chartered a private jet instead.

AOC on Sanford’s personal use of aircraft:
Of course, again, all of this is legal and standard for Democratic Congressmen. Remember the giant Midwestern funeral which was also a giant Dem campaign rally! Sadly, poor Sanford had the bad sense to join the wrong party for those without ethics.

AOC on Sanford going to Miami, and Dublin on campaign funds:
That is odd, since you’d think that attending the Governors Association would generally be covered by good old taxpayer funds, as it is in states where Democrats are governors. But he might also have used monies or goods provided by a “good friend”, another SOP across the aisle. And a decent Democrat would certainly have successfully argued that a trip to Ireland was for “economic development” for his state (hey it works for Daley).

So, as I suspected, Sanford’s real crimes: being a Republican and an asshat. Fool that he was, Sanford forgot to switch parties before defrauding folks and sleeping around. Bad for him, but good for us, since he got exposed, deposed, and now indicted…none of which would have happened to Gov. Sanford (D).*

*Well, he might have resigned. I should be carefl here, as some Democrats actually do resign when their shady deals are exposed. I’m just presuming that since this guy was such an asshat, he wouldn’t have done the right thing even when outed. Instead he would just emulate Kennedy, Jefferson, Clinton, Frank, Reid, etc. and bulled on through.

Though Republicans are chomping at the bit to eviscerate each other for being insufficiently conservative, evidently flagrant ethics violations only get a “But Democrats are worse!” It’s just one of those reasons why the Republicans are headed into permanent minority status. Well, that, and assclowns like Tom Tancredo who make hating mis amigos an article of faith. You know, just like the Anglo Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself; unless, of course, he is a filthy Mexican.”

The folks over at Slate have written up a history of holding your gun sideways. As you might have expected, the Angry Men added some interesting commentary.

Angry Military Man
Unprofessional jackasses. This is one cultural trend that seriously pisses me off, I had a devil of a time trying to teach people how to properly hold a fucking pistol. They were always trying to be gangsta.

Angry Overeducated Catholic
But AMM why does this annoy you? I mean, I understand that this idiocy by your students annoyed you, sure. But how is this outcome anything but welcome:

As police chased Raymond “Ready” Martinez through Times Square on Thursday, the street hustler and aspiring rapper fired two shots, holding the gun sideways “like a character out of a rap video.” According to the New York Post, Martinez’s side grip caused the gun to jam, enabling police to shoot and kill the suspect.

By all means, let’s do whatever we can to encourage this sort of poor gun control by our criminal classes. If they’re going to abuse their rights, at least let them abuse them in a way that minimizes their danger to others and maximizes their danger to themselves.

I want a lack of professionalism in my would-be professional criminals!

Angry Immigrant
In that case…

I would like to propose a new gangsta style grip that involves holding the pistol upside down next to the head, barrel pointing forward. This would allow the spent casing to bounce “awesomely” off of the temple of the shooter, signifying toughness and promote true “def” style hearing loss.

Sighting the barrel directly next to the eyes should maximize the shooter’s conception of aiming accuracy, as it brings a point-and-shoot cyborg mentality for the shooter.

This new all-def method makes no claims of actual accuracy improvement. In case of a gun jamming, this may cause grievous explosive injury to the shooter, but that’s the risk of being tru-4-life.

Angry Libertarian
We can do better and have.

A suspect in the rape and armed robbery of several woman in River Forest accidentally shot himself in the head during a police chase Monday night in Oak Park. The suspect died several hours later.

Angry Overeducated Catholic
Well, yes, but of course in this case do we have any certain knowledge that he was in fact holding his gun when he shot himself in the head? There may have been a little officer-assisted suicide going on…this is River Forest we’re talking about.

On the other hand, it’s pretty clear that this guy was one of the dullest knives in the drawer. Of course there’s the inevitable tagline in modern America:

Patillo had convictions for aggravated unlawful use of a fire arm and drugs. He was paroled April 25 from the Sheridan Correctional Center.

Gosh, a parolee is released and within a year escalates to even more dangerous and violent offenses? What a shocker!*

Be interesting to find out whether this guy was off as part of Governor Quinn’s early release programs to save money…apparently they’re quietly releasing increasingly dangerous types because of funding issues.

Yippee!

*Note that this crap also makes the lives of actual reformed ex-cons even harder. Now that everyone knows that parole is a “get out of jail to rape and murder for free” card, there’s even less chance given to actual honest parolees who earned their parole through actual reform. When you make an earned privilege a natural right, you cheapen it 9 times out of 10.

When I wrote my last post, I challenged the other Angry Men to write a version of the creed for liberals. AOC responded with this work of excellence. Enjoy – ANM

Do you accept Obama? I do.

And all his progressive works? I do.

And his promise of true hope and change? I do.

Do you believe in Liberalism, the One True Philosophy on this godless earth? I do.

Do you believe in Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New Dealer, who was born of Theodore Roosevelt, was crucified by reactionaries, defeated Nazism, grew the Federal Government, and is now enthroned in the Progressive pantheon? I do.

Do you believe in JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, the holy Great Society, the utter destruction of right-wingers, the non-existance of personal sins, the regulation of industry, and life under government management? I do.*

* See, it’s even positively Progressive! Hey, I even know Progressives who would agree to this without reservation! (No, seriously.)

Guess who it is again? That’s right it’s Angry New Mexican, your hombre in chief. Evidently Angry Overeducated Catholic has turned his pen against Her Majesty and the people of the United Kingdom. Stuff like this always reminds me of God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols. Anyway. Enjoy the song and rant.

Angry Overeducated Catholic

Hey, Brits, no need for the Queen’s Police State to add another level of cameras and soul-crushing pointless legislation to stop this. I know your natural tendency is to solve problems by removing more freedom and increasing state tyranny beyond anything Orwell thought about in 1984, but just take a second here.

Possible cause/Possible Solution:

P: Parents too poor to buy proper outerwear.
S: How about having some jackets/coats available at the nursery? If other parents express jealousy, point out that being jealous of folks too poor to buy coats for their kids is a little hard hearted even for the English.

P: Parents too stupid/careless (“busy”) to dress kids properly.
S: Keep child inside during playtime, force child to perform horrid tasks like developing mind or doing homework. Send note home to parents explaining in very simple terms that dressing kids properly is kinda their job.

P: Parents dressing kids in ridiculous overpriced clothing which the kids are terrified of ruining.
S: Mix of the previous two, combined with perhaps a recommendation that owning overpriced items the owner is terrified of using for their express purpose should properly remain restricted to idiot adults, such as the parents in question.

But really, laws? Regulations? Is that the answer, Britain? These parents, stupid as they are aren’t criminals… …Ah, wait, that’s the problem, if they were criminals you’d let them crap all over everyone, just as you allow muggings and robberies to go on in front of police officers without intervention. Never mind. Clearly these stupid law abiding parents require fines and jail time to remember that they’re supposed to be anti-social scum dedicated to the destruction of English society.

Carry on.

Hola muchachos! As usual, your hombre-in-chief finds himself surrounded by slackers who can’t be bothered to write a blog article but send prolific essays to our super-secret email list. And the worst offender in this class is clearly Angry Overeducated Catholic. When he isn’t hero-worshipping Dick Cheney, Angry Overeducated Catholic often spends his time as a shameless Republican apologist. Many Republicans are soulless shills for Big Business, and so is AOC most of the time. But when Big Business prolongs it’s existence due to the help of The Evil Government(TM), then AOC strikes out in anger, this time against the insurance industry (because they have been corrupted via The Evil Government)! Ignore AOC’s bizarre fantasy that Republicans actual care a lick about healthcare reform and read the list anyway. As he rightly notes, the insurance industry is a key part of the problem, and he can join Nancy Pelosi in wanting to shaft them whenever possible. Anyway muchachos, enjoy the fun -ANM

Angry Overeducated Catholic

Repealing the tax benefits would seem to be a no brainer, unless of course your actual goal was to increase dependency on insurance (public or private) and basically fully socialize a large percentage of the US economy.

Hmm…

Seriously, if the Dems wanted real reform, it’s not that hard (and much of this has been proposed by the Republicans from day one):

  • tort reform limiting the ridiculous liability that forces doctors to pay $200K plus in annual premiums to insurance companies
  • providing tax-free medical savings accounts which give people an option for tax free health spending that doesn’t involve insurance companies
  • incentivizing catastrophic care insurance which provides a cushion for unexpected crises without sending giant premiums to insurance companies
  • limit or repeal the tax advantages which incentivize comprehensive health insurance and enrich insurance companies
  • repeal or flatten the patchwork of state regulations which distort local insurance markets and benefit insurance companies by eliminating competition
  • generally reduce the state’s role in the health industry, as massive regulation and government involvement always benefit larger corporate players, such as major insurance companies

I can’t help but note that every one of these proposals, viciously opposed by Democrats, would seem to also be opposed by the aforementioned evil insurance companies.

Kinda makes you wonder who their real friends are, doesn’t it?

(Of course the GOP ain’t lily white, but big business and especially small businesses aren’t happy with the insurers on this issue and that means their GOP allies have divided loyalties, at best, from the insurance company perspective. And in reality, the Dems aren’t shills for the insurers either, so much as shills for trial lawyers (1st), unions (2nd, 3rd, 4th), and government (5th, 6th).)

Evidently Mao is the new thing in avant garde Chinese art. Underground exhibitions, keeping heads and bodies of statuary separated, this is some pretty wacky stuff.

My favorite piece (and a favorite of several other Angry Men) is The Execution of Christ by the Gao brothers:

Nothing like a firing squad of Maos executing Jesus

I thought was a interesting commentary on religious freedom in China, with a touch of Picasso’s Guernica, juxtaposed against the patent absurdity of multiple Maos. In a sense, it was in the line of Andy Warhol’s portrait of Mao with rouge and lipstick.

Several other Angry Men also waxed philosophically, witness this dialogue between Angry Overeducated Catholic and Angry Immigrant…

Angry Overeducated Catholic: I like the Mao off by himself: is he doubting the party line, is he afraid to take a life, is he worried Christ is Who He says He is? Or is he just too incompetent to load a rifle, stand in a line, and shoot an unarmed man?

Angry Immigrant: He’s a demagogue, posing with a rifle trying to look tough, but unable to actually look at the consequences of his policies…

Angry Overeducated Catholic: Ah, but I believe the other members of the squad are also Mao…so perhaps Mao has only a small part of his conscience left, which recoils from the consequences of his policies even while powerless to prevent his larger self from carrying them out?

Good stuff, huh? A little philosophical for my blood, but interesting nonetheless.

Angry Military Man, famed wit that he is, one the day. Had little else to say other than Mao More Than Ever. But once saying that, need one say any more?

Hola muchachos! You know what’s going on. That’s right, it’s Angry New Mexican doing AOC’s grunt work as usual. When will there be justice for the hermanos? Anyway, AOC found this article and he went NUTS. Enjoy.

Angry Overeducated Catholic

Nobody’s vetting process is this piss-poor. As one commentator said:

It seems the qualification for Obama’s appointees are violation of the very thing they should enforce:

  • Tim Geithner: qualified to head the Treasury because he knew how to tax-cheat.
  • Van Jones: qualified to be the Green Job Czar who oversaw $80B because he knew how to redistribute the wealth.
  • Ron Bloom: qualified to be the Manufacturing Czar because he knew how to destroy manufacturing jobs as a union head.
  • Kevin Jennings: qualified to be the Safe School Czar because he knew how to use drugs and cover up for child molestation.

That about sums it up. As another comment said, you have to start to think that the problem is that the vetters simply don’t think these things are actually problems. Sadly, it appears that includes failing to report child rape, failing to ensure that a possible carrier of a deadly disease receives medical attention, and failing to uphold the laws and regulations appropriate to your administrative position. All excellent traits in a Federal office director!

Oh, and one final point about the mental processes of Mr. Jennings:

Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network).

At a 1997 GLSEN conference, Jennings had this to say:

“One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual “rights” group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not—they were right, he was crazy.”

Who was Harry Hay? Deceased member of the American Communist Party and lifelong advocate of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).

Wow. Just wow. These people really do believe that they’ve completed “the long march through the institutions” that Gramsci called for…and that they are now invulnerable.

Their arrogant disregard for even the simplest moral value or constraint is Promethean.

That’s right: Jennings is a lifelong admirer of a man who believed that homosexuals have every right to sleep with teenage and pre-adolescent boys. Just perfect for a school czar, don’t you think!

It’s like they’re not even pretending to be on our side any more.

Hola! Your hombre-in-chief Angry New Mexican is here again. My (incredibly lazy) friend Angry Overeducated Catholic spotted this article, and he could not refrain from commenting on it. Of course, he couldn’t be bothered to post it, leaving me once again with this duty.

Angry Overeducated Catholic

Scenario in a nutshell:
Activist outraged at Bush Administration’s plan to auction oil leases on Federal lands. Participates in auction under false pretenses, buys leases, defaults, delays transfer of rights, calls attention to auctions. Leads to media scrutiny of auctions, Federal court injunctions against some auctions, and the Obama Administration’s rapid removal of most of the proffered leases. Activist now faces court, possible Federal prison time for his actions.

Reasons why this is a non-problem:
A. If the court decides that his necessity defense is valid, he’ll be acquitted. This is very unlikely, but possible in this case due to the various problems with the auctions. If this happens, then the courts have spoken and the guy’s “fraud” was actually legal citizen action to prevent a government harm. As a believer in the evils of government I would applaud, even if the guy is a dirty, dirty hippy.

B. If he’s found guilty then the courts decided that either the harm involved was not great enough to warrant his actions (quite possible since the government might well have rescinded the oil rights before any drilling began) or that his actions were inappropriate even given the harm (he could have called attention to the auctions in many other ways). In either case, the court would be ruling that he exceeded any responsible claim to have acted in the public good (aka he’s a dirty, dirty hippy and acted as such). In this case, given the outcome, this is perfect Presidential pardon bait. Indeed, one could argue this is the very reason for the pardon: to pardon folks who are actually guilty of the crime, and guilty of a real crime, but who have such unusual circumstances surrounding their case that the President decides the national good warrants their release. Since this case (dirty hippy uses dirty hippy tactics—which all right-thinkiing folks agree should be illegal—to prevent an ill-advised and later reversed government action) is exactly such a case, nobody’s going to hate on Obama for the pardon.*

Either way, no huge social problem here, just actual justice in the justice system. Which I guess is surprising, and therefore news, but not really a major problem.

*Okay, realistically folks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will hate on Obama for this…perhaps I should have said that nobody will hate on Obama for the pardon who wouldn’t already be hating on him for some other random action he’s done.

Hola amigos! Your hombre-in-chief Angry New Mexican is back again with the latest batch of rage from the 12 Angry Men. This time we’re all up in arms about President Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. And as a change from my usual editor-only status, I’ve included my own rant, because I’m pretty angry. So is AOC (go figure). AM is practically incoherent with rage (a usual condition for him, even mentioning the name of Obama makes his pulse rise). But if you think we’re angry about this, wait until you hear from Angry Albuquerqueian, a longtime reader who woke me up this morning to express his boundless rage at the Obama Peace Prize. That rant should be up in another hour or two Enjoy mis amigos, and stay angry!

Angry New Mexican

I’m usually a strong defender of the Nobel Committee. No matter what the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (of which Angry Overeducated Catholic is a card-carrying member) had to say about Al Gore (2007), Muhammad Yunas (2006), Mohamed ElBaradei (2005) or Jimmy Cater (2002), they all deserved their prizes, because they had all made a unique contribution to the world in the sphere of peace and cooperation between nations. They might not be Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Lech Walesa (1983), Norman Borlaug (1970), Dag Hammarskjöld (1961), George C. Marshall (1953) or Jean Henry Dunant (1901), but they all deserved it. Now, Barack Obama is given the 2009 Nobel Peace prize. For what exactly? According the the committee, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Translation: Because he’s not George W. Bush. Neither am I, and I spoke with the Pakestani guy who works down the hall, so I must have been furthering cooperation between peoples. Where’s my Nobel?

Hell, the hapless British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was more deserving of the award this year, since he was the first head of government to take any real leadership on the financial crisis, let alone any of those who tirelessly work in humanitarian efforts in the field throughout the globe. Don’t get me wrong, I like President Obama and think he’s done a reasonable job (given the circumstances) so far. But I see no reason in the world why he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And I want to be the one of the first members of the arm-chair quarterback class to call on him to refuse the prize. He doesn’t deserve it and he has to know that. And there’s precident, Le Duc Tho refused his prize in 1973. If I were Obama, I’d politely refuse and note that someone like Morgan Tsvangirai was far more deserving of the prize than me.

Angry Midwesterner

How the hell does Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize?

HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT BE BLACK AND TRASH THE ECONOMY!

Are you really telling me there is no one, NO ONE, in the world who has done more? Is the world really this much of a shill for Obamunism?

Angry Overeducated Catholic

This is why I have utter contempt for the Nobel Peace Prize, and have for years. It is a politicized piece of crap, and has been for years.

Some years ago I helped secure recommendations for George Ryan, whom was being nominated for the prize for his moratorium on the death penalty. Neither the nominator or I expected that he would win, but certainly Ryan had much more standing to win than Obama…he had actually just made a very difficult and politically unwise choice for no ulterior motive—he simply came to believe that the state was executing men unjustly and put an end to it.

Does anyone, anyone, on this list think that Obama has done anything to warrant beating out the other 200+ nominees, some of whom are almost certainly have done something?

Hell, as long as Bill Clinton goes unrewarded for actually carrying through and stopping a genocidal cival war and re-establishing something resembling peace in the fracking Balkans, this is now viciously unjust to the man. We won’t award him a prize because he’s personally flawed (and used US military power to bring peace) but we’ll grant one to someone who has done nothing at all of any substance.

Pathetic.

I am now placing “Piss on Nobel’s grave” to my bucket list. He doesn’t really deserve it, of course, but I can’t piss on the committee itself (too many motherfrackers).

Bienvenidos readers! It’s your hombre-in-chief Angry New Mexican here again and once again serving as AOC’s editor, since he writes up these great posts for our super-secret email list and then is too lazy to post them to the blog.

Anyway, what started the discussion was this article about health care being a very inefficient market due to poor information among consumers, even when people’s own money is at risk. Translation: You can’t just blame insurance companies for people’s ignorance. The opening example in the article goes something like this,

“Five years ago, former President Bill Clinton developed chest pains caused by blockages of several coronary arteries… It’s hard to imagine a savvier, better-connected health care consumer than the former president. But consider this: Beginning in 1991, state health officials in New York began releasing hospital- and surgeon-specific death rates from heart surgery. Anyone can see them online. At the time of Clinton’s surgery, the most current report showed that Columbia-Presbyterian had the highest death rate of any of the 35 hospitals doing bypass surgery; it was twice the expected rate (about 4 percent instead of 2 percent, a margin not explained by random chance). Clinton’s surgeon was the chief of cardiothoracic surgery, a man named Craig R. Smith. Among the four surgeons at Columbia-Presbyterian who performed more than 100 bypass surgeries each year, Smith had the worst mortality rate.”

It was an anecdotal example, of course, but it goes to illustrate just how uninformed Americans are about the health care they spend 16% or so of GDP on. AOC responded by attacking the article for being long on anecdote and short on facts, but he brings up enough interesting points in the process that I think it was a worthwhile read. Anyway, without further ado, I give you AOC…

Angry Overeducated Catholic
Of course we don’t actually know if Clinton made a poor choice. I would be willing to bet that, in [a certain] town, [Hospital A] probably loses more patients on the table than [Hospital B] across a good number of categories. But you would be foolish for thinking that [Hospital A] is the inferior hospital.

Instead, it is a regional trauma center and gets many of the hardest cases as a result.

So, it could well be that the hospital Clinton chose is very very good at doing this in complicated cases (like his) and the doctor he chose, quite possibly the lead surgeon in the area for the hospital, might have the record he does because he takes on the hardest cases in his field.

It would be like concluding that the fictional doctor House is the worst doctor ever since he loses something like 5-10% of his patients—and in fact kills through provable medical errors a sizable percentage of those. But in reality all of this is because he takes on the ridiculously tough cases (and because the show needs tear jerkers and personal errors from time to time to keep the dramatic tension high).

We don’t know whether that’s the case here because, as usual, the article is short on facts and long on media pontification.

What we can take away from this without question is the great value of catastrophic insurance blended with out-of-pocket payments for lesser costs. As stated:

“To date, only one study from way back in 1982, the remarkable RAND Health Insurance Experiment, addresses this question clearly. When patients were forced to shoulder one-quarter of their medical costs, for example, overall medical spending fell a remarkable 20 percent. But the pattern was telling. Patients failed to spend their money wisely and cut back equally on highly effective and largely pointless treatments. They couldn’t tell what really mattered. The cost savings mostly came from avoiding doctors altogether. Once someone was ill enough to need hospitalization or surgery, there was no difference in costs between those with free care and large co-payments.”

Once you get to the hospital, the market efficiencies collapse for most folks because nobody can pay for surgery out of pocket…so there’s no inefficiency to have insurance at this point. But as RAND found unsurprisingly, having folks pay even 25% of their normal costs made a significant difference in overall expenditures. Remember, overall expenditures fell 20% even though, as stated, nearly none of it came from the supposed bank-breakers of hospitalization or surgery. So you can bet that routine costs went down a good deal more than 20%.