So the national Republican party and John McCain have taken a fancy to calling Barack Obama a socialist.  Personally, I don’t think they have a whole lot of room to cast stones.  Remember the recent tax rebate that Bush and co. pushed to have sent to all taxpayers, for example?  The bottom line is that Barack Obama does not completely fit the technical definition of a socialist (or communist, etc.).  He might match some of the requirements, but so does McCain and other Republicans.  It is all a matter of degree.

Obama has earned the title, however inaccurate it may be, because of his tax plan.  As I recently said in a comment:

Over 30% of people in this country already have no federal tax liability. Obama can’t actually cut their taxes, as he promises.

Both Obama’s and McCain tax plans (neither of which will ever become reality) will push the number of “non payers” to over 40%. McCain wants to give individuals a health insurance tax credit and take away the business tax break. Obama plans on creating a litany of refundable tax credits. Do you know what that means? Many, if not all, of those 40-something percent will get a check from the government while owing nothing. Many already do due to existing “tax credits” such as the child tax credit and absurdly named “earned income” tax credit.

Obama simply plans to use the tax code for more social engineering and wealth distribution and trying to pass it off as a tax cut.

Call him a socialist.  Call him a Marxist.  I don’t care.  The real point is that the foundation of his philosophy is to forcibly take more and more from the “rich” (and the threshold for being rich will be lower than you might imagine) and give it to the poor.  It is wealth redistribution.  Do Republicans do similar things?  Regrettably so.  However, Obama is pledging to up the ante considerably.

Obama has fought back with the most idiotic argument I can imagine.

“By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

There is a glaring flaw with his logic.  He voluntarily shared his toys and sandwich (assuming his anecdote is even true).  What he is promising to do as president is to use the threat of force to take from some and involuntarily give it to another.  Imagine him, as a precocious tot, spotting a smaller boy with more toys and then taking some - over the smaller boy’s objections - so that the distribution was more equitable in his eyes.

I want to know why Obama, a millionaire, hasn’t shared his wealth with his own aunt, who was just found to live in a “rundown public housing” project.  I guess he would rather “share” my money and your money instead of his own money.

Here’s some food for thought.  Obama is one of the poverty warriors who wrongly think that forcibly transferring money from one group to another will solve poverty.  On that point he is horribly wrong.  Let’s say that he could magically redistribute all the wealth, though.  How would that work out for you?  As a crude estimate I’ll look at national and global GDP using the 2007 CIA World Factbook.

If Obama could equally distribute all the world’s wealth that would leave each person with just under $10,000.  That doesn’t sound too great.  If he could magically distribute all of the wealth in the U.S. it would leave each person with about $45,000 - still not very attractive for a lot of us.  That, of course, ignores the crushing blow that GDP would take as achievers responded by not working as hard just to see the government simply take the fruits of their labor.

The ugly truth is that by and large both poor and rich people got that way for a reason.  You can reset the game by “spreading the wealth around” but unless you can change people’s financial acumen and both natural and learned talents they will eventually drift back to their original camps.

Joe Perry of Aerosmith endorsed John McCain. He’s Livin’ on the Edge:

“I’ve been a hardcore Republican my whole life,” he told the Herald. “My mother and father drilled into me from the very start that if you work hard and be positive, you’ll get what you’re working for. I guess I’m living proof of that.”

BTW, Aerosmith is Back in the Saddle, but it’s not the Same Old Song and Dance:  Guitar Hero Aerosmith is expected to be one of the top-selling games this Christmas (the Guitar Hero franchise has sold more than $1.3 billion since 2005).

Joe Perry on Guitar Hero Aerosmith:

“We’ve put a lot of ideas into the game so that fans can have fun interacting with our music, getting inside our body of work and learning about the band’s history,” said Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry. “It’s great for rock since the record companies are struggling to make sense of how things are changing. Fans want to get and experience music in new formats—and there are going to be some of them who will play the game, then pick up the guitar for real and start bands. It’s what’s happening now, and it’s only going to build more momentum in the future. It’s a massive change for the music business.”

Plus, Joe Perry makes ‘Rock Your World’ Hot Sauce.

There are six Amendments to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 on the ballot Tuesday.

Amendment 1 applies Statewide; Amendments 2 through 6 apply to Shelby, Limestone (City of Madison), Blount, Russell, and Macon (City of Tuskegee) Counties.

I vote NO to Amendment One, because I don’t trust the Alabama legislature to pay back the Alabama Trust Fund and furthermore because borrowing for current expenses from future income is bad policy.  Strangely enough, this is the same position held by AEA President Paul Hubbert, who said “The thing that’s a little troubling to me is we may be preventing proration for one year, but we’ll be paying back the debt for six years to get one year…”

However, a couple of politicians I respect are urging a YES vote:  Governor Bob Riley ‘wants citizens to support Amendment 1′; and Bradley Byrne, Chancellor of the Community College System, wrote (et al.) that “Your “yes” vote on Nov. 4 is not just a temporary fix. It is an investment in the future of education in Alabama. We urge you to join us in voting “yes” for the Rainy Day Amendment 1 on Nov. 4.”

A friend of mine won’t vote for ‘local Amendments’ because it’s his way of protesting the lack of home rule in Alabama.  He figures that if enough people consistently vote NO on local Amendments, maybe the Legislature will eventually support home rule or even a Constitutional Convention.

In past elections, I haven’t voted either way on local Amendments, hoping that people who actually know and care about the Amendment will decide the issue.  However, this time I’m going to vote NO to all local Amendments.

Regarding the local Amendments, the only one that is relevant to the Huntsville area is Amendment Three, which would raise ad valorem (property) taxes on the part of Limestone County that is within the City of Madison (equalizes ad valorem tax for all residents of the City of Madison).

Here’s more on Amendment Three from the Madison County Record:

It is really just an equity issue, Dee Fowler, Madison City Schools Superintendent, said.

Fowler said if the referendum passes it would not add any spendable revenue to Madison City Schools because they school system is required to pay 10 mills of the collected tax to the state in order to receive its share of the States Foundation Program…

Athens Mayor Dan Williams wrote:

The governing body of the city of Madison has found an innovative way to place the taxation decisions of Madison County residents upon the citizens of Limestone County in the name of equalization of ad valorem taxes. To ensure the success of the tax-raising measure, the amendment provides that the majority of voters in the State approves, and the majority of the voters of the City of Madison residing in Madison and Limestone Counties fail to approve (NO VOTE), then the amendment would allow the governing body of the City of Madison to call for subsequent elections every twelve months, hereafter, without legislative approval…

To have Madison County voters impose taxes upon Limestone County citizens does not seem to be a good thing. I am sure whatever method either of these outside cities come up with to stick it to the citizens of Limestone County, the others will soon follow with the same thing.

More from Limestone County Probate Judge Mike Davis:

According to Limestone County Probate Judge Mike Davis, the portion of the City of Madison inside Madison County has more than 23,600 registered voters, and the portion of the city inside Limestone County has about 1,350 registered voters.

He said it is unlikely the measure will fail because Limestone voters have little voice.

Davis said he was unaware of the measure before he saw it on the ballot and said many residents may not know of the proposal.

Although it is a statewide amendment, the measure requires a majority vote of Madison registered voters. It could pass statewide but still would not be implemented if it does not pass in Madison, Davis said.

However, if the measure does pass statewide but fails in Madison, members of the Madison City Council would be allowed to call for subsequent elections every 12 months without legislative approval.

“It appears to be an effort to ensure the success of the tax-raising measure,” Davis said.

But if the measure fails to gain a majority of voters statewide, it could not be brought back before voters without legislative approval.

Davis said he does not recall any legislation that addresses taxation in annexed portions of a county, making this amendment groundbreaking.

“This amendment has far-reaching effects,” he said. “If this passes, Huntsville and Decatur will be lining up to do the same thing next time.”

None of the above.

That’s right, they refused to endorse either Wayne Parker or Parker Griffith in the AL-05 race.

They say that documents alleging Griffith gave sub par treatment of cancer patients make it “difficult to imagine him serving his constituency effectively.”  They also said he was too old.

As for Wayne Parker they said that he basically ran an ultra negative campaign with no message.

Personally, I don’t blame the Times for the non-endorsement.  Griffith is an arrogant, bullying individual who accomplished squat during his two years in the Alabama Senate other than voting with his party over 99% of the time.  The two biggest - and virtually only - issues Wayne Parker associated with himself are being pro-life and against gay marriage - one of which is low on my voting priority list and the other I don’t necessarily agreee with.  His campaign was predicated on attacking Griffith.

I’m going to vote for Wayne Parker.  I think he is the more philosophically agreeable individual and, unlike Dr. Griffith, I have confidence that Wayne is a thoroughly good and decent person.  However his campaign hasn’t given me justification for a full throated, hearty endorsement.

Barack Obama wrote a review of Bill Ayers’ book A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, on Dec. 21, 1997. He said the book was “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”  Obama is also mentioned in the book.

Remember that Ayers bombed the Pentagon, NYC Police, and the Capitol. Remember that Ayers tried to kill Judges and their families. Remember that Ayers said “I wish we had done more” on 9/11.

And then remember that Obama said that Ayers is “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood”.

Courtesy of zombie, read the whole thing (Zombie’s contributions are must reads / sees if you want to understand how hateful and deranged the Left is these days).

From “Countrycat” at Left in Alabama:

The Alabama Veterinary Medical Association (ALVMA) is urging Alabama residents who care about homeless animals to pre-order the new spay/neuter license plate. The deadline is October 30th, and the state requires 1000 pre-orders to produce the tag. As of last week, they were 300 short.

The specialty tag is $50, and $41.25 of that goes to the ALVMA Foundation to administer a state-wide financial assistance program for low income pet owners to get their pets “fixed.”

Find out how to order one here.

I feel like Bob Barker.

Dale Jackson of WVNN received and posted several documents regarding Parker Griffith’s medical practice.  Here is a summary of the ‘Confidential Peer Review’, the entirety of which is posted at Dale’s blog.

The ‘Confidential Peer Review’ was performed by Confidential Peer Review, of Kenosha, Wisconsin and delivered on December 21, 1988. The Review was led by Dr. Michael Zeihen of Kenosha, who contributed to the book ‘Measuring and Managing the Quality and Appropriateness of Radiological Services’.  Zeihen prepared the Review with assistance from Dr. John Duttenhaver of Savannah, Georgia and Dr. David Weems of Savannah.  CPR reviewed 107 patient records.  Based on these findings, almost all (97%) of Griffith’s patients were provided care “below the generally recognized standard”: most through poor documentation, many through poor treatment, and some through harmful treatment.

Quality of care rating of 1 = 0.9% (”Medical record documents care of good quality.”)

Quality of care rating of 2 = 1.9% (”I would not have treated the patient this way, but I find no major problems.”)

Quality of care rating of 3 = 56.1% (”Medical record documents care below the generally recognized standard for deficiencies in documentation, i.e., late history and physical, absent progress notes, etc.”)

Quality of care rating of 4 = 35.5% (”Medical record documents care below the generally recognized standard for deficiencies in treatment.”)

Quality of care rating of 5 = 5.6% (”Medical record documents care that is below the generally recognized standard and may have (or did) contributed to patient injury.”)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DOCTOR GRIFFITH

Based upon the findings previously mentioned in this Report, it is our determination that Doctor Griffith is practicing radiation oncology care far below the generally recognized standard.  The substandard nature of his clinical practice is quite prevalent and is confirmed by all our consultants.

The Review recommends giving Griffith “the opportunity to review the findings” and “Due to the fact that this Report documents substandard care, we recommend that Huntsville Hospital strongly consider instituting those steps that would lead to the termination of appointment to the Medical Staff for Doctor Griffith and the revocation of his clinical privileges”.

The Review includes Clinical Summaries with comments like these on some specific cases:

MR#2605 - Diagnosis CA Breast.  “This is an unacceptable plan.” “This technique almost guarantees complications due to radiation overdosage in the breast and should never have been allowed to be carried out.”

MR#2548 - Diagnosis Prostate Cancer. “The absence of information from the attending physician suggests that the patient was treated without adequate physician supervision.”

MR#2439 - Diagnosis Squamous cell carcinoma. “This patient received completely inappropriate and inadequate radiation resulting in unnecessary complications, as well as probably a preventable local recurrence.”

UPDATE: Patricia McCarter of The Huntsville Times wrote Griffith’s past career faces new questions:

Another scathing review of Democratic congressional candidate Parker Griffith’s medical career has surfaced, this one saying he provided substandard care to 44 out of 107 cancer patients whose charts were scrutinized 20 years ago…

A separate agreement one month later, signed by Griffith and then-Huntsville Hospital CEO Ed Boston, stated that while the hospital board of directors recommended Griffith’s privileges be revoked, it would allow the oncologist to resign as long as he withdrew his request for a hearing before the board, would not reapply for appointment and would not appeal the dismissal of his antitrust suit or file a new suit…

When asked last month about that motive, Dr. Bob Williams - who in 1988 was the hospital’s chief of medicine - said the hospital board had received numerous internal complaints about Griffith’s care, and there were concerns the oncologist was “warehousing” patients and too aggressively treating terminal patients rather than allowing them to die in peace at home…

Dr. John Raymond Duttenhaver, who still practices radiation oncology in Savannah, said Tuesday he doesn’t remember all of the specifics of Griffith’s review, but he does recall that it wasn’t a good one.

“I do remember the overall impression that it wasn’t favorable,” he said.

Kudos to McCarter and The Times for reporting the story.

UPDATE:  The Times quoted Griffith: “I have a clean license… I just want to make sure that the public knows that I could practice medicine tomorrow.”

I sent an email to the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners asking if they are reviewing Griffith’s license now that the Peer Review is public. I’ll be sure to share the response.

The Code of Alabama, Title 34 Professions and Businesses, Chapter 24 Physicians and Other Practitioners of Healing Arts is the law setting up the Board of Medical Examiners and governing the practice of medicine .

Parker Griffith, Democrat Congressional candidate for AL-05, said the following during a recent political appearance:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its materialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

Redstate has the details AND THE AUDIO.  That’s right, there is audio.  Griffith can’t claim he was misquoted or taken out of context.

Let’s step through this unbelievably naive quote.

First, and most shocking, is is claim that “we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.”  Nothing.  Nada.  Where to begin with the absurdity of this???  Didn’t 2,740 Americans die on 9/11 at the hands of radical Islamists?  Maybe Griffith is a truther and thinks 9/11 was an inside job.  Nicholas Berg(warning: very graphic) might disagree with Griffith that we have nothing to fear from radical Islam - at least he would if her were alive.  Seventeen sailors died when radical Islamists bombed the USS Cole.  I could go on, but to Griffith this is no big deal.  No threat whatsoever.  I think that puts him to the left of Barack Obama - the presidential candidate from his own party that he won’t endorse.  Maybe Obama is too conservative and right wingish for Griffith’s taste.

Enemy: Not an enemy:

Griffith, who has built his campaign upon claiming to be a conservative, has succumbed to the blame America first faction of the Democrats.  This casts serious doubt on his claims that he would be an independent representative.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that excessive materialism is a problem in this country.  Griffith is right to identify it as a problem.  But is it - and our country itself - our greatest enemy?  I think that is far fetched indeed.  But he didn’t simply say that it was more of a threat than radical Islam, which is a claim that he could at least argue the merits of.  He completely discounted and dismissed the threat that Muslim extremists pose to the U.S. despite the repeated demonstration that such a threat is real.

To be quite honest, I don’t see how anyone plans on voting for Griffith at this point.

Update: Griffith is claiming that the quote was taken out of context in an article in today’s Huntsville Times.  To his credit the moderator of the forum, which Wayne Parker attended as well, agrees.

Someone (probably one or both of the campaigns) has to have the entire audio of the forum.  Clearly they didn’t just happen to start recording the instant Griffith began his comment.  I would like to see whoever has the recording to release a more complete portion so that we can fully contextualize Griffith’s comments.  I honestly don’t see how any context can justify the foolishness of saying quite plainly that “we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.”

Update #2: Here is a list of the questions, which were provided to the candidates in advance, posed at the forum.

The list of questions completely undermines Griffith’s claims that the quote was out of context.  He could have only been responding to two questions:

12. Who do you think is America’s greatest enemy and why?
13. Do you think we have any terrorist threats in North Alabama?

Griffith is nothing but a compulsive, habitual liar.

Furthermore, the questions certainly don’t seem to be consistent with a forum strictly about “faith and family” as Griffith claims.  Terrorists, TVA, and trade agreements are not typically associated with “faith and family” forums.

Here is a must read articlefrom Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek.

Amid all the difficulties and hardship that we are about to undergo, I see one silver lining. This crisis has-dramatically, vengefully-forced the United States to confront the bad habits it has developed over the past few decades. If we can kick those habits, today’s pain will translate into gains in the long run.

Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced-and they have made up the difference by borrowing.

Two decades of easy money and innovative financial products meant that virtually anyone could borrow any amount of money for any purpose. If we wanted a bigger house, a better TV or a faster car, and we didn’t actually have the money to pay for it, no problem. We put it on a credit card, took out a massive mortgage and financed our fantasies. As the fantasies grew, so did household debt, from $680 billion in 1974 to $14 trillion today. The total has doubled in just the past seven years. The average household owns 13 credit cards, and 40 percent of them carry a balance, up from 6 percent in 1970.

Zakaria goes on to rightly accost governments for taking part in the easy money, buy now pay later orgy.

I am not so confident that we, as a nation, will learn from our mistakes.  Many of the government’s proposed “solutions” to the problems are measures intended to get us back to the status quo that precipitated the calamity we face.  Cutting interests rates to spur increased lending (indebtedness!) is a good example.

While the overall column was quite good, this paragraph in particular jumped out because it was dead on accurate:

In the medium and long term, we have to get back to basics. Households, for instance, should save more. Governments should put incentives in place that make such savings more likely. The U.S. government offers enormous incentives to consume (the deduction of mortgage interest being the best example), and it works. We have the biggest houses in the world, the thinnest flat-screen TVs and the most cars. If we were to tax consumption and encourage savings, that would also work. Regulations on credit-card debt should be revised to ensure that people understand the risks and costs of these instruments. Moving in this direction would be good for families and for the government as well.

I’ve long argued that the mortgage interest deduction is a “perverse encouragement of debt” - an example of government trying to do something it thought was good and setting the framework for long term problems.  As Zakaria points out, it is but one of many well intentioned social engineering ploys that encourages consumption.  Those attempts to goose consumption worked, with the national savings rate falling into negative territory in 2005.

But Zakaria suggests a plan that I have been pushing for years: a tax on consumption.  Our current tax code punishes savings.  It punishes investing.  (And by investing I don’t necessarily mean purchasing stocks - I mean all forms of investing, such as starting a company)  It punishes virtue.  A consumption tax, like the Fair Tax, would reverse that dynamic and encourage savings and investment, while removing incentives to consume.  People will still consume, we all have innate desires to buy things we need and want, but at least the government won’t be laying out a bread crumb trail to the lenders.

Barack Obama told a prospective voter that he will “spread the wealth around.”  That’s right, Obama is of the mindset that one of government’s roles is to actively distribute money.  I guess it is a more compact, folksy way of saying, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”