...thanks to my readers for making this month the best ever for Right, Wing-Nut! in terms of visitors and page views. Maybe it's because I wrote about an equal amount of Romney sucks / Gingrich sucks posts?
I'm humbled. Thanks again for stopping by. But now that you know our address, stick around. We got a fun ten months ahead of us. Oh, Lordy, do we ever....
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
MF Global: How Does $1.2 Billion Dollars Freakin' "Vaporize"?
Ah, the innocent days when Jon Corzine's MF Global first went under, and "missing monies" we being tallied in the hundreds of millions...
Soon to be tabled in billions. But we're not there yet. We are here:
As the sprawling probe that includes regulators, criminal and congressional investigators, and court-appointed trustees grinds on, the findings so far suggest that a “significant amount” of the money could have “vaporized” as a result of chaotic trading at MF Global during the week before the company’s Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing, said a person close to the investigation.
Many officials now believe certain employees at MF Global dipped into the “customer segregated account” that the New York company was supposed to keep separate from its own assets—and then used the money to meet demands for more collateral or to unfreeze assets at banks and other counterparties as they grew more concerned about their financial exposure to MF Global.
OK - first? How the f*ck does customer money vaporize? Tyler Durden goes off:
i) the "vaporization" is merely the phrase that so called investigators use to avoid the far more troubling sounding "stolen" as it would imply guilt, something which the former NJ governor and Goldman CEO (and not to mention JP Morgan which most likely was on the receiving end of the $1.2 billion + transaction) will, under guidance from counsel, sternly disagree with, or ii) the capital markets are such an unprecedented and manipulated fraud, that nobody has any clue at any moment, where any client money is...So when someone asks what happened to stock market volume, and to investor confidence in the "stock market" feel free to use just that phrase: "it vaporized."
Funny - isn't one of the most ironclad laws of physics that of the conservation of matter, which states that matter can not be created or destroyed, but only can be changed in form? No wonder Jon Corzine was so full of himself - apparently, he was able to overwrite the laws of the universe with a single trade.
But is seems as if the money did merely change form. And that nobody has the will to chase it:
As money poured out of MF Global, much of it likely passed through J.P. Morgan Chase and other banks where the securities firm had accounts, as well as trade-clearing partners such as Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. and LCH.Clearnet Group Ltd., people familiar with the matter said.
Those companies have denied being knowingly in possession of any missing MF Global money, and any efforts to make them fill the hole would face daunting hurdles....
I am sure this is of great consolation to the small investors who had handed their life savings over to MF Global in the hope it would be cared for honestly. And whatever happened to "Yes, We Can"? I suppose when we are investigating the economic rape and pillage waged by a friend of Barack Obama's, the tagline becomes, "Oh No, We Can't"!
And speaking of vaporizing:
Jon Corzine, former governor and former financial wizard, has his penthouse in Hoboken up for sale at 11 percent less than he paid for it. Bloomberg reports it comes with one parking space and a $1,700 monthly maintenance fee. And only $38,003 in taxes on what he bought for $3.26 million in ’08. Hoboken is an Abbott district so people across the state pay for the schools.
Sounds like someone is in anticipation of upcoming legal bills...
I've begged the Republican party to make this a campaign issue - Corzine was a huge fundraiser for Barack Obama, and Biden has bragged about Corzine being the go-to guy when it came to designing the stimulus. But no. We'll argue instead about building Moon Base Alpha, and who served who kosher meals, while the criminals get off scott-free...
Soon to be tabled in billions. But we're not there yet. We are here:
As the sprawling probe that includes regulators, criminal and congressional investigators, and court-appointed trustees grinds on, the findings so far suggest that a “significant amount” of the money could have “vaporized” as a result of chaotic trading at MF Global during the week before the company’s Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing, said a person close to the investigation.
Many officials now believe certain employees at MF Global dipped into the “customer segregated account” that the New York company was supposed to keep separate from its own assets—and then used the money to meet demands for more collateral or to unfreeze assets at banks and other counterparties as they grew more concerned about their financial exposure to MF Global.
OK - first? How the f*ck does customer money vaporize? Tyler Durden goes off:
Funny - isn't one of the most ironclad laws of physics that of the conservation of matter, which states that matter can not be created or destroyed, but only can be changed in form? No wonder Jon Corzine was so full of himself - apparently, he was able to overwrite the laws of the universe with a single trade.
But is seems as if the money did merely change form. And that nobody has the will to chase it:
As money poured out of MF Global, much of it likely passed through J.P. Morgan Chase and other banks where the securities firm had accounts, as well as trade-clearing partners such as Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. and LCH.Clearnet Group Ltd., people familiar with the matter said.
Those companies have denied being knowingly in possession of any missing MF Global money, and any efforts to make them fill the hole would face daunting hurdles....
I am sure this is of great consolation to the small investors who had handed their life savings over to MF Global in the hope it would be cared for honestly. And whatever happened to "Yes, We Can"? I suppose when we are investigating the economic rape and pillage waged by a friend of Barack Obama's, the tagline becomes, "Oh No, We Can't"!
And speaking of vaporizing:
Jon Corzine, former governor and former financial wizard, has his penthouse in Hoboken up for sale at 11 percent less than he paid for it. Bloomberg reports it comes with one parking space and a $1,700 monthly maintenance fee. And only $38,003 in taxes on what he bought for $3.26 million in ’08. Hoboken is an Abbott district so people across the state pay for the schools.
Sounds like someone is in anticipation of upcoming legal bills...
I've begged the Republican party to make this a campaign issue - Corzine was a huge fundraiser for Barack Obama, and Biden has bragged about Corzine being the go-to guy when it came to designing the stimulus. But no. We'll argue instead about building Moon Base Alpha, and who served who kosher meals, while the criminals get off scott-free...
Chris Christie Calls NJ Democrat A "Numbnuts"
...personally, I think he's going way too easy on this dumb-as-a-doorknob Democrat.
Here's the offending press release, from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon), another liberal who, having missed the moral clarity of the civil rights battles of the 60's, is desperately trying to re-create it by demanding equality for those who practice perverted sex:
SEGREGATIONISTS WOULD HAVE FOUND ALLY IN CHRISTIE
(TRENTON) - Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon), sponsor of marriage equality legislation (A-1) in New Jersey, released the following statement Thursday on Gov. Chris Christie's comment that, "People would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.":
"Is Gov. Christie actually saying the civil rights gains this nation saw in the 1960s should not have been legislated? If so, that's very disturbing.
"James Meredith wouldn't have gotten into the University of Mississippi any sooner if it were up to Chris Christie.
"And Govs. Lester Maddox and George Wallace would have found allies in Chris Christie over efforts by the Justice Department to end segregation in the South.
"It took a lot of bravery by a lot of people, including elected officials, to stand up for what was right and protect equal rights in this nation. Governor, it's time for you to follow their brave example when it comes to marriage equality."
And via Hot Air, here's Chris Christie's rebuttal to this bit of liberal stupidity:
Like I said...too easy on him...
Here's the offending press release, from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon), another liberal who, having missed the moral clarity of the civil rights battles of the 60's, is desperately trying to re-create it by demanding equality for those who practice perverted sex:
SEGREGATIONISTS WOULD HAVE FOUND ALLY IN CHRISTIE
(TRENTON) - Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon), sponsor of marriage equality legislation (A-1) in New Jersey, released the following statement Thursday on Gov. Chris Christie's comment that, "People would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.":
"Is Gov. Christie actually saying the civil rights gains this nation saw in the 1960s should not have been legislated? If so, that's very disturbing.
"James Meredith wouldn't have gotten into the University of Mississippi any sooner if it were up to Chris Christie.
"And Govs. Lester Maddox and George Wallace would have found allies in Chris Christie over efforts by the Justice Department to end segregation in the South.
"It took a lot of bravery by a lot of people, including elected officials, to stand up for what was right and protect equal rights in this nation. Governor, it's time for you to follow their brave example when it comes to marriage equality."
And via Hot Air, here's Chris Christie's rebuttal to this bit of liberal stupidity:
Like I said...too easy on him...
A Vote For Gingrich Is A Vote For Obama
Sorry, "purists". Go ahead, unfollow me on Twitter or my blog. Whatever. Actually, some of the vitriol I have received for strongly questioning Gingrich's campaign and/or persona here has been greater than or equal to the commentary left by illiterate angry liberals. We can disagree, and I do understand what the case is for Gingrich (understanding not being the same as agreeing), but let's be fucking civil here, OK? Sweet Zombie Jesus, it's not as if this blog has endorsed Mitt Romney, either. Instead, I'm beginning to embrace disappointment, hopefully not as a precursor to despair, and defeat...
Anyway. William Galston makes a point over at TNR:
If Obama were running against Gingrich this fall, he’d win—barring outright economic or military catastrophe—because the former speaker will never be able to persuade a majority of the people that he has the right temperament and character to occupy the Oval Office. Pitted against Obama in January 2011, Gingrich was supported by 37 percent of the people, versus 55 percent for Obama. A year later, after introducing himself to a new generation of adults and refreshing the memories of their parents, he enjoys the support of … 37 percent of the people, versus 55 percent for Obama.
Barack and Michelle - or Mr. & Mrs Crankypants, as Michelle Malkin so delightfully dubs them - are equally temperamentally unfit to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But while the media covers for or defends the president's lack of civility, they will eviscerate Gingrich and his pugnacious tenacity on a daily basis, getting under his skin, which is not much thicker than Barack's. Gingrich will erupt, and the election will be over before the convention breaks, leaving the country in the hands of the looters for four more years.
And while I'm in a bad mood, somebody tell Mitt Romney - who's going around talking up an Obama "economic recovery" - that even the Dems are smarter than that:
Most important, the economic horizon for 2012 has darkened....Consumer spending outpaced growth in disposable income, meaning that households spent more only by saving less. This can’t continue indefinitely: Over the past year, real actual tax incomes actually fell by 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, business investment grew at the slowest pace in two years. And as the Fed recently noted, the modest growth predicted for 2012 would not be enough to reduce unemployment significantly from current levels.
Maybe this is something we ought to be talking about instead?
Anyway. William Galston makes a point over at TNR:
Barack and Michelle - or Mr. & Mrs Crankypants, as Michelle Malkin so delightfully dubs them - are equally temperamentally unfit to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But while the media covers for or defends the president's lack of civility, they will eviscerate Gingrich and his pugnacious tenacity on a daily basis, getting under his skin, which is not much thicker than Barack's. Gingrich will erupt, and the election will be over before the convention breaks, leaving the country in the hands of the looters for four more years.
And while I'm in a bad mood, somebody tell Mitt Romney - who's going around talking up an Obama "economic recovery" - that even the Dems are smarter than that:
Most important, the economic horizon for 2012 has darkened....Consumer spending outpaced growth in disposable income, meaning that households spent more only by saving less. This can’t continue indefinitely: Over the past year, real actual tax incomes actually fell by 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, business investment grew at the slowest pace in two years. And as the Fed recently noted, the modest growth predicted for 2012 would not be enough to reduce unemployment significantly from current levels.
Maybe this is something we ought to be talking about instead?
Monday, January 30, 2012
So Now Ferris Bueller Drives A Honda CR-V?
OK, I realize 25 years have passed since he took Cameron's dad's red 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California out for a day of fun in the Chicago sun, but still...can you imagine our man Ferris going from this:
"It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up..."
To this:
I don't know if life moves pretty fast in a Honda CR-V. And I have no interest in finding out...
"It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up..."
To this:
I don't know if life moves pretty fast in a Honda CR-V. And I have no interest in finding out...
It's Not That Michelle Went On Another Shopping Spree That Bothers Me...
...it is how she spent the money that makes me sick:
British lingerie label Agent Provocateur have seen annual sales jump by more than 12 per cent in a year which also saw First Lady Michelle Obama joining their list of elite customers.
Mrs Obama, is said to have spent $50,000 (£31,794) in the one shopping trip to the boutique which closed down part of Madison Avenue when she visited with the Queen of Qatar, Sheikha Mozah.
Beyonce Knowles and Christina Aguilera have been seen at their stores in recent months, presumably purchasing unmentionables which can run ladies as much as $1,990 for a single French lace nightie.
While Americans are starving, Michelle Antoinette spends $50K on...underwear? While shopping with the monarch of a nation famous for its grotesque anti-semetism?
I'm sure if Eva Braun were still alive, Michelle would have no problem shopping with her for panties that might turn on the notoriously weak-penised Fuhrer...
But I guess this is what gets Barack's game on - seeing his wife's over-fed, fat ass wrapped in $2,000 panties, as they frolic within their White House bedroom.
Socialism and Big Government have certainly been good to them, to enjoy such extravagant decadence. No wonder they are so defensive of it. But the rest of us...well, we might just tire of living in poverty to pay for their perversions...
Mrs Obama, is said to have spent $50,000 (£31,794) in the one shopping trip to the boutique which closed down part of Madison Avenue when she visited with the Queen of Qatar, Sheikha Mozah.
Beyonce Knowles and Christina Aguilera have been seen at their stores in recent months, presumably purchasing unmentionables which can run ladies as much as $1,990 for a single French lace nightie.
While Americans are starving, Michelle Antoinette spends $50K on...underwear? While shopping with the monarch of a nation famous for its grotesque anti-semetism?
I'm sure if Eva Braun were still alive, Michelle would have no problem shopping with her for panties that might turn on the notoriously weak-penised Fuhrer...
But I guess this is what gets Barack's game on - seeing his wife's over-fed, fat ass wrapped in $2,000 panties, as they frolic within their White House bedroom.
Socialism and Big Government have certainly been good to them, to enjoy such extravagant decadence. No wonder they are so defensive of it. But the rest of us...well, we might just tire of living in poverty to pay for their perversions...
Income Inequality: Should We Blame The Poor Instead Of Vilifying The Rich?
OK, tongue-in-cheek post title, for sure. But James Q. Wilson makes a valid point (not that Democrats pay much attention to those things):
We could reduce income inequality by trying to curtail the financial returns of education and the number of women in the workforce — but who would want to do that?
The real income problem in this country is not a question of who is rich, but rather of who is poor. Among the bottom fifth of income earners, many people, especially men, stay there their whole lives. Low education and unwed motherhood only exacerbate poverty, which is particularly acute among racial minorities.
Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce. It is easy to suppose that raising taxes on the rich would provide more money to help the poor. But the problem facing the poor is not too little money, but too few skills and opportunities to advance themselves.
So why can't Barack Obama campaign on giving the poor the social and institutional skill set they need to take advantage of the financial opportunities that present themselves in a capitalistic society?
Because he's not a capitalist? True that, but simplistic. He's campaigned on plenty of things he hasn't believed it.
Because he's scared of being seen as criticizing minorities, a la Bill Cosby or Spike Lee, and thus alienating a crucial base he must have in order to be re-elected to a second term?
Ah. More likely. Conservatives and center-right independents might agree with him, but would still likely vote Republican, offering him few new votes to replace the many he would be risking.
But the real reason why he won't touch this difficult truth with a ten-foot pole? It's because Obama has nothing to run on in 2012 - the fact that he barely even mentioned his record in his SOTU speech last week (besides repeating, ad nasuem, how "he" got bin Laden) means he realizes how hostile most Americans are to it. And certainly, Obama cannot run on "more of the same" in 2012; that's why his popularity is scraping bottom in the first place. And besides, "Completing the march towards our glorious Socialist future!" is not a winning campaign slogan either.
So he has to run against something, and as a "protector of America" from something. In a different time a leader would blame it on/run against the Jews, but Obama needs their money, and thus picked a group that is almost synonymous with them and seem as equally evil: The Rich. Even if, as Wilson makes clear above, they have nothing to do with "income inequality" and may in fact have everything to do with bringing the nation back from the brink.
For what it is worth, I will give the president notice that this might not quite be a winning strategy. Salena Zito, writing about the rising Jacksonian streak in American voters:
Class warfare is not winning populism. Jacksonians are about being for something, not against success.
Liberals have historic memories of populist violence (i.e., World War I), so their intellectuals just can't get "masses arise" out of their minds, (Eldon Eisenach, University of Tulsa political science professor emeritus) says. "So the populism of 'Occupy' or the attempt of Obama to capture a populist strain in Republican progressivism just won't work.
"The one theme (independents) have that is Jacksonian is to get the federal government off their backs and out of their pockets -- hardly what Obama or Occupy have in mind."
Today, we're all political Whigs to some degree, seeking respectability...
Except the president, who will cover himself in mud, and attempt to divide us as a nation by telling us our problems can be solved by seeking vengeance against those who achieved success while we did not.
Doesn't sound like much of a plan. But then again, if Obama does go down in 2012, one will have to believe, in a thin-skinned pique of rage, he will try to take as as much of the nation down with him as he can...
The real income problem in this country is not a question of who is rich, but rather of who is poor. Among the bottom fifth of income earners, many people, especially men, stay there their whole lives. Low education and unwed motherhood only exacerbate poverty, which is particularly acute among racial minorities.
Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce. It is easy to suppose that raising taxes on the rich would provide more money to help the poor. But the problem facing the poor is not too little money, but too few skills and opportunities to advance themselves.
So why can't Barack Obama campaign on giving the poor the social and institutional skill set they need to take advantage of the financial opportunities that present themselves in a capitalistic society?
Because he's not a capitalist? True that, but simplistic. He's campaigned on plenty of things he hasn't believed it.
Because he's scared of being seen as criticizing minorities, a la Bill Cosby or Spike Lee, and thus alienating a crucial base he must have in order to be re-elected to a second term?
Ah. More likely. Conservatives and center-right independents might agree with him, but would still likely vote Republican, offering him few new votes to replace the many he would be risking.
But the real reason why he won't touch this difficult truth with a ten-foot pole? It's because Obama has nothing to run on in 2012 - the fact that he barely even mentioned his record in his SOTU speech last week (besides repeating, ad nasuem, how "he" got bin Laden) means he realizes how hostile most Americans are to it. And certainly, Obama cannot run on "more of the same" in 2012; that's why his popularity is scraping bottom in the first place. And besides, "Completing the march towards our glorious Socialist future!" is not a winning campaign slogan either.
So he has to run against something, and as a "protector of America" from something. In a different time a leader would blame it on/run against the Jews, but Obama needs their money, and thus picked a group that is almost synonymous with them and seem as equally evil: The Rich. Even if, as Wilson makes clear above, they have nothing to do with "income inequality" and may in fact have everything to do with bringing the nation back from the brink.
For what it is worth, I will give the president notice that this might not quite be a winning strategy. Salena Zito, writing about the rising Jacksonian streak in American voters:
Class warfare is not winning populism. Jacksonians are about being for something, not against success.
Liberals have historic memories of populist violence (i.e., World War I), so their intellectuals just can't get "masses arise" out of their minds, (Eldon Eisenach, University of Tulsa political science professor emeritus) says. "So the populism of 'Occupy' or the attempt of Obama to capture a populist strain in Republican progressivism just won't work.
"The one theme (independents) have that is Jacksonian is to get the federal government off their backs and out of their pockets -- hardly what Obama or Occupy have in mind."
Today, we're all political Whigs to some degree, seeking respectability...
Except the president, who will cover himself in mud, and attempt to divide us as a nation by telling us our problems can be solved by seeking vengeance against those who achieved success while we did not.
Doesn't sound like much of a plan. But then again, if Obama does go down in 2012, one will have to believe, in a thin-skinned pique of rage, he will try to take as as much of the nation down with him as he can...
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Really: Just How Bad Is America's Debt/Spending Problem?
If you don't already know, maybe this little piece of napkin economics will make it clear how f*cked we truly are:
And if you're feeling like shrugging this all off with the old "Well, it's bad, but in comparison to everyone else, we look good", well...I still think that maybe you ain't quite getting the gravity of the situation. They do, though, over at the New York Post:
....measured as a percentage of GDP (the value of all goods and services produced in a country over a year), our budget deficit is roughly a quarter larger than France’s. In fact, among European countries, only Greece and Ireland have larger deficits this year than we do.
The debt figures paint an even grimmer picture. If one includes all the unfunded liabilities of pension and health-care systems, Greece’s total debt equals 875% of its GDP. France, the next-most insolvent country in Europe, owes 570% of GDP. The United States, however, now owes 885% of GDP, more than any other industrialized country.
We have been able to avoid disaster so far only because, as the world’s preferential currency, other countries have been willing to lend us money cheaply. But that is not going to continue forever. And if our creditors begin to hike interest rates, we will be facing the same economic consequences facing so much of Europe today.
But don't worry. That will never happen here. Because Barack Obama will save us by..."investing" money in green energy projects while stopping the construction of oil pipelines, by "investing" more money in "education", by spreading broadband internet to barns and corn fields, by raising taxes on the rich, not-so-rich, almost rich, and lower-upper-middle class, and...by killing Osama bin Laden. Again and again, if necessary.
Yeah. We're in touch with reality, all right...
And if you're feeling like shrugging this all off with the old "Well, it's bad, but in comparison to everyone else, we look good", well...I still think that maybe you ain't quite getting the gravity of the situation. They do, though, over at the New York Post:
The debt figures paint an even grimmer picture. If one includes all the unfunded liabilities of pension and health-care systems, Greece’s total debt equals 875% of its GDP. France, the next-most insolvent country in Europe, owes 570% of GDP. The United States, however, now owes 885% of GDP, more than any other industrialized country.
We have been able to avoid disaster so far only because, as the world’s preferential currency, other countries have been willing to lend us money cheaply. But that is not going to continue forever. And if our creditors begin to hike interest rates, we will be facing the same economic consequences facing so much of Europe today.
But don't worry. That will never happen here. Because Barack Obama will save us by..."investing" money in green energy projects while stopping the construction of oil pipelines, by "investing" more money in "education", by spreading broadband internet to barns and corn fields, by raising taxes on the rich, not-so-rich, almost rich, and lower-upper-middle class, and...by killing Osama bin Laden. Again and again, if necessary.
Yeah. We're in touch with reality, all right...
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Lego Man In Space: How Much Has Changed
This pretty is pretty viral, so you likely have seen it, or read the story: Canadian teens Mathew Ho & Asad Muhammad spent five months and $400 creating a jury-rigged platform - using a weather balloon, some Styrofoam, a few Canon cameras, and Asad's mom's sewing machine - with which they sent a Lego man, holding the Canadian flag, into outer space. And precisely calculated the trajectory of the landing so that all the material was recoverable, and postable online:
This is the kind of ingenuity American kids used to be famous for, right? Seems like our youth are more interested in making videos of people getting the sh*t kicked out of them then actually doing anything more...inventive.
Starting this past September, the duo spent their Saturdays at Ho’s kitchen table in Scarborough, drawing up plans and building the balloon.
What? Not playing Halo online? Why, that's positively un-American!
Exactly, some would say.
Two other things jumped out at me from the Toronto Sun piece linked above:
The two met in middle school. Muhammad’s family had just immigrated emigrated from Pakistan, and he spoke no English. When other students were ignoring him, Ho walked up and made friends.
Didn't talented people used to come from foreign lands to America in order to have a chance for themselves and their families to succeed? Sure, we get plenty of Mexicans, I suppose, but one gets the feeling more and more of them are coming here for the blue-state welfare checks and food stamps than to actually build a better life as Americans.
And then there's this - a little delay in (literally) launching the project due to a less-than-friendly neighbor:
The pair discovered a website that calculates a weather balloon’s estimated landing spot based on input launch coordinates, prevailing winds, and balloon specs...
The site kept spitting out Rochester, N.Y., as their balloon’s final landing spot. Muhammad and Ho didn’t like their chances with U.S. Homeland Security.
But one Saturday morning, Ho tried again, and saw the balloon would land near Peterborough...
What would Homeland Security have said if an Asian kid and a Muslim kid named Muhammad had tried to scamper across the border to pick up an object with cameras that had shot through the Earth's atmosphere? The story of their intellectual ingenuity would never have gotten out, nor the video, or the photos, nor they - from some type of maximum-security lockup.
Look at how we are perceived. Look at what we've become. Look at who we are, and what wastrels our youth is becoming.
Used to be that Lego man whould have proudly been holding an American flag...
How much has changed.
This is the kind of ingenuity American kids used to be famous for, right? Seems like our youth are more interested in making videos of people getting the sh*t kicked out of them then actually doing anything more...inventive.
Starting this past September, the duo spent their Saturdays at Ho’s kitchen table in Scarborough, drawing up plans and building the balloon.
What? Not playing Halo online? Why, that's positively un-American!
Exactly, some would say.
Two other things jumped out at me from the Toronto Sun piece linked above:
The two met in middle school. Muhammad’s family had just immigrated emigrated from Pakistan, and he spoke no English. When other students were ignoring him, Ho walked up and made friends.
Didn't talented people used to come from foreign lands to America in order to have a chance for themselves and their families to succeed? Sure, we get plenty of Mexicans, I suppose, but one gets the feeling more and more of them are coming here for the blue-state welfare checks and food stamps than to actually build a better life as Americans.
And then there's this - a little delay in (literally) launching the project due to a less-than-friendly neighbor:
The pair discovered a website that calculates a weather balloon’s estimated landing spot based on input launch coordinates, prevailing winds, and balloon specs...
The site kept spitting out Rochester, N.Y., as their balloon’s final landing spot. Muhammad and Ho didn’t like their chances with U.S. Homeland Security.
But one Saturday morning, Ho tried again, and saw the balloon would land near Peterborough...
What would Homeland Security have said if an Asian kid and a Muslim kid named Muhammad had tried to scamper across the border to pick up an object with cameras that had shot through the Earth's atmosphere? The story of their intellectual ingenuity would never have gotten out, nor the video, or the photos, nor they - from some type of maximum-security lockup.
Look at how we are perceived. Look at what we've become. Look at who we are, and what wastrels our youth is becoming.
Used to be that Lego man whould have proudly been holding an American flag...
How much has changed.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Climate Change Hysteria: Who Benefits?
Easy: Liberal-dominated governments who want to redistribute private-sector cash to themselves and their cronies (while impoverishing their subjects), and greedy scientists who sell their soul and diminish their profession for a few pieces of silver. They will prosper from climate change, while the masses, ironically, will shiver and freeze...
Sound like something out of the rough birth of Western Civilization? It's is, in fact,a regression from our Renessiance and Enlightenment, complete with witch hunts. But first, the WSJ reiterates what we know: High-tech global warming scare tactics are extremely profitable to those in the game:
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet...
Much like the Church, Kings and Feudal Lords made out pretty well in the Dark Ages.
So who loses? Anyone else who dares to want to live a life made more comfortable by progress:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
And the witch hunts:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position....
I would love for someone to read this to Mitt Romney, and ask him where he stands on this perversion of our intellectual evolution. And ask Newt if he still sits with Nancy...
Sound like something out of the rough birth of Western Civilization? It's is, in fact,a regression from our Renessiance and Enlightenment, complete with witch hunts. But first, the WSJ reiterates what we know: High-tech global warming scare tactics are extremely profitable to those in the game:
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet...
Much like the Church, Kings and Feudal Lords made out pretty well in the Dark Ages.
So who loses? Anyone else who dares to want to live a life made more comfortable by progress:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
And the witch hunts:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position....
I would love for someone to read this to Mitt Romney, and ask him where he stands on this perversion of our intellectual evolution. And ask Newt if he still sits with Nancy...
Did Romney "Pack The Room" Last Night? I Hope So....
Jonah Goldberg comments on last night's debate, a rather flat one for Newton and a fairly successful one for Romney:
I don’t know whether he did or not, but it seemed obvious to me that the room had a lot of Romney supporters in it....There were definitely moments when Romney deserved the applause and cheers he got. But he also got applause and cheers for lines that have elicited no such response in the previous 8,000 debates. If Romney did pack the room with ringers, it was smart if also devious. Gingrich exposed a key vulnerability to his debate superpowers: he feeds off the energy from the audience. If Romney and his team figured that out and tampered with his energy source, that’s smart politics.
It is. And in the general election, faced with a choice between the smug, bombastic, pedantic, know-it-all professor they know and the one they are only slightly less familiar with, well...you just might see Barack Obama re-elected, based upon this rationale offered by the president himself.
But if a Republican candidate can get under the president's (extremely) thin skin and expose him as the punk-ass bitch he is without lowering himself to Obama's childish level, you just might have a winner. And it seems as if Romney, actually possessing the "cool temperament" the president's supporters tried to own, may very well likely be able to tinker with Barack's mojo and pull off the innocent "who, me?" routine while the whiner-in-chief flips his lid.
Not an endorsement of Romney, by the way. I'm just saying. Both his technocratic urge to "tinker & fix" rather than "destroy & rebuild" (which is what is necessary), and his obvious affection for state-run healthcare, are extremely troubling.
So that's why we need to make sure we elect a Congress and Senate that is as ideologically conservative as possible. If he does get the nomination, and wins the big prize, we'll need to keep President Romney's feet as close to the fire as possible. lest he stray off the path he was appointed to...
I don’t know whether he did or not, but it seemed obvious to me that the room had a lot of Romney supporters in it....There were definitely moments when Romney deserved the applause and cheers he got. But he also got applause and cheers for lines that have elicited no such response in the previous 8,000 debates. If Romney did pack the room with ringers, it was smart if also devious. Gingrich exposed a key vulnerability to his debate superpowers: he feeds off the energy from the audience. If Romney and his team figured that out and tampered with his energy source, that’s smart politics.
It is. And in the general election, faced with a choice between the smug, bombastic, pedantic, know-it-all professor they know and the one they are only slightly less familiar with, well...you just might see Barack Obama re-elected, based upon this rationale offered by the president himself.
But if a Republican candidate can get under the president's (extremely) thin skin and expose him as the punk-ass bitch he is without lowering himself to Obama's childish level, you just might have a winner. And it seems as if Romney, actually possessing the "cool temperament" the president's supporters tried to own, may very well likely be able to tinker with Barack's mojo and pull off the innocent "who, me?" routine while the whiner-in-chief flips his lid.
Not an endorsement of Romney, by the way. I'm just saying. Both his technocratic urge to "tinker & fix" rather than "destroy & rebuild" (which is what is necessary), and his obvious affection for state-run healthcare, are extremely troubling.
So that's why we need to make sure we elect a Congress and Senate that is as ideologically conservative as possible. If he does get the nomination, and wins the big prize, we'll need to keep President Romney's feet as close to the fire as possible. lest he stray off the path he was appointed to...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Rumble On The Runway: Obama Making Jan Brewer Rich
Obama's reverse-Midas touch in full effect....he publicly and rudely bitches about what he claims is a mis- characterization of him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border and it goes from 285,568th place in overall sales to 29th.
Check that. That was five minutes ago. It's up to #21.
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #21 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Books> Politics &Social Sciences >Government >Public Policy
#2 in Books > Biographies > Memoirs > Leaders > Notable People> Political
#2 in Books >Politics >Social Sciences >Government >State > Local Government
Can I get the president to throw a Barack Bitch-fit about Right, Wing Nut?
Check that. That was five minutes ago. It's up to #21.
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #21 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Books> Politics &Social Sciences >Government >Public Policy
#2 in Books > Biographies > Memoirs > Leaders > Notable People> Political
#2 in Books >Politics >Social Sciences >Government >State > Local Government
Can I get the president to throw a Barack Bitch-fit about Right, Wing Nut?
"You're just digging yourself in deeper....and making me much, much richer. Of course, with Republicans running the show in 2013, your precious federal government will never see a dime of it...Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!"
Finally: A Plausible Reason To Re-Elect Barack Obama!
Seth Mandel takes this from the president's State of the Union/2012 Campaign Kickoff Speech aired this past Tuesday:
The implication was that he hadn’t really done anything, but jobs were somehow coming back anyway so he should be re-elected because if the American economy is strong enough to withstand a first term of his, it can probably withstand another one.
Probably. Unless he actually fulfills his promise to, ahem, "finish the job he started". But based on his record of actually keeping promises - as opposed to simply making them - I think we'd manage to survive.
Or one might just say the president leads the same way Homer Simpson parents:
Homer: I make you kids lots of promises, that's what makes me a good father
Lisa: Actually, keeping promises makes you a good father
Homer: No, that makes me a great father...
The implication was that he hadn’t really done anything, but jobs were somehow coming back anyway so he should be re-elected because if the American economy is strong enough to withstand a first term of his, it can probably withstand another one.
Probably. Unless he actually fulfills his promise to, ahem, "finish the job he started". But based on his record of actually keeping promises - as opposed to simply making them - I think we'd manage to survive.
Or one might just say the president leads the same way Homer Simpson parents:
Lisa: Actually, keeping promises makes you a good father
Homer: No, that makes me a great father...
Why Does Joe Biden Hate Indians?
First, there was this:
"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."
It's OK. He's a Democrat, so he's earned absolutions from the media (as opposed to Rick Perry, who was crucified for the scribbling on a rock his grandfather once walked past...)
And just today, in Rochester, New Hampshire, we have this - sneering mockery of an Indian accent as part of a complaint about American jobs going overseas:
But that's OK, he's a Democrat. Biden could walk on his hands like a chimp while speaking in "Ebonics" and still get a pass from the media...
"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."
It's OK. He's a Democrat, so he's earned absolutions from the media (as opposed to Rick Perry, who was crucified for the scribbling on a rock his grandfather once walked past...)
And just today, in Rochester, New Hampshire, we have this - sneering mockery of an Indian accent as part of a complaint about American jobs going overseas:
But that's OK, he's a Democrat. Biden could walk on his hands like a chimp while speaking in "Ebonics" and still get a pass from the media...
Jan Brewer vs. Barack Obama: One's A Whiny Little Bitch...
...and the other is the governor of Arizona.
Almost a fistfight on the tarmac, when Jan Brewer went to greet Barack Obama as he deplaned. What happened? Jan tells the tale:
“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”
Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished....
She said the president brought up the book.
“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down....
He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.
So he turned on his heel and spun off while the lady was still speaking. Stay classy, Baracky...
Not the first time he threw a hissy fit on the tarmac. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal tells a similar tale out of the bayou:
I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.
The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. . . . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.
But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.
There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter. “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.
Not the oil spill. President Food Stamps was concerned about...well, you know...
Why does this president have such deep-seated hostility to women and minorities, anyway? Oh, I suppose the racial/gender makeup of his anger victim here is likely irrelevant - when Obama's fragile, delicate, feminine ego is bruised, no one is safe, regardless of whether they have what might be defined as a normally protected status.
And the next time the media tries to tell me about his "cool, even, temperament"...I think I am gonna lose mine...
Almost a fistfight on the tarmac, when Jan Brewer went to greet Barack Obama as he deplaned. What happened? Jan tells the tale:
Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished....
She said the president brought up the book.
“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down....
He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.
So he turned on his heel and spun off while the lady was still speaking. Stay classy, Baracky...
Not the first time he threw a hissy fit on the tarmac. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal tells a similar tale out of the bayou:
I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.
The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. . . . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.
But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.
There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter. “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.
Not the oil spill. President Food Stamps was concerned about...well, you know...
Why does this president have such deep-seated hostility to women and minorities, anyway? Oh, I suppose the racial/gender makeup of his anger victim here is likely irrelevant - when Obama's fragile, delicate, feminine ego is bruised, no one is safe, regardless of whether they have what might be defined as a normally protected status.
And the next time the media tries to tell me about his "cool, even, temperament"...I think I am gonna lose mine...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Chris Christie Outfoxes New Jersey Democrats...
How's that nuanced line of thinking work out for Sweeney? Ah..not well:
On Monday Christie nominated Korean-American Phillip Kwon and Bruce Harris, the openly gay black mayor of Chatham Borough. Kwon, who worked with Christie when he was U.S. attorney, is currently First Assistant Attorney General for New Jersey.
Christie delivered a body blow to Democrats prepared for a fight over high-court nominees. It puts Democrats on the defensive and gives Christie latitude in bringing more conservative voices to the court. Democrats wanted minority candidates, and they have them.
First Assistant Attorney General Kwon's resume is stellar:
In 2005, Mr. Kwon was named as the Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit where he supervised the Office’s gang prosecutors. In 2006, Mr. Kwon was named as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division where he directly oversaw the Commercial Crimes Unit, the Terrorism Unit, and the Violent Crimes Unit.
Tough on crime, tough on corruption, and a minority. How are the Democrats going to fight that, and simultaneously keep the state's substantial Asian vote in 2012?
Admittedly, Bruce Harris' record is a bit less clear:
Age: 61
Hometown: Chatham, Morris County
Education: Graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College in 1973; graduated with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management in 1979 and from Yale Law School in 1992.
Professional experience: currently of counsel at the law firm Greenberg Traurig, and previously at Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti, with a focus on lending, real estate and construction financing and bond transactions.
Political experience: Elected mayor of Chatham Borough in 2011; appointed to fill a vacancy on the borough council, and elected to two terms, making him its longest-serving councilman
Other activities: served on Chatham Planning Board, Environmental Commission, Historic Preservation Commission; former member of the Morris County Open Space Preservation Trust; trustee of the UMDNJ and the New Jersey Health Foundations; trustee of Eric Johnson House Inc., a transitional housing program for people with HIV/AIDS, including five years as president.
Family: partner of 32 years, Marc Boisclair
Honors: New Jersey Super Lawyers 2005-2007
Quote: Stuart Lederman, a partner at Riker Danzig who is president of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation, said Harris "brings an intellectual curiosity to the bench, but balancing that with an understanding of issues facing government and individuals."
Seems like a guy who has tried to balance the concerns of the community with the needs of business. Although certainly not a "constitutional originalist", He's worked closely with Christie in the past, and the governor likely knows his way of thinking.
Of course, the timing is sweet and well-planned. As the New Jersey legislature works to pass laws legalizing gay marriage, it now becomes harder to paint Christie as a hateful bigot, which was likely the primary reason the Democrats were pushing the same-sex marriage bill so hard.
So those so-much-smarter-than-thou Democrats are now in a box of their own making. They can't oppose Christie's nominees without confessing it's not minorities that matter to them, it's liberal ideology (and how honest and refreshing would that be?). They can't paint Christie as a gay-basher, not with the Harris nomination and his declaration that the gay marriage issue should be decided at the ballot box by statewide referendum and not by a small majority of lawmakers.
The Democrats are screwed and will likely have to submit to Chris Christie's will.
Just imagine what this guy would have done to Barack Hussein Obama...
Obama Still Thinks He's Lincoln?
Money quote from his campaign speech - sorry, State of the Union Address - last night:
“I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed,” he said, “that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”
But where the Great Emancipator diverges from the once-Great Orator is that Barack Obama thinks the government can do everything better than the people themselves. From health care, to eating habits, to the illumination of their homes, to the cars they drive and what devices they use inside them. If there's a sweet spot where Obama believes the private sector can do a better job than government, I haven;t heard him mention it yet...
It doesn't mean that Obama wasn't honest in his statement above. He simply has a much, much lower opinion of the American people than the great leaders he claims to channel...
“I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed,” he said, “that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”
But where the Great Emancipator diverges from the once-Great Orator is that Barack Obama thinks the government can do everything better than the people themselves. From health care, to eating habits, to the illumination of their homes, to the cars they drive and what devices they use inside them. If there's a sweet spot where Obama believes the private sector can do a better job than government, I haven;t heard him mention it yet...
It doesn't mean that Obama wasn't honest in his statement above. He simply has a much, much lower opinion of the American people than the great leaders he claims to channel...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Is Tim Thomas As Brave As, Say...Sean Avery?
Well, now that Glenn Reynolds has written about Bruins goalie (and 2011 playoff MVP) Tim Thomas refusing to join his teammates at the White House yesterday to be congratulated on their Stanley Cup victory by Barack Obama, I'm sure we'll see a lot more commentary on his bold stand in the upcoming days/hours/minutes. That's good. But it's the commentary from the left, and the sports-writing media, that I'm most interested in...
If you haven't heard the story:
Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli confirmed that Thomas had told him months ago he would not attend the White House event due to his political and ideological differences with the Obama administration. Chiarelli said he had tried to convince Thomas to attend the event "over the last couple months" to no avail.
While his politics aren't common knowledge among many hockey fans, Thomas hasn't hidden his political leanings. He's a fan of former Fox News channel host Glenn Beck, once saying he aspired to appear on Beck's talk show as a guest.
Big Government, a website founded by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, celebrated Thomas as a "true Tea Party patriot" for having "In God We Trust" and the Gadsden flag on his mask.
Here's why I am curious to see what comes from the sportswriters and blogs: Tim Thomas is not the only hockey player in recent months to make an open political stand. Rangers forward Sean Avery did the same thing last year, when he appeared in TV advertisements supporting gay marriage in New York State. Avery was lauded for his stand, being called "unafraid", a "true leader", and "inspiring". This, despite a well-deserved reputation as the dirtiest player in the NHL. Think Ty Cobb without the skill. Click the link if you want to see videos of Sean "in action" (including a pregame fight with, ironically, Tim Thomas. Hmmm....).
So my question is: Will Thomas - a clean living, blue-collar, working -class hero from Flint, MI. - get the same respect for standing up for his beliefs as Avery got when he stood up for gay marriage?
Sportswriters tend to be frustrated opinion columnists - dying to get the serious respect of their newsroom peers, they'll often launch into judgmental tirades whenever the opportunity presents itself. Tim Thomas' stand against a corrupt president certainly leaves him open to controversy. Will he be weighed on the courage of his beliefs, or condemned due to a differing value system than that held by the mainstream media?
Should be interesting...
UPDATE: By popular demand - here's Avery fighting with Thomas. Watch Avery hit Thomas on the back of his head with his stick, while Tim is on his knees. Time takes exception to typical liberal chicken-fighting:
UPDATE II: As expected. The Boston Globe's Kevin DuPont orders Thomas to turn in his 2012 Olympic medal and sweater, if he's so ashamed of his country. Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
A reminder from The Corner:
Notably, no one at the Boston Globe complained when Red Sox owner John Henry and general manager Theo Epstein, both dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, opted out of the invites to the Bush White House after the 2007 World Series.
it is all about the double-standard. TSN's Gord Miller:
For those wondering, Tim Thomas will be in uniform in Washington tonight, as soon as he dumps the last crate of tea into Boston Harbor.
But no jokes about Sean Avery bending over in the shower, of course...
Another Boston lefty whines:
Two words: embarrassing and classless....The only thing I knew about Thomas until yesterday had to do with phenomenal hockey playing. Here’s what I suspect today: He’s a spoiled brat.
Others, with more nuanced minds, think otherwise:
One can argue Thomas could have just as easily played along with everyone else, shaken Obama’s hand and enjoyed his private tour of the executive residence. I believe he could have done so without compromising himself, but he thought differently, chose to make a statement about his principles and risked the opprobrium of the liberal press. For that he deserves our respect as a citizen and a man.
No way. He's a Republican....!
More here.
If you haven't heard the story:
Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli confirmed that Thomas had told him months ago he would not attend the White House event due to his political and ideological differences with the Obama administration. Chiarelli said he had tried to convince Thomas to attend the event "over the last couple months" to no avail.
While his politics aren't common knowledge among many hockey fans, Thomas hasn't hidden his political leanings. He's a fan of former Fox News channel host Glenn Beck, once saying he aspired to appear on Beck's talk show as a guest.
Big Government, a website founded by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, celebrated Thomas as a "true Tea Party patriot" for having "In God We Trust" and the Gadsden flag on his mask.
Here's why I am curious to see what comes from the sportswriters and blogs: Tim Thomas is not the only hockey player in recent months to make an open political stand. Rangers forward Sean Avery did the same thing last year, when he appeared in TV advertisements supporting gay marriage in New York State. Avery was lauded for his stand, being called "unafraid", a "true leader", and "inspiring". This, despite a well-deserved reputation as the dirtiest player in the NHL. Think Ty Cobb without the skill. Click the link if you want to see videos of Sean "in action" (including a pregame fight with, ironically, Tim Thomas. Hmmm....).
So my question is: Will Thomas - a clean living, blue-collar, working -class hero from Flint, MI. - get the same respect for standing up for his beliefs as Avery got when he stood up for gay marriage?
Sportswriters tend to be frustrated opinion columnists - dying to get the serious respect of their newsroom peers, they'll often launch into judgmental tirades whenever the opportunity presents itself. Tim Thomas' stand against a corrupt president certainly leaves him open to controversy. Will he be weighed on the courage of his beliefs, or condemned due to a differing value system than that held by the mainstream media?
Should be interesting...
UPDATE: By popular demand - here's Avery fighting with Thomas. Watch Avery hit Thomas on the back of his head with his stick, while Tim is on his knees. Time takes exception to typical liberal chicken-fighting:
UPDATE II: As expected. The Boston Globe's Kevin DuPont orders Thomas to turn in his 2012 Olympic medal and sweater, if he's so ashamed of his country. Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
A reminder from The Corner:
Notably, no one at the Boston Globe complained when Red Sox owner John Henry and general manager Theo Epstein, both dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, opted out of the invites to the Bush White House after the 2007 World Series.
it is all about the double-standard. TSN's Gord Miller:
For those wondering, Tim Thomas will be in uniform in Washington tonight, as soon as he dumps the last crate of tea into Boston Harbor.
But no jokes about Sean Avery bending over in the shower, of course...
Another Boston lefty whines:
Two words: embarrassing and classless....The only thing I knew about Thomas until yesterday had to do with phenomenal hockey playing. Here’s what I suspect today: He’s a spoiled brat.
Others, with more nuanced minds, think otherwise:
One can argue Thomas could have just as easily played along with everyone else, shaken Obama’s hand and enjoyed his private tour of the executive residence. I believe he could have done so without compromising himself, but he thought differently, chose to make a statement about his principles and risked the opprobrium of the liberal press. For that he deserves our respect as a citizen and a man.
No way. He's a Republican....!
More here.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Newt Gingrich Ought To Be Thanking Sarah Palin Right Around Now...
You know, Sarah Palin hadn't said boo about the Republican primaries until just a few days before the most recent primary, when she mentioned that she would vote for Gingrich "if I were a South Carolinian".
William Kristol:
First time she has expressed herself in the race and her candidate wins by 12. If she really comes out for Newt, look out.
Sarah is the nuclear submarine of the 2012 Republican primary. She's running silent and running deep. But should she decide to surface, or perhaps let loose a salvo of Tomahawks, well...let's just say the landscape will be permanently altered. As if it had been struck by...a salvo of Tomahawks.
She's been quiet, but she is still out there - watching, observing all, calculating. And when she appeared, ever so briefly, and dipped her toe in the water....the seas parted.
When you can't see her, and don't hear her, that's when she's at her most dangerous. Certain primary candidates ought to be very nervous right around now...
William Kristol:
First time she has expressed herself in the race and her candidate wins by 12. If she really comes out for Newt, look out.
Sarah is the nuclear submarine of the 2012 Republican primary. She's running silent and running deep. But should she decide to surface, or perhaps let loose a salvo of Tomahawks, well...let's just say the landscape will be permanently altered. As if it had been struck by...a salvo of Tomahawks.
She's been quiet, but she is still out there - watching, observing all, calculating. And when she appeared, ever so briefly, and dipped her toe in the water....the seas parted.
When you can't see her, and don't hear her, that's when she's at her most dangerous. Certain primary candidates ought to be very nervous right around now...
TSA Detains Rand Paul, Further Shreds The Constitution In The Process...
First, the salient facts:
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was blocked from boarding a flight Monday by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn., after refusing a full body pat-down, POLITICO has confirmed.
“I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said. “The image scan went off; he refused patdown.”
Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), tweeted out news of the incident, saying that there had been an “anomaly” with a body scanner.
“My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming,” wrote the authenticated Twitter account of presidential candidate Ron Paul.
So where does a breach of the Constitution come into play? A-ha!
The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) . The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.
A dangerous precedent has been set, if Senator Paul can be detained by a quasi-governmental agency without charge. This is an event that should even have those constitution-hatin' liberals up in arms: Can you imagine an evil, despicable, black-hearted Republican president (aren't they all?), working in secret with government officials to stop a Chuck Schumer, or a Debbie Stabenow, from arriving in Washington while the Senate votes on overturning ObamaCare? Or - perish the thought - defunding NPR?
Finally, a bipartisan injustice. I'd chant "Free Rand Paul!", but he's already on the next plane out of town. How about "Hey! Hey! TSA! How many Americans you detain today?"
OK, they both suck. But somebody ought to instruct the TSA in the finer points of constitutionality. Or is that an oxymoron, given what the TSA - and Homeland Security - are all about?
Barack Obama Knows Exactly What He Is Doing - To America...
I posted yesterday on Maureen Dowd's little smackdown of the president's inflated sense of self-regard. Although I am sure she meant it in a cautionary way, not critical, and certainly did not intend to accuse them of being "uppity" - exactly the accusation levied at conservatives who have written the same exact thing about the president and the missus.
But I wanted to revisit her piece, and highlight one line in particular. It's an excerpt from the Jodi Kantor book on the Obamas, and it resonates. And illuminates exactly what is going on:
...when the president met with Democratic members of Congress who had lost their seats in the midterms...he did not seem to comprehend the anxiety that had spawned the Tea Party, or feel any regret. Jim Oberstar, who lost his long-held Minnesota perch, recalled Obama’s saying, “In the end, this is for the greater good of the country"
And that, my friends, is what Obama thinks today when he sees the long unemployment lines, the spiking fuel prices, the ever-expanding amount of Americans that must go on the public dole. It is why he spiked the Keystone XL project, and why he insists on melting down the upper class, and the business class, of American society.
That this is for the greater good.
For it will eventually create the type of America that Barack Obama want to see: Government-dominated, with a third-world standard of living, and the equality of misery for all. An America run by a select few elites pulling the levers of power (including Obama himself, of course, and his wife, and a few of their friends), primarily working to redistribute it - and what little wealth remians - back to themselves.
Obama has a vision, all right...and that's why he's on the campaign trail, saying he needs to "finish the job". As long as we still have money, freedom, and the ability to choose our paths, his work is not yet done.
It gets clearer every day, doesn't it?
But I wanted to revisit her piece, and highlight one line in particular. It's an excerpt from the Jodi Kantor book on the Obamas, and it resonates. And illuminates exactly what is going on:
...when the president met with Democratic members of Congress who had lost their seats in the midterms...he did not seem to comprehend the anxiety that had spawned the Tea Party, or feel any regret. Jim Oberstar, who lost his long-held Minnesota perch, recalled Obama’s saying, “In the end, this is for the greater good of the country"
And that, my friends, is what Obama thinks today when he sees the long unemployment lines, the spiking fuel prices, the ever-expanding amount of Americans that must go on the public dole. It is why he spiked the Keystone XL project, and why he insists on melting down the upper class, and the business class, of American society.
That this is for the greater good.
For it will eventually create the type of America that Barack Obama want to see: Government-dominated, with a third-world standard of living, and the equality of misery for all. An America run by a select few elites pulling the levers of power (including Obama himself, of course, and his wife, and a few of their friends), primarily working to redistribute it - and what little wealth remians - back to themselves.
Obama has a vision, all right...and that's why he's on the campaign trail, saying he needs to "finish the job". As long as we still have money, freedom, and the ability to choose our paths, his work is not yet done.
It gets clearer every day, doesn't it?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Is Maureen Dowd Calling Barack and Michelle "Uppity"?
Better watch it, old girl. That's dancing on the racist side of the line. Oh - my mistake! You're a liberal Democrat! Therefore your criticism of the Obamas is constructive, not destructive. And/or racist.
MoDo will surely vote for Obama in 2012, but she warns them here against the perception that they are getting a bit too...big for their britches, we'll say. OK, uppity.
It doesn't matter, 'ol Dowdy will get behind the Obamas full-bore by the time election season gets into full swing, and will train her attacks strictly on his Republican opponent, but at the moment, she's supplying us with some good ammo:
Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.
We disappointed them.
As Michelle said to Oprah in an interview she did with the president last May: “I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready. And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves.”
They still believed, as their friend Valerie Jarrett once said, that Obama was “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”
...the Obamas, feeling misunderstood, burrowed into “self-imposed exile” — a “bubble within the bubble” — with their small circle of Chicago friends, who reinforced the idea that “the American public just did not appreciate their exceptional leader.”
She reports that Marty Nesbitt indignantly told his fellow Obama pal Eric Whitaker that the president “could get 70 or 80 percent of the vote anywhere but the U.S.”
The Obamas, especially Michelle, have radiated the sense that Americans do not appreciate what they sacrifice by living in a gilded cage....
Not uppity. Just classic self-involved, self-absorbed, closed-minded limousine liberals. Dowd's got it right, although she herself would never admit it...
MoDo will surely vote for Obama in 2012, but she warns them here against the perception that they are getting a bit too...big for their britches, we'll say. OK, uppity.
It doesn't matter, 'ol Dowdy will get behind the Obamas full-bore by the time election season gets into full swing, and will train her attacks strictly on his Republican opponent, but at the moment, she's supplying us with some good ammo:
Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.
We disappointed them.
As Michelle said to Oprah in an interview she did with the president last May: “I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready. And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves.”
They still believed, as their friend Valerie Jarrett once said, that Obama was “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”
...the Obamas, feeling misunderstood, burrowed into “self-imposed exile” — a “bubble within the bubble” — with their small circle of Chicago friends, who reinforced the idea that “the American public just did not appreciate their exceptional leader.”
She reports that Marty Nesbitt indignantly told his fellow Obama pal Eric Whitaker that the president “could get 70 or 80 percent of the vote anywhere but the U.S.”
The Obamas, especially Michelle, have radiated the sense that Americans do not appreciate what they sacrifice by living in a gilded cage....
Not uppity. Just classic self-involved, self-absorbed, closed-minded limousine liberals. Dowd's got it right, although she herself would never admit it...
Thomas Friedman: So Far Left, He Thinks The Center Is...Far Left...
This is a Friedman classic, in which he decides, for all Americans, exactly who should be president.
First, he sets forth his bona fides to be named the nation decider:
...voters are still casting about for a leader with a winning message. I can save both parties a lot of money. I am one of those voters, and I can tell you exactly for whom I want to vote — and I don’t think I’m alone.
Well, Thomas, you're right about that. You have about 33% of the American people with you. They are called "the Democratic base".
For check out what Friedman feels are the "winning platform" for 2012:
I want to vote for a candidate who advocates an immediate investment in infrastructure that will create jobs and upgrade America for the 21st century — ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit
So point one is: Another stimulus, even larger than the first failed trillion-dollar attempt.
Second, I want to vote for a candidate who is committed to reforming taxes, and cutting spending, in a fair way. The rich must pay more, but everyone has to pay something.
Point two: Soak the rich, but everyone must have skin in the game. Obama campaigned on this, then once in office limited it to "soak the rich". Fool me once, Tom...
Third, I want to vote for a candidate who has an inspirational vision, not just a plan to balance the budget.
Point Three: Friedman wants a demagogue. Or Obama redux. Same difference, except, as point two mentions, it involves fooling us twice.
Finally, I want to vote for a candidate who supports a minimum floor of public financing of presidential, Senate and House campaigns. Money in politics is out of control today...
It sure is, especially when Republicans are occasionally the beneficiary. Point Four: Overturn Citizens United!
Isn't this really the Obama agenda? Friedman admits it is:
Any candidate with that four-part agenda would win... I hope it is Obama, because I agree with him on so many other issues...
Obama won in 2008 because he advocated many of the positions Friedman outlines above. The problem is, he either abandoned them, used them as Trojan Horses to advance less popular parts of his radical agenda, or implemented the aforementioned policies, only to see them fail in spectacular fashion.
So Friedman wants Obama to re-run the 2008 campaign, convinced he can fool us all twice. Shame on you, Tommy boy, the American people are simply not as dumb as you are...
First, he sets forth his bona fides to be named the nation decider:
Well, Thomas, you're right about that. You have about 33% of the American people with you. They are called "the Democratic base".
For check out what Friedman feels are the "winning platform" for 2012:
I want to vote for a candidate who advocates an immediate investment in infrastructure that will create jobs and upgrade America for the 21st century — ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit
So point one is: Another stimulus, even larger than the first failed trillion-dollar attempt.
Second, I want to vote for a candidate who is committed to reforming taxes, and cutting spending, in a fair way. The rich must pay more, but everyone has to pay something.
Point two: Soak the rich, but everyone must have skin in the game. Obama campaigned on this, then once in office limited it to "soak the rich". Fool me once, Tom...
Third, I want to vote for a candidate who has an inspirational vision, not just a plan to balance the budget.
Point Three: Friedman wants a demagogue. Or Obama redux. Same difference, except, as point two mentions, it involves fooling us twice.
Finally, I want to vote for a candidate who supports a minimum floor of public financing of presidential, Senate and House campaigns. Money in politics is out of control today...
It sure is, especially when Republicans are occasionally the beneficiary. Point Four: Overturn Citizens United!
Isn't this really the Obama agenda? Friedman admits it is:
Any candidate with that four-part agenda would win... I hope it is Obama, because I agree with him on so many other issues...
Obama won in 2008 because he advocated many of the positions Friedman outlines above. The problem is, he either abandoned them, used them as Trojan Horses to advance less popular parts of his radical agenda, or implemented the aforementioned policies, only to see them fail in spectacular fashion.
So Friedman wants Obama to re-run the 2008 campaign, convinced he can fool us all twice. Shame on you, Tommy boy, the American people are simply not as dumb as you are...
About Mitt Romney's Record....
...no, I'm not talking about his governing record, or his record at Bain Capital. I'm talking more basic here - election wins versus election losses. Elections of all stripes...
The man who claims to be the "most electable" Republican is now 1-2 in the 2012 primaries, his one win pretty much coming before a very partisan "home crowd" in New Hampshire. Unfortunately, in the general election, you only play one game at home, two tops, and the remaining 48-49 are all played on the road, in front of indifferent, if not openly hostile, "fans", who want to see something first before they start cheering you on...
Add that 1-2 primary record to his lifetime won/loss stats, and you come up with a horrific...6-20 record in elections.
Think about that. 6-20. How bad do you have to be to lose like that? Are we going to allow "the party establishment", and the media, to coronate Romney as the Republican presidential candidate, when a player of his ilk would have been rejected by the 1962 New York Mets?
Any reader of this blog knows that I believe nominating Newt Gingrich would be a disaster. But our adversary, Barack Obama, is one mean, miserable, tough SOB, and both he and the media will take a "nice" Republican candidate, chew him up, and spit out his bones.
Here's the crux of the problem:
“Why is Mitt ashamed of having a lot of money?...how come Mitt can’t explain coherently why it’s OK to pay a 15 percent capital gains rate on money you’ve already paid the top 35 percent income tax rate on when you first earned it?
If he can't defend himself on this issue (where a smart, explanatory answer would open America's eyes to some of the warped reality of the tax code), then he will be unable to articulate any defense of conservative principles. Which will make him dead meat.
In which case, we might as well drag Rick Perry back into the race and nominate him. Sure, he can't get more than a few dozen coherent sentences out in a row, but at least he knows in his gut what is right and what is left, and will always act with conservative instincts, should he be elected president. And any man that would shoot a coyote dead for looking the wrong way at his dog is nasty enough to take on the reigning champ. And for all of his (many, many) faults, at least Newt can do nasty.
But Rick ain't coming back. Which puts me almost in the same position as Jennifer Rubin: On my knees, begging one of the guys who claimed they couldn't play at this level to gather up their cojones and step up to the plate...
I used worry that Mitt, after a few weeks in the Oval Office, would be fretting over negative New York Times editorials. I don't worry about that any more. Because he has about as much chance of getting elected as any 6-20 pitcher has of winning a big game against the other team's best and most ruthless players...
The man who claims to be the "most electable" Republican is now 1-2 in the 2012 primaries, his one win pretty much coming before a very partisan "home crowd" in New Hampshire. Unfortunately, in the general election, you only play one game at home, two tops, and the remaining 48-49 are all played on the road, in front of indifferent, if not openly hostile, "fans", who want to see something first before they start cheering you on...
Add that 1-2 primary record to his lifetime won/loss stats, and you come up with a horrific...6-20 record in elections.
Think about that. 6-20. How bad do you have to be to lose like that? Are we going to allow "the party establishment", and the media, to coronate Romney as the Republican presidential candidate, when a player of his ilk would have been rejected by the 1962 New York Mets?
Any reader of this blog knows that I believe nominating Newt Gingrich would be a disaster. But our adversary, Barack Obama, is one mean, miserable, tough SOB, and both he and the media will take a "nice" Republican candidate, chew him up, and spit out his bones.
Here's the crux of the problem:
“Why is Mitt ashamed of having a lot of money?...how come Mitt can’t explain coherently why it’s OK to pay a 15 percent capital gains rate on money you’ve already paid the top 35 percent income tax rate on when you first earned it?
If he can't defend himself on this issue (where a smart, explanatory answer would open America's eyes to some of the warped reality of the tax code), then he will be unable to articulate any defense of conservative principles. Which will make him dead meat.
In which case, we might as well drag Rick Perry back into the race and nominate him. Sure, he can't get more than a few dozen coherent sentences out in a row, but at least he knows in his gut what is right and what is left, and will always act with conservative instincts, should he be elected president. And any man that would shoot a coyote dead for looking the wrong way at his dog is nasty enough to take on the reigning champ. And for all of his (many, many) faults, at least Newt can do nasty.
But Rick ain't coming back. Which puts me almost in the same position as Jennifer Rubin: On my knees, begging one of the guys who claimed they couldn't play at this level to gather up their cojones and step up to the plate...
I used worry that Mitt, after a few weeks in the Oval Office, would be fretting over negative New York Times editorials. I don't worry about that any more. Because he has about as much chance of getting elected as any 6-20 pitcher has of winning a big game against the other team's best and most ruthless players...
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Obama's New York Marathon: How Many 1%-ers Can He Hit Up In One Night?
The answer, apparently, is plenty. The New York Post reports on Barack Obama's shameless dash for cash among the cream of the economic crop:
Obama raced through the city on Thursday, appearing at two events at Upper East Side restaurant Daniel, then at a dinner for 40 at Spike Lee’s townhouse, followed by a fundraiser at the Apollo.
The media highlighted Obama's Apollo stop by airing footage of him singing (look! he likes to do the same things you rubes do!), but failed to report on this little goody:
A witness tells us Rangel “passed out” at his table at the Harlem venue’s “A Night to Remember” event and, “His wife Alma was shaking him to wake him during the president’s speech.”
The 11th commandment of the media: Never speak ill of a fellow liberal...
Another stop had him meeting up with some billionaire Jews, who - living comfortably in their Manhattan penthouses - no doubt agree with the president that a little adversity is just what Israel needs. But prior to that little get-together, Obama engaged in his second favorite pastime (after golf) - hobnobbing with celebrities:
Before the discussion, there was a private reception where Obama met with Harvey Weinstein and Showtime’s Matt Blank. Sources tell us Obama “congratulated [Weinstein] for Meryl Streep’s best actress win for ‘The Iron Lady’ at the Golden Globes.” Obama also congratulated Blank for “Homeland,” his network’s counter-terrorism thriller, which took the Golden Globe for best drama series.
And check out the haul:
The event, attended by up to 100, raised about $500,000 for Obama’s reelection campaign.
Who says the 1% have an outsized advantaged in today's society? The President, you say? Well, he should know...
Final celebrity sighting:
At Lee’s townhouse, guests included Mariah Carey, decked out in jewels, Nick Cannon, “Fela!” producer Edward Tyler Nahem, MWW CEO Michael Kempner and Bobbi Brown.
Ah, the bejeweled royalty, playing host to the King, and awarding him with an "honorarium" of sorts, so that he remembers their gracious hospitality and support, and perhaps returns again to grace their halls once again.
You know, I don't envy these people, not a bit. I'm happy with what I have, as I have earned every meager bit of it. Nor do I deny a politician his right to fund-raise, and I do not profess shock that he goes where the money is, Willie Sutton-style.
But I am revolted by the brazen hypocrisy of a president who relishes the opportunity to rub elbows with, and take the money of, the people he labels "the 1% , then immediately turn around and publicly blame them for all that ails America.
If they are that horrible, Mr. President, stay away from them, and don't take their money. $500K from 100 people is vulgar enough, but taking it from folks you hate in order to destroy them is more morally ugly than tactically brilliant, isn't it? Are you simply not man enough to look them in their eyes and tell them why you loathe them so? Or do you so desperately need their money that you are willing to whore yourself - and your nation - out, in order to get your hands on some of it?
Or is it possible that this whole 1% rhetoric just a subterfuge, a lie, a way to bitterly divide the American people deeply enough so that you may squeak through with an election victory in 2012, and thus ensconce yourself and Michelle in the White House for four more years of living like feudal lords, while you denounce society's...feudal lords?
You can crawl all over Manhattan for cash as long as you want, Barack, and I won't fault you. Just be honest about who your supporters are, and square it with your re-election campaign. Because even the dimmest con-man knows that you can't keep running the same scam forever, the center simply will not hold, and sometimes you need to just collect your winnings and get out of town before the whole thing collapses on your head, and everything gained becomes lost...
Obama raced through the city on Thursday, appearing at two events at Upper East Side restaurant Daniel, then at a dinner for 40 at Spike Lee’s townhouse, followed by a fundraiser at the Apollo.
The media highlighted Obama's Apollo stop by airing footage of him singing (look! he likes to do the same things you rubes do!), but failed to report on this little goody:
A witness tells us Rangel “passed out” at his table at the Harlem venue’s “A Night to Remember” event and, “His wife Alma was shaking him to wake him during the president’s speech.”
The 11th commandment of the media: Never speak ill of a fellow liberal...
...nor mention the creepy, messianic merchandise being sold at the event...
Another stop had him meeting up with some billionaire Jews, who - living comfortably in their Manhattan penthouses - no doubt agree with the president that a little adversity is just what Israel needs. But prior to that little get-together, Obama engaged in his second favorite pastime (after golf) - hobnobbing with celebrities:
Before the discussion, there was a private reception where Obama met with Harvey Weinstein and Showtime’s Matt Blank. Sources tell us Obama “congratulated [Weinstein] for Meryl Streep’s best actress win for ‘The Iron Lady’ at the Golden Globes.” Obama also congratulated Blank for “Homeland,” his network’s counter-terrorism thriller, which took the Golden Globe for best drama series.
And check out the haul:
The event, attended by up to 100, raised about $500,000 for Obama’s reelection campaign.
Who says the 1% have an outsized advantaged in today's society? The President, you say? Well, he should know...
Final celebrity sighting:
At Lee’s townhouse, guests included Mariah Carey, decked out in jewels, Nick Cannon, “Fela!” producer Edward Tyler Nahem, MWW CEO Michael Kempner and Bobbi Brown.
Presenting the future cause of inner-city robberies, shootings, and tramplings....
Ah, the bejeweled royalty, playing host to the King, and awarding him with an "honorarium" of sorts, so that he remembers their gracious hospitality and support, and perhaps returns again to grace their halls once again.
You know, I don't envy these people, not a bit. I'm happy with what I have, as I have earned every meager bit of it. Nor do I deny a politician his right to fund-raise, and I do not profess shock that he goes where the money is, Willie Sutton-style.
But I am revolted by the brazen hypocrisy of a president who relishes the opportunity to rub elbows with, and take the money of, the people he labels "the 1% , then immediately turn around and publicly blame them for all that ails America.
If they are that horrible, Mr. President, stay away from them, and don't take their money. $500K from 100 people is vulgar enough, but taking it from folks you hate in order to destroy them is more morally ugly than tactically brilliant, isn't it? Are you simply not man enough to look them in their eyes and tell them why you loathe them so? Or do you so desperately need their money that you are willing to whore yourself - and your nation - out, in order to get your hands on some of it?
You can crawl all over Manhattan for cash as long as you want, Barack, and I won't fault you. Just be honest about who your supporters are, and square it with your re-election campaign. Because even the dimmest con-man knows that you can't keep running the same scam forever, the center simply will not hold, and sometimes you need to just collect your winnings and get out of town before the whole thing collapses on your head, and everything gained becomes lost...
Friday, January 20, 2012
"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close": Just Because Hollywood Never Understood 9/11 Doesn't Mean They Can't Exploit It For Profit
(spoiler alert...)
If you watch any TV at all, you've probably seen the commercials for this movie, that assure you that your betters have declared it to be The Movie of the Year, and you are surely less of a human if you skip it: "The reviews are in...Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the most touching, moving, heartbreaking,fulfilling movie of your lifetime..."
Every ad has a reference to the 9/11 attacks: "My dad was in the building" says an unseen but plaintive voice, with strategic shots of a revamped New York skyline. It sounds, at first listen, heartrending: Who is this boy, what emotional damage has he suffered, and how were the events of that horrific day instrumental in shaping his life?
Well, those would be valid questions to ask, if we had men and women of integrity and imagination producing movies. Instead, apparently, it is a mere plot device to make us sympathize with what is apparently an unsympathetic character. Andrea Peyser in the New York Post writes Extremely, incredibly exploitive:
It stars a weird 11-year-old overprivileged Manhattan boy, Oskar Schell (“Jeopardy” whiz kid Thomas Horn), who’s afflicted with a form of autism, likely Asperger’s syndrome. His condition is presented as nobly as the disability of the John Nash character in “A Beautiful Mind” — minus the brilliance and charm.
The movie concerns the boy’s quixotic attempt to hold on to his dad (Tom Hanks), who was murdered in the Trade Center. Yes, I wrote “murder.” But you won’t hear that word uttered by anyone in the film, because 9/11 is presented here as a kind of cosmic accident. Like lightning.
The message isn’t “love one another.” It’s “sh-t happens.”
Nothing is spared in the quest for emotional blackmail, cheap thrills and a naked ploy for an Oscar.
But the most outrageous falsehood promoted in the film is the thing it leaves out. The word “terrorist” is consciously never said. Nor is “murderers,” “butchers” or “Muslim extremists.”
In a climactic scene, Bullock tells her son that 9/11 “made no sense.” This is the biggest lie of all.
For 9/11 made perfect sense. It was an act of barbarity committed by people bent on destroying this city, this nation.
The movie ends in true Hollywood style. The boy, however improbably, finds the lock he seeks. But it has nothing to do with him or his father. Just another cosmic accident.
And how's this for an ad: "Critic Kyle Smith calls Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close the most irritating movie of the year!"
I walked out of the movie in more or less of a cold fury and I still think some critics and wets might fall for this shameless work...
The film amounts to a celebration thrown by author Jonathan Safran Foer for an unbelievably obnoxious little genius meant to be a sweetly heartbreaking charmer.
What’s additionally galling is that the kid really has nothing to do with 9/11, which barely interests the author except as a means for ginning up interest in and sympathy for his little hero. 9/11 is cannily deployed to bestow a completely unearned gravity on this twee creation.
There is no mention of the savages who ruthlessly and with perfect internal logic carried out this act of mass murder. The events of 9/11 are treated as just a random tragedy, like an earthquake or a lightning strike, instead of the result of meticulous evil planning by sworn foes of the United States of America and everything it stands for...
Is Hollywood so unaffected by the horror, so untouched, so filled with cynicism that they see nothing wrong in treating 9/11 as a mere sideshow plot device sure to garner sympathy from stupid flag-waving Middle Americans? Or is this Hollywood's way of intentionally minimizing the savagery of that day, changing the nature of the event to fit their fictional needs, and thus beginning a long struggle to reclaim the narrative for what really happened on 9/11 ? (spoiler: it was all George Bush's fault).
If there is any way to fight back, it is through the power of the movie ticket. Want to show your disgust? Don't buy one. In fact, stay away from the theater all together for a week or two (or four). After all, if there is any great truth in Hollywood, it is that the words of the profits hold a greater claim to the soul of the city than any truth or reason can ever hope to...
If you watch any TV at all, you've probably seen the commercials for this movie, that assure you that your betters have declared it to be The Movie of the Year, and you are surely less of a human if you skip it: "The reviews are in...Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the most touching, moving, heartbreaking,fulfilling movie of your lifetime..."
Every ad has a reference to the 9/11 attacks: "My dad was in the building" says an unseen but plaintive voice, with strategic shots of a revamped New York skyline. It sounds, at first listen, heartrending: Who is this boy, what emotional damage has he suffered, and how were the events of that horrific day instrumental in shaping his life?
Well, those would be valid questions to ask, if we had men and women of integrity and imagination producing movies. Instead, apparently, it is a mere plot device to make us sympathize with what is apparently an unsympathetic character. Andrea Peyser in the New York Post writes Extremely, incredibly exploitive:
It stars a weird 11-year-old overprivileged Manhattan boy, Oskar Schell (“Jeopardy” whiz kid Thomas Horn), who’s afflicted with a form of autism, likely Asperger’s syndrome. His condition is presented as nobly as the disability of the John Nash character in “A Beautiful Mind” — minus the brilliance and charm.
The movie concerns the boy’s quixotic attempt to hold on to his dad (Tom Hanks), who was murdered in the Trade Center. Yes, I wrote “murder.” But you won’t hear that word uttered by anyone in the film, because 9/11 is presented here as a kind of cosmic accident. Like lightning.
The message isn’t “love one another.” It’s “sh-t happens.”
Nothing is spared in the quest for emotional blackmail, cheap thrills and a naked ploy for an Oscar.
But the most outrageous falsehood promoted in the film is the thing it leaves out. The word “terrorist” is consciously never said. Nor is “murderers,” “butchers” or “Muslim extremists.”
In a climactic scene, Bullock tells her son that 9/11 “made no sense.” This is the biggest lie of all.
For 9/11 made perfect sense. It was an act of barbarity committed by people bent on destroying this city, this nation.
The movie ends in true Hollywood style. The boy, however improbably, finds the lock he seeks. But it has nothing to do with him or his father. Just another cosmic accident.
It's Oscar time...for Sandra....and Tom Hanks! Winter...for truth and...respect..." (sung to the tune of "Springtime for Hitler")
And how's this for an ad: "Critic Kyle Smith calls Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close the most irritating movie of the year!"
I walked out of the movie in more or less of a cold fury and I still think some critics and wets might fall for this shameless work...
The film amounts to a celebration thrown by author Jonathan Safran Foer for an unbelievably obnoxious little genius meant to be a sweetly heartbreaking charmer.
What’s additionally galling is that the kid really has nothing to do with 9/11, which barely interests the author except as a means for ginning up interest in and sympathy for his little hero. 9/11 is cannily deployed to bestow a completely unearned gravity on this twee creation.
There is no mention of the savages who ruthlessly and with perfect internal logic carried out this act of mass murder. The events of 9/11 are treated as just a random tragedy, like an earthquake or a lightning strike, instead of the result of meticulous evil planning by sworn foes of the United States of America and everything it stands for...
Is Hollywood so unaffected by the horror, so untouched, so filled with cynicism that they see nothing wrong in treating 9/11 as a mere sideshow plot device sure to garner sympathy from stupid flag-waving Middle Americans? Or is this Hollywood's way of intentionally minimizing the savagery of that day, changing the nature of the event to fit their fictional needs, and thus beginning a long struggle to reclaim the narrative for what really happened on 9/11 ? (spoiler: it was all George Bush's fault).
If there is any way to fight back, it is through the power of the movie ticket. Want to show your disgust? Don't buy one. In fact, stay away from the theater all together for a week or two (or four). After all, if there is any great truth in Hollywood, it is that the words of the profits hold a greater claim to the soul of the city than any truth or reason can ever hope to...
Mitt Romney Ain't Gonna Cut It....Will Mitch Daniels Join The Fray?
I've already stated my reasons - on numerous occasions - why Newt Gingrich couldn't, and shouldn't, get the Republican nod. Rick Santorum is another guy who never really governed anything, s more closely associated with social issues than economic/security issues, and excites no one besides the religious right. Ron Paul is a joke, Rick Perry wasn't but became one, and thankfully we're rid of the thoroughly obnoxious Jon Huntsman, who will likely run again - as a Democrat - in 2016.
Leaving us with...Mitt Romney. Oh my God. With it all on line, this is the best we got? A 5-18 pitcher in the political equivalent of the 7th game of the World Series?
Mitt is a technocrat, when we need a bulldozer. He's cautious when we need reckless abandon and bold new thinking. He's moderate when we need a toe-the-line conservative. Our system must be broken down and rebuilt as a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive one, not tinkered with to extract an extra 0.01% of savings and productivity.
But that's what you'll get with a technocrat. And with a moderate, who is so scared by the bullshit headlines he reads in the mainstream media that he says exactly what the Left wants to hear:
"And [President Obama]'s going to say the economy is getting better," Romney said. "Thank heavens it's getting better. It's getting better not because of him, it's in spite of him and what he's done."
hey Mitt - In what way, shape or form is the economy getting better? Because unemployment is down due to people quitting the workforce and going on the permanent f*cking dole, British-style? Jim Geraghty lays out the doom and gloom:
More than 13 million individuals are out of work—and millions more are stuck in part-time jobs—as the unemployment rate remains high at 8.5 percent. In 2011, wages didn’t keep up with inflation, prompting many consumers to dip into savings and, more recently, to step up borrowing. The housing market, which has weighed on the economic recovery, has much ground to regain. A Commerce Department report Thursday showed that home construction fell 4.1 percent in December, capping what one forecaster called one of the “worst years on record” for the home-building industry.
Oh, and there's this:
Gasoline prices have been climbing. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. rose to $3.45 this week, increasing for the fourth straight week.
Geraghty entitles his post Next Week, Obama Will Try Fiddling. But he won't be alone. He'll have Mitt Romney and the Republicans there with him, blowing on jugs, slapping their knees, and tapping their toes, while we all burn in the fire Obama ignited and the Republicans cannot see.
Is there an option? The Weekly Standard claims to have a draft of Mitch Daniel's State of the Union rebuttal, in which he will announce the possibility of (re)entering the fray:
The candidates for the Republican nomination are my friends. I like and admire them. But I must say I’ve increasingly come to share the doubt that any of them would be likely to win, or would be likely to govern successfully.
So I want to announce tonight that I am open to reconsidering my decision not to seek the presidency in 2012. I have not wanted to run, for family reasons among others. I have hoped someone else would prove up to the task. But my family and I have now decided that country must come first. I am considering joining the race.
If I run, I will be a reluctant candidate, in the sense that I did not plan on seeking this position. But let me assure you of this: if I do run, I will not run a reluctant campaign. I will run full out. I will compete in those primaries where I can still get on the ballot, I will go all out to win at the convention where the nomination will likely be decided, and I will take the fight to President Obama in the fall. If I run, I will run to win—because this country deserves leadership that will fundamentally remodel our government and restore our nation.
At this point, why not? It ain't fair to Iowa, but they can't even count ballots right. 47 states still need to have their say...
This could be a little joke, or a nudge, from Bill Kristol, author of the piece. But his point, like Casey Stengel's, is valid: Can't anyone here play this game? And if not, can we get some guys who can?
Leaving us with...Mitt Romney. Oh my God. With it all on line, this is the best we got? A 5-18 pitcher in the political equivalent of the 7th game of the World Series?
Mitt is a technocrat, when we need a bulldozer. He's cautious when we need reckless abandon and bold new thinking. He's moderate when we need a toe-the-line conservative. Our system must be broken down and rebuilt as a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive one, not tinkered with to extract an extra 0.01% of savings and productivity.
But that's what you'll get with a technocrat. And with a moderate, who is so scared by the bullshit headlines he reads in the mainstream media that he says exactly what the Left wants to hear:
"And [President Obama]'s going to say the economy is getting better," Romney said. "Thank heavens it's getting better. It's getting better not because of him, it's in spite of him and what he's done."
hey Mitt - In what way, shape or form is the economy getting better? Because unemployment is down due to people quitting the workforce and going on the permanent f*cking dole, British-style? Jim Geraghty lays out the doom and gloom:
More than 13 million individuals are out of work—and millions more are stuck in part-time jobs—as the unemployment rate remains high at 8.5 percent. In 2011, wages didn’t keep up with inflation, prompting many consumers to dip into savings and, more recently, to step up borrowing. The housing market, which has weighed on the economic recovery, has much ground to regain. A Commerce Department report Thursday showed that home construction fell 4.1 percent in December, capping what one forecaster called one of the “worst years on record” for the home-building industry.
Oh, and there's this:
Gasoline prices have been climbing. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. rose to $3.45 this week, increasing for the fourth straight week.
Geraghty entitles his post Next Week, Obama Will Try Fiddling. But he won't be alone. He'll have Mitt Romney and the Republicans there with him, blowing on jugs, slapping their knees, and tapping their toes, while we all burn in the fire Obama ignited and the Republicans cannot see.
Is there an option? The Weekly Standard claims to have a draft of Mitch Daniel's State of the Union rebuttal, in which he will announce the possibility of (re)entering the fray:
So I want to announce tonight that I am open to reconsidering my decision not to seek the presidency in 2012. I have not wanted to run, for family reasons among others. I have hoped someone else would prove up to the task. But my family and I have now decided that country must come first. I am considering joining the race.
If I run, I will be a reluctant candidate, in the sense that I did not plan on seeking this position. But let me assure you of this: if I do run, I will not run a reluctant campaign. I will run full out. I will compete in those primaries where I can still get on the ballot, I will go all out to win at the convention where the nomination will likely be decided, and I will take the fight to President Obama in the fall. If I run, I will run to win—because this country deserves leadership that will fundamentally remodel our government and restore our nation.
At this point, why not? It ain't fair to Iowa, but they can't even count ballots right. 47 states still need to have their say...
This could be a little joke, or a nudge, from Bill Kristol, author of the piece. But his point, like Casey Stengel's, is valid: Can't anyone here play this game? And if not, can we get some guys who can?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)