Bush's Fault: November 2007

Yes, it's getting more and more difficult to find a serious "Bush's fault" story these days. By far most of them are sarcastic comments from conservatives.

This little story gave me a laugh, even though it's not exactly what the "Bush's Fault" feature was designed to highlight.

James Widgerson published it under the heading "Just what are they teaching in Waukesha's schools?":

For my birthday, my brother bought me Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. My son recognized Lincoln on the cover.

My Son: That's Abraham Lincoln.
My Wife: Very good. Do you know who shot Lincoln?
My Son: George Bush?

(Widgerson Library & Pub)

Give the lad credit for an answer likely to be thought plausible by the majority!

*****

"Bush's Fault" Oct. 2007

Though this one is merely implicit, Sen. Harry Reid wins the "Bush's Fault" competition for October.

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

Perhaps an investigation in the president's possession of matches and/or a cigarette lighter is in order.

I feel a song coming on.



That one's an enduring tribute to Paul Shanklin's genius.

*****

No winner on "Bush's Fault" in September

Either Bush Derangement Syndrome has run its course, or I'm going to have to widen the search parameters beyond the specific phrase "Bush's fault."

I found two contenders, but neither of them was sufficiently crackpot to warrant blog space.

*****

"Bush's Fault" Aug. 2007 (Updated x2)

Though lately it's easier to find "Bush's fault" mentioned at conservative blogs than liberal ones (thanks to the wonders of irony and sarcasm), I've decided to add a "Bush's Fault of the Month" from a liberal blogger. Since I decided on this course of action at the beginning of September, I'm going back to August to announce the "winner" (it's as much whim as it is competition, at this point).

"Bush's Fault" for August, 2007 is from "Liberal: Not an Insult," with a post from Richard Short.

We have had so many recalls of such a wide variety of products lately. Anyone wonder why? Surely this isn't Bush's fault right? While he may not have directly poisoned our food and children's toys, it was his lack of funding to domestic oversight programs that made it possible. The money that should have been used to pay people to inspect the organic ground beef that is now being taken off the market, has been given to Iraq and tax cuts that primarily help the rich.
(Liberal: Not an Insult)

Uh, Richard?

How do you think the lead in the paint and industrial solvent in the toothpaste were discovered? In hospitals after people were poisoned by them?

Surprise! It was the Consumer Product Safety Commission finding the lead in the paint (somehow able to function in spite of Bush withholding their paychecks).

And the FDA somehow managed to catch the diethylene glycol in some Chinese-produced toothpaste in spite of being controlled by corporate kingpins.

It's debatable whether there is any statistically significant rise in product safety problems since the Clinton era. All Mr. Short gives us in that department is Mr. Short's opinion. What we're definitely seeing is a trend toward a problem with China meeting product safety standards. That's China, a nation with exactly the sort of government power that Mr. Short could see using to help ensure the safety of the population. Yet the United States seems as able as other nations in ferreting out the malfeasance so far despite the attempt to blame Bush.

Update: Mr. Short deserves to have his mention of E. coli contamination treated, since it's the one thing he mentioned specifically.

A lot has happened since the largest ground beef recall in U.S. history, including a significant decline in E. coli contamination and illnesses. Since 1996, E. coli cases have trended downward, but in 2004 and 2006, E. coli cases are back up.
(E. coli Blog)

According to the E. coli Blog, the uptick in contamination comes from plant agriculture, not the meat industry.

The FSIS is doing more extensive testing than ever, from the look of it (warning, .pdf).

Does Short provide any empirical indication that such testing is actually less than it would have been if Bush were not president?

Update 2: I failed to note that Short also specifically pointed to a recent spinach recall. The oversight on my part doesn't help Short in the least, since the same criticisms apply to that issue.

Tough food safety precautions and produce-tracking systems implemented last year after a fatal E. coli outbreak were put to the test when spinach from a produce company came up positive for salmonella bacteria, prompting a new recall.

Metz Fresh LLC of King City issued the recall Wednesday, after salmonella was found during a routine test of spinach it was processing for shipment, company spokesman Greg Larson said.
(ABC News)

Same story again. Even though "[t]ough food safety precautions and produce-tracking systems were implemented last year" and the salmonella contamination was discovered "during a routine test of spinach" there's something wrong with the oversight of the Bush administration (in the eyes of Short).

Blumner speaking up for socialism

The latest Robyn Blumner (St. Petersburg Times) editorial has the former ACLU lawyer and current self-described atheist pimping single-payer healthcare.

She kicks off her column with a reference to Michael Moore's "Sicko" film, and apparently can't bring herself to criticize Moore or the film.

But the column's about attacking free market capitalism, not about Moore.

I think it is undisputable that this nation's greatness emanated from its cultural roots in the Enlightenment. We as a people have few outward characteristics in common, but we share a set of understandings that have largely liberated human beings to live up to their potential. This includes a fealty to reason, the rule of law, individual rights, popular sovereignty, the common good and equal opportunity.
(St. Petersburg Times)

Equal opportunity? I'm afraid I haven't yet encountered that one in a list of Enlightenment values.

Here's a list from Temple University.

• a deep commitment to reason,
• a trust in the emerging modern sciences to solve problems and provide control over nature,
• a commitment to the idea of progress in material wealth and in human civility,
• a belief in the essential goodness of human nature,
• an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune, and
• an engagement with the public sphere of discussion and action.

I suppose that "equal opportunity" can be twisted somehow out of "an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune," eh?

The Reformation probably had no less influence on the early nation, but Blumner's on a roll, and we don't want to have to play catch-up.

But these ideas almost sound quaint today. The Bush administration has done more damage to our national identity than any one before it. You can't be a nation of equal justice when the president has eyes only for the fairness of process for loyalists like Scooter Libby. You can't have the rule of law when the vice president claims laws don't apply to him. You can't have a nation of reason when the government elevates faith and politics over fact and science.

Blumner slips very naturally into the Bush's fault refrain modern liberals love so well. Clinton's many pardons somehow did not undermine equal justice; nor did his perjury (the same crime of which Libby was accused). And having the Senate refuse to convict Clinton even though he was plainly guilty apparently didn't harm our national identity, either.
Same with the Cheney example. Congress is effectively exempt from laws to which the rest of us are subject, and that type of thing is rife in the government right on down the line (you'll be reminded of it the next time you see a police officer gratuitously running a red light).
Blumner doesn't appear to have an example backing her claim about "faith and politics over fact and science." Pity.

Moore clues us in to how Americans have been scared off of single-payer health care, one of the government benefits that gives Canadians and Europeans great peace of mind. The medical establishment called it "socialized medicine" raising the specter of Communism.

Blumner apparently wants her readers to think of communist gulags rather than communist mismanagement of the economy. But the latter is exactly the problem with single-payer health, along with well-known (to everyone except Blumner, apparently) drawbacks of third-party payment for services.

Communism and socialism share economic inefficiency, and it is not part of the traditional American value system to put one's reliance in the government ("an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune"--not an emphasis upon the government as mater of his fate and fortune).

Take away market incentives, and health care will get worse--it's a solid prediction of economics, and the only check on the prediction is the government's potential to put limits on services--as is traditionally the case in nations with single-payer systems.

The median waiting times for specialized services was 4.0 weeks for specialist visits, 4.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3.0 weeks for diagnostic tests.
(statcan.ca)

Oh, Canada!

Total number of patients waiting for admissions: 822,545
(doh.gov.uk)

That's for the first quarter of 2005-2006. Of those 822,545 there were 438,128 who waited less than 2 months. In other words, the median wait time was in the same ballpark as for Canada's national health system.

In the free market system, those who can afford expensive procedures subsidize those who can't easily afford those procedures, and the profits allow individuals to decide on whom to bestow services provided free or under cost.
Nationalized health care removes that freedom. So much for that "Enlightenment value."