GMOA Has A Wonderful New Show! Go See!

"At some point, politicians of both parties will realize that we can do better than this. That will require a real market for health insurance with premiums that reflect real risks. There is a role for government in helping people with severe health problems. That is why risk pools exist. What we didn't need was to destroy the market for the many in order to give aid to the few."

If you agree burning the entire house down to roast a pig is appropriate then we have nothing to discuss.
===
Sowell keeps at his expose of Liberals without facts.  (See 1 below).
===
What conservatives need to do is run candidates who have similar  core beliefs that they not only espouse but also support. 

In addition, they need to select candidates who are articulate and capable of responding to malicious manipulation of their words and propaganda that distorts their positions.

Conservatives are often too laid back and defensive and will not get down in the gutter where their liberal and progressive opponents live.  (See 2 below.) 
===
As many of you know I am vitally interested in our State Museum which is housed on the campus of The University of Georgia in Athens (Ga. Museum of Art - GMOA.)  This is a link to our new show:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/arts/design/art-interrupted-exhibition-ends-tour-in-georgia.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

===
Hell, it's the weekend and time for some 'old' humor!


An elderly gentleman...

Had serious hearing problems for a number of years. He went to the doctor and the doctor was able to have him fitted for a set of hearing aids that allowed the gentleman to hear 100%

The elderly gentleman went back in a month to the doctor and the doctor said, 'Your hearing is perfect. Your family must be really pleased that you can hear again.'

The gentleman replied, 'Oh, I haven't told my family yet.

I just sit around and listen to the conversations. I've changed my will three times!'

Two elderly gentlemen from a retirement center were sitting on a bench under a tree when one turns to the other and says: 'Sid, I'm 83 years old now and I'm just full of aches and pains. I know you're about my age. How do you feel?'

Sid says, 'I feel just like a newborn baby.'

'Really!? Like a newborn baby!?'

'Yep. No hair, no teeth, and I think I just wet my pants.'

Hospital regulations require a wheel chair for patients being discharged. However, while working as a student nurse, I found one elderly gentleman already dressed and sitting on the bed with a suitcase at his feet, who insisted he didn't need my help to leave the hospital.

After a chat about rules being rules, he reluctantly let me wheel him to the elevator.

On the way down I asked him if his wife was meeting him.

'I don't know,' he said. 'She's still upstairs in the bathroom changing out of her hospital gown.'

Couple in their nineties are both having problems remembering things. During a checkup, the doctor tells them that they're physically okay, but they might want to start writing things down to help them remember .  

Later that night, while watching TV, the old man gets up from his chair. 'Want anything while I'm in the kitchen?' he asks.

'Will you get me a bowl of ice cream?'

'Sure.'

'Don't you think you should write it down so you can remember it?' she asks.

'No, I can remember it.'

'Well, I'd like some strawberries on top, too. Maybe you should write it down, so's not to forget it?'

He says, 'I can remember that. You want a bowl of ice cream with strawberries.'

'I'd also like whipped cream. I'm certain you'll forget that, write it down?' she asks.

Irritated, he says, 'I don't need to write it down, I can remember it! Ice cream with strawberries and whipped cream - I got it, for goodness sake!'

Then he toddles into the kitchen. After about 20 minutes,

The old man returns from the kitchen and hands his wife a plate of bacon and eggs. She stares at the plate for a moment.

'Where's my toast ?'

Morris, an 82 year-old man, went to the doctor to get a physical.

A few days later, the doctor saw Morris walking down the street with a gorgeous young woman on his arm.

A couple of days later, the doctor spoke to Morris and said, 'You're really doing great, aren't you?'

Morris replied, 'Just doing what you said, Doc: 'Get a hot mamma and be cheerful.''

The doctor said, 'I didn't say that. I said, 'You've got a heart murmur; be careful.'

A little old man shuffled slowly into an ice cream parlour and pulled himself slowly, painfully, up onto a stool.. After catching his breath, he ordered a banana split.

The waitress asked kindly, 'Crushed nuts?'

'No,' he replied, 'Arthritis.'

No English dictionary has been able to adequately explain the difference 
between these two words.

In a recently held linguistic competition in London and attended by 
supposedly the best in the world, Samsundar Balgobin, a Guyanese man, was the clear winner with a  standing ovation which lasted over 5 minutes.

The final question was:

''How do you explain the difference between COMPLETE and FINISHED in a way 
that is easy to understand."

Some people say there is NO difference between COMPLETE and FINISHED.

Here is his astute answer.

When you marry the right woman, you are COMPLETE.
When you marry the wrong woman, you are FINISHED.
And when the right one catches you with the wrong one, you are 
COMPLETELY FINISHED!

===

Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1)Fact-Free Liberals: Part III
Thomas Sowell 

Since this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the "war on poverty," we can expect many comments and commemorations of this landmark legislation in the development of the American welfare state.

The actual signing of the "war on poverty" legislation took place in August 1964, so the 50th anniversary is some months away. But there have already been statements in the media and in politics proclaiming that this vast and costly array of anti-poverty programs "worked."

Of course everything "works" by sufficiently low standards, and everything "fails" by sufficiently high standards. The real question is: What did the "war on poverty" set out to do -- and how well did it do it, if at all?

Without some idea of what a person or a program is trying to do, there is no way to know whether what actually happened represented a success or a failure. When the hard facts show that a policy has failed, nothing is easier for its defenders than to make up a new set of criteria, by which it can be said to have succeeded.

That has in fact been what happened with the "war on poverty."

Both President John F. Kennedy, who launched the proposal for a "war on poverty" and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, who guided the legislation through Congress and then signed it into law, were very explicit as to what the "war on poverty" was intended to accomplish.

Its mission was not simply to prove that spending money on the poor led to some economic benefits to the poor. Nobody ever doubted that. How could they?

What the war on poverty was intended to end was mass dependency on government. President Kennedy said, "We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence."

The same theme was repeated endlessly by President Johnson. The purpose of the "war on poverty," he said, was to make "taxpayers out of taxeaters." Its slogan was "Give a hand up, not a handout." When Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark legislation into law, he declared: "The days of the dole in our country are numbered."

Now, 50 years and trillions of dollars later, it is painfully clear that there is more dependency than ever.

Ironically, dependency on government to raise people above the poverty line had been going down for years before the "war on poverty" began. The hard facts showed that the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining since 1960, and was only half of what it had been in 1950.

On the more fundamental question of dependency, the facts were even clearer. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level -- without counting government benefits -- declined by about one-third from 1950 to 1965.

All this was happening before the "war on poverty" went into effect -- and all these trends reversed after it went into effect.

Nor was this pattern unique. Other beneficial social trends that were going on before the 1960s reversed after other bright ideas of that decade were put into effect.

Massive "sex education" programs were put into schools, claiming that this was urgently needed to reduce a "crisis" of teenage pregnancies and venereal diseases. But teenage pregnancies and venereal diseases had both been going down for years.

The rate of infection for gonorrhea, for example, declined every year from 1950 through 1959, and the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950. Both trends reversed and skyrocketed after "sex education" became pervasive.

The murder rate had been going down for decades, and in 1960 was only half of what it had been in 1934. That trend suddenly reversed after the liberal changes in criminal laws during the 1960s. By 1974, the murder rate was more than twice as high as it had been in 1961.

While the fact-free liberals celebrate the "war on poverty" and other bright ideas of the 1960s, we are trying to cope with yet another "reform" that has made matters worse, ObamaCare.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Mike Huckabee: Liberal Media Distort My 'Libido' Comments

Friday, 24 Jan 2014 02:31 PM

By Melanie Batley

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee slammed the liberal backlash against his remarks about government-funded contraception — and blamed Twitter posts by two mainstream reporters for lighting the fire.

“I'm always flattered when people on the far left manufacture a new version of being ‘offended,’” Huckabee told Fox News' Howard Kurtz. “They can be quite creative in finding something that hurts their feelings.”
The 2012 GOP presidential candidate told Newsmax's Steve Malzberg on Monday that claims by Democrats of a GOP "war on women" were "incredibly demeaning" to U.S. women "because women are far more than the Democrats will play them to be."

In similar comments in a speech at the Republican National Committee meeting Thursday, Huckabee said, "Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything that anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That's not a war on them. It's a war for them."

He added, "And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it."

Huckabee noted that NBC’s Kasie Hunt and CNN’s Dana Bash distorted his meaning when they “erroneously tweeted” his remarks.

Their tweets indicated that the "Uncle Sugar" and "libido" remarks were his opinion, Huckabee told Kurtz, which is  “the polar opposite" of what he actually said. 

Hunt and Bash corrected their tweets “because they so totally blew it," Huckabee said. "And now it’s a scandal?”

"My point was to point out that Dems have put a laser-like focus on government funded birth control and given it more attention than cancer drugs," he said in an email to Kurtz.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------