Ah, think of the all the days I owuld have had of empty blog posts were in not for the endless stupidity of New Jersey's Jon Corzine and the state's Democratic party...
And you thought yesterday's story about New Jersey taxpayers being forced to pony up dough to pay for the health care of the pets of welfare recipients was the bottom of the barrel? Well, get ready to keep digging, as today's act of liberal stupidity is a classic. It seems as if one financially prudent township learned a harsh lesson in...being financially prudent:
When Pemberton Borough School District officials proposed cutting the school tax rate, they were told by Corzine’s Department of Education that would be illegal.
The Philadelphia Inquirer said the $910,166 tax levy district officials proposed fell below the minimum required by Corzine’s new education funding law. Worse, the state said the town needs to raise an additional $93,744.
“This absolutely defies logic,” said Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego. “Only in Jon Corzine’s New Jersey is it illegal to cut taxes. Trenton is punishing this community for running a tight ship and cutting costs. It speaks volumes about what is wrong on State Street.” Added Assemblyman Scott Rudder, “It’s amazing, but sad how many different ways Governor Corzine can find to inflict pain on our hard-working families.”
I'm looking forward to Barack Obama campaigning with Jon Corzine, and having to defend that policy. May be a bit tricky, that. After all, laws against cutting taxes - while forcing townships to raise them - cannot all that easily be blamed on Corzine's gubernatorial opponent, who I understand is named George W. Bush.
Actually, if Obama is as smart as people keep telling me he is, he'll stay as far away from Jersey this campaign season as possible. The state is a harbinger of America's future under Obama policies; why invite the comparison? And why alighn yourself with a guy who, by all accounts, is a dead man walking?
วันศุกร์, มิถุนายน 12, 2552
Climate Change? China Chuckles...
While Barack Obama and the Democrats are about to enact a "cap-and-trade" energy tax that will drive us into poverty in order to "save the planet", China is taking the opposite direction, with pedal to the metal:
China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.
Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.
Qin Gang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said that China was still a developing country and its priority was to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and raise living standards. “Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in emissions, so it is not possible for China to accept a binding or compulsory target,” he said.
As opposed to the United States, where the current administraton's priority is to retard its economic growth (a project well underway), create addititional poverty, and to lower living standards by forcing us into darkness.
But...I thought the world looked up to us, and would follow our "moral" leadership on climate change if we led the way by draining the oxygen -whoops, I mean the electricity - out of our economy first!
Am I to understand that nations are actually following their own self-interests, instead of those of the UN and European enviorn"mental"ists? But...I thought that Barack would change all that by his mere presence on the world stage!
It's one thing to drink the Kool-Aid, if everyone's doing it. Bad enough. But to be the first one to drink it, to die in grotesque triumph thinking you are the leader of a great movement, only to have the rest of the world, having seen your twisted corpse, walk away, having seen the result and thought better of it - well, is there any more humiliating way to perish?
Ask the president, he' s stirring up the drink right now...
China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.
Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.
Qin Gang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said that China was still a developing country and its priority was to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and raise living standards. “Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in emissions, so it is not possible for China to accept a binding or compulsory target,” he said.
As opposed to the United States, where the current administraton's priority is to retard its economic growth (a project well underway), create addititional poverty, and to lower living standards by forcing us into darkness.
But...I thought the world looked up to us, and would follow our "moral" leadership on climate change if we led the way by draining the oxygen -whoops, I mean the electricity - out of our economy first!
Am I to understand that nations are actually following their own self-interests, instead of those of the UN and European enviorn"mental"ists? But...I thought that Barack would change all that by his mere presence on the world stage!
It's one thing to drink the Kool-Aid, if everyone's doing it. Bad enough. But to be the first one to drink it, to die in grotesque triumph thinking you are the leader of a great movement, only to have the rest of the world, having seen your twisted corpse, walk away, having seen the result and thought better of it - well, is there any more humiliating way to perish?
Ask the president, he' s stirring up the drink right now...
วันพฤหัสบดี, มิถุนายน 11, 2552
New Jersey Taxpayers Get "Neutered" by Democrats!
It's as if all the state legislature does all day is sit around and dream up ways ways to screw the middle class.
And yet, this may very well be a new low - welfare recipients can now bill the New Jersey taxpayer for neutering their pets:
To qualify for the subsidized operations, owners would have to show proof of benefits from state or federal public-assistance programs.
The operation can cost from 60 to several hundred dollars, depending on the type and gender of the animal. The extent of presurgery testing and care after the surgery also plays a role in the cost.
For each subsidized procedure, the owner pays $20 to the state's Animal Population Control Fund. Veterinarians' charges would be reimbursed by the state.
Funny. A lot of middle class New Jersey residents would love to have a pet of their own, but they hold back, fearing they can't afford the care required (and even if you can today, who knows if you will tomorrow, after Corzine and the Dems levy yet another new tax on your sorry ass?).
And yet, these very same taxpayers must pay for the care of other people's pets; people who can't afford them and probably shouldn't have them in the first place.
That's "fairness", Obama/Corzine style. And amazingly, people still wonder where the resentment of the welfare class comes from....
Hat Tip: WyBlog
And yet, this may very well be a new low - welfare recipients can now bill the New Jersey taxpayer for neutering their pets:
To qualify for the subsidized operations, owners would have to show proof of benefits from state or federal public-assistance programs.
The operation can cost from 60 to several hundred dollars, depending on the type and gender of the animal. The extent of presurgery testing and care after the surgery also plays a role in the cost.
For each subsidized procedure, the owner pays $20 to the state's Animal Population Control Fund. Veterinarians' charges would be reimbursed by the state.
Funny. A lot of middle class New Jersey residents would love to have a pet of their own, but they hold back, fearing they can't afford the care required (and even if you can today, who knows if you will tomorrow, after Corzine and the Dems levy yet another new tax on your sorry ass?).
And yet, these very same taxpayers must pay for the care of other people's pets; people who can't afford them and probably shouldn't have them in the first place.
That's "fairness", Obama/Corzine style. And amazingly, people still wonder where the resentment of the welfare class comes from....
Hat Tip: WyBlog
Barack Obama: Threatening Israel?
Well, given that Barack Obama spent twenty years worshipping at the feet of the Reverend of Hate (who, even while the Holocaust Museum was being shot up, couldn't resist blaming the Jews for his temporary split with Barack), and has compared the Holocaust to "Plaestinian suffering" while leaning exclusively on Israel to make sacrifices for an unworkable peace, it is understandable that Israelis are getting a bit sensitive. After all, when your big brother, who has defended you for your whole life, suddenly sides with the bullies, it's bound to shake anyone up a bit.
Especially if stories like this are true:
Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat."
No doubt it was meant as such; since January 20th the Obama administration has forced radical change upon American society by blackmail, coercion, and extralegal manuevers that would have had the media in an uproar if the president's middle name had a "W".
But bullies - be they Arab despots or American thugs with Leftist delusions of grandeur - are usually left helpless at an adversary who, regardless of size, refuses to back down or play along. The bully must then call his victim's bluff, and leave himself exposed to a possible defeat along with the ensuing loss of prestige that follows.
Israel has learned this lesson; and it is highly unlikely they will bow before a false god. They should challenge him, and force Obama to chose for all Americans: Do we side with the Islamist radicals, or with the Israelis?
In fact, America does stand with the Jews. Where Obama stands, no one is really willing to discuss (except Jeremiah Wright, whom the media studiously ignores). Here's hoping Israel forces our shadowy president to show his hand...
Especially if stories like this are true:
Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat."
No doubt it was meant as such; since January 20th the Obama administration has forced radical change upon American society by blackmail, coercion, and extralegal manuevers that would have had the media in an uproar if the president's middle name had a "W".
But bullies - be they Arab despots or American thugs with Leftist delusions of grandeur - are usually left helpless at an adversary who, regardless of size, refuses to back down or play along. The bully must then call his victim's bluff, and leave himself exposed to a possible defeat along with the ensuing loss of prestige that follows.
Israel has learned this lesson; and it is highly unlikely they will bow before a false god. They should challenge him, and force Obama to chose for all Americans: Do we side with the Islamist radicals, or with the Israelis?
In fact, America does stand with the Jews. Where Obama stands, no one is really willing to discuss (except Jeremiah Wright, whom the media studiously ignores). Here's hoping Israel forces our shadowy president to show his hand...
วันพุธ, มิถุนายน 10, 2552
Letterman: When Conservatives are Raped, it's Funny!
What it it with CBS and the Palins? Are they still intoxicated from the award Katie Couric recieved for "bringing down Sarah Palin"?
We posted yesterday on how the aforementioned Katie C. mocked Sarah Palin out of nowhere in her "Class(less) Day" speech. And now we have David Letterman, growing older and more miserable by the day, lashing out with rape innuendo against Sarah and her teenaged daughter:
While reading his top ten list Monday night, "Late Show" host David Letterman said Gov. Sarah Palin bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look.
Which he follows with a joke about 14 year old Willow Palin getting raped by a Alex Rodriguez....
But CBS still hasn't zipped up their pants yet; there's still more "fun" to be had at the expense of the Palin women! Legal Insurrection reports on CBS News' Political Hot Sheet blogger Charles Cooper using a rape analogy for Sarah:
...in the latest Chapter of Sarah Watch, a minor kerfuffle has erupted in the blogosphere over whether Palin's attendance at a Washington fundraiser held on behalf of Republican House and Senate candidates Monday night (with the First Dude in tow, naturally) was a big hit or a non-event....
What happened next may go down as a "Rashomon moment " in the annals of Palin coverage.
Rashomom, in case you are under 50, is a movie about...a horrendous rape.
What is going through the mind of CBS News/entertainment, as well as the liberals who find these attacks so pleasing?
Theory: These attacks - on the Palins, on Carrie Prejean - are actually predetermined rapes of their own; acts of political violence by America's left wing against females who dare defy them:
For some reason, when liberals see a Sarah Palin or a Carrie Prejean, the impulse immediately is for the lowest road possible: not to engage them, but to defile them. Not to prove them wrong, but to humiliate them in the vilest way possible. The immediate, insatiable urge of the Left is to wreck a female adversary so completely that no one can look at them the same way; so that anyone who sees their victim will see the marks on them and turn away in disgust or openly mock with rightous venom, and to hopefully so emotionally destroy their female "enemies" that their self-esteem is ravaged, and they slink away from public life, alone and ashamed.
There's a word for this type of assault. Rape.
Yes, the assault isn't physical, but the thought process behind the rapes of Palin and Prejean are identical to that of the common street rapist: To defile, degrade, humiliate, embarrass, and make themselves feel better in the process. A broken victim is what each hopes to obtain, and neither stops the assault until the surrender is complete.
And do you wonder why Prejean's(/Palin's) name stays in the news? Because the rape is ongoing; the victim has refused to break...
But when hasn't a Leftist state committed rape in the name of ideological purity? America is just late to the party, but our liberals are making up for lost time....
We posted yesterday on how the aforementioned Katie C. mocked Sarah Palin out of nowhere in her "Class(less) Day" speech. And now we have David Letterman, growing older and more miserable by the day, lashing out with rape innuendo against Sarah and her teenaged daughter:
While reading his top ten list Monday night, "Late Show" host David Letterman said Gov. Sarah Palin bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look.
Which he follows with a joke about 14 year old Willow Palin getting raped by a Alex Rodriguez....
But CBS still hasn't zipped up their pants yet; there's still more "fun" to be had at the expense of the Palin women! Legal Insurrection reports on CBS News' Political Hot Sheet blogger Charles Cooper using a rape analogy for Sarah:
...in the latest Chapter of Sarah Watch, a minor kerfuffle has erupted in the blogosphere over whether Palin's attendance at a Washington fundraiser held on behalf of Republican House and Senate candidates Monday night (with the First Dude in tow, naturally) was a big hit or a non-event....
What happened next may go down as a "Rashomon moment " in the annals of Palin coverage.
Rashomom, in case you are under 50, is a movie about...a horrendous rape.
What is going through the mind of CBS News/entertainment, as well as the liberals who find these attacks so pleasing?
Theory: These attacks - on the Palins, on Carrie Prejean - are actually predetermined rapes of their own; acts of political violence by America's left wing against females who dare defy them:
For some reason, when liberals see a Sarah Palin or a Carrie Prejean, the impulse immediately is for the lowest road possible: not to engage them, but to defile them. Not to prove them wrong, but to humiliate them in the vilest way possible. The immediate, insatiable urge of the Left is to wreck a female adversary so completely that no one can look at them the same way; so that anyone who sees their victim will see the marks on them and turn away in disgust or openly mock with rightous venom, and to hopefully so emotionally destroy their female "enemies" that their self-esteem is ravaged, and they slink away from public life, alone and ashamed.
There's a word for this type of assault. Rape.
Yes, the assault isn't physical, but the thought process behind the rapes of Palin and Prejean are identical to that of the common street rapist: To defile, degrade, humiliate, embarrass, and make themselves feel better in the process. A broken victim is what each hopes to obtain, and neither stops the assault until the surrender is complete.
And do you wonder why Prejean's(/Palin's) name stays in the news? Because the rape is ongoing; the victim has refused to break...
But when hasn't a Leftist state committed rape in the name of ideological purity? America is just late to the party, but our liberals are making up for lost time....
Obama's Naivete - Will It Prove Fatal?
Camile Paglia, liberal icon though she may be, seems to have a better understanding of his shortcomings than most of the media elite - or the Republican party, for that matter. Her commentary on Obama's Cairo speech:
It was also puzzling how a major statement about religion could seem so detached from religion. Obama projected himself as a floating spectator of other people's beliefs (as in his memory of hearing the call to prayer in Indonesia). Though he identified himself as a Christian, there was no sign that it goes very deep....
Obama's lack of fervor may be one reason he rejects and perhaps cannot comprehend the religious passions that perennially erupt around the globe and that will never be waved away by mere words. By approaching religion with the cool, neutral voice of the American professional elite, Obama was sometimes simplistic and even inadvertently condescending, as in his gift bag of educational perks like "scholarships," "internships," and "online learning" -- as if any of these could checkmate the seething, hallucinatory obsessions of jihadism.
But before he can sway hearts and minds, the president will need to show that he understands the ultimate divergence and perhaps incompatibility of major creeds. At the finale, his recitation of soft-focus quotes from the Koran, Talmud and Bible came perilously close to a fuzzy New Age syncretism of "all religions are the same" -- which they unequivocally are not. The problem facing international security is that people who believe something will always be stronger and more committed than people who believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent passivity of most Western intellectuals these days.
And it also explains why nations led by those Western intellectuals that Paglia understands so well are falling back before the ongoing march of radical Islam. These are the same intellectuals who seem to believe that behind every jihadi's face-scarf, there is a liberal looking for public school reform and national health care, and all he needs is to be understood and catered to just a little bit more...
Well, now we have one of those Western intellectuals running the United States. Any suprise, then, that in the aforementioned speech, Obama proclaimed no religion/government/nuclear weapon is better than the other?
Music to the radical's ear....
It was also puzzling how a major statement about religion could seem so detached from religion. Obama projected himself as a floating spectator of other people's beliefs (as in his memory of hearing the call to prayer in Indonesia). Though he identified himself as a Christian, there was no sign that it goes very deep....
Obama's lack of fervor may be one reason he rejects and perhaps cannot comprehend the religious passions that perennially erupt around the globe and that will never be waved away by mere words. By approaching religion with the cool, neutral voice of the American professional elite, Obama was sometimes simplistic and even inadvertently condescending, as in his gift bag of educational perks like "scholarships," "internships," and "online learning" -- as if any of these could checkmate the seething, hallucinatory obsessions of jihadism.
But before he can sway hearts and minds, the president will need to show that he understands the ultimate divergence and perhaps incompatibility of major creeds. At the finale, his recitation of soft-focus quotes from the Koran, Talmud and Bible came perilously close to a fuzzy New Age syncretism of "all religions are the same" -- which they unequivocally are not. The problem facing international security is that people who believe something will always be stronger and more committed than people who believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent passivity of most Western intellectuals these days.
And it also explains why nations led by those Western intellectuals that Paglia understands so well are falling back before the ongoing march of radical Islam. These are the same intellectuals who seem to believe that behind every jihadi's face-scarf, there is a liberal looking for public school reform and national health care, and all he needs is to be understood and catered to just a little bit more...
Well, now we have one of those Western intellectuals running the United States. Any suprise, then, that in the aforementioned speech, Obama proclaimed no religion/government/nuclear weapon is better than the other?
Music to the radical's ear....
วันอังคาร, มิถุนายน 09, 2552
Couric Goes To Princeton, Mocks Conservatives. And In A Related Story...
...well, we'll get to that in a minute.
So Katie - the unheralded intrepid reporter that I'm told she is - goes to Princeton to give the "Class Day" speech to the 2009 graduates. Alas, it appears as if "class" is a characteristic that Katie sorely lacks, as she took this unique opportunity and turned it into a platform to beat up on the right - some lowlights:
- "Coming here was a real no brainer! After all, I can see New Jersey from my house!" (Sarah Palin, anyone? )
-"There may be some opportunities in the Republican Party. They're still looking for an effective spokesman, and the only person they can find so far is Rush Limbaugh ... and he won't take the job because he doesn't want to give up his prescription plan."
-"And I understand Class of 54's Donald Rumsfeld has been charged with guarding the Big Cannon. I don't want to say he's taking his job too far, but he's reportedly been telling President Obama there are weapons of mass destruction hidden at Rutgers"
Well, one would think that a "newswomen" would be a bit more circumspect about airing their political preferences, but Katie C. must believe her views are pretty mainstream, as she published them immediately afterwards in the Huffington Post. And why not? After all, she recently recieved an achievement award from her fellow journalists for the destruction of Sarah Palin...
So about that related story? Well, don't say you didn't see this coming:
Evening News Ratings: Week of June 1...
...with an average of 5.18M Total Viewers, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had its lowest viewership yet. In fact, it's the lowest viewership since at least the 1991/92 season, as far back as Nielsen records track.
Perhaps insulting and alienating 50% of you potential customer base is not the best way to build a business? Maybe Katie should talk to Pinch Sulzberger at the New York Times and see how well it's worked for him....
Well, whether CBS eventually dumps Katie, or just deep-sixes the entire played-out national news format, I'm sure she'll land on her feet.
After all, look how well she positioned herself for a primetime slot on MSNBC...
So Katie - the unheralded intrepid reporter that I'm told she is - goes to Princeton to give the "Class Day" speech to the 2009 graduates. Alas, it appears as if "class" is a characteristic that Katie sorely lacks, as she took this unique opportunity and turned it into a platform to beat up on the right - some lowlights:
- "Coming here was a real no brainer! After all, I can see New Jersey from my house!" (Sarah Palin, anyone? )
-"There may be some opportunities in the Republican Party. They're still looking for an effective spokesman, and the only person they can find so far is Rush Limbaugh ... and he won't take the job because he doesn't want to give up his prescription plan."
-"And I understand Class of 54's Donald Rumsfeld has been charged with guarding the Big Cannon. I don't want to say he's taking his job too far, but he's reportedly been telling President Obama there are weapons of mass destruction hidden at Rutgers"
Well, one would think that a "newswomen" would be a bit more circumspect about airing their political preferences, but Katie C. must believe her views are pretty mainstream, as she published them immediately afterwards in the Huffington Post. And why not? After all, she recently recieved an achievement award from her fellow journalists for the destruction of Sarah Palin...
So about that related story? Well, don't say you didn't see this coming:
Evening News Ratings: Week of June 1...
...with an average of 5.18M Total Viewers, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had its lowest viewership yet. In fact, it's the lowest viewership since at least the 1991/92 season, as far back as Nielsen records track.
Perhaps insulting and alienating 50% of you potential customer base is not the best way to build a business? Maybe Katie should talk to Pinch Sulzberger at the New York Times and see how well it's worked for him....
Well, whether CBS eventually dumps Katie, or just deep-sixes the entire played-out national news format, I'm sure she'll land on her feet.
After all, look how well she positioned herself for a primetime slot on MSNBC...
Republican "Coup" in New York!
An unprecedented revolt sparked by two renegade Democrats yesterday ousted Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and returned Republicans to power in the state Senate, rocking the Capitol and dealing a severe blow to Gov. Paterson.
With two Dems switching sides, the Republicans have effectively taken control of the New York State Senate. To be fair, the two legislators (Democrats Pedro Espada Jr. of The Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens) who announced their intention to caucus with the Republicans are in it for their own self-interest, with Espada voted President of the Senate immediately following the announcement, to serve beneath new Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-LI).
Ex-Majority Leader Malcom Smith (more on him later), who ran a bitterly partisan Senate, apparently was hell-bent on bringing the gay marriage bill to a vote, which may have worried both Espada and Monserrate, as their black & Latino constituents are notoriously less tolorent of gay marriage than the white liberal elites (remember California!). The switch will surely eliminate the possibility of the "marriage issue" arising in the statehouse, allowing many members to avoid an uncomfortable vote.
So is liberalism the undoing of the liberal party? This, from Monserrate , is ironic:
"After today’s proceedings, I am proud to form a bi-partisan coalition that has elected the first Latino President pro Tempore of the New York State Senate, my colleague, the Honorable Pedro Espada Jr. We look forward to conferencing with fellow Democrats to ensure that real reforms become a reality in the state of New York.”
Hmmm....So it takes a Republican majority to give Latinos a chance, and to be trusted to rule in good bi-partisan faith? It takes a Republican majority to assure the meaning of marriage is not warped by contemporary trends? Well, that's interesting, and a lesson to many who may be watching...
All this, while the Left howls in furious, hypocritical indignation. Remember Jim Jeffords, who left the Republican party in 2001 in frustration with George Bush, and handed over control of the Senate to the Democrats? He was a hero, unlike today's protaganists. Former Majority Leader Smith speaks:
"This was an illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic majority."
Later, Smith said, "I would hope that the public is outraged. The Senate majority is still in Democratic hands and will be in Democratic hands."
Governor Paterson also said he still recognizes Smith as the Senate Majority Leader.
Maybe Bush should not have recognized the Democratic Senate in 2001-02. h, but that would have been wrong, wrong, wrong....
Meanwhile, the left side of the media is outraged, of course:
Coup plotters have always rationalized their devious plots as necessary to realize the will of the people.
The Republican-led junta that seized control of the state Senate yesterday was no exception.
The Republicans saw a chance to overturn last fall's election results, which put Democrats in the majority for the first time since 1965. And the GOP pulled it off - with all the stealth and precision of an "Ocean's Eleven" casino heist.
Where were you in 2001? Cheering Jim Jeffords, of course.
With two Dems switching sides, the Republicans have effectively taken control of the New York State Senate. To be fair, the two legislators (Democrats Pedro Espada Jr. of The Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens) who announced their intention to caucus with the Republicans are in it for their own self-interest, with Espada voted President of the Senate immediately following the announcement, to serve beneath new Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-LI).
Ex-Majority Leader Malcom Smith (more on him later), who ran a bitterly partisan Senate, apparently was hell-bent on bringing the gay marriage bill to a vote, which may have worried both Espada and Monserrate, as their black & Latino constituents are notoriously less tolorent of gay marriage than the white liberal elites (remember California!). The switch will surely eliminate the possibility of the "marriage issue" arising in the statehouse, allowing many members to avoid an uncomfortable vote.
So is liberalism the undoing of the liberal party? This, from Monserrate , is ironic:
"After today’s proceedings, I am proud to form a bi-partisan coalition that has elected the first Latino President pro Tempore of the New York State Senate, my colleague, the Honorable Pedro Espada Jr. We look forward to conferencing with fellow Democrats to ensure that real reforms become a reality in the state of New York.”
Hmmm....So it takes a Republican majority to give Latinos a chance, and to be trusted to rule in good bi-partisan faith? It takes a Republican majority to assure the meaning of marriage is not warped by contemporary trends? Well, that's interesting, and a lesson to many who may be watching...
All this, while the Left howls in furious, hypocritical indignation. Remember Jim Jeffords, who left the Republican party in 2001 in frustration with George Bush, and handed over control of the Senate to the Democrats? He was a hero, unlike today's protaganists. Former Majority Leader Smith speaks:
"This was an illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic majority."
Later, Smith said, "I would hope that the public is outraged. The Senate majority is still in Democratic hands and will be in Democratic hands."
Governor Paterson also said he still recognizes Smith as the Senate Majority Leader.
Maybe Bush should not have recognized the Democratic Senate in 2001-02. h, but that would have been wrong, wrong, wrong....
Meanwhile, the left side of the media is outraged, of course:
Coup plotters have always rationalized their devious plots as necessary to realize the will of the people.
The Republican-led junta that seized control of the state Senate yesterday was no exception.
The Republicans saw a chance to overturn last fall's election results, which put Democrats in the majority for the first time since 1965. And the GOP pulled it off - with all the stealth and precision of an "Ocean's Eleven" casino heist.
Where were you in 2001? Cheering Jim Jeffords, of course.
วันจันทร์, มิถุนายน 08, 2552
Laura Ling and Euna Lee - Hostages of North Korea
In a predetermined verdict that suprised no one, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, "reporters" for former Vice President Al Gore's San Francisco-based Current TV, have been sentenced to twelve years in a North Korean concentration camp. Their crime?
Ling, 32, and Lee, 36, were arrested March 17 along the China-North Korean border after top officials in Pyongyang said they had encroached on North Korean soil while reporting a story on human trafficking by Kim Jong Il's regime.
Well, it's certainly possible and perhaps likely that Ling and Lee found themselves on the wrong side of the border; neither one of them are experienced in the art of reporting in hostile territory, and neophyte enthusiasm is out of place on the fringes of the world's most hostile regime.
So now they find themselves prisoners of Kim Jung-Il, who will hold them until he gets something that he wants; likely, a guarentee of non-interference in their nuclear development and proliferation (remember: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."), as well as a wad of cash. And Kim Jung will hold them for a long time, as international pressure is not a thing that the NK regime is reactive to.
So how will Obama react? As the stories build about the reporter's plight, and the exposes of the horrors of the North's labor camps come to light, will he bow to pressure from the left side (the media, Hollywood - after all, Ling is a relation of CNN's LAura Ling) and give the Norks another win, while rewarding the concept of hostage-taking as a diplomatic pressure tool? Or will he stand firm against the buttons and bumper stickers that will demand that he "Free Ling and Lee!" ?
Finally, what is Al Gore's role in all of this? Current TV is his vanity project, an unsuccessful media company trying to hoist itself on the buzzword of "user-generated content" to push its left-wing agenda. Amateur in design and presentation, it is watched by virtually no one and has zero influence (thankfully) over people or policy (despite a gratuitous Emmy for "Best Interactive Television Service", whatever the hell that means).
It is Gore's reporters that have been taken hostage here, where is the voice of the ex-Vice President? (Current TV's website has no mention at this time of the sentence, they are crowing about "contractors being questioned for a murder" in Iraq). Has he been told to silence himself, and let the administration handde this? Or is he shamed by sending out two inexperienced reporters into a situation where they have become pawns in a game of nuclear chicken?
More likely he's befuddled. And poor Ms. Ling and Lee now face hell on earth, literally. And Obama can either bail them out at a tremendous cost to the safety of the free world, or face the heat for their continued imprisonment.
The only winner here is North Korea, for no one appears inclined to lift a finger against them. And that, my friends, is very bad news indeed.
Ling, 32, and Lee, 36, were arrested March 17 along the China-North Korean border after top officials in Pyongyang said they had encroached on North Korean soil while reporting a story on human trafficking by Kim Jong Il's regime.
Well, it's certainly possible and perhaps likely that Ling and Lee found themselves on the wrong side of the border; neither one of them are experienced in the art of reporting in hostile territory, and neophyte enthusiasm is out of place on the fringes of the world's most hostile regime.
So now they find themselves prisoners of Kim Jung-Il, who will hold them until he gets something that he wants; likely, a guarentee of non-interference in their nuclear development and proliferation (remember: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."), as well as a wad of cash. And Kim Jung will hold them for a long time, as international pressure is not a thing that the NK regime is reactive to.
So how will Obama react? As the stories build about the reporter's plight, and the exposes of the horrors of the North's labor camps come to light, will he bow to pressure from the left side (the media, Hollywood - after all, Ling is a relation of CNN's LAura Ling) and give the Norks another win, while rewarding the concept of hostage-taking as a diplomatic pressure tool? Or will he stand firm against the buttons and bumper stickers that will demand that he "Free Ling and Lee!" ?
Finally, what is Al Gore's role in all of this? Current TV is his vanity project, an unsuccessful media company trying to hoist itself on the buzzword of "user-generated content" to push its left-wing agenda. Amateur in design and presentation, it is watched by virtually no one and has zero influence (thankfully) over people or policy (despite a gratuitous Emmy for "Best Interactive Television Service", whatever the hell that means).
It is Gore's reporters that have been taken hostage here, where is the voice of the ex-Vice President? (Current TV's website has no mention at this time of the sentence, they are crowing about "contractors being questioned for a murder" in Iraq). Has he been told to silence himself, and let the administration handde this? Or is he shamed by sending out two inexperienced reporters into a situation where they have become pawns in a game of nuclear chicken?
More likely he's befuddled. And poor Ms. Ling and Lee now face hell on earth, literally. And Obama can either bail them out at a tremendous cost to the safety of the free world, or face the heat for their continued imprisonment.
The only winner here is North Korea, for no one appears inclined to lift a finger against them. And that, my friends, is very bad news indeed.
วันเสาร์, มิถุนายน 06, 2552
Newsweek: Obama is God!
I sh*t thee not. But this confession is not really news to anyone, is it?
April 28th, from Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly:
Meacham denied any liberal agenda in the magazine: "No, I don't -- We're not a partisan magazine. We're just not." A skeptical O’Reilly replied: "Come on." Meacham defended his assertion: "We're not. We try to be provocative. We try to break news. We try to contribute to the conversation. You can decide whether we do or not."
Ah, that one's easy, Jon. First, there was this. Now, from Meacham's right-hand man, we get this:
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Hmmm...I'll remind our gentle reader that others have been referred to as "gods", and perhaps Obama does deserve their company:
The Simpsons, Season One: "Call of the Simpsons", in which Homer buys a RV and takes the family camping:
SALESMAN: Well, first of all, I want you to know I like your face.
HOMER: You do?
SALESMAN: I really do. I'm not saying that. I mean it. You got color in there. You're not Roman, are you?
HOMER: No.
SALESMAN: Look like a god, sort of. Why don't we step into the credit office, Zeus? (to rest of family). Hey, your dad's gonna just go in here, work it out, and you'll drive home in this!
Of course, Homer is no Zeus, and he cannot afford the luxury RV he is pining for. And Obama is no god, and he cannot afford the liberal welfare state he is pining for.
If you've ever seen the episode, you'd likely agree that the "Cowboy Bob" (of "Bob's RV Round-Up") is a more convincing salesman than the hack from Newsweek...
April 28th, from Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly:
Meacham denied any liberal agenda in the magazine: "No, I don't -- We're not a partisan magazine. We're just not." A skeptical O’Reilly replied: "Come on." Meacham defended his assertion: "We're not. We try to be provocative. We try to break news. We try to contribute to the conversation. You can decide whether we do or not."
Ah, that one's easy, Jon. First, there was this. Now, from Meacham's right-hand man, we get this:
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Hmmm...I'll remind our gentle reader that others have been referred to as "gods", and perhaps Obama does deserve their company:
The Simpsons, Season One: "Call of the Simpsons", in which Homer buys a RV and takes the family camping:
SALESMAN: Well, first of all, I want you to know I like your face.HOMER: You do?
SALESMAN: I really do. I'm not saying that. I mean it. You got color in there. You're not Roman, are you?
HOMER: No.
SALESMAN: Look like a god, sort of. Why don't we step into the credit office, Zeus? (to rest of family). Hey, your dad's gonna just go in here, work it out, and you'll drive home in this!
Of course, Homer is no Zeus, and he cannot afford the luxury RV he is pining for. And Obama is no god, and he cannot afford the liberal welfare state he is pining for.
If you've ever seen the episode, you'd likely agree that the "Cowboy Bob" (of "Bob's RV Round-Up") is a more convincing salesman than the hack from Newsweek...
Sonia Sotomayor's "Stump Speech" and Partisan Cheerleading
It was only a few days ago when Barack Obama tried to cover for Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark by saying "she would use different words today if she could revisit her 2001 comment".
Obama uses "comment" in the singular, as if this was a one-time occurance. Turns out this was a remark she repeated over and over:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.
Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.
The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.
Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words.
And, after all, "words matter", right?
The fact that Sotomayor is a racialist is at this point beyond dispute. Even more concerning, however, may have been her cheerleading for Barack Obama. Via The Corner, we get a number of remarks from Judge Sotomayor that would concern any honest man who dares questions the laws of The One at the Supreme Court:
The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”
“The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America’s first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals.”
“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences.”
"What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence.”
“It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed.”
The last is most disturbing. She takes one of Obama's controversial (if under-reported) policies of "mandatory" voluntary service and deems it one we are "obligated to heed". Should a case come to the court where one chooses to fight the constitutionality of Obama's "service", can we trust she would recluse herself? Or would we just have to have faith that our "wise Latina", who knows better than Whitey on all things great and small, will make a fair and unbiased choice?
Me? I prefer my justices blindfolded, not checking skin tones and waving campaign banners...
UPDATE: More here: "Sotomayor's speech is in many ways a distillation of the most extreme views of the liberal civil rights establishment.... "
Obama uses "comment" in the singular, as if this was a one-time occurance. Turns out this was a remark she repeated over and over:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.
Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.
The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.
Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words.
And, after all, "words matter", right?
The fact that Sotomayor is a racialist is at this point beyond dispute. Even more concerning, however, may have been her cheerleading for Barack Obama. Via The Corner, we get a number of remarks from Judge Sotomayor that would concern any honest man who dares questions the laws of The One at the Supreme Court:
The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”
“The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America’s first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals.”
“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences.”
"What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence.”
“It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed.”
The last is most disturbing. She takes one of Obama's controversial (if under-reported) policies of "mandatory" voluntary service and deems it one we are "obligated to heed". Should a case come to the court where one chooses to fight the constitutionality of Obama's "service", can we trust she would recluse herself? Or would we just have to have faith that our "wise Latina", who knows better than Whitey on all things great and small, will make a fair and unbiased choice?
Me? I prefer my justices blindfolded, not checking skin tones and waving campaign banners...
UPDATE: More here: "Sotomayor's speech is in many ways a distillation of the most extreme views of the liberal civil rights establishment.... "
วันศุกร์, มิถุนายน 05, 2552
Think 9.4% Unemployment is Bad?
Well, it's actually worse than you think.
Take this spin from the AP:
....the pace of layoffs eased, with employers cutting 345,000 jobs, the fewest since September.
The much smaller-than-expected reduction in payroll jobs, reported by the Labor Department on Friday, adds to evidence that the recession is loosening its hold on the country. It marked the fourth straight month that the pace of layoffs slowed.
Faulty logic. If you have a company with 20 employees, and you cut five one month, three the next, and two the following, you have "slowed the pace of layoffs". You have also cut 50% of you staff, which is probably as much as you can while still remaining in business. Thus, the next month, you will be hailed for "no job loss", despite having 50% less employees than four months ago.
And will you ever rehire back to your full staff of 20? And if not, where will those folks go?
That's the problem, folks. A lot more than 9.4% of the public is unemployed right now, and only a slightly sharper look at the numbers will tell you so:
The 9.4 percent May unemployment rate is based on 14.5 million Americans out of work. But that number doesn't include discouraged workers, people who gave up looking for work after four weeks. Add those 792,000 people, and the unemployment rate is 9.8 percent.
-The official rate also doesn't include "marginally attached workers," or people who have looked for work in the past year but stopped searching in the past month because of barriers to employment such as child care, poor health or lack of transportation. Add those 1.4 million people, and the unemployment rate would be 10.6 percent.
-The official rate also doesn't include "involuntary part-time workers," or the 2.2 million people like Noel who took a part-time job because that's all they could get, plus those whose work hours dropped below the full-time level. Once those 9.1 million workers are added to the unemployment mix, the rate would be 16.4 percent.
16.4%, and rising, as job losses are expected to continue until at least mid-2010. And remember, Obama promised us his vaunted Stimulus Plan would prevent this, simultaneously warning us that without it, unemploment could hit 8.9%.
So the 9.4%/16.4% unemployment is already above Obama's pay grade and beyond anything he promised/imagined would happen. What's his next move?
Why, to nationalize health care, to impose a massive cap-and-trade energy tax, give unions complete control of the businesses they work for, and to close down thousands of auto dealerships (adding 10,000+ to the unemployment lines. Well, they're non-union, so what do they count?), especially those in red states.
What happens when unemployment reaches the banana-republic level of 20% or higher? Even then, does Obama rethink his policies amongst the rubble of what was once the engine of the world?
No. He'd destroy us all first, rather than abandon his radical ideology...
Take this spin from the AP:
....the pace of layoffs eased, with employers cutting 345,000 jobs, the fewest since September.
The much smaller-than-expected reduction in payroll jobs, reported by the Labor Department on Friday, adds to evidence that the recession is loosening its hold on the country. It marked the fourth straight month that the pace of layoffs slowed.
Faulty logic. If you have a company with 20 employees, and you cut five one month, three the next, and two the following, you have "slowed the pace of layoffs". You have also cut 50% of you staff, which is probably as much as you can while still remaining in business. Thus, the next month, you will be hailed for "no job loss", despite having 50% less employees than four months ago.
And will you ever rehire back to your full staff of 20? And if not, where will those folks go?
That's the problem, folks. A lot more than 9.4% of the public is unemployed right now, and only a slightly sharper look at the numbers will tell you so:
The 9.4 percent May unemployment rate is based on 14.5 million Americans out of work. But that number doesn't include discouraged workers, people who gave up looking for work after four weeks. Add those 792,000 people, and the unemployment rate is 9.8 percent.
-The official rate also doesn't include "marginally attached workers," or people who have looked for work in the past year but stopped searching in the past month because of barriers to employment such as child care, poor health or lack of transportation. Add those 1.4 million people, and the unemployment rate would be 10.6 percent.
-The official rate also doesn't include "involuntary part-time workers," or the 2.2 million people like Noel who took a part-time job because that's all they could get, plus those whose work hours dropped below the full-time level. Once those 9.1 million workers are added to the unemployment mix, the rate would be 16.4 percent.
16.4%, and rising, as job losses are expected to continue until at least mid-2010. And remember, Obama promised us his vaunted Stimulus Plan would prevent this, simultaneously warning us that without it, unemploment could hit 8.9%.
So the 9.4%/16.4% unemployment is already above Obama's pay grade and beyond anything he promised/imagined would happen. What's his next move?
Why, to nationalize health care, to impose a massive cap-and-trade energy tax, give unions complete control of the businesses they work for, and to close down thousands of auto dealerships (adding 10,000+ to the unemployment lines. Well, they're non-union, so what do they count?), especially those in red states.
What happens when unemployment reaches the banana-republic level of 20% or higher? Even then, does Obama rethink his policies amongst the rubble of what was once the engine of the world?
No. He'd destroy us all first, rather than abandon his radical ideology...
วันพฤหัสบดี, มิถุนายน 04, 2552
Obama's Cairo Speech: The Money Quotes, Translated
Here's a few of Obama's key lines from his Cairo speech, which followed his kneepad tour of the Middle East (except where it involves Israel, of course, where Obama showed off his well-honed left-wing Jew-bashing skills). What he said, and what it really means:
" No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."
Translates to: " We are perfectly comfortable allowing the mad mullahs of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon"
Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.”
Translates to: "We are comfortable with a terrorist entity next to a democracy. They are equal"
Translates to: "Why won't you damed Jews just roll over and die already?"
"9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals."
Translates to: "We are no better than the poor misunderstood souls who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Heck, we're actually worse! We should have known better!"
"...any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."
Translates as: "The United States is no better than - and morally equal to - Gaza, Somalia, Cuba, and Nazi Germany"
"... let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together."
Translates to: "Let me warp the truth so that I may leave to your rapturous applause"
And finally: "I am a Christian..."
Translates to: "I am a Muslim..."
Just offering this service, because, you know, his audience all around the world really only heard the translation. I'm providing it to you, because our media will not...
" No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons."
Translates to: " We are perfectly comfortable allowing the mad mullahs of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon"
Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.”
Translates to: "We are comfortable with a terrorist entity next to a democracy. They are equal"
Translates to: "Kudos for keepin' the bitches in their place!"
"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop"Translates to: "Why won't you damed Jews just roll over and die already?"
"9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals."
Translates to: "We are no better than the poor misunderstood souls who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Heck, we're actually worse! We should have known better!"
"...any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."
Translates as: "The United States is no better than - and morally equal to - Gaza, Somalia, Cuba, and Nazi Germany"
"... let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together."
Translates to: "Let me warp the truth so that I may leave to your rapturous applause"
And finally: "I am a Christian..."
Translates to: "I am a Muslim..."
Just offering this service, because, you know, his audience all around the world really only heard the translation. I'm providing it to you, because our media will not...
Obama Shills For NBC
And why not, really? After all, their news department and slutty cable sister (MSNBC) has been whoring themselves out for him for years already.
But this is still another barrier crossed. I'll let the New York Times explain:
Mr. Obama... went even one step further for the network – participating in a spoof interview segment for “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien” during his formal question-and-answer session with the NBC News anchor Brian Williams at the White House.
In the segment, shown on “Tonight” late Tuesday, Mr. Williams asked Mr. Obama whether he almost canceled his overseas trip this week “to stay and watch” Mr. O’Brien’s “first week as host of ‘The Tonight Show.’’’
Mr. Obama was fully game and, referring to Mr. O’Brien’s succession this week of the former “Tonight” host Jay Leno, joked, “This is something we discussed several times in the Oval Office, how to manage this transition between Leno and Conan. And I think he’s up to the task. But I just want him to know that there is not going to any bailout coming out from Washington if he screws it up.”
Somehow I doubt that. The way Obama subverted the law to make sure his union buddies got the best of the GM/Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings is the same way he'll make sure an "impartial" media continues to function as his PR arm, no matter what the cost to taxpayers. And who knew blowing hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money was so damn funny, anyway?
The Times asks the right questions:
There was a time when such cross promotion between a network news division and its corporate entertainment sibling – during a presidential interview, no less — would have caused rebellion in the newsroom. It will be interesting to see what reaction, if any, there will be to this bit of stunt programming at NBC News.
It will also be interesting to see if there is any political blowback, especially from those who believe that some in the news media are too chummy with the president and his administration.
With Brian Williams bowing before Barack Obama and MSNBC serving as his equivalent of Baghdad Bob, it is unlikely there will be any stress in the halls of NBC. And the self-serving media - loathe to anger their Patron Saint of Bailouts - will laugh off the obvious impropriety as nothing more than"more wing-nuttery" from the right.
And the Republic will suffer yet another blow.
But this is still another barrier crossed. I'll let the New York Times explain:
Mr. Obama... went even one step further for the network – participating in a spoof interview segment for “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien” during his formal question-and-answer session with the NBC News anchor Brian Williams at the White House.
In the segment, shown on “Tonight” late Tuesday, Mr. Williams asked Mr. Obama whether he almost canceled his overseas trip this week “to stay and watch” Mr. O’Brien’s “first week as host of ‘The Tonight Show.’’’
Mr. Obama was fully game and, referring to Mr. O’Brien’s succession this week of the former “Tonight” host Jay Leno, joked, “This is something we discussed several times in the Oval Office, how to manage this transition between Leno and Conan. And I think he’s up to the task. But I just want him to know that there is not going to any bailout coming out from Washington if he screws it up.”
Somehow I doubt that. The way Obama subverted the law to make sure his union buddies got the best of the GM/Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings is the same way he'll make sure an "impartial" media continues to function as his PR arm, no matter what the cost to taxpayers. And who knew blowing hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money was so damn funny, anyway?
The Times asks the right questions:
There was a time when such cross promotion between a network news division and its corporate entertainment sibling – during a presidential interview, no less — would have caused rebellion in the newsroom. It will be interesting to see what reaction, if any, there will be to this bit of stunt programming at NBC News.
It will also be interesting to see if there is any political blowback, especially from those who believe that some in the news media are too chummy with the president and his administration.
With Brian Williams bowing before Barack Obama and MSNBC serving as his equivalent of Baghdad Bob, it is unlikely there will be any stress in the halls of NBC. And the self-serving media - loathe to anger their Patron Saint of Bailouts - will laugh off the obvious impropriety as nothing more than"more wing-nuttery" from the right.
And the Republic will suffer yet another blow.
วันพุธ, มิถุนายน 03, 2552
Obama: Disarming Israel, Arming the Muslims
If you can't see where Obama is going with this, you're walking around with your eyes closed:
The administration appears to have rejected, for example, Israel's request for AH-64D Apache Longbow Attack Helicopters which the Israeli military uses for counterterrorism activity. Because that Israeli public objects to being the target of several thousand rockets launched from Gaza, the Israeli military will have to fight these terrorists, many of whom are supplied by tunnels from Egypt.
The Israeli Ministry of Defense prefers to use helicopters to negate the need for groundtroops; this lowers both Israeli troop and Palestinian civilian casualties. Since the Israeli state is not going to do nothing and allow its civilians to be fodder for Palestinian rockets, Obama is presaging a bloodier conflict.
Oh, by the way, the Obama administration has just notified Congress that it plans to sell AH-64D Apache Longbow Attack Helicopters to Egypt.....
So - Obama has refused to sell weapons to a democracy under seige, and instead is providing weapons to a state with no enemies, save their self-declared hatred of Israel and its accursed Jews.
Is Obama setting up a weakened Israel? Is he hoping a "Gaza Masacre" - caused by Israel's need to defend itself and its lack of precision weaponary - will turn the world further against Israel, and allow him to impose a radical peace that favors Muslim fundimentalists?
Obama - a friend of Israel? C'mon, he's the self-proclaimed president of one of the "world's largest Muslim nations" - who's side do you think he's on?
The administration appears to have rejected, for example, Israel's request for AH-64D Apache Longbow Attack Helicopters which the Israeli military uses for counterterrorism activity. Because that Israeli public objects to being the target of several thousand rockets launched from Gaza, the Israeli military will have to fight these terrorists, many of whom are supplied by tunnels from Egypt.
The Israeli Ministry of Defense prefers to use helicopters to negate the need for groundtroops; this lowers both Israeli troop and Palestinian civilian casualties. Since the Israeli state is not going to do nothing and allow its civilians to be fodder for Palestinian rockets, Obama is presaging a bloodier conflict.
Oh, by the way, the Obama administration has just notified Congress that it plans to sell AH-64D Apache Longbow Attack Helicopters to Egypt.....
So - Obama has refused to sell weapons to a democracy under seige, and instead is providing weapons to a state with no enemies, save their self-declared hatred of Israel and its accursed Jews.
Is Obama setting up a weakened Israel? Is he hoping a "Gaza Masacre" - caused by Israel's need to defend itself and its lack of precision weaponary - will turn the world further against Israel, and allow him to impose a radical peace that favors Muslim fundimentalists?
Obama - a friend of Israel? C'mon, he's the self-proclaimed president of one of the "world's largest Muslim nations" - who's side do you think he's on?
Primaries Settled; Jon Corzine to Run Against...George Bush?
Congratulations to former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who won a hard-fought primary battle against the more conservative Steve Lonegan in the Republican primary. Lonegan drew over 40% of the primary votes, and while most of these will "come home" in the general election, Christie cannot drift to close to the center without risking his base.
And he will need 100% of his base to win this, what with Corzine prepping to top the $40 million he spent to get elected in the first place. And Corzine-lite won't do it, either: Christie must offer a clear alternative to the destructive Democratic dominance of Jersey government, or it will be just another missed opportunity for state Republicans.
And speaking of Corzine -who has been sh*tting bricks at the sight of Christie for months now - he's come up with an interesting campaign strategy against the man who leads him in every poll: He's decided his opponent is not Chris Christie, but ex-president George Bush!
Well, I guess when you're a billionaire you think that you can bend reality to your will, and perhaps you can. Or perhaps you just sound a bit out of touch when, with gaffe-master Joe Biden at your side, you make speeches like this:
"My opponents won't tell you who they're going to cut — they'll have to check with George W. Bush on that! ...I won't entrust our state's future to the same people who gave us George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, skyrocketing unemployment, a housing crisis and the war in Iraq! New Jersey cannot afford to get Bushwhacked again!"
Incidentally, Jon Corzine's current approval rating is 36 percent, which is lower than former President Bush's approval rating of 41 percent (and rising). Add in the fact that while registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in New Jersey, unaffiliated voters make up the biggest segment of residents, and you can expect one hum-dinger of a campaign.
Stay tuned...
And he will need 100% of his base to win this, what with Corzine prepping to top the $40 million he spent to get elected in the first place. And Corzine-lite won't do it, either: Christie must offer a clear alternative to the destructive Democratic dominance of Jersey government, or it will be just another missed opportunity for state Republicans.
And speaking of Corzine -who has been sh*tting bricks at the sight of Christie for months now - he's come up with an interesting campaign strategy against the man who leads him in every poll: He's decided his opponent is not Chris Christie, but ex-president George Bush!
Well, I guess when you're a billionaire you think that you can bend reality to your will, and perhaps you can. Or perhaps you just sound a bit out of touch when, with gaffe-master Joe Biden at your side, you make speeches like this:
"My opponents won't tell you who they're going to cut — they'll have to check with George W. Bush on that! ...I won't entrust our state's future to the same people who gave us George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, skyrocketing unemployment, a housing crisis and the war in Iraq! New Jersey cannot afford to get Bushwhacked again!"
Incidentally, Jon Corzine's current approval rating is 36 percent, which is lower than former President Bush's approval rating of 41 percent (and rising). Add in the fact that while registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in New Jersey, unaffiliated voters make up the biggest segment of residents, and you can expect one hum-dinger of a campaign.
Stay tuned...
วันอังคาร, มิถุนายน 02, 2552
Auto Bailouts: Welfare, To The Nth Power
Let's drill down the numbers a bit on the government's bailout of the United States automotive industry...
GM has recieved $19.4 billion in loans from the American taxpayer. They currently employ 91,000 people, coming out to $542,000 per job "saved". This, for what liberal columnist Eugene Robinson calls a "temporary reprieve".
Couldn't we instead have just given every employee a severance check for a quarter-million dollars, and called it a day? We could have saved half the money, and be rid of future bailout obligations. I would go so far as to say very few GM workers would have complained....
How about GMAC? The federal government has provided $12.5 billion in loans and aid to GMAC, which employs just over 26,000 people. This comes out to $468K per job.
See my alternative above....
And Chrysler? They've currently taken a mere $8 billion in loans, but are expected to recieve another $6 billion on top of that (and will that even be the end? unlikely...). Add that to the total, and it comes out to $337K per job/employee. Chrysler Financial received $1.5 billion in TARP funds; they employ somewhere around 4,000 people. Their welfare grant comes out to a $375K per employee.
And how will this massive transfer of wealth from productive Americans to buisnesses that are unsustainable work out? David Brooks agrees with Eugene Robinson:
The Obama plan dilutes the company’s focus. Instead of thinking obsessively about profitability and quality, G.M. will also have to meet the administration’s environmental goals. There is no evidence G.M. is good at building the sort of small cars the administration demands. There is no evidence that there is a large American market for these cars.
I guess the lessons we learned about welfare - and how eliminating it turned out to be an overall positive - needs to be repeated in the business sphere in order for us to realize its overall moral failure. Unless, of course, Obama and the Democrats understand its moral failure, and simply don't care...
GM has recieved $19.4 billion in loans from the American taxpayer. They currently employ 91,000 people, coming out to $542,000 per job "saved". This, for what liberal columnist Eugene Robinson calls a "temporary reprieve".
Couldn't we instead have just given every employee a severance check for a quarter-million dollars, and called it a day? We could have saved half the money, and be rid of future bailout obligations. I would go so far as to say very few GM workers would have complained....
How about GMAC? The federal government has provided $12.5 billion in loans and aid to GMAC, which employs just over 26,000 people. This comes out to $468K per job.
See my alternative above....
And Chrysler? They've currently taken a mere $8 billion in loans, but are expected to recieve another $6 billion on top of that (and will that even be the end? unlikely...). Add that to the total, and it comes out to $337K per job/employee. Chrysler Financial received $1.5 billion in TARP funds; they employ somewhere around 4,000 people. Their welfare grant comes out to a $375K per employee.
And how will this massive transfer of wealth from productive Americans to buisnesses that are unsustainable work out? David Brooks agrees with Eugene Robinson:
The Obama plan dilutes the company’s focus. Instead of thinking obsessively about profitability and quality, G.M. will also have to meet the administration’s environmental goals. There is no evidence G.M. is good at building the sort of small cars the administration demands. There is no evidence that there is a large American market for these cars.
The result is quagmire. The costs escalate. There is no exit strategy.
It will work out like all welfare: money down a sinkhole; capital taken away from the productive (and out of the capital market) and put into the hands of the unproductive, in order to buy a little time "until the reciepent gets back on their feet". Alas, inevitably, more money is always needed. And more, and more....I guess the lessons we learned about welfare - and how eliminating it turned out to be an overall positive - needs to be repeated in the business sphere in order for us to realize its overall moral failure. Unless, of course, Obama and the Democrats understand its moral failure, and simply don't care...
วันจันทร์, มิถุนายน 01, 2552
The "Joy" Of GM's Bankruptcy
Hey..easy! That's not my word, OK?
So what kind of complete *sshole would use that phrase to describe General Motor's demise? Why, liberal icon and John Belushi lookalike Michael Moore:
So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold, and I find myself filled with -- dare I say it -- joy. It is not the joy of revenge against a corporation that ruined my hometown and brought misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with. Nor do I, obviously, claim any joy in knowing that 21,000 more GM workers will be told that they, too, are without a job.
But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company....
And Moore witters on about how "The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible..." It's pretty incomprehensible, save for the fact that he wants to use GM to create mass-transit infrastructure, and pay for it with a $2- gallon gas tax. OK, fat boy, whatever. Thankfully, you're only one of 270 million stockholders.
More involuntary humor from a frothing Ralph Nadar, who rages against the bankruptcy proceedings:
The unionized workforce will see the wage and benefit structure slashed -- even though auto manufacturer wages make up less than 10 percent of the cost of a car -- so that new jobs at GM will no longer be a ticket to the middle class.
Nadar misses the fact that his thought process - it's about the union, not the cars - is what made GM vehicles unpleasent, inefficient, unattractive, and unbuyable.
But liberals are a study in contradictions. Moore - the cinematographer of the "common man" - feels "joy" at a bankruptcy that will force tens of thousands out of jobs, Nadar rages that the employee's needs are more important than the product they produce, and Barack Obama claims to be able to cut the deficit by nationalizing healthcare and adding a trillion dollars in debt.
Open your eyes, fellas. See the ruins all around you? It's the physical manifistation of your incoherent thought processes, and of your policy perscriptions brought to life.
And yet, they plow forward, like tanks on autopilot through a defenseless city - understanding nothing but their misguided mission, with no care for the havoc they wreak...
So what kind of complete *sshole would use that phrase to describe General Motor's demise? Why, liberal icon and John Belushi lookalike Michael Moore:
So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold, and I find myself filled with -- dare I say it -- joy. It is not the joy of revenge against a corporation that ruined my hometown and brought misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with. Nor do I, obviously, claim any joy in knowing that 21,000 more GM workers will be told that they, too, are without a job.
But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company....
And Moore witters on about how "The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible..." It's pretty incomprehensible, save for the fact that he wants to use GM to create mass-transit infrastructure, and pay for it with a $2- gallon gas tax. OK, fat boy, whatever. Thankfully, you're only one of 270 million stockholders.
More involuntary humor from a frothing Ralph Nadar, who rages against the bankruptcy proceedings:
The unionized workforce will see the wage and benefit structure slashed -- even though auto manufacturer wages make up less than 10 percent of the cost of a car -- so that new jobs at GM will no longer be a ticket to the middle class.
Nadar misses the fact that his thought process - it's about the union, not the cars - is what made GM vehicles unpleasent, inefficient, unattractive, and unbuyable.
But liberals are a study in contradictions. Moore - the cinematographer of the "common man" - feels "joy" at a bankruptcy that will force tens of thousands out of jobs, Nadar rages that the employee's needs are more important than the product they produce, and Barack Obama claims to be able to cut the deficit by nationalizing healthcare and adding a trillion dollars in debt.
Open your eyes, fellas. See the ruins all around you? It's the physical manifistation of your incoherent thought processes, and of your policy perscriptions brought to life.
And yet, they plow forward, like tanks on autopilot through a defenseless city - understanding nothing but their misguided mission, with no care for the havoc they wreak...
วันอาทิตย์, พฤษภาคม 31, 2552
Kim Jong Il: Nuclear Terrorist, AND the World's Greatest Golfer?
Now, we hear all the time that North Korea's Kim Jong II is a despot, a terrorist, a tyrant, a nutjob....you know, all the names conservatives like to call misunderstood indivduals who turn a nation into a concentration camp.
But maybe the liberals have a point here; after all, perhaps if Kim Jong got more respect and attention for his real talents, he wouldn't be threatening the world with nuclear war.
What talents are those, you may ask? Why, apparently, he is the greatest golfer in the world. No, really. Well, if you believe Kim's media apparatus, anyway...from Phil Mushnick:
It was in 2003 that North Korea's state-controlled news agency reported that Kim had played his first round of golf, finishing the 18 holes at 38 under par, which stands to reason given the 11 holes-in-one he made. Not bad for a beginner.
The same news organization reported that "Dear Leader" typically has several holes-in-one every round he plays. Yeah, well he's streaky that way.
North Korea at the time had only one course, a par-72 that played very long, 7,700 yards. So Kim, then 61, on that first day he played, routinely aced a few par fours and perhaps even a par five, to finish with a 38-under 34, or roughly 30 strokes better than the best pros on their best day.
The World Tribune dutifully reported:
If the official government media is to be believed, Kim is easily the greatest golfer the world has ever seen.
Seem like the North Korean media is trying a bit too hard? Well, how about the American media's reporting on Barack and Michelle ("let them eat $540 sneakers") Obama's recent six-figure date in New York City:
As the motorcade left the West Village and drove up Sixth Avenue to the theater, crowds of people, at times about eight deep, gathered on the sidewalks of the blockaded streets to wave as the Obamas passed. Some cheered. Cab drivers opened their doors and stood on the frames of their taxis to glimpse the president and first lady.
The Obamas left the theater after the play and were greeted by more cheers from enthusiastic bystanders along New York streets as they headed back for the flight to Washington.
If I may paraphrase:
"If the official government media is to be believed, Barack Obama is easily the most popular president the United States has ever seen... "
But maybe the liberals have a point here; after all, perhaps if Kim Jong got more respect and attention for his real talents, he wouldn't be threatening the world with nuclear war.
What talents are those, you may ask? Why, apparently, he is the greatest golfer in the world. No, really. Well, if you believe Kim's media apparatus, anyway...from Phil Mushnick:
It was in 2003 that North Korea's state-controlled news agency reported that Kim had played his first round of golf, finishing the 18 holes at 38 under par, which stands to reason given the 11 holes-in-one he made. Not bad for a beginner.
The same news organization reported that "Dear Leader" typically has several holes-in-one every round he plays. Yeah, well he's streaky that way.
North Korea at the time had only one course, a par-72 that played very long, 7,700 yards. So Kim, then 61, on that first day he played, routinely aced a few par fours and perhaps even a par five, to finish with a 38-under 34, or roughly 30 strokes better than the best pros on their best day.
The World Tribune dutifully reported:
If the official government media is to be believed, Kim is easily the greatest golfer the world has ever seen.
Seem like the North Korean media is trying a bit too hard? Well, how about the American media's reporting on Barack and Michelle ("let them eat $540 sneakers") Obama's recent six-figure date in New York City:
As the motorcade left the West Village and drove up Sixth Avenue to the theater, crowds of people, at times about eight deep, gathered on the sidewalks of the blockaded streets to wave as the Obamas passed. Some cheered. Cab drivers opened their doors and stood on the frames of their taxis to glimpse the president and first lady.
The Obamas left the theater after the play and were greeted by more cheers from enthusiastic bystanders along New York streets as they headed back for the flight to Washington.
If I may paraphrase:
"If the official government media is to be believed, Barack Obama is easily the most popular president the United States has ever seen... "
วันเสาร์, พฤษภาคม 30, 2552
White Men Don't Smile !
A picture is worth 1000 words...all of them biased, of course, when produced by the mainstream media.
Here's a snapshot from a few years back of George W. Bush and his pick for the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito:
And here's the AP picture currently running of Barack Obama and his Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor:
What's the matter, white men don't smile? Or is the photographer here displaying his biases, by showing Baracky and his Sonia with big, happy smiles, full of love and empathy? Note Barack looking down proudly - a Big Daddy for us all, with Sonia as a mother figure that will guide us with wisdom and caring.
While Bush and Alito are shown as a couple of crusty old suits - unfeeling, uncaring, looking more like CEO's counting out a balance sheet than a President and a Justice.
Personally, I like the Bush/Alito pic better anyway. I don't need surregate parents, I need a chief executive and a legal scholar.
Doesn't look like we have either, though...
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)