After all the hullaballoo, the House accepted his resignation, meaning that the guy is gone-zo for sure.

The cable news outlets and online media aren't letting go, though....

During their post-Oscar discussion yesterday, the ladies of "The View" and guest Vanessa Williams talked about Sandra Bullock's win for her role in "The Blind Side"--the true story of the impoverished upbringing of Michael Oher, now a Baltimore Ravens offensive lineman playing the NFL.  The story follows Oher's adoption by Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, a suburban Tennessee couple who raises Oher as he becomes one of the nation's leading college football players. 

I could leave the synopsis of this inspirational story at that, but apparently there's a larger picture my limited caucasian vision doesn't allow me to see: Oher is black and the Tuohys are white. 

Thankfully, the glaring ramifications of this situation weren't lost on Vanessa Williams who noted that this scenario "brings up a theme for black folks.  Here's another white family that has saved the day... another black story that has to have a white person come in and lift them up."


Williams' assessment is utterly disturbing and, if I may be so bold, racist.  This is a heart-warming story of people helping people.  It takes a true racist to look beyond all that and see only whites and blacks. 

I have to agree with Barbara Walters' reply (I know, what are the chances?).  As Walters notes, "I would hope we could get to the day where a black family could adopt a white, or that a white family could adopt a homeless black child and it would be applauded by all the races..."

Aside from the race issue brought up here by Williams, Elizabeth Hasselbeck makes the conservative case: the all-caring government agencies (schools, government, social welfare groups etc.) favored by liberals to solve society's problems failed Oher. 

Bottom line: It took a caring family--just doing what's right--to really make a real different in his life.  This is what we've abdicated to the almighty welfare state and Oher's situation is an great portrayal of what happens when the goodness of individuals and groups is valued. 

ABC News' Rick Klein attacks Congressman Massa as the utterer of "[s]elf-contradicting, borderline paranoid ramblings" in what may -- or may not -- be a preemptive strike against someone who's going to have a lot of critical things to say about Democratic dealmaking in the health care debate.

It strikes me that any conservative who cares about maintaining credibility in the health care debate will resist the impulse to support Massa.  Doing so will allow Obama to play "rope a dope."   If a damning ethics report is released on the congressman, those who supported him will be used by the White House in an effort to portray the face of opposition to ObamaCare as unprincipled, even a little crazy.

Certainly, it's not hard to believe that Massa was run out of the House quickly because he was a "no" vote on ObamaCare.  But it's also entirely possible that he committed a number of unsavory acts that are unworthy of a US Representative. 

If conservatives embrace an unethical congressman simply because some of what he says proves to be of (transient) political advantage to us, how are we any better than Nancy Pelosi embracing Charles Rangel and John Murtha?

Florida is crazy. I know this, because I'm from Florida, but I need a reminder every so often just to keep my perspective in check.

Still, I really don't know how to deal with this Marco Rubio Has Back Hair story. I watched the video where Crist makes the accusation, and then I watched it again, and for a split second I was reminded of the demon sheep that Carly Fiorina used to make a really bizzare point nail Tom Campbell to the wall. But demon sheep and back hair are a particularly unpalatable combination, so I tried to limit my focus.

Conclusion: Master Tan Crist should not be commenting publicly on the nature of Rubio's spa purchases. I'm cool with Rubio going to a spa. I'm even cool with him going there to get his back hair waxed off (again, this is Florida, and those kinds of things are de rigeur). But Crist is not cool with any of this. Even more likely, he's not cool with Rubio's 32 point lead.

Could the message be any more clear for waffling Democrats?

In last month's issue of Townhall Magazine, I wrote a short piece chronicling the higher education bubble -- when the cost of college begins to outweigh its benefits.

Tim Cavanaugh has the latest on this trend, as he examines the most recent student aid report from the College Board. The outlook is dismal:

Student loan defaults are up. Graduate performance in the job market is down. Bankrupt states are unable to keep public university employees in the style to which they've grown accustomed...

Yet for-profit colleges are booming, and their students are pulling down ever greater sums in federal grants and guaranteed loans.

The higher ed bubble is undoubtedly reaching its breaking point because of the economy, but as Cavanaugh points out,  faulty education policy is even more responsible for the problem. In his words, "Uncle Sam is the inflationist in chief."

Last week, in an important Washington Post column, Senator Orrin Hatch made an argument against the use of reconciliation in the health care battle taking place on Capitol Hill. Hatch noted that "This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope."  On the other side of the aisle, former Clinton adviser Mark Penn seemed to agree with some of Hatch's analysis in a recent article he wrote about the proposed use of reconciliation and a major difference between this health care bill and other controversial pieces of legislation from the past.

In a Real Clear Politics article, Penn wrote the following:

In the past, reconciliation has typically only ever made it to the table when one factor of Congress -- at the behest of special interests -- has set themselves squarely in the path of popular legislation, threatening its passage with delays, obfuscation, and parliamentary maneuvers.

The use of the word "popular" in the paragraph above is an integral part of Penn's piece. [# More #]

Later on in the article, Penn focused on some major past legislation (like Medicare and Civil Rights) and how those pieces of legislation were different than the health care bill today. He wrote the following:

In every one of these contentious national debates, public support was solidified as a pre-condition to final passage. There simply is no shortcut or parliamentary maneuver around that process. The public is uncomfortable with the current bill and this is likely to be a Dirty Harry moment for the Republican party as they dare Democrats to 'make their day.'

Penn's focus on the unpopularity of the health care bill is an important aspect of the current debate. He seems to understand the political ramifications for Democrats who force this bill through Congress. One would hope that moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill read both Hatch's and Penn's piece with great interest before they decide whether or not they want to risk their political futures on an extremely unpopular piece of legislation.

There's no doubt that Obama's proposal to allow children to stay on their parents' health care plans 'til the age of 26 -- noted by Greg below -- is a ploy designed to allow ObamaCare to pick up some support among the young people who are fast becoming disenchanted with The One.

What the young people might want to consider is this:  As soon as they become ineligible for the continued free ride, they're going to be paying up the wazoo under ObamaCare.  Their rates will have to be much, much higher than they'd be under a free market system, because they're going to have to subsidize not only those with "preexisting conditions," but also the elderly.

Right now, they have the choice of purchasing less expensive, high deductible insurance that would allow them coverage for catastrophic expenses.  Under ObamaCare, that option will be gone, and they'll see a solid chunk of their paycheck going to their health insurance -- to pay for coverage they don't need, in order to subsidize the cost of others --  for the rest of their 20's and 30's, at least.

There's no time like the present for people to realize that -- to use a hoary old cliche -- there's no such thing as a free lunch.  Let's hope the young learn it now, 'cause you can bet they'll learn in (and not in a fun way!) if ObamaCare is imposed on all of us.