Whenever you feel the need to sacrifice priciples, you've either done the wrong thing, or your attachment to said principles was never too strong to being with:
US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.
"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.
Me too. I think we'll be sorry for a long, long time...
Update 12/19: It has begun....
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
And The Democrats Can't Wait To Spend More!
Keep those bailouts coming....
The United States of America is bankrupt. Don’t believe it? Consider this: Federal obligations now exceed the collective net worth of all Americans, according to the New York-based Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Washington politicians and bureaucrats have essentially mortgaged everything We the People own so they can keep spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.
The foundation’s grim calculations are based on Sept. 30 consolidated federal statements, which showed that Americans’ total household net worth, diminished by falling stock prices and home equity, is $56.5 trillion. But rising costs for unfunded social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security increased to $56.4 trillion – and that was before the more recent stock market crash, $700 billion bank bailout, and monster federal deficits chalked up in October and November.
“Given more recent developments, it’s clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth,” said Foundation president David M. Walker, the former Comptroller-General of the United States who has been trying to warn Americans of the coming financial tsunami for years, to no avail. So, after Uncle Sam bails out bankers, Wall Street gamblers, carmakers and over-their-head homeowners, who’ll bail out Uncle Sam?
The crazy thing is, none of the aformentioned bailouts have crossed the threshold of even a 50% approval rating among American voters. So why is the political class shoving this down our throats? What's in it for them I wonder? Or are we to just shut up and believe that Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank are simply so much smarter than the rest of us that our best course of action is to smile blandly and take it?
Based on their results since the election of 2006, that's a hard sell.
The United States of America is bankrupt. Don’t believe it? Consider this: Federal obligations now exceed the collective net worth of all Americans, according to the New York-based Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Washington politicians and bureaucrats have essentially mortgaged everything We the People own so they can keep spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.
The foundation’s grim calculations are based on Sept. 30 consolidated federal statements, which showed that Americans’ total household net worth, diminished by falling stock prices and home equity, is $56.5 trillion. But rising costs for unfunded social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security increased to $56.4 trillion – and that was before the more recent stock market crash, $700 billion bank bailout, and monster federal deficits chalked up in October and November.
“Given more recent developments, it’s clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth,” said Foundation president David M. Walker, the former Comptroller-General of the United States who has been trying to warn Americans of the coming financial tsunami for years, to no avail. So, after Uncle Sam bails out bankers, Wall Street gamblers, carmakers and over-their-head homeowners, who’ll bail out Uncle Sam?
The crazy thing is, none of the aformentioned bailouts have crossed the threshold of even a 50% approval rating among American voters. So why is the political class shoving this down our throats? What's in it for them I wonder? Or are we to just shut up and believe that Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank are simply so much smarter than the rest of us that our best course of action is to smile blandly and take it?
Based on their results since the election of 2006, that's a hard sell.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Barack Obama: Keepin' The Southern Man Down!
Not on his radar:
Barack Obama has moved faster than any modern president-elect in selecting his Cabinet, scouring Wall Street, academia and the Senate to assemble a diverse team that has won bipartisan praise.
Still, the Democrat’s star-studded roster lacks representatives from two groups: Southerners and the Republicans that he vowed to appoint during the campaign.
After Obama’s victory, John Podesta, the co-chairman of the transition team, reaffirmed the president-elect’s campaign intentions, saying Republicans would be “spread throughout the administration.”
Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University in Washington, said it would be a mistake for Obama to neglect the South.
“He’d be very much remiss not to name a Southerner,” Lichtman said. “After all, he’s trying to convert the South back to the Democratic Party, and he doesn’t want to be accused of snubbing the South.”
Barack better remember what the great Lynyrd Skynyrd taught us:
Well I heard mister Obama sing about her
Well, I heard ole Baracky put her down
Well, I hope Barack Obama will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow...
In Illinois they love(d) the governor
Now we all did what we could do
Now Blago-gate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth...
Well, Obama has the pat liberal answer for Lynyrd Skynyrd, and anyone else who wants to know where the southern portion of the Mason-Dixon line disappeared to during his presidency:
Obama’s White House will have at least one public Southern accent. Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, will brief reporters in his native Alabama drawl.
Ah, tokenism. The calling card of the liberal elitist. "Sure, we don't have anyone fron the South in our Cabinet, but listen to my spokesman talk! Doesn't he have the most authentic regional dialect imaginable?"
A Southern man - moreso than a Northeastern liberal - knows when he's getting jacked around. That's why they rarely help elect Democrats. You got a real thin rope here, Baracky...
Barack Obama has moved faster than any modern president-elect in selecting his Cabinet, scouring Wall Street, academia and the Senate to assemble a diverse team that has won bipartisan praise.
Still, the Democrat’s star-studded roster lacks representatives from two groups: Southerners and the Republicans that he vowed to appoint during the campaign.
After Obama’s victory, John Podesta, the co-chairman of the transition team, reaffirmed the president-elect’s campaign intentions, saying Republicans would be “spread throughout the administration.”
Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University in Washington, said it would be a mistake for Obama to neglect the South.
“He’d be very much remiss not to name a Southerner,” Lichtman said. “After all, he’s trying to convert the South back to the Democratic Party, and he doesn’t want to be accused of snubbing the South.”
Barack better remember what the great Lynyrd Skynyrd taught us:
Well I heard mister Obama sing about her
Well, I heard ole Baracky put her down
Well, I hope Barack Obama will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow...
In Illinois they love(d) the governor
Now we all did what we could do
Now Blago-gate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth...
Well, Obama has the pat liberal answer for Lynyrd Skynyrd, and anyone else who wants to know where the southern portion of the Mason-Dixon line disappeared to during his presidency:
Obama’s White House will have at least one public Southern accent. Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, will brief reporters in his native Alabama drawl.
Ah, tokenism. The calling card of the liberal elitist. "Sure, we don't have anyone fron the South in our Cabinet, but listen to my spokesman talk! Doesn't he have the most authentic regional dialect imaginable?"
A Southern man - moreso than a Northeastern liberal - knows when he's getting jacked around. That's why they rarely help elect Democrats. You got a real thin rope here, Baracky...
Washington Post Shills for Auto Bailout...
...perhaps because they hope the legacy media is next in line to recieve some no-strings taxpayer cash?
Buried on page D8, we find another story (like yesterday's on "global warming") that tried to tell us that up is, in fact, down:
55 percent of those polled oppose the latest plan that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors executives pitched to Congress last week, on par with public opposition to earlier, pricier efforts. But with 42 percent support, the new request for up to $14 billion in emergency loans has more backers than previous proposals to secure up to $34 billion in loan guarantees.
And right next to a picture of a GMC office building, we get this caption:
With the support of 42 percent polled, a new request for up to $14 billion in loans for the auto industry has more backers than previous proposals.
So it's not the 55% of the country that is opposed (69% of Republicans, 57% of Independants, and Democrats splitting among regional lines..even union households only approve 44-42%) that matters...it's the fact that 42% of the people approve that's "newsworthy"! Hey, people are finally starting to see things the same way as the Washington Post's editorial staff! Finally!
Bottom line: A story about bailout opposition that crosses party and class lines gets buried in section D, page 8, and is warped into a story about "more backers" for these loans.
Same way they skew their political reporting, I reckon...
Shoot - if our alleged leadership were in place in the early 1900's, we'd still be subsidizing buggy whip manufacturers...
Buried on page D8, we find another story (like yesterday's on "global warming") that tried to tell us that up is, in fact, down:
55 percent of those polled oppose the latest plan that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors executives pitched to Congress last week, on par with public opposition to earlier, pricier efforts. But with 42 percent support, the new request for up to $14 billion in emergency loans has more backers than previous proposals to secure up to $34 billion in loan guarantees.
And right next to a picture of a GMC office building, we get this caption:
With the support of 42 percent polled, a new request for up to $14 billion in loans for the auto industry has more backers than previous proposals.
So it's not the 55% of the country that is opposed (69% of Republicans, 57% of Independants, and Democrats splitting among regional lines..even union households only approve 44-42%) that matters...it's the fact that 42% of the people approve that's "newsworthy"! Hey, people are finally starting to see things the same way as the Washington Post's editorial staff! Finally!
Bottom line: A story about bailout opposition that crosses party and class lines gets buried in section D, page 8, and is warped into a story about "more backers" for these loans.
Same way they skew their political reporting, I reckon...
Shoot - if our alleged leadership were in place in the early 1900's, we'd still be subsidizing buggy whip manufacturers...
Quid Pro Quo, Jay Carney?
I haven't picked up Time magazine since the last time I went to the dentist, but I am sure their coverage of Election 2008 was fair and even-handed all the way through:
[Washington bureau chief] Jay Carney is leaving Time magazine after 20 years to be Vice President-elect Joe Biden's communications director in the White House, astonished magazine and gleeful transition sources said. Carney's title will be assistant to the vice president and director of communications.
More of the ties that bind:
Carney and his wife, Claire Shipman, the senior Washington correspondent for ABC's "Good Morning America," have two children — a son, Hugo, and daughter, Della.
This is the second member of the media elite who has signed on with Obama's administration. ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass joined the campaign as traveling spokeswoman, and now is working for Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Am I the only one to find this a bit...unseemly?
[Washington bureau chief] Jay Carney is leaving Time magazine after 20 years to be Vice President-elect Joe Biden's communications director in the White House, astonished magazine and gleeful transition sources said. Carney's title will be assistant to the vice president and director of communications.
More of the ties that bind:
Carney and his wife, Claire Shipman, the senior Washington correspondent for ABC's "Good Morning America," have two children — a son, Hugo, and daughter, Della.
This is the second member of the media elite who has signed on with Obama's administration. ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass joined the campaign as traveling spokeswoman, and now is working for Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Am I the only one to find this a bit...unseemly?
Monday, December 15, 2008
The AP has a Global Warming Freakout!
Is it the fact that gloabal warming has been kicked to the back burner (so to speak) by more pressing needs such as the ability to aquire work, food, gas, and shelter that has sent the AP off the deep end?
Well, the AP is gonna try to bring it back to the forefront, even if insanely over-the-top reputation-destroying hyperbole is the only way to do it...some samples of their work:
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid...
Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it....
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."
Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.
Yeah, in California and New Jersey, where both economies are a total wreck - hey, let's bring that negative progression nationwide! Sure, people are going broke at an amazing rate in "green" states, but at least they'll starve breathing 0.00000001% cleaner air!
They end with a joke:
Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
Ah, OK. Because we are in a cooling tend, that means we are actually in a warming trend, and anyone who says the opposite is a "skeptic", and thus less informed than the AP.
There is so much evidence to refute this nonsense printed under the guise of news I don't know where to begin (although you can make a start, and follow the links from here). So just look again at that last sentence, and note the contortions they must put themselves through to make their global warming case salient.
If you need to use argumentations such as "well, if up was down and black were white then "A" would be true" to make your case, then...you ain't got a case. Shame on you, AP, for trying to scare people with made-up monster stories, when we have so many real bogeymen - the crashing economy, crazy oil prices, foreign terrorists, plunging home values, and Barack Obama - to worry about...
Well, the AP is gonna try to bring it back to the forefront, even if insanely over-the-top reputation-destroying hyperbole is the only way to do it...some samples of their work:
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid...
Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it....
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."
Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.
Yeah, in California and New Jersey, where both economies are a total wreck - hey, let's bring that negative progression nationwide! Sure, people are going broke at an amazing rate in "green" states, but at least they'll starve breathing 0.00000001% cleaner air!
They end with a joke:
Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
Ah, OK. Because we are in a cooling tend, that means we are actually in a warming trend, and anyone who says the opposite is a "skeptic", and thus less informed than the AP.
There is so much evidence to refute this nonsense printed under the guise of news I don't know where to begin (although you can make a start, and follow the links from here). So just look again at that last sentence, and note the contortions they must put themselves through to make their global warming case salient.
If you need to use argumentations such as "well, if up was down and black were white then "A" would be true" to make your case, then...you ain't got a case. Shame on you, AP, for trying to scare people with made-up monster stories, when we have so many real bogeymen - the crashing economy, crazy oil prices, foreign terrorists, plunging home values, and Barack Obama - to worry about...
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Hate Crimes in Alaska; Media Chuckles to Itself...
Yeah, I am sure that the media's relentlesss gang -rape of Sarah Palin and its subsequent attempts to turn her into a cross between the village (of Wasilla) idiot and the whore of Babylon had nothing to do with what happened on Friday night:
Sarah Palin's church in Alaska was set on fire with women and children inside, working on arts and crafts, authorities said yesterday.
No one was hurt in the blaze, which began near the Wasilla Bible Church's entrance at about 9:30 p.m. Friday and caused an estimated $1 million in damage.
A spokesman for Palin said the governor, who was not at the church at the time, apologized to the congregation in case the fire was connected to any "undeserved negative attention" the church received after she became John McCain's presidential running mate.
"Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good," the statement said.
It's a bottom-story, of course. Where would the media placement have been if an outspoken liberal had his/her place of worship (or favorite abortion clinic) set ablaze with women and children inside?
Fuggedaboutit....we'd be seeing candlelight vigils and editorials screaming about "right-wing hatred". But when liberals (and I admit, this is an assumption here) commit a hate crime, well...bottom of page 12, folks.
The placement is not accidental - it gives the attack almost an air of respectability. After all, if it really were an outrage, it would be on the front page, right?
Imagine if Reverend Wright's Chicago church was burned with women and children inside. Would that particular story be buried at the bottom of page ten? Nah, I didn't think so either. And the difference is what, exactly?
Oh yeah. Racial. And political. In the media's America, it is not the victims of a crime that matter as such; their suffering - and the outrage generated by such - is a matter of the color of their skin, and the political parties they support.
And people thing that this country is taking steps forward with the election of Barack Obama? Maybe, if eliminating one type of hatred by being accepting of another can be considered "progress"...
Sarah Palin's church in Alaska was set on fire with women and children inside, working on arts and crafts, authorities said yesterday.
No one was hurt in the blaze, which began near the Wasilla Bible Church's entrance at about 9:30 p.m. Friday and caused an estimated $1 million in damage.
A spokesman for Palin said the governor, who was not at the church at the time, apologized to the congregation in case the fire was connected to any "undeserved negative attention" the church received after she became John McCain's presidential running mate.
"Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good," the statement said.
It's a bottom-story, of course. Where would the media placement have been if an outspoken liberal had his/her place of worship (or favorite abortion clinic) set ablaze with women and children inside?
Fuggedaboutit....we'd be seeing candlelight vigils and editorials screaming about "right-wing hatred". But when liberals (and I admit, this is an assumption here) commit a hate crime, well...bottom of page 12, folks.
The placement is not accidental - it gives the attack almost an air of respectability. After all, if it really were an outrage, it would be on the front page, right?
Imagine if Reverend Wright's Chicago church was burned with women and children inside. Would that particular story be buried at the bottom of page ten? Nah, I didn't think so either. And the difference is what, exactly?
Oh yeah. Racial. And political. In the media's America, it is not the victims of a crime that matter as such; their suffering - and the outrage generated by such - is a matter of the color of their skin, and the political parties they support.
And people thing that this country is taking steps forward with the election of Barack Obama? Maybe, if eliminating one type of hatred by being accepting of another can be considered "progress"...
Saturday, December 13, 2008
George W. Bush: Liberal Idiot?
What else am I supposed to think? The Republican party in Congress (or what's left of it, anyway) mounts a stalwart defense against the giveaway of billions of dollars to what Roger Simon calls "a rescue program for incompetent execs and thuggish union leaders", and what does W do? He frantically tries to sabotage the party's last stand against a nationalized auto industry by attempting to divert funds from dollars dedicated to rescuing the financial sector of the economy (keeping the financials of a country operating is not the same as rescuing three individual companies within one industry, incidentally).
NRO points to the procedural overeach by the Bush administration here:
...the Bush administration’s decision to use the bank-bailout funds to rescue the auto companies is both disappointing and wrong-headed. Congress directed the administration to use those funds to save the financial system, not three car companies. Congress’s intent cannot be misconstrued, especially after it explicitly rejected the automakers’ pleas for help.
....Bankruptcy court is the place where cooler heads can sort through Detroit’s Byzantine labor contracts and decide what makes sense and what doesn’t.
His [Bush's] reversal on this issue is a sad affront to his party and its philosophy — not the exit we would have hoped for.
The Republican party will have a lot of tought fights ahead. This victory was a no-brainer - with even some Senate Democrats weak-kneed on the auto bailout - and the President betrayed his party just when they had won the fight, a fight that had strong public backing.
Why? It's all about legacy, of course. Bush didn't want to be known as the president on who's watch the auto industry failed. Instead, he will be known as the president on who's watch the nationalization of the auto industry began. And we all know how well that's going to work out.
Sweet Jeebus, bring on Barack Obama already. At least we'll see the knife coming from the front as opposed to feeling it slicing through the back...
NRO points to the procedural overeach by the Bush administration here:
...the Bush administration’s decision to use the bank-bailout funds to rescue the auto companies is both disappointing and wrong-headed. Congress directed the administration to use those funds to save the financial system, not three car companies. Congress’s intent cannot be misconstrued, especially after it explicitly rejected the automakers’ pleas for help.
....Bankruptcy court is the place where cooler heads can sort through Detroit’s Byzantine labor contracts and decide what makes sense and what doesn’t.
His [Bush's] reversal on this issue is a sad affront to his party and its philosophy — not the exit we would have hoped for.
The Republican party will have a lot of tought fights ahead. This victory was a no-brainer - with even some Senate Democrats weak-kneed on the auto bailout - and the President betrayed his party just when they had won the fight, a fight that had strong public backing.
Why? It's all about legacy, of course. Bush didn't want to be known as the president on who's watch the auto industry failed. Instead, he will be known as the president on who's watch the nationalization of the auto industry began. And we all know how well that's going to work out.
Sweet Jeebus, bring on Barack Obama already. At least we'll see the knife coming from the front as opposed to feeling it slicing through the back...
Friday, December 12, 2008
Good Question
Pseudo-con David Brooks, writing in today's New York Times:
Why is it that the pork-meisters in Congress are already distorting the best-laid stimulus plans? Why are there so few saying “no” to any budget request? Why do so many of the plans being offered rely upon a Magic Technocrat — an all-knowing Car Czar who can reorganize Detroit, an all-seeing team of Olympians who decide which medicines doctors will be allowed to prescribe?
Jen Rubin answers:
Well, it is because the voters, egged on by dreamy-eyed elites, voted for the “brilliant” candidate, the transformational candidate — who has now resorted to every bad, old idea he could find.
Didn't I just say that intellectual-worship will surely mean the death of us all?
More from Brooks:
Once America was a decentralized country, but now all roads lead to Washington. Mighty C.E.O.’s abase themselves before junior House members. Governors and mayors come groveling. The status of the lowliest bureaucrat has risen delightfully, and there is a feeling of overflowing abundance amid the national scarcity as Washington spends the trillions it doesn’t have.
Certainly something big needs to be done to calm this crisis, but perhaps in the doing, some unholiness is being unwittingly and rashly created....
Watch that last sentence. It is prophetic.
Why is it that the pork-meisters in Congress are already distorting the best-laid stimulus plans? Why are there so few saying “no” to any budget request? Why do so many of the plans being offered rely upon a Magic Technocrat — an all-knowing Car Czar who can reorganize Detroit, an all-seeing team of Olympians who decide which medicines doctors will be allowed to prescribe?
Jen Rubin answers:
Well, it is because the voters, egged on by dreamy-eyed elites, voted for the “brilliant” candidate, the transformational candidate — who has now resorted to every bad, old idea he could find.
Didn't I just say that intellectual-worship will surely mean the death of us all?
More from Brooks:
Once America was a decentralized country, but now all roads lead to Washington. Mighty C.E.O.’s abase themselves before junior House members. Governors and mayors come groveling. The status of the lowliest bureaucrat has risen delightfully, and there is a feeling of overflowing abundance amid the national scarcity as Washington spends the trillions it doesn’t have.
Certainly something big needs to be done to calm this crisis, but perhaps in the doing, some unholiness is being unwittingly and rashly created....
Watch that last sentence. It is prophetic.
Dr. Chu has no Clu, or: The Death of Intellectualism
Barack Obama has added another member of Mensa to his Cabinet, Dr. Stephen Chu, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (and yes, it is OK to quiver at the sight of the phrase "Berkeley"). Dr. Chu will head the Department of Energy. Just one problem - he hates energy:
Big Coal won’t be very happy if Dr. Chu gets confirmed as head of the DOE—he’s really, really not a big fan. “Coal is my worst nightmare,” he said repeatedly in a speech earlier this year outlining his lab’s alternative-energy approaches.
If coal is to stay part of the world’s energy mix, he says, clean-coal technologies must be developed. B ut he’s not very optimistic: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal,” he concluded, given the sheer scope of the challenge of economically storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions underground.
Worried about radioactivity? Coal’s still your bogeyman. Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.
That doesn’t mean nuclear power is much better. “The waste and proliferation issues [surrounding nuclear power] still haven’t been completely solved,” he said. A big part of the Department of Energy’s job is to oversee nuclear weapons and waste storage. And the Obama campaign made clear that increased reliance on nuclear power will require finding a “safe” way to dispose of radioactive waste.
Will Chu be America's worst nightmare, a man who, by dint of having spent his whole life thinking - and not actually doing - has no idea what actually keeps the lights on? A man who - having spent most of his life at a University - has no idea about how much cash "energy" already takes out of a working person's paycheck, and thus feels free to raise its price exponentially?
God, save us from these intellectuals. And speaking of which - John Hawkins reports on why liberals - who all fancy themselves as so more intelligent than the average American, and thus ordained to rule over us - believe so many ridiculous things.
He starts by quoting Theodore Dalrymple:
Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.
Now we're getting somewhere!
It is difficult to overestimate how much this way of thinking drives the liberal view of the world.
It doesn't matter whether they're dumb, smart, successful, failures, good, bad, you name it, liberals view themselves as better, smarter, and more compassionate than the average person by virtue of the fact that they're liberals.
Finally, Thomas Sowell weighs in:
"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?"
Right. And now we have Stephen Chu, intellectual elitist personified, running the Department of Energy. How many bright ideas will he have that seem insanely stupid to the rest of us, and yet will have liberal politicians and the media sagely nodding their head in agreement?
Well, when it all goes to hell, they can blame George Bush, I guess...
Big Coal won’t be very happy if Dr. Chu gets confirmed as head of the DOE—he’s really, really not a big fan. “Coal is my worst nightmare,” he said repeatedly in a speech earlier this year outlining his lab’s alternative-energy approaches.
If coal is to stay part of the world’s energy mix, he says, clean-coal technologies must be developed. B ut he’s not very optimistic: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal,” he concluded, given the sheer scope of the challenge of economically storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions underground.
Worried about radioactivity? Coal’s still your bogeyman. Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.
That doesn’t mean nuclear power is much better. “The waste and proliferation issues [surrounding nuclear power] still haven’t been completely solved,” he said. A big part of the Department of Energy’s job is to oversee nuclear weapons and waste storage. And the Obama campaign made clear that increased reliance on nuclear power will require finding a “safe” way to dispose of radioactive waste.
Will Chu be America's worst nightmare, a man who, by dint of having spent his whole life thinking - and not actually doing - has no idea what actually keeps the lights on? A man who - having spent most of his life at a University - has no idea about how much cash "energy" already takes out of a working person's paycheck, and thus feels free to raise its price exponentially?
God, save us from these intellectuals. And speaking of which - John Hawkins reports on why liberals - who all fancy themselves as so more intelligent than the average American, and thus ordained to rule over us - believe so many ridiculous things.
He starts by quoting Theodore Dalrymple:
Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.
Now we're getting somewhere!
It is difficult to overestimate how much this way of thinking drives the liberal view of the world.
It doesn't matter whether they're dumb, smart, successful, failures, good, bad, you name it, liberals view themselves as better, smarter, and more compassionate than the average person by virtue of the fact that they're liberals.
Finally, Thomas Sowell weighs in:
"The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?"
Right. And now we have Stephen Chu, intellectual elitist personified, running the Department of Energy. How many bright ideas will he have that seem insanely stupid to the rest of us, and yet will have liberal politicians and the media sagely nodding their head in agreement?
Well, when it all goes to hell, they can blame George Bush, I guess...
Thursday, December 11, 2008
New Jersey and Gay Marriage: A Match Made in Hell
It's the craziest thing, isn't it? It's all people are talking about in New Jersey - in the malls, in the gas stations, at the Turnpike rest areas. And it's all over the TV, the local radio stations, and the papers.
I'm talking about the overwhelming hue and cry among New Jersyans of all stripes for the state to finally stop being the hateful, regressive, homophobic place that is so obviously is, and to at last allow gay couples the right to marry, just as if they were the standard heterosexual mix that has been typical for the last 10,000 years.
What? You've never heard anyone talk about it? You've never seen a newspaper story on it? They're not screaming about it on the radio? You've never seen an angry protest in front of a sleepy Jersey church?
Funny, neither have I. And yet, the state is moving quickly to subvert the morality of a vast majority of its citizens. They've already created a panel - who already came to a conclusion:
A commission has concluded that New Jersey legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the state should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.
In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state’s Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state’s two-year-old civil union law doesn’t do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.
“This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children,” the report says. The findings of the commission’s 13 members were unanimous.
Of course, as Garden State Patriot points out in the above link, the "Commission" is pretty top-heavy with hardcore liberal advocates - hence our unanimous findings. I am sure the population of New Jersey, whom these people were allegedly chosen to represent (including the token Republican, one AnnLynne Benson, who has been working the "I'm a Republican for gay marriage" angle for years) are unanimous as well...right?
And of course, Jon Corzine has jumped right in front to try to push yet another liberal social experiment down the throat of New Jersey - after all, every other one has worked so well so far:
Gov. Jon Corzine said today New Jersey’s civil unions law “hasn’t done enough to narrow the gap” and same-sex marriage should be established in New Jersey “sooner rather than later.”
He urged the Legislature to “seriously review” a report released today by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission that said civil unions have failed to grant full rights to same-sex couples and urged the state to quickly enact same-sex marriage.
The report likened denying same-sex couples the right to marry to racial segregation laws imposed against African-Americans.
Not too much hyperbole there, right? Still, the statement gets Corzine's full support. What about giving his support to the New Jersey's Constitution and Supreme Court, as his duties dictate? After all, the Court has already spoken:
The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.
The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
The "democratic process"? The rule of law? Ha! It's as relevant in New Jersey as it is in Rod Blagojevich's Illinois. But at least Hot Rod was in it for himself. Corzine and his small band of hardcore lefties are allegedly doing it for our sake - changing our morality illegally, by fiat, to save us from our own innate evil.
Me? I like my innate evil. I'll fight their attempt to redefine my morality, no matter what names Jon and his minions of loyal perverts call me...
I'm talking about the overwhelming hue and cry among New Jersyans of all stripes for the state to finally stop being the hateful, regressive, homophobic place that is so obviously is, and to at last allow gay couples the right to marry, just as if they were the standard heterosexual mix that has been typical for the last 10,000 years.
What? You've never heard anyone talk about it? You've never seen a newspaper story on it? They're not screaming about it on the radio? You've never seen an angry protest in front of a sleepy Jersey church?
Funny, neither have I. And yet, the state is moving quickly to subvert the morality of a vast majority of its citizens. They've already created a panel - who already came to a conclusion:
A commission has concluded that New Jersey legislators should allow gay couples to marry, setting up what could be a spirited debate over whether the state should be the first to allow gay marriage by passing a law, rather than by court mandate.
In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state’s Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state’s two-year-old civil union law doesn’t do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.
“This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children,” the report says. The findings of the commission’s 13 members were unanimous.
Of course, as Garden State Patriot points out in the above link, the "Commission" is pretty top-heavy with hardcore liberal advocates - hence our unanimous findings. I am sure the population of New Jersey, whom these people were allegedly chosen to represent (including the token Republican, one AnnLynne Benson, who has been working the "I'm a Republican for gay marriage" angle for years) are unanimous as well...right?
And of course, Jon Corzine has jumped right in front to try to push yet another liberal social experiment down the throat of New Jersey - after all, every other one has worked so well so far:
Gov. Jon Corzine said today New Jersey’s civil unions law “hasn’t done enough to narrow the gap” and same-sex marriage should be established in New Jersey “sooner rather than later.”
He urged the Legislature to “seriously review” a report released today by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission that said civil unions have failed to grant full rights to same-sex couples and urged the state to quickly enact same-sex marriage.
The report likened denying same-sex couples the right to marry to racial segregation laws imposed against African-Americans.
Not too much hyperbole there, right? Still, the statement gets Corzine's full support. What about giving his support to the New Jersey's Constitution and Supreme Court, as his duties dictate? After all, the Court has already spoken:
The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.
The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
The "democratic process"? The rule of law? Ha! It's as relevant in New Jersey as it is in Rod Blagojevich's Illinois. But at least Hot Rod was in it for himself. Corzine and his small band of hardcore lefties are allegedly doing it for our sake - changing our morality illegally, by fiat, to save us from our own innate evil.
Me? I like my innate evil. I'll fight their attempt to redefine my morality, no matter what names Jon and his minions of loyal perverts call me...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Obama - Blagojevich Connection Revealed!
Boy, this is getting real ugly real fast....remember the "Sopranos Scenario" discussed earlier? Looks like Obama's future (?) chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is to him what Pauli Walnuts was to Tony Soprano:
The big news, of course, is the governor's attempt to sell the senate seat of Barack Obama. Incredibly, it appears that he tried to get the best deal by shopping the seat to as many as 7 potential candidates -- including, indirectly, Barack Obama.
...the offer to an unnamed high level Obama advisor (evidence suggests it is newly-designated chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) was "a wacky scheme" where the governor would take over control of a not for profit group -- a 501c(4) -- set up by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (who would act at the behest of Obama) in exchange for appointing Obama's choice for the senate seat -- his longtime friend and advisor Valerie Jarrett.
This is directly from the criminal complaint that details several conversations caught on a federal wiretap:
The advisor asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the 501©(4) is a real effort or just a vehicle to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that it is a real effort but also a place for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to go when he is no longer Governor. The advisor said he likes the Change to Win idea better, and notes that it is more likely to happen because it is one step removed from the President-elect.
"Change to Win" is a labor NGO that the governor was interested in heading up. In order to get that job, Blagojevich had to approach the head of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Andy Stern. T he Governor was willing to name a candidate who would be little more than a union toady in order to secure that position. And he was asking "Advisor B" (likely, Emanuel) to make it happen.
...according to Advisor B from the President-elect's perspective, there would be fewer "fingerprints" on the President-elect's involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, "you won't have stories in four years that they bought you off."
Was Rahm Emanuel making a counter offer to the governor's bribe? It's an interesting question and one that the press may wish to ask the new chief of staff.
Was Rahm Emanuel in fact Obama's point man in negotiations with Governor Blagojevich, reporting back to Obama verbally and in person yet allowing the President-elect to claim (as he currently is) that he knew nothing about these nefarious "negotiations"?
I keep hearing how smart Barack Obama is. Yet apparently he is unaware that the cover-up is worse than the crime....
Now will the media do their job? Or will they forfeit their last morsel of pride in order to push Obama over the finish line, even as his feet appear to be stuck deep in the Illinois mud?
Better question - will we see the fastest impeachment of a president after his inaugural in American history? Boy, that would be change!
The big news, of course, is the governor's attempt to sell the senate seat of Barack Obama. Incredibly, it appears that he tried to get the best deal by shopping the seat to as many as 7 potential candidates -- including, indirectly, Barack Obama.
...the offer to an unnamed high level Obama advisor (evidence suggests it is newly-designated chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) was "a wacky scheme" where the governor would take over control of a not for profit group -- a 501c(4) -- set up by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (who would act at the behest of Obama) in exchange for appointing Obama's choice for the senate seat -- his longtime friend and advisor Valerie Jarrett.
This is directly from the criminal complaint that details several conversations caught on a federal wiretap:
The advisor asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the 501©(4) is a real effort or just a vehicle to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that it is a real effort but also a place for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to go when he is no longer Governor. The advisor said he likes the Change to Win idea better, and notes that it is more likely to happen because it is one step removed from the President-elect.
"Change to Win" is a labor NGO that the governor was interested in heading up. In order to get that job, Blagojevich had to approach the head of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Andy Stern. T he Governor was willing to name a candidate who would be little more than a union toady in order to secure that position. And he was asking "Advisor B" (likely, Emanuel) to make it happen.
...according to Advisor B from the President-elect's perspective, there would be fewer "fingerprints" on the President-elect's involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, "you won't have stories in four years that they bought you off."
Was Rahm Emanuel making a counter offer to the governor's bribe? It's an interesting question and one that the press may wish to ask the new chief of staff.
Was Rahm Emanuel in fact Obama's point man in negotiations with Governor Blagojevich, reporting back to Obama verbally and in person yet allowing the President-elect to claim (as he currently is) that he knew nothing about these nefarious "negotiations"?
I keep hearing how smart Barack Obama is. Yet apparently he is unaware that the cover-up is worse than the crime....
Now will the media do their job? Or will they forfeit their last morsel of pride in order to push Obama over the finish line, even as his feet appear to be stuck deep in the Illinois mud?
Better question - will we see the fastest impeachment of a president after his inaugural in American history? Boy, that would be change!
The Apple, The Tree, and Barack Obama as a "Made Man"
...looks like the son learned a lot from his dad, the bribe-accepting race hustler:
Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., is the anonymous "Senate Candidate No. 5" whose emissaries Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich reportedly offered up to $1 million to name him to the U.S. Senate, federal law enforcement sources tell ABC News.
According to the FBI affidavit in the case, Blagojevich "stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Rod Blagojevich" with something "tangible up front."
Jackson said this morning he was contacted Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Chicago whom he said "asked me to come in and share with them my insights and thoughts"
The congressman, a son of the famed civil rights leader, denied that anyone had been authorized to make payments or promises to the governor on his behalf.
Uh-huh. Another denial, another person who "misspoke". Here's Obama, incidentally, refusing to speak at all:
Q: Are you aware of any conversations between Blagojevich or [chief of staff] John Harris and any of your top aides, including Rahm [Emanuel]?
Obama: Let me stop you there because . . . it's an ongoing.... investigation. I think it would be inappropriate for me to, you know, remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know. And that's the fact that I didn't discuss this issue with the governor at all.
Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. Just because Obama didn't discuss the issue directly with Blagojevich doesn't mean it wasn't discussed - through proxies. Didn't Tony Soparano often send out Silvio and Pauli Walnuts to hold many a key discussion on his behalf? And didn't Tony prefer low-key in-person meetings when he needed to - virtually untraceable, save for a wire - as opposed to a quick cell-phone call?
Let it not be said that Obama wasn't paying attention while rising through the ranks of La Cosa Nostra - I mean, Chicago politics....
More here - What Did Obama Know, And When Did he Know It?
Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., is the anonymous "Senate Candidate No. 5" whose emissaries Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich reportedly offered up to $1 million to name him to the U.S. Senate, federal law enforcement sources tell ABC News.
According to the FBI affidavit in the case, Blagojevich "stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Rod Blagojevich" with something "tangible up front."
Jackson said this morning he was contacted Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Chicago whom he said "asked me to come in and share with them my insights and thoughts"
The congressman, a son of the famed civil rights leader, denied that anyone had been authorized to make payments or promises to the governor on his behalf.
Uh-huh. Another denial, another person who "misspoke". Here's Obama, incidentally, refusing to speak at all:
Q: Are you aware of any conversations between Blagojevich or [chief of staff] John Harris and any of your top aides, including Rahm [Emanuel]?
Obama: Let me stop you there because . . . it's an ongoing.... investigation. I think it would be inappropriate for me to, you know, remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know. And that's the fact that I didn't discuss this issue with the governor at all.
Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. Just because Obama didn't discuss the issue directly with Blagojevich doesn't mean it wasn't discussed - through proxies. Didn't Tony Soparano often send out Silvio and Pauli Walnuts to hold many a key discussion on his behalf? And didn't Tony prefer low-key in-person meetings when he needed to - virtually untraceable, save for a wire - as opposed to a quick cell-phone call?
Let it not be said that Obama wasn't paying attention while rising through the ranks of La Cosa Nostra - I mean, Chicago politics....
More here - What Did Obama Know, And When Did he Know It?
Terrorists Shun Carter
"How low can Jimmy Carter go?" was always a rhetorical question, as the Democratic ex-President kept discovering new moral low ground. But this is priceless; apparently his stock has become so worthless as to have even hardened terrorists rejecting his overtures:
Hezbollah leaders have refused to meet former US President Jimmy Carter, who is on a two-day visit to Lebanon, a Carter spokesman says. Carter, who had expressed his readiness to meet with Lebanon's Hezbollah officials, arrived in Beirut on Tuesday.
"I understand that some of the leaders of Hezbollah have said they were not going to meet with any president or former presidents of the United States," Carter said upon his arrival at Beirut airport, adding that he would meet other leaders.
Carter's spokesman Rick Jafculca said Wednesday that Hezbollah turned down a request to meet Jimmy Carter. "They said they were not able to meet," Jafculca said.
Maybe now that they have a friend in the White House in the person of Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter is no longer a "useful" idiot to them?
And as Mumbai mourns the hundreds dead, as Somali pirates terrorize the high seas, as the missles of Hamas rain down on Israeli cities, Jimmy Carter looks down upon it, as passes judgement:
Jimmy Carter describes Israel's blockade of Gaza as one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth.
Nice try, Jimmy, to ingratiate yourself to Hezbollah. But they still aren't going to let you through the front door...
Hezbollah leaders have refused to meet former US President Jimmy Carter, who is on a two-day visit to Lebanon, a Carter spokesman says. Carter, who had expressed his readiness to meet with Lebanon's Hezbollah officials, arrived in Beirut on Tuesday.
"I understand that some of the leaders of Hezbollah have said they were not going to meet with any president or former presidents of the United States," Carter said upon his arrival at Beirut airport, adding that he would meet other leaders.
Carter's spokesman Rick Jafculca said Wednesday that Hezbollah turned down a request to meet Jimmy Carter. "They said they were not able to meet," Jafculca said.
Maybe now that they have a friend in the White House in the person of Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter is no longer a "useful" idiot to them?
And as Mumbai mourns the hundreds dead, as Somali pirates terrorize the high seas, as the missles of Hamas rain down on Israeli cities, Jimmy Carter looks down upon it, as passes judgement:
Jimmy Carter describes Israel's blockade of Gaza as one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth.
Nice try, Jimmy, to ingratiate yourself to Hezbollah. But they still aren't going to let you through the front door...
What Did Obama Know, And When Did he Know It?
The media might have spent the whole of the election season covering up Barack Obama's upbringing in Chicago politics, but the Feds won't play ball, so they are forced to cover the frog-marching of Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich down to the lockup. Still, although the most the media is willing to admit to is that this whole unwelcome distraction is wasting Mr. Obama's precious time, one cannot imagine - especially in Illinois - that the senator and his home state's sitting governor didn't have at least a few conversations on the topic of succession.
Apparently, even Obama's people are willing to admit such:
Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.
While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Of course, now Alxerod claims to have "misspoke", which is poli-talk for "inadvertantly telling the truth". So now that we have settled that, we have this:
But there remain questions about how Blagojevich knew that Mr. Obama was not willing to give him anything in exchange for the Senate seat -- with whom was Blagojevich speaking? Did that person report the governor to the authorities?
And, it should be pointed out, Mr. Obama has a relationship with Mr. Blagojevich, having not only endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006, but having served as a top adviser to the Illinois governor in his first 2002 run for the state house.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., Mr. Obama's incoming White House chief of staff....told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."
Of course, now Emanuel claims to have misspoke - sorry, he "later changed his recollection of this story". No doubt.
Change? Does reverting back to late 19th-early 20th century criminal politics constitute change? Or is it "change" as in, " I am changing my recollection..."
I guess...it's just not change I can believe in...
Apparently, even Obama's people are willing to admit such:
Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.
While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Of course, now Alxerod claims to have "misspoke", which is poli-talk for "inadvertantly telling the truth". So now that we have settled that, we have this:
But there remain questions about how Blagojevich knew that Mr. Obama was not willing to give him anything in exchange for the Senate seat -- with whom was Blagojevich speaking? Did that person report the governor to the authorities?
And, it should be pointed out, Mr. Obama has a relationship with Mr. Blagojevich, having not only endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006, but having served as a top adviser to the Illinois governor in his first 2002 run for the state house.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., Mr. Obama's incoming White House chief of staff....told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."
Of course, now Emanuel claims to have misspoke - sorry, he "later changed his recollection of this story". No doubt.
Change? Does reverting back to late 19th-early 20th century criminal politics constitute change? Or is it "change" as in, " I am changing my recollection..."
I guess...it's just not change I can believe in...
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
The Kennedy Women: The Real Men in the Clan !
Well, at least according to this story, where Teddy and John Jr. welshed on a bet made with Caroline and Kara Anne Kennedy:
During a night out in Hong Kong, Caroline, her brother, John F. Kennedy Jr., and her cousins Edward "Teddy" Kennedy Jr., 47, and Kara Anne Kennedy, 48, challenged one another with a mischievous dare, a source said, noting that the group had consumed a few drinks.
The boys challenged the girls to get a late-night "tat" at a nearby parlor. 
But when it came time for Teddy and John Jr. to reciprocate, the men "chickened out," refusing to go through with the dare, the source said.
Caroline Kennedy, who is interested in becoming New York's next senator, doesn't just have politics running through her veins - she also has ink adorning her arm.
The 51-year-old Upper East Sider sports a small butterfly tattoo on her inner right arm...
The 51-year-old Upper East Sider sports a small butterfly tattoo on her inner right arm...
Kennedy got the tattoo while vacationing with her family in Asia during the late 1980s.
During a night out in Hong Kong, Caroline, her brother, John F. Kennedy Jr., and her cousins Edward "Teddy" Kennedy Jr., 47, and Kara Anne Kennedy, 48, challenged one another with a mischievous dare, a source said, noting that the group had consumed a few drinks.
The boys challenged the girls to get a late-night "tat" at a nearby parlor.
Caroline and Kara went first and emerged "bruised and bloodied," emblazoned with butterflies on their arms.
But when it came time for Teddy and John Jr. to reciprocate, the men "chickened out," refusing to go through with the dare, the source said.
I'll leave John Jr. alone. But Teddy....sweet jeebus, can't you even man up to a dare made with a couple of chicks?
Well, the girls should have known better, dealing with a guy who "chickened out" rather than save his drowning date.....
Monday, December 08, 2008
Feeling For Hillary....
...this pic has made the rounds lately, of President-elect Barack Obama's chief speechwriter, 27-year-old Jon Favreau (at left) copping a feel off of a cardboard Hillary cutout:
Thoughts? Well, it's a fratboy-mentality gag, nothing to raise the roof about.
EXCEPT...Obama has seemed to have a "chick problem" since day one, sneering disrespectfully at Hillary Clinton during the debates, calling female reporters "sweetie", refusing to pick a female VP candidate when one would have given him an absolute cruise to an election victory, and so on.
If Karl Rove had done it, the dreaded National Organization of Woman would have raised the freakin' roof. But because it's a Democrat who's engaged in blatent sexist behavior as opposed to a Republican engaged in perceived sexist behavior, well...this is what you get:
The National Organization for Women, which last struck issuing news releases on why Sarah Palin isn't a real woman, refused to comment on the Obama speechwriter incident. When NOW's press secretary Mai Shiozaki was reached Friday, she first claimed not to have seen the Favreau photograph. But when called later, she offered two reasons for not weighing in: "I haven't looked into it" and "I have a 5 p.m. deadline. ... I am already late."
For symbolic purposes, Favreau ought to go. Obama may have wooed back the woman this time, with the assistance of the media's bind-and-rape of Sarah Palin, but there is no guarentee they will stick around.
This Obama fellow does not seem to understand women very well at all - maybe somebody should tell him of their notoriously long memories, and their ability to nurse grudges for inhuman amounts of time?
Well, one thing is finally clear to me - the reason for Barack Obama's empty, platitude-filled speeches. Written by a kid who has virtually no life experiences, it stands to reason that the spaces that would need to be filled with real-life experience instead were jam-packed with empty rhetoric.
Kinda like the President-elect himself!
Thoughts? Well, it's a fratboy-mentality gag, nothing to raise the roof about.
EXCEPT...Obama has seemed to have a "chick problem" since day one, sneering disrespectfully at Hillary Clinton during the debates, calling female reporters "sweetie", refusing to pick a female VP candidate when one would have given him an absolute cruise to an election victory, and so on.
If Karl Rove had done it, the dreaded National Organization of Woman would have raised the freakin' roof. But because it's a Democrat who's engaged in blatent sexist behavior as opposed to a Republican engaged in perceived sexist behavior, well...this is what you get:
The National Organization for Women, which last struck issuing news releases on why Sarah Palin isn't a real woman, refused to comment on the Obama speechwriter incident. When NOW's press secretary Mai Shiozaki was reached Friday, she first claimed not to have seen the Favreau photograph. But when called later, she offered two reasons for not weighing in: "I haven't looked into it" and "I have a 5 p.m. deadline. ... I am already late."
For symbolic purposes, Favreau ought to go. Obama may have wooed back the woman this time, with the assistance of the media's bind-and-rape of Sarah Palin, but there is no guarentee they will stick around.
This Obama fellow does not seem to understand women very well at all - maybe somebody should tell him of their notoriously long memories, and their ability to nurse grudges for inhuman amounts of time?
Well, one thing is finally clear to me - the reason for Barack Obama's empty, platitude-filled speeches. Written by a kid who has virtually no life experiences, it stands to reason that the spaces that would need to be filled with real-life experience instead were jam-packed with empty rhetoric.
Kinda like the President-elect himself!
Sunday, December 07, 2008
"Ima ! Abba !"
...2-year-old Moshe Holtzberg said, using the Hebrew words for mother and father.
The orphaned son of the Brooklyn couple murdered in Mumbai cried out for his slain parents Monday at a wrenching memorial service....
Silence=Acceptance
Steyn with a stunningly brilliant and disturbing take on the slaughter in Mumbai:
In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay?....
...“reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope.
Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.
In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay?....
...“reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope.
Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Slow News Day? Go Back 50+ Years, And Bash The U.S. !
Sometimes I read the headlines and just think, "is this the best you could do?":
Government investigators digging into the grim hidden history of mass political executions in South Korea have confirmed that dozens of children were among many thousands shot by their own government early in the Korean War.
Family survivors last month met with the U.S. Embassy for the first time, saying afterward they demanded an apology for alleged "direct and indirect" American involvement in the killings.
Although at the time U.S. diplomats reported confidentially they had urged restraint on the South Koreans, there was no sign the U.S. military, with formal command over the southerners, tried to halt the mass executions.
Well, that's certainly worth a 1000-word article. I guess since Barack Obama didn't part the Red Sea today, reporters had to play the "six degrees of seperation" game to come up with a headliner proving once and again that America truly, deeply, sucks. Until BO gets in, of course.
One line stood out, if only for the sake of modern-day contrast:
"Young children or whatever were all killed en masse," Kim told The Associated Press. "What did the family members do wrong? Why did they kill the family members?"
Valid question. But it reminded me of this dead little girl:
Government investigators digging into the grim hidden history of mass political executions in South Korea have confirmed that dozens of children were among many thousands shot by their own government early in the Korean War.
Family survivors last month met with the U.S. Embassy for the first time, saying afterward they demanded an apology for alleged "direct and indirect" American involvement in the killings.
Although at the time U.S. diplomats reported confidentially they had urged restraint on the South Koreans, there was no sign the U.S. military, with formal command over the southerners, tried to halt the mass executions.
Well, that's certainly worth a 1000-word article. I guess since Barack Obama didn't part the Red Sea today, reporters had to play the "six degrees of seperation" game to come up with a headliner proving once and again that America truly, deeply, sucks. Until BO gets in, of course.
One line stood out, if only for the sake of modern-day contrast:
"Young children or whatever were all killed en masse," Kim told The Associated Press. "What did the family members do wrong? Why did they kill the family members?"
Valid question. But it reminded me of this dead little girl:
What did this child do wrong? Why, she was an Iraqi Kurd, of course, and thus gassed to death by Saddam Hussein.
But we did something about it this time - we went in and spent our own blood and treasure to stop the slaughter of the innocent.
And for the past five years, we have been told - by the same media that produced the article above - that the Iraqi invasion was yet additional evidence that America truly, deeply sucks.
Funny - I saw very, very few exposes on the mass graves and the bones of murdered children that were found all across Saddam's Iraq.
I guess if you can't tie it to America, it's OK to wantonly murder civilians. Maybe that helped make the Mumbai murderers so brazen? After all, the condemnation of the slaughter in India is practically mute compared to the scorn heaped upon America for deposing the thugs that endorse this violence.
Thanks, MSM. See the results of your handiwork?
Friday, December 05, 2008
Bailout Burnout
In a rare show of political unity - driven, most likely, by almost unifom voter disgust - it seems as if both Democrats and Republicans alike do not have the stomach to turn over $20+ billion to the simpletons who run the Big Three auto industries.
Lots of good stuff out there....for openers, how bad was the business proposal they submitted to Congress?
GM's "recovery" plan would be lucky to earn a C at a respectable business college. And what little substance it offers, the company is in no position to actually deliver.
For now, anyway, GM says it needs to borrow the original $12 billion by March, just to keep operating, but wants access to another $6 billion line of credit just in case the economy gets even worse. Just in case?
The rest of the proposal is rife with typical Detroit fantasy:
* GM presumes that the auto industry, which is expected to see sales fall to 12 million units in 2009, will bounce back to sell 15 million units by 2012. What's the basis for that hope?
* It insists that it will make its labor costs "competitive" with those of transplants like Toyota and Honda by 2012. One small problem - the United Auto Workers has agreed to no such thing.
The New York Post has a classic headline: Bush to Detroit: Rust in Peace!
....President Bush joined hardworking New Yorkers to oppose throwing "good money after bad."
"No matter how important the autos are to our economy, we don't want to put good money after bad,"....
"In other words, we want to make sure that the plan they develop is one that ensures their long-term viability for the sake of the taxpayer," Bush told NBC News.
"But in order for them to get any help from Congress, they are going to have to prove that . . . taxpayer money will be repaid and that they will be competitive."
The president said it's "yet to be determined" whether any bailout would be a good investment for taxpayers.
SOme shocking skepticism too from lawmakers who usually can't wait to give away taxpayer cash:
"I suspect any sensible banker would summarily dismiss your request," said Sen. Richard Shelby (D-Ala.).
"I worry that, left on their own, they will be back a short time later asking for more," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli was accused of seeking $7 billion just to tide over his company before it could be sold off.
"You want to hang around long enough so you can date somebody and hopefully get married soon before you run out of money," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Of course, there is always hypocrisy when politicians are involved:
Last summer, Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey joined his Democratic colleagues in piling $85 billion in new regulatory costs on the Detroit Three by mandating a 40-percent fuel-efficiency increase by 2020.
At this afternoon’s Senate Banking Committee hearings, Casey — unapologetic for his role in burdening the industry now before him seeking a handout — demanded quick passage of $34 billion in taxpayer money to save the Detroit companies from bankruptcy. Casey moaned about the economic devastation an auto company failure would visit on his state.
Last fall, Barack Obama stood with striking UAW workers in Kansas City to oppose a new labor agreement that industry executives said was necessary to survive....
Clearly, these men have no clue that their actions have consequences.
Yeah, wait until they force the automakers to accept government oversight of their business. By the same geniuses as mentioned above, to boot. The UAW all become government employees, the Big Three becomes wards of the state, prohibitive taxes are passed on foreign automobiles, and Americans are stuck with overpriced, poor quality, undersized and politically correct crapmobiles.
Courage, little Congressman....
Lots of good stuff out there....for openers, how bad was the business proposal they submitted to Congress?
GM's "recovery" plan would be lucky to earn a C at a respectable business college. And what little substance it offers, the company is in no position to actually deliver.
For now, anyway, GM says it needs to borrow the original $12 billion by March, just to keep operating, but wants access to another $6 billion line of credit just in case the economy gets even worse. Just in case?
The rest of the proposal is rife with typical Detroit fantasy:
* GM presumes that the auto industry, which is expected to see sales fall to 12 million units in 2009, will bounce back to sell 15 million units by 2012. What's the basis for that hope?
* It insists that it will make its labor costs "competitive" with those of transplants like Toyota and Honda by 2012. One small problem - the United Auto Workers has agreed to no such thing.
The New York Post has a classic headline: Bush to Detroit: Rust in Peace!
....President Bush joined hardworking New Yorkers to oppose throwing "good money after bad."
"No matter how important the autos are to our economy, we don't want to put good money after bad,"....
"In other words, we want to make sure that the plan they develop is one that ensures their long-term viability for the sake of the taxpayer," Bush told NBC News.
"But in order for them to get any help from Congress, they are going to have to prove that . . . taxpayer money will be repaid and that they will be competitive."
The president said it's "yet to be determined" whether any bailout would be a good investment for taxpayers.
SOme shocking skepticism too from lawmakers who usually can't wait to give away taxpayer cash:
"I suspect any sensible banker would summarily dismiss your request," said Sen. Richard Shelby (D-Ala.).
"I worry that, left on their own, they will be back a short time later asking for more," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli was accused of seeking $7 billion just to tide over his company before it could be sold off.
"You want to hang around long enough so you can date somebody and hopefully get married soon before you run out of money," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Of course, there is always hypocrisy when politicians are involved:
Last summer, Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey joined his Democratic colleagues in piling $85 billion in new regulatory costs on the Detroit Three by mandating a 40-percent fuel-efficiency increase by 2020.
At this afternoon’s Senate Banking Committee hearings, Casey — unapologetic for his role in burdening the industry now before him seeking a handout — demanded quick passage of $34 billion in taxpayer money to save the Detroit companies from bankruptcy. Casey moaned about the economic devastation an auto company failure would visit on his state.
Last fall, Barack Obama stood with striking UAW workers in Kansas City to oppose a new labor agreement that industry executives said was necessary to survive....
Clearly, these men have no clue that their actions have consequences.
Yeah, wait until they force the automakers to accept government oversight of their business. By the same geniuses as mentioned above, to boot. The UAW all become government employees, the Big Three becomes wards of the state, prohibitive taxes are passed on foreign automobiles, and Americans are stuck with overpriced, poor quality, undersized and politically correct crapmobiles.
Courage, little Congressman....
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Barack Obama is Change!
If that means changing your position on just about everything you campaigned on, of course. Not that this is a bad thing - it is a very, very good thing. Jennifer Rubin lays it out:
President-elect Obama is dropping the idea of a windfall profit tax on oil companies because . . . well, there’s not so much windfall.....You have to love the Left whining: “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations — is bad for the economy.” Yeah, really who could imagine that raising taxes in a recession would be a bad idea? (Well, other than John McCain and every Republican running in 2008.
The New York Times now supports every move to the right that Barack Obama makes - although they would have bitched up a storm with the girls over brunch were these manuevers to be made by a Republican:
From the “now they tell us” files at the New York Times: “Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality.” Funny how no one at the Grey Lady during the campaign ever suggested Obama’s promises were out of touch with reality. Next we’ll be hearing that it really isn’t smart to block free trade agreements. Can’t wait for the raves from the Times when Obama denies hand rogue state leaders a diplomatic coup by refusing to offer high level meetings.
Finally - is Obama changing his mind about closing Gitmo? Let's asks his new/old Sec of Def, Robert Gates:
....the Wall Street Journal reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who will be staying on in the new administration, says, yes, we'd love to close Gitmo yesterday, indeed shutting it down remains a "high priority," but, whaddya know, it may take a while to get that done. Why? "Mr. Gates said the Democratic-controlled Congress would need to craft legislation resolving legal issues before the prison could be closed. Specifically, he said the bill would have to bar freed prisoners from seeking asylum in the U.S."
Here's the killer:
Be prepared for all sorts of things that were "constitution-shredding" for the last seven years to transform before our very eyes into "smart, effective counterterrorism."
Hypocrisy, lies, and flip-flopping by the Democrats and their media. Will either one of them ever man up enough to gives us the truth on anything?
President-elect Obama is dropping the idea of a windfall profit tax on oil companies because . . . well, there’s not so much windfall.....You have to love the Left whining: “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations — is bad for the economy.” Yeah, really who could imagine that raising taxes in a recession would be a bad idea? (Well, other than John McCain and every Republican running in 2008.
The New York Times now supports every move to the right that Barack Obama makes - although they would have bitched up a storm with the girls over brunch were these manuevers to be made by a Republican:
From the “now they tell us” files at the New York Times: “Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality.” Funny how no one at the Grey Lady during the campaign ever suggested Obama’s promises were out of touch with reality. Next we’ll be hearing that it really isn’t smart to block free trade agreements. Can’t wait for the raves from the Times when Obama denies hand rogue state leaders a diplomatic coup by refusing to offer high level meetings.
Finally - is Obama changing his mind about closing Gitmo? Let's asks his new/old Sec of Def, Robert Gates:
....the Wall Street Journal reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who will be staying on in the new administration, says, yes, we'd love to close Gitmo yesterday, indeed shutting it down remains a "high priority," but, whaddya know, it may take a while to get that done. Why? "Mr. Gates said the Democratic-controlled Congress would need to craft legislation resolving legal issues before the prison could be closed. Specifically, he said the bill would have to bar freed prisoners from seeking asylum in the U.S."
Here's the killer:
Be prepared for all sorts of things that were "constitution-shredding" for the last seven years to transform before our very eyes into "smart, effective counterterrorism."
Hypocrisy, lies, and flip-flopping by the Democrats and their media. Will either one of them ever man up enough to gives us the truth on anything?
Well, that's us put in our place....
...by Hillary Clinton's spokesman, Phillipe Reines. (sacre bleu!)
When asked whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
"This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,”
Can't you just hear the sneer?
And why do I think we will get a lot of this during Obama's term in office? It's a great stock reply to almost any question asked during a press conference.
And people think lawyers are unpopular now...
When asked whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
"This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset,”
Can't you just hear the sneer?
And why do I think we will get a lot of this during Obama's term in office? It's a great stock reply to almost any question asked during a press conference.
And people think lawyers are unpopular now...
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
But I Thought She Cost McCain the Election?
Yeah, that's what those skanky left-wing whores wanted you to think, especially as they saw their own feminity challenged by a hotter, more successful, more married version of themselves.
Truth is, Sarah Palin is the golden girl. Re-elected Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, fresh off his runoff win last night, knew who pushed him over the top:
“I can't overstate the impact she had down here,” Chambliss said during an interview Wednesday morning on Fox News. “When she walks in a room, folks just explode,” he added. “And they really did pack the house everywhere we went.
The Republican also thanked John McCain and the other big name Republicans that came to Georgia, but said Palin made the biggest impact. “We had John McCain and Mike Huckabee and Gov. Romney and Rudy Giuliani, but Sarah Palin came in on the last day, did a fly-around and, man, she was dynamite,” he said. “We packed the houses everywhere we went. And it really did allow us to peak and get our base fired up.”
And where was Obama? Hiding behind Hillary Clinton's skirt, no doubt - they both know if the ticket was flipped, Sweet Sarah would be the one constructing a cabinet right around now.
Give the girl a few more years....
Journalists as the new Paris Hiltons?
Well, at least Paris was funny in "The Simple Life", and her look-down-her-nose-at-the-plebes demeanor is almost refreshing in a world filled with political correctness. Newsman are not funny (not intentionally funny), nor interesting, nor even very important in today's information-is-everywhere world.
Still, they seem to think they are the bomb:
Newsmen have become the news. And the gossip.
One may run for office. Many are vying for a single plum job. Another is suing his old network for millions. It is a long way from the austere days of Eric Sevareid, when staid anchormen left stardom to Hollywood.
"Anchors and journalists have become part of self-reverential celebrity culture. Everything goes back to 'me.' ...said Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...
Some 600 news stories have appeared, for example, on the rumor that MSNBC's Chris Matthews is mulling a run for Senate in 2010, to oppose Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican.
Phil Singer, a communications director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, questioned the ethics.
"When one of the network's most visible anchors is reported to be exploring a run for elected office, the network has an obligation to remove that person from its airwaves," he wrote in a blog.
Chris Matthews, running for Senate a la the soon-to-be failed run of unfunnyman Al Franken? A thrill should be running up the leg of Arlen Specter, and the Republicans. Don't expect MSNBC to pull him, though - that would take ethics, and they have none.
But what makes Matthews (or Franken) think they are qualified? Because they are rich, have a tiny but loud audience, and believe in the mirage they create around themselves? If Franken could not win in a Democratic state in a Democratic year, why does any other pundit think they can pull it off in '10?
If Matthews is qualified to be Senator, than Rush Limbaugh is overqualified to be President, incidentally.
A few more losses - both financially, career-wise, and politically (if they so choose), please. Anything to get a serving of humble pie down their gut...
Still, they seem to think they are the bomb:
Newsmen have become the news. And the gossip.
One may run for office. Many are vying for a single plum job. Another is suing his old network for millions. It is a long way from the austere days of Eric Sevareid, when staid anchormen left stardom to Hollywood.
"Anchors and journalists have become part of self-reverential celebrity culture. Everything goes back to 'me.' ...said Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...
Some 600 news stories have appeared, for example, on the rumor that MSNBC's Chris Matthews is mulling a run for Senate in 2010, to oppose Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican.
Phil Singer, a communications director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, questioned the ethics.
"When one of the network's most visible anchors is reported to be exploring a run for elected office, the network has an obligation to remove that person from its airwaves," he wrote in a blog.
Chris Matthews, running for Senate a la the soon-to-be failed run of unfunnyman Al Franken? A thrill should be running up the leg of Arlen Specter, and the Republicans. Don't expect MSNBC to pull him, though - that would take ethics, and they have none.
But what makes Matthews (or Franken) think they are qualified? Because they are rich, have a tiny but loud audience, and believe in the mirage they create around themselves? If Franken could not win in a Democratic state in a Democratic year, why does any other pundit think they can pull it off in '10?
If Matthews is qualified to be Senator, than Rush Limbaugh is overqualified to be President, incidentally.
A few more losses - both financially, career-wise, and politically (if they so choose), please. Anything to get a serving of humble pie down their gut...
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Hatred
Over at Commentary, David Hazony posts on the concept of hate; specifically (and as strange as it may sound), defining both "good hatred" and " bad hatred". According to Hazony, "One is humane and moral, the other loathsome."
Do you feel a need to unleash hatred (verbally, written, etc.) upon those whom you feel deserve your wrath, and yet feel almost ashamed - by a culture and a media that tries to convince you that your particular kind of hatred is indicative of evil within the hater?
Then let Rabbi Shmuley Boteach be your guide, as he tells us why it is OK to hate terrorists:
I know how uncomfortable people feel about hatred. It smacks of revenge. It poisons the heart of those who hate. But this is true only if we hate the good, the innocent or the neutral. Hating monsters, however, motivates us to fight them. Only if an act like this repulses us to our core will we summon the will to fight these devils so that they can never murder again. . .
....But to love those who indiscriminately murder God’s children is an abomination against all that is sacred. Is there a man who is human whose heart is not filled with moral revulsion against terrorists who target a rabbi who feeds the hungry? Would God or Jesus ask me to extend even one morsel of my limited capacity for compassion to fiends rather than saving every last particle for their victims instead?
Makes sense; judge a man by his acts, and if they are morally repulsive, treat the man the same way.
Now how about another type of hatred - one that the media seems to almost approve of, by dint of simply refusing to damn it....meet Syrian actress Amal Arafa, who is asked what she thinks about the possibilty of peace with Israel:
Policies may change, but there is something that is already in my genes. We’ve been brought up to hate Israel. It’s in our genes. If Arab countries make political decisions, and there is peace, and so on and so forth–First of all, who would be against peace? I am not against peace. Of course not. But as far as I am concerned, Israel will continue to be a black, dark, and murky spot in my memory, in my genes, and in my blood. Even though I am Syrian, and not Palestinian, the Syrian upbringing we received, and by which we lived, we’ve suckled it with the milk of our mothers. There is no playing around with this, it’s in our genes, and we will pass this down for many more generations.
Hatred without cause, hatred without rationality - hatred for hate's sake, to paraphrase Captain Ahab. And yet women like these are feted, while someone who rightously rages against murderous Islamic terrorists are often singled out as "racist" or "prejudiced".
Want to know why Western Civilization is struggling? Look at whose anger and hate we accept, and those whose anger and hatred we reject. By rejecting the condemnation of evil we are also rejecting that which is good and moral within ourselves. And by accepting the blind hatred of someone like our Syrian actress as almost "natural", we encourage the rampaging of terror and evil as practiced by her spiritual bretheren, the Muslim terrorist. And the cycle continues on, with only one side - the West - losing no matter which way the coin falls.
Were this attitude prevelent in 1939, we would have lost the WWII for sure. No rage, no anger = no will to fight. Just ask the Democrats!
Speaking for myself - I will revel in my own hatred, as long as I know it is rightous...
Do you feel a need to unleash hatred (verbally, written, etc.) upon those whom you feel deserve your wrath, and yet feel almost ashamed - by a culture and a media that tries to convince you that your particular kind of hatred is indicative of evil within the hater?
Then let Rabbi Shmuley Boteach be your guide, as he tells us why it is OK to hate terrorists:
I know how uncomfortable people feel about hatred. It smacks of revenge. It poisons the heart of those who hate. But this is true only if we hate the good, the innocent or the neutral. Hating monsters, however, motivates us to fight them. Only if an act like this repulses us to our core will we summon the will to fight these devils so that they can never murder again. . .
....But to love those who indiscriminately murder God’s children is an abomination against all that is sacred. Is there a man who is human whose heart is not filled with moral revulsion against terrorists who target a rabbi who feeds the hungry? Would God or Jesus ask me to extend even one morsel of my limited capacity for compassion to fiends rather than saving every last particle for their victims instead?
Makes sense; judge a man by his acts, and if they are morally repulsive, treat the man the same way.
Now how about another type of hatred - one that the media seems to almost approve of, by dint of simply refusing to damn it....meet Syrian actress Amal Arafa, who is asked what she thinks about the possibilty of peace with Israel:
Policies may change, but there is something that is already in my genes. We’ve been brought up to hate Israel. It’s in our genes. If Arab countries make political decisions, and there is peace, and so on and so forth–First of all, who would be against peace? I am not against peace. Of course not. But as far as I am concerned, Israel will continue to be a black, dark, and murky spot in my memory, in my genes, and in my blood. Even though I am Syrian, and not Palestinian, the Syrian upbringing we received, and by which we lived, we’ve suckled it with the milk of our mothers. There is no playing around with this, it’s in our genes, and we will pass this down for many more generations.
Hatred without cause, hatred without rationality - hatred for hate's sake, to paraphrase Captain Ahab. And yet women like these are feted, while someone who rightously rages against murderous Islamic terrorists are often singled out as "racist" or "prejudiced".
Want to know why Western Civilization is struggling? Look at whose anger and hate we accept, and those whose anger and hatred we reject. By rejecting the condemnation of evil we are also rejecting that which is good and moral within ourselves. And by accepting the blind hatred of someone like our Syrian actress as almost "natural", we encourage the rampaging of terror and evil as practiced by her spiritual bretheren, the Muslim terrorist. And the cycle continues on, with only one side - the West - losing no matter which way the coin falls.
Were this attitude prevelent in 1939, we would have lost the WWII for sure. No rage, no anger = no will to fight. Just ask the Democrats!
Speaking for myself - I will revel in my own hatred, as long as I know it is rightous...
Media Providing Cover for Terrorists, Again...
Great op-ed in today's New York Post, revealing the lengths the media will go to in order to keep the terror attacks in Mumbai within what they feel is within the scope of the liberal, politically correct storyline:
Al Jazeera and The Guardian label the terrorists "gunmen"; CNN calls them "militants." Some analysts identified the underlying cause as the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Psychological guru Deepak Chopra called it the result of "collateral damage" from the US war on terrorism and the Iraq war.
I think Mr. Chopra has lost what little credibility he had, for a "guru", anyway....although his stock will likely rise in Holly/Bollywood...
The New York Times theorized that Chabad House may have been an "accidental hostage scene." The BBC initially chose to hide the Jewish character of the target by describing it as just "an office building." Al Jazeera refused to show Chabad House as the site of the carnage. Some Western media outlets unsympathetically labeled victims there as "ultra-Orthodox" or "missionaries."
What fact has been deliberately omitted from all of these august outlet's media report?
The only captured terrorist, Ajmal Kamal, confessed under interrogation that his fellow murderers were specifically ordered to target the Jews killed at Chabad...
But there's no need for you to know this, right? It might "anger up the blood", and allow you to, you know...think independently?
Al Jazeera and The Guardian label the terrorists "gunmen"; CNN calls them "militants." Some analysts identified the underlying cause as the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Psychological guru Deepak Chopra called it the result of "collateral damage" from the US war on terrorism and the Iraq war.
I think Mr. Chopra has lost what little credibility he had, for a "guru", anyway....although his stock will likely rise in Holly/Bollywood...
The New York Times theorized that Chabad House may have been an "accidental hostage scene." The BBC initially chose to hide the Jewish character of the target by describing it as just "an office building." Al Jazeera refused to show Chabad House as the site of the carnage. Some Western media outlets unsympathetically labeled victims there as "ultra-Orthodox" or "missionaries."
What fact has been deliberately omitted from all of these august outlet's media report?
The only captured terrorist, Ajmal Kamal, confessed under interrogation that his fellow murderers were specifically ordered to target the Jews killed at Chabad...
But there's no need for you to know this, right? It might "anger up the blood", and allow you to, you know...think independently?
Monday, December 01, 2008
Bollywood: Like Hollywood, Only Spicer?
And here I have always thought that Hollywood actors and actresses had a distinct stupidity, a unique ignorance, a sublime self-loathing...turns out that the Bollywood crew is no better:
On the evening of Nov. 26, the biggest names in Bollywood walked the red carpet at the Bombay premiere of "The President Is Coming," a comedy about six 20-somethings vying to win the right to shake hands with President Bush.
Among those in attendance at the star-studded premiere Wednesday evening was Bollywood's "new heartthrob" Imran Khan, who proudly posed for paparazzi donning a T-shirt with Mr. Bush's face sandwiched between the words "International Terrorist."
Mr. Khan - a member of India's Muslim minority - chose not to mock international terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. He and his co-religionists know the deadly results for those who do.
At the precise moment Mr. Khan and hundreds of others making their fortunes in the multibillion-dollar Indian movie business were watching "The President Is Coming," only a few blocks away, 10 20-something Muslim extremists began a horrific three-day terror spree.
And, like their Hollywood counterparts, the Bollywood thespians appear predisposed to blame everyone but the culprit.....
Mr. Khan was lucky that the terrorists were not aware of the opportunity to splatter hundreds of high profile targets all lined up neatly in a dark room. Otherwise, he would have died with an ironic joke written across his chest....quite a theatrical way to go, of course, but thespians - in their earnest simplicity - very rarely "get" the more complex emotions.
But like in America, the general Indian population is quite wiser than its court jesters:
...the Bollywood crowd is in the minority in India, where a majority approve of the U.S. behavior and more people like Mr. Bush than don't. Indians lean 45 percent to 34 percent in favor of Mr. Bush, according to a Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll taken earlier this year.
Let the Hollywood/Bollywood types blame "lack of understanding" and "poverty". Americans, and Indians, know better...
On the evening of Nov. 26, the biggest names in Bollywood walked the red carpet at the Bombay premiere of "The President Is Coming," a comedy about six 20-somethings vying to win the right to shake hands with President Bush. Among those in attendance at the star-studded premiere Wednesday evening was Bollywood's "new heartthrob" Imran Khan, who proudly posed for paparazzi donning a T-shirt with Mr. Bush's face sandwiched between the words "International Terrorist."
Mr. Khan - a member of India's Muslim minority - chose not to mock international terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. He and his co-religionists know the deadly results for those who do.
At the precise moment Mr. Khan and hundreds of others making their fortunes in the multibillion-dollar Indian movie business were watching "The President Is Coming," only a few blocks away, 10 20-something Muslim extremists began a horrific three-day terror spree.
And, like their Hollywood counterparts, the Bollywood thespians appear predisposed to blame everyone but the culprit.....
Mr. Khan was lucky that the terrorists were not aware of the opportunity to splatter hundreds of high profile targets all lined up neatly in a dark room. Otherwise, he would have died with an ironic joke written across his chest....quite a theatrical way to go, of course, but thespians - in their earnest simplicity - very rarely "get" the more complex emotions.
But like in America, the general Indian population is quite wiser than its court jesters:
...the Bollywood crowd is in the minority in India, where a majority approve of the U.S. behavior and more people like Mr. Bush than don't. Indians lean 45 percent to 34 percent in favor of Mr. Bush, according to a Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll taken earlier this year.
Let the Hollywood/Bollywood types blame "lack of understanding" and "poverty". Americans, and Indians, know better...
CNN: Defining "Useful Idiot" Down in Mumbai....
....because the Mumbai mayhem is all about them, you see.
Gateway Pundit again tells the story:
A South Wales couple caught in the Mumbai terror attacks claimed last night that CNN put their lives at risk by broadcasting where they were.
Lynne and Kenneth Shaw, of Penarth, warned that terrorists were listening in to the media to pinpoint Western victims.
Mrs Shaw claimed the American cable TV channel had broadcast details of where they were at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
.....From her home in Penarth yesterday, Mrs Shaw said: “We have been asked by the British terror police not to talk to the press.“
But the reason I would not want to talk to anyone is because our safety was actually compromised by CNN, which broadcast where we were.
“The terrorists were watching CNN and they came down from where they were in a lift after hearing about us on television. For that reason I would appeal to the media to be very careful about what they broadcast."
Can't you just hear these self-absorbed, self-important CNN blowhards? I can only imagine:
"This is Susan Schmuckler, reporting live from the 8th floot of the Taj Hotel, where Western citizens have banded together and are hiding out from maurading Islamic militants. We're going to be talking shortly to a Jewish couple from room 815 to see if they have any specific fears at the moment and to see if they believe their religion will make them more of a target. Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, could you step towards the CNN cameras please? No need to hide under the bed, now..."
Suprised CNN didn't offer exclusives to the Mumbai terrorists; after all, isn't it important that we hear their side of the story as well? We need to know what their grievences are, so we don't get them angry again...
Incidentally, Ralph Peters has a great essay on the attack and its motivations - as well as the media reaction:
Western media analysis remains self-absorbed, naive and breathless. Once again, commentators insist the story is really about us. It's not...
We'll leave the final word to Peters, and he brings up a topic that is taboo among the media as well as our well-bred elite:
Indeed, jealousy is the great unacknowledged strategic factor of our time.
Apart from being the world's largest (if raucous) democracy, India shares a trait with the United States that infuriates Islamists shamed by the abysmal failures of their own societies: India is a success story. And Allah had nothing to do with it.
What does it all mean for us? We Americans still re fuse to learn the lessons of 9/11: Evil is real, hatred's delicious and those who can't bear their self-wrought disasters are desperate for someone else to blame - and we and the Indians are it...
More on useful idots here....
Gateway Pundit again tells the story:
A South Wales couple caught in the Mumbai terror attacks claimed last night that CNN put their lives at risk by broadcasting where they were.
Lynne and Kenneth Shaw, of Penarth, warned that terrorists were listening in to the media to pinpoint Western victims.
Mrs Shaw claimed the American cable TV channel had broadcast details of where they were at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
.....From her home in Penarth yesterday, Mrs Shaw said: “We have been asked by the British terror police not to talk to the press.“
But the reason I would not want to talk to anyone is because our safety was actually compromised by CNN, which broadcast where we were.
“The terrorists were watching CNN and they came down from where they were in a lift after hearing about us on television. For that reason I would appeal to the media to be very careful about what they broadcast."
Can't you just hear these self-absorbed, self-important CNN blowhards? I can only imagine:
"This is Susan Schmuckler, reporting live from the 8th floot of the Taj Hotel, where Western citizens have banded together and are hiding out from maurading Islamic militants. We're going to be talking shortly to a Jewish couple from room 815 to see if they have any specific fears at the moment and to see if they believe their religion will make them more of a target. Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, could you step towards the CNN cameras please? No need to hide under the bed, now..."
Suprised CNN didn't offer exclusives to the Mumbai terrorists; after all, isn't it important that we hear their side of the story as well? We need to know what their grievences are, so we don't get them angry again...
Incidentally, Ralph Peters has a great essay on the attack and its motivations - as well as the media reaction:
Western media analysis remains self-absorbed, naive and breathless. Once again, commentators insist the story is really about us. It's not...
We'll leave the final word to Peters, and he brings up a topic that is taboo among the media as well as our well-bred elite:
Indeed, jealousy is the great unacknowledged strategic factor of our time.
Apart from being the world's largest (if raucous) democracy, India shares a trait with the United States that infuriates Islamists shamed by the abysmal failures of their own societies: India is a success story. And Allah had nothing to do with it.
What does it all mean for us? We Americans still re fuse to learn the lessons of 9/11: Evil is real, hatred's delicious and those who can't bear their self-wrought disasters are desperate for someone else to blame - and we and the Indians are it...
More on useful idots here....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)