So the dems, led by the Teleprompter, want to sue anyone that does anything like releasing toxic emissions like your exhalations using new polar bear derived guidelines...or such is the state of their intent as I discern it in the EPA's penumbras.
This leads me to wonder...
Will our government use international law to sue foreign nations - China or India for example - that spew carbon dioxide into the air all willy-nilly, damaging our polar bears?
If not...why not?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thumbs Up For The Gazette
Big, big thumbs up for the Daily Gazette today for having the guts to run one of Cal Woodward's Fact Check pieces that he's been writing after every major speech and appearance. Double extra thumbs up for the fact that it SLAMMED Obama on his ludicrous and nonsensical 'inherited deficit' claims that the left has had a field day with for months - pointing out very clearly (for once) in a newspaper that it is CONGRESS that is responsible for spending and, lo and behold, the DEMOCRATS were in charge of Congress for the past two years and that Obama VOTED FOR all that deficit spending he "inherited".
Now, if only people read it, understood it, and remember it.
That's journalism.
Now, if only people read it, understood it, and remember it.
That's journalism.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Don't Tax Me, Bro!
Americans For Prosperity with an OUCH moment for the left:
Remember what MoveOn said last week:
“If Republicans convince voters that clean energy legislation amounts to a new tax, Obama’s plan is toast.”
Looks like Republicans have some help from a heavy-weight Democrat, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-Mich.), who said today:
“Nobody, nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax and it’s a great big one. I want to get a bill that works. How do we choose the best course, cap-and-trade, carbon tax? At times, my dear friend, Albert, you have been an advocate of a carbon tax as the better way to go. How do we address this problem?” (U.S. House of Representatives Energy And Commerce Committee, Hearing, 4/24/09)
Doth I Protest Too Much
Let's see...Obama and his minions are certain that "right wing extremists", aka conservative terrorists, are just one jot away from snapping in violent fury if anyone ever troubles to rile them up about something and they get organized.
Really?
Shortly after this document was spilled to the public, roughly 100,000 Americans troubled by high taxes and obvious signs of socialism in their government organized themselves at hundreds of sites nationwide and banded together to hold loud, angry protests.
And no one got hurt.
And nothing got damaged.
And no 'violent veterans' went nuts killing democrat politicians.
Really.
Let's hear the left and their messiah claim the same thing about leftist protests against military recruiters in San Francisco or leftist protests at economic summits at - well, anywhere. Let's hear the left defend the actions of 'eco-terrorists' causing widespread environmental havoc in the name of mother earth. Is this a bad time to mention the death threats against AIG employees after they were demonized by the liberal press or the death threats, old-lady-harassment, intimidation, and property damage done by decidely un-right-wing gay activists leading up to the vote striking down the undefining of marriage in California? Which side of the aisle assaults invited speakers in order to shut them up, intimidate them and drive them off - usually while screeching about 'free speech' and 'rights'? Who attacks and intimidates people because of what they wear?
Jonah Goldberg:
When Libya decided to flex their terrorist muscles back in the 80s Reagan famously made it clear that if they counted on America to remain passive, they counted wrong. If Obama is counting on the right remaining passive as he enacts his own blend of classic fascism, gestapo propaganda, and 1984, let's hope he counted wrong.
Really?
Shortly after this document was spilled to the public, roughly 100,000 Americans troubled by high taxes and obvious signs of socialism in their government organized themselves at hundreds of sites nationwide and banded together to hold loud, angry protests.
And no one got hurt.
And nothing got damaged.
And no 'violent veterans' went nuts killing democrat politicians.
Really.
Let's hear the left and their messiah claim the same thing about leftist protests against military recruiters in San Francisco or leftist protests at economic summits at - well, anywhere. Let's hear the left defend the actions of 'eco-terrorists' causing widespread environmental havoc in the name of mother earth. Is this a bad time to mention the death threats against AIG employees after they were demonized by the liberal press or the death threats, old-lady-harassment, intimidation, and property damage done by decidely un-right-wing gay activists leading up to the vote striking down the undefining of marriage in California? Which side of the aisle assaults invited speakers in order to shut them up, intimidate them and drive them off - usually while screeching about 'free speech' and 'rights'? Who attacks and intimidates people because of what they wear?
Jonah Goldberg:
The idea that American "hate groups" are right-wing and bristling with vets got new life with JFK's assassination at the hands of a disgruntled vet named Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody knew right away that Oswald was an agent of "hate" -- and hate was code for right-wing and racist. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren summed up the instantaneous conventional wisdom when he blamed the "climate of hatred" for Kennedy's death. Everybody knew that the right was involved.We're being set up.
There was just one inconvenient truth: Oswald was a communist who, according to the Warren report, had "an extreme dislike of the rightwing" and had actually tried to murder a right-wing former Army general...
Sen. John Kerry belonged to an organization of vets that considered assassinating American politicians. (Kerry denied participating in those meetings.) Barack Obama was friends with, and a colleague of, a domestic terrorist whose organization plotted to murder soldiers and their wives at a social at Fort Dix. A young Hillary Clinton sympathized with the Black Panthers, a paramilitary gang of racist murderers and cop killers.
Bring that up and you're a paranoid nutcase out of "Dr. Strangelove."
But if you're terrified of a bunch of citizens who throw tea in the water and demand lower taxes and less government spending, well, that's just a sign of political seriousness.
When Libya decided to flex their terrorist muscles back in the 80s Reagan famously made it clear that if they counted on America to remain passive, they counted wrong. If Obama is counting on the right remaining passive as he enacts his own blend of classic fascism, gestapo propaganda, and 1984, let's hope he counted wrong.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Correction Required From Times Union
Another letter has been printed with such obviously, objectionably wrong statements that it actually requires full corrections by the editors. The following has been submitted to opinion page editor Joann Crupi:
Ms. Crupi has apparently been convinced by the writer that the federal tax system is indeed less progressive, despite the fact that the rich are paying twice as much as before and the poor half as much as before. Yes, that makes sense. I have asked for the data showing this. I don't expect to get it. I have also asked for a correction to the letter on May 5 where a left-wing spewer of hate couldn't even get Justice Souter's first name right in a sentence attacking the memory of conservatives. Yes, that was delicious, thanks for asking.
Ms. Crupi also justified the writer's claim that Reagan 'owns' EIC because it was expanded under him. Fine. By that logic Barack Obama now owns the TARP program and all deficit spending under Bush. As long as we're clear on that.
Blatant errors requiring correction appear in Barry Baker's letter in the Monday, April 27th paper. Ignoring the debatable issues, since I'd have more luck breathing water than getting you to correct some of his loonier claims, I'll stick with the items effortless proven wrong by actual facts and figures.==
He claims: "Tax burdens were moved off of large wealth holders and onto the backs of wage earners and away from a progressive federal system..."
I find it a little hard to believe anyone edited this for accuracy. The following facts are easily obtained from the IRS. The majority of this data can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
Year / Total Income Tax Share (percentage) Top 1% of filers, Top 5% of filers, Bottom 50% of filers
1980 / 19.05, 36.84, 7.05
1981 / 17.58, 35.06, 7.45
1982 / 19.03, 36.13, 7.35
1983 / 20.32, 37.26, 7.17
1984 / 21.12, 37.98, 7.35
1985 / 21.81, 38.78, 7.17
1986 / 25.75, 42.57, 6.46
1987 / 24.81, 43.26, 6.07
1988 / 27.58, 45.62, 5.72
1989 / 25.24, 43.94, 5.83
1990 / 25.13, 43.64, 5.81
1991 / 24.82, 43.38, 5.48
1992 / 27.54, 45.88, 5.06
1993 / 29.01, 47.36, 4.81
1994 / 28.86, 47.52, 4.77
1995 / 30.26, 48.91, 4.61
1996 / 32.31, 50.97, 4.32
1997 / 33.17, 51.87, 4.28
1998 / 34.75, 53.84, 4.21
1999 / 36.18, 55.45, 4.00
2000 / 37.42, 55.47, 3.91
2001 / 33.89, 53.25, 3.97
2002 / 33.71, 53.80, 3.50
2003 / 34.27, 54.36, 3.46
2004 / 36.89, 57.13, 3.30
2005 / 39.38, 59.67, 3.07
2006 (last yr available) / 39.89, 60.14, 2.99
Since 1980 the federal income tax burden on "the rich" has gone from under 37% of all income taxes paid to over 60%. While there is no way to classify what a "wage earner" is according to Mr. Baker, let's just say the bottom 50%, whose burden has decreased from about 7% of the total income tax burden to about 3%. This is simple arithmetic and a correction is warranted. More is not less and less is not more, even in an opinion letter.
He also appears to claim that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the EIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Does it really take a reader to point out that none of these programs were started under Reagan to correct a mistake or stop yourselves from printing it to begin with? A correction is warranted.
-J. Black
Ms. Crupi has apparently been convinced by the writer that the federal tax system is indeed less progressive, despite the fact that the rich are paying twice as much as before and the poor half as much as before. Yes, that makes sense. I have asked for the data showing this. I don't expect to get it. I have also asked for a correction to the letter on May 5 where a left-wing spewer of hate couldn't even get Justice Souter's first name right in a sentence attacking the memory of conservatives. Yes, that was delicious, thanks for asking.
Ms. Crupi also justified the writer's claim that Reagan 'owns' EIC because it was expanded under him. Fine. By that logic Barack Obama now owns the TARP program and all deficit spending under Bush. As long as we're clear on that.
Oh, Fudge
Reuters:
If you're not saying fu** this and **ck that you're "bland"? Lame.
The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. government crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show...That has got to be the lamest argument I've ever heard on the subject. Tell me, how many books or movies or TV shows have you seen where and an old actor or actress is lamenting the way 'modern' TV/movies have forgotten how to write without being smutty? A lot. But this is the first time that someone has actually made the argument from the other side - essentially claiming - 'hey, we can't come up with anything good here, have seen how many remakes are filling the movie theaters? and you think we can do anything that isn't bland if we're not allowed to say f**k on prime time TV? what, you think we're creative or something and can rely on anything besides potty humor? get real!'
Critics of the policy, like Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, said the impact would be especially severe on smaller independent and public broadcasters.
"Writers, artists and directors on the front lines of the First Amendment face continuing pressure to err on the side of the blandness," he said.
If you're not saying fu** this and **ck that you're "bland"? Lame.
Are You Throwing Your Money Away?
Are you paying your bank back for the mortgage money they loaned you?
Are you paying your bank back for the car loan they gave you?
Did you take out a loan for a kitchen remodel or new deck and are you actually paying back the bank the money you borrowed from them?
STOP THROWING YOUR MONEY AWAY!
That's the message I got from an ad I heard on 810 this morning. Some loan 'arrangers' want you to call them (right away!) because they'll tell you how to 'fix' your loan with the bank so that you can pay back less than you owe!
What a great deal! Borrow $17,000 for a car and pay back less than that! Fantastic! If you're actually a schmuck that pays back money you borrow, you need to listen to these guys and realize that "you only have so much money" so "stop throwing money away" paying off debts!
Unreal.
Are you paying your bank back for the car loan they gave you?
Did you take out a loan for a kitchen remodel or new deck and are you actually paying back the bank the money you borrowed from them?
STOP THROWING YOUR MONEY AWAY!
That's the message I got from an ad I heard on 810 this morning. Some loan 'arrangers' want you to call them (right away!) because they'll tell you how to 'fix' your loan with the bank so that you can pay back less than you owe!
What a great deal! Borrow $17,000 for a car and pay back less than that! Fantastic! If you're actually a schmuck that pays back money you borrow, you need to listen to these guys and realize that "you only have so much money" so "stop throwing money away" paying off debts!
Unreal.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Outrageous
Oh you have GOT to be spitting me! The farking juvenile White House approves a farking LOW LEVEL FLYOVER of the STATUE OF LIBERTY by one of the AIR FORCE ONE JETS trailed by FIGHTER PLANES in the middle of the farking day with NO FARKING WARNING to residents that it was a FARKING PHOTO OP!! These poor bastards that watched jets fly into the World Trade Center less than a decade ago had to watch as a jet approached the Statue of Liberty and circled it trailed by fighters, knowing full well that any jet not being where it should would be chased and shot down by jets, with no warning whatsoever JUST SO THEY COULD GET SOME PHOTOS! Are you SPITTING ME?!!
Out-farking-rageous.
Now I want EVERY SINGLE LEFTIST that wasted even a single minute writing on the internet or to a newspaper or talking to their friends about the imaginary way they claim that Bush "used" 9-11 to spend AT LEAST as long doing the exact same thing blasting Obama's people for actually allowing a virtual RECREATION of the event for a PHOTO OP!
Have at it!
Out-farking-rageous.
Now I want EVERY SINGLE LEFTIST that wasted even a single minute writing on the internet or to a newspaper or talking to their friends about the imaginary way they claim that Bush "used" 9-11 to spend AT LEAST as long doing the exact same thing blasting Obama's people for actually allowing a virtual RECREATION of the event for a PHOTO OP!
Have at it!
Choose License Plates
I haven't seen anything lately about the meandering path of the 'Choose Life' license plates through the NY courts. Then this story came across the wire...‘Choose Life’ License Plates Approved in 24 States
Liberals seem to discern in the penumbras momentum towards undefining marriage in the actions of a few legislators and handful of judges.
Well, nearly half of the country now has access to these license plates with more being pushed for due to citizen effort (oh, sorry, they're probably primarily conservative, therefore they're not really grassroot or anything, they're backed by big oil or FoxNews) and over the continually failing lawsuits of extreme leftwing groups.
Seems like something with a lot of momentum if you ask me.
--
for the record...no, I don't want one
Liberals seem to discern in the penumbras momentum towards undefining marriage in the actions of a few legislators and handful of judges.
Well, nearly half of the country now has access to these license plates with more being pushed for due to citizen effort (oh, sorry, they're probably primarily conservative, therefore they're not really grassroot or anything, they're backed by big oil or FoxNews) and over the continually failing lawsuits of extreme leftwing groups.
Seems like something with a lot of momentum if you ask me.
--
for the record...no, I don't want one
Sunday, April 26, 2009
HEY NAY!
HEY!
The Times Union managed to insert a short, buried piece about yesterday's record breaking warmth in the area without calling on Brian Nearing to write another story about a single day's weather indicating PROOF!!!! that anthropogenic global warming is about the incinerate the world.
NAY!
However, I found the timing considerably questionable that, all of sudden, the Times Union finds front page, Sunday paper space for a feature story about how we're NOT experiencing anything remotely resembling the Great Depression...after harping on that we were for months and months (before The Teleprompted Won was elected, of course)...maybe even years.
The Times Union managed to insert a short, buried piece about yesterday's record breaking warmth in the area without calling on Brian Nearing to write another story about a single day's weather indicating PROOF!!!! that anthropogenic global warming is about the incinerate the world.
NAY!
However, I found the timing considerably questionable that, all of sudden, the Times Union finds front page, Sunday paper space for a feature story about how we're NOT experiencing anything remotely resembling the Great Depression...after harping on that we were for months and months (before The Teleprompted Won was elected, of course)...maybe even years.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Don't Be Fooled
Before you get too worked up about the misleading, overgeneralized, hyperbolic letter to the editor in the Times Union on Friday, I strongly suggest that you note the writer...
Trudy Quaif.
Yes, that Trudy Quaif.
Local far-leftwing activist Trudy Quaif.
This one: link.
Trudy Quaif.
Yes, that Trudy Quaif.
Local far-leftwing activist Trudy Quaif.
This one: link.
Is Any Of This Ringing A Bell?
Let's turn, again, back to Mussolini's description of fascism:
Harmful freedoms? Making your own choices about which credit card to get, which bank to use, what employer to work for, how much to pay an employee. These, you see, can be harmful to an entire society and "cause problems", unlike gambling offshore and smoking weed. Also, if you can get another credit card (maybe), then what use is there in having access to 14 other kinds? If you can bank at Bank A, why care that Bank B cannot bank with you? If you are being paid $15/hr, why worry that the government mandates that your employer not be able to pay you $20/hr or that any other employer cannot pay you that much? Therefore, the government must limit or eliminate these "useless or potentially harmful" freedoms.
Did you ever think that what the so-called Democrats and the so-called Democrat president would try to do in less than 6 months to a nation more than 200 years old could be effortless and elegantly explained by Benito Mussolini's description of a fascist state in just a few sentences? I sure as hell didn't.
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential;And now let's listen to Barney Frank:
“I would let people gamble on the Internet,” Frank said. “I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose.”Essential freedoms? The right to privacy in your home where you smoke pot (because that never adversely affects anyone else) or gambling away on their home computer. Abortions? Oh, hell yes you gotta be able to have abortions at will without any sort of restriction. That's private. These, apparently, do not affect society and don't spill over onto anyone else, so they can be preserved.
He added: “But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.”
Harmful freedoms? Making your own choices about which credit card to get, which bank to use, what employer to work for, how much to pay an employee. These, you see, can be harmful to an entire society and "cause problems", unlike gambling offshore and smoking weed. Also, if you can get another credit card (maybe), then what use is there in having access to 14 other kinds? If you can bank at Bank A, why care that Bank B cannot bank with you? If you are being paid $15/hr, why worry that the government mandates that your employer not be able to pay you $20/hr or that any other employer cannot pay you that much? Therefore, the government must limit or eliminate these "useless or potentially harmful" freedoms.
Did you ever think that what the so-called Democrats and the so-called Democrat president would try to do in less than 6 months to a nation more than 200 years old could be effortless and elegantly explained by Benito Mussolini's description of a fascist state in just a few sentences? I sure as hell didn't.
Friday, April 24, 2009
More Bad News For Ethanol
It's gonna be a tough day for ethanol supporters when they find out that not even California sees the bright, shiny light of salvation in its corrosive embrace:
California regulators are ready to conclude that corn ethanol cannot help the state fight global warming. It seems they've discovered putting food in our cars would destroy the earth in order to save it.
California regulators have apparently discovered it ain't easy being green. The California Air Resources Board began two days of hearings in Sacramento on Thursday on a proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard which considers the carbon intensity of fuels during a given fuel's entire life cycle.
The California Environmental Protection Agency apparently has concluded that corn ethanol would not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07. The order, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Jan. 18, 2007, mandated a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020. Fuels deemed to have low carbon intensity earn credits toward that goal.
With 20-20 hindsight, the California EPA, by dropping ethanol for now as a cure-all for climate change, is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. "Ethanol is a good fuel, but how it is produced is problematic," Dimitri Stanich, public information officer for the California EPA, said in an interview with World Net Daily. "The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so corn-intensive."
California could build more nuclear power plants, but never mind. Ethanol is in fact not a good fuel. According to the Hoover Institution's Henry Miller and Prof. Colin Carter of the University of California at Davis, "ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly."
It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it. It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous. Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic "dead zones" in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.
The California EPA now opposes corn ethanol in part because of the environmental damage it says growing the corn does. "Converting land that is now a 'carbon sink' to farmland producing ethanol," says Stanich, "also defeats the purpose of the regulations, because land now absorbing carbon dioxide would be cleared to produce corn."
Clearing land for biofuels is indeed a worldwide problem. A report by the Paris-based International Council for Science says that the production of biofuels has aggravated, rather than ameliorated, global warming. It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2, which is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times more than an equivalent amount of CO2.
Increased mandated use of the corn-based fuel additive, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise the cost of food programs for the needy by $900 million for the current budget year ending Sept. 30. Ethanol and its subsidies amount to a hidden and nefarious tax on food...
Do Donkeys Have Short Memories?
It certainly seems that they do...as do their followers and certainly the press would qualify - as they seem completely unable to point out the transparent and laughable hypocrisy of the Democrats ready to set up kangaroo courts and hold time-wasting hearings about things they were fully briefed on at the time they took place.
Another story notes Republicans calling for records to be released. And here we see Pelosi's argument - the meaning of the word 'is', so to speak:
Boehner stirring the pot as to just how many Congressional members 'knew': link.
Democrats who now itch to see Bush administration officials convicted for providing legal justification for waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are chained at the ankle to those they want prosecuted.Pelosi seemingly relies on democrat majority status as she now claims she wasn't at these briefings that everyone said she was at: link.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then on the House Intelligence Committee, and others knew of the tough methods as long ago as 2002. A December 2007 Washington Post story revealed that in September of that year, Pelosi attended an hour-long meeting in which she "was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."
Then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller was there too, and top Republicans. According to the Post, "on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
In fact, top Democrats like Pelosi and Rockefeller sat in on about 30 such bipartisan private briefings. One of those in attendance, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman and former CIA Director Porter Goss, remembered: "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing." According to the onetime Florida GOP congressman, "the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
Another official present at the early briefings told the Post, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"
Only the moderate former House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., objected, in the form of a classified letter. She would later garner Pelosi's ire for defending the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program.
The Washington Times further reported this week that the Intelligence Committee's top Democrats and Republicans "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the program" and "if Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding."
Another story notes Republicans calling for records to be released. And here we see Pelosi's argument - the meaning of the word 'is', so to speak:
Pelosi denies knowing what was going on: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used,” she told reporters earlier this week. “What they did tell us is that they had…the Office of Legal Counsel opinions -- that they (the interrogation techniques) could be used, but not that they would," Pelosi said.Catch that? She is standing up there in front of all the cameras and microphones saying "We were not told they were used." But that's not what the report said. The report said that she and others were told ahead of time the sorts of methods that "could be used" - in other words, exactly what Pelosi admits to. Store this one up - it's the sort of thing that could necessitate newspaper corrections.
Boehner stirring the pot as to just how many Congressional members 'knew': link.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Is Our Children Learning In Preschool?
If you asked me 4 years ago to pick a top priority in this country...I'd likely have said getting a handle on terrorism with education a very close 2nd. Well, Bush took care of the first (although we're already seeing those gains disappear in the past couple of months...not sure what the difference could be...) and I firmly believe that education - not the economy, not where the Jets are holding training camp, and not the NFL draft - is #1 by a long shot.
I'm not talking about making sure more kids get a college education. Studies show that it's a waste of money for a lot of kids and the ones that some people think should also get a college education would almost certainly fall into that group as well.
I'm talking about kids getting a solid, basic understanding of fundamentals. Being able to read a book of their choice, the directions and warnings on a bottle of medication, and directions on how to install or put something together. Being able to do enough math to balance their checkbook, create a budget, review a contractor's proposal for a kitchen remodel, figure out the best deal on peanut butter or organic tofu at the supermarket, and figure out how many tiles they need to redo their bathroom floor. Being able to write a note for their kid's school, personalize a birthday card, or prepare a quote for their lawn service company. Being able to identify reality and fantasy and not think Winston Churchill is a myth and Sherlock Holmes was real. Be able to read the Constitution and understand what it's saying. Know how to handle the responsibility of having a credit card. Understand the implications of getting an STD as a teenager or having a baby without being married. Having the self-control to sit still for a while and listen to what someone else has to say and be able to respond intelligently on what they've said. Be able to survive for a week without a television or computer. Know how to cross a street without killing yourself or causing an accident. Be able to name the President and their party, the House Speaker and their party, the previous 2 (minimum) Presidents and their accomplishments, along with their party. Be able to identify the President from a representative photograph. Be able to read a newspaper and find 5 things to question, even if they turn out to be true. Know what to do if your car gets a flat or the accelerator gets stuck. Be able to make at least a half dozen different edible dinners that you will enjoy eating (even if no one else does) that can be considered at least moderately healthy.
I'm not talking about rocket science.
Not all of these things need to come from schools. Some probably shouldn't. But when our schools begin to lag other countries' and don't catch up, but fall further behind, we need to be concerned. And the absolute last thing I think we need to do is further make sure that everyone only has access to the worst choice, public schools, and then spend uncountable piles of money on expanding those values and success rate to younger kids - particularly when the benefits are known to be minimal to none. John Stossel reports:
I'm not talking about making sure more kids get a college education. Studies show that it's a waste of money for a lot of kids and the ones that some people think should also get a college education would almost certainly fall into that group as well.
I'm talking about kids getting a solid, basic understanding of fundamentals. Being able to read a book of their choice, the directions and warnings on a bottle of medication, and directions on how to install or put something together. Being able to do enough math to balance their checkbook, create a budget, review a contractor's proposal for a kitchen remodel, figure out the best deal on peanut butter or organic tofu at the supermarket, and figure out how many tiles they need to redo their bathroom floor. Being able to write a note for their kid's school, personalize a birthday card, or prepare a quote for their lawn service company. Being able to identify reality and fantasy and not think Winston Churchill is a myth and Sherlock Holmes was real. Be able to read the Constitution and understand what it's saying. Know how to handle the responsibility of having a credit card. Understand the implications of getting an STD as a teenager or having a baby without being married. Having the self-control to sit still for a while and listen to what someone else has to say and be able to respond intelligently on what they've said. Be able to survive for a week without a television or computer. Know how to cross a street without killing yourself or causing an accident. Be able to name the President and their party, the House Speaker and their party, the previous 2 (minimum) Presidents and their accomplishments, along with their party. Be able to identify the President from a representative photograph. Be able to read a newspaper and find 5 things to question, even if they turn out to be true. Know what to do if your car gets a flat or the accelerator gets stuck. Be able to make at least a half dozen different edible dinners that you will enjoy eating (even if no one else does) that can be considered at least moderately healthy.
I'm not talking about rocket science.
Not all of these things need to come from schools. Some probably shouldn't. But when our schools begin to lag other countries' and don't catch up, but fall further behind, we need to be concerned. And the absolute last thing I think we need to do is further make sure that everyone only has access to the worst choice, public schools, and then spend uncountable piles of money on expanding those values and success rate to younger kids - particularly when the benefits are known to be minimal to none. John Stossel reports:
It's part of President Obama's massive spending plans. His "stimulus" bill includes an Early Learning Challenge Grant to encourage states to "Develop a cutting-edge plan to raise the quality of your early learning programs" (http://tinyurl.com/cv6s23). It's a popular idea. Sixty-seven percent of Americans favor universal pre-K funded by the government. But I doubt that most Americans have thought it through.
Mia Levi has. She told me, "This whole thing is a scam."
Levi runs six preschools. I thought she'd favor the program, since she'd collect easy money from the government.
"I don't want to have to answer to the government," she said in my ABC special "Bailouts and Bull." "Our programs are so far superior."...
Levi has to work hard to improve her schools because she knows that, unlike with government services, parents have options.
"If we didn't do our job, families would go down the street to the next school. Public schools aren't doing their job, and they get to just keep opening their doors. To say that they are the ones to define ... quality is laughable."...
But we keep hearing that investment in pre-K will pay off later. Obama says, "For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health costs and less crime."
Those glowing statistics come from tiny studies (58 children) of places like Michigan's Perry Preschool. But those low-income, low-IQ kids got much more than preschool, including after-school tutoring, and their moms and dads got parenting classes.
Lisa Snell, education director of the Reason Foundation, says you can't expect similar results with middle- and higher income children.
In addition, lots of studies say the preschool effect fades. Head Start is revered for raising test scores, but studies show that by grades 3 or 4 those gains vanish.
"They can't tell the difference between the kids that went to Head Start and the kids who didn't," Snell says. "When they compared them to the kids that are disadvantaged that didn't go to Head Start, they can't tell from their test scores which kids had the treatment of Head Start."
There's still another flaw in the program. Some studies have found that too much school may lead to disruptive and aggressive behavior. Libby Doggett, who leads one of the biggest pre-K advocacy groups, concedes that, but claims that "high-quality" government programs benefit children. She said Oklahoma and Georgia have them already.
But those states, despite spending billions of tax dollars on preschool for the past 10 years, have not shown impressive results. Oklahoma's students lost ground to kids from other states.
Doggett replied: "We don't want to just focus on IQ scores. We want to look at how children are doing in their social and emotional, their non-cognitive development."
Please. When the huge government program fails to raise scores, the central planners promise it will help the kids socially?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
So We're Clear
Just so everyone is completely clear on this - the Times Union is COMPLETELY UNBIASED. This is demonstrated by the fact that on Tax Day they piled scorn and falsehoods upon the heads of conservatives for organizing protests against high spending by the government. On the liberals' high holy day, Earth Day, which happens to also be a Wednesday, today in fact, they editorialized about the wonderful, noble souls that care so much about the planet and gee isn't that great and they would NEVER seek to capitalize on their 'movement' with t-shirts or mugs.
Commence laughing.
Commence laughing.
What's Wrong With Playing Nice With Dictators?
Obama wants us all to just shut up about him palling around with dictators, saying that it doesn't hurt us and makes us look stronger.
Really?
Gee, what did conservatives say about treating with dictators?
We said it would make the US look weak. That it would legitimize the dictators. And that it would result in propaganda opportunities for the dictators.
Let's see...Obama tried sending a 'we love you' video to Iran. It gave the Iranians a chance to mock Obama and the US and declare that we could only meet with them if we kissed their sandy heinies and met their preconditions first. That got play all over the world.
We were assured that we were showing "strength" by Obama clowning around with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez. Yeah?
Really?
Gee, what did conservatives say about treating with dictators?
We said it would make the US look weak. That it would legitimize the dictators. And that it would result in propaganda opportunities for the dictators.
Let's see...Obama tried sending a 'we love you' video to Iran. It gave the Iranians a chance to mock Obama and the US and declare that we could only meet with them if we kissed their sandy heinies and met their preconditions first. That got play all over the world.
We were assured that we were showing "strength" by Obama clowning around with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez. Yeah?
Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.If it looks like a duck...
“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.
“It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.
Chavez made the comments Sunday to a crowd gathered for the 199th Commemoration of the Independence Declaration of Venezuela.
“In one year we will be celebrating 200 years of ‘April 19,’ the day that ... initiated this revolution that is underway 200 years later at the forefront of the people of our America, at the forefront of change, at the forefront of a new world, at the forefront of a new century that will construct Bolivarian socialism,” said Chavez...
Last Friday, during the Americas Summit, Obama greeted Chavez before the first plenary summit, the first time the two presidents had met.
“I want to be your friend,” Chavez said to Obama as both of them shook hands. After the encounter, Chavez told reporters, “It was a good moment.”...
According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez's rule.
“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.
The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.
“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment," says the State Department report.
A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez's Venezuela...
Timely Facts On Government Debt
Based on what I've been reading on the editorial and letter pages of the local dailies, this is surely some inconvenient data to some people:
Reagan's debt of $37 billion in 1989 is about $63.5 billion in today's bucks.
Obama's debt of $1.4 trillion today would have been $820 billion in 1989.
So, no, they're not even remotely comparable even after correcting for inflation. Reagan's debt for 8 years, which included rebuilding the military and defeating the Soviet Union was about 4.5% of what Obama has already spent in just a few months - not to even mention the proposed spending from here on out.
Reagan’s prescription rested on four pillars: tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in the rate of government spending, and a stable, carefully managed growth of the money supply. The federal income tax reduction was the centerpiece: Reagan secured a 25 percent across-the-board reduction over a three-year period, beginning in October 1981. The upper income marginal tax rate was dropped from 70 percent, which Reagan believed was punitive and stifling, to 28 percent.In case you were wondering how those numbers relate when corrected for inflation:
By 1983, America had begun its longest peacetime economic expansion in history, cruising right through the 1987 market plunge...
Okay, but Reaganomics created huge deficits, right?
That’s the big criticism. It isn’t accurate. It needs to be understood—now more than ever.
First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989. The deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983, particularly because of the plummet in tax revenue during the recession. It began dropping steadily in 1986, continuing through the 1987 crash. (Source: Congressional Budget Office figures, “Historical Tables.”)...
President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.)...
Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks. Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit...
Importantly, and despite what you’ve heard, Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989...
Reagan's debt of $37 billion in 1989 is about $63.5 billion in today's bucks.
Obama's debt of $1.4 trillion today would have been $820 billion in 1989.
So, no, they're not even remotely comparable even after correcting for inflation. Reagan's debt for 8 years, which included rebuilding the military and defeating the Soviet Union was about 4.5% of what Obama has already spent in just a few months - not to even mention the proposed spending from here on out.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Cautious Praise For Obama On Trade
Can it be? Could the Teleprompted Won have done something right on foreign relations??!! It's still early, but the early signs are very promising. Now all he has to do is fight through the Democrats in Congress who seem determined to kill free trade with Colombia no matter how much it costs us economically.
Credit where credit is due from IBD:
Credit where credit is due from IBD:
Hugo Chavez may have gotten a grinning handshake from President Obama in Trinidad. But it was our authentic friend and ally, Colombia, that got substance. The president got one right...I agree.
Obama may have shaken hands, accepted an idiotic book and politely listened to diatribes from regional troublemakers. But for our ally Colombia, he wasn't just gesturing. He was delivering results.
It started Saturday, when he put himself next to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at lunch and then studiously exchanged notes.
Having listened to Uribe, (and that must have been a nice dose of sanity after enduring 50 minutes of ravings from Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, or weird conspiracy theories by Bolivia's Evo Morales), Obama then seemed to realize that the long-stalled Colombia free trade agreement should have been passed yesterday.
The president announced that his team must find a way to pass the agreement. With world trade down 80%, the pact opens new markets to the U.S. He demanded immediate action, asking Colombia's trade minister to fly to Washington this week.
Then it got even better: Obama invited Uribe to the White House and promised to visit Colombia himself, allowing the Colombians to lay out for him their vast economic and social progress, and their desire to integrate into global trade...
Obama may have had political reasons to seek out Colombia — the Chavez-Obama pictures didn't do him any good domestically, and Drudge Report ran pictures of them all weekend, infuriating White House officials...
The Obama team is showing a welcome shift to substance over style, and that deserves notice.
Priorities
So let's clarify some priorities here...
The major press can track down the parents of a terrorist in Somalia to get sympathetic quotes...
but they can't seem to find time to track down multi-millionaire Obama's brother living in abject poverty in Kenya during the election, his other relatives there that claim Obama was actually born in Africa, or anything about his communist father who worked in the Kenyan government.
Got it.
The major press can track down the parents of a terrorist in Somalia to get sympathetic quotes...
but they can't seem to find time to track down multi-millionaire Obama's brother living in abject poverty in Kenya during the election, his other relatives there that claim Obama was actually born in Africa, or anything about his communist father who worked in the Kenyan government.
Got it.
Obama Now Open To Prosecuting Lawyers For Opinions He Doesn't Like
So prosecuting employees who carried out "harsh" interrogations is out. Yes, they did it, but they did it because it was based on the legal opinions of government lawyers and their interpretation of the law.
And prosecuting administration officials is out because they approved the measures since they were based on the legal opinions of government lawyers and their interpretation of the law.
But now, apparently, Obama is open to prosecuting those government lawyers simply because they were asked to review laws and come up with legal measures that could be used to interrogate suspects without violating the law. Are you effing kidding me? Is that a pitchfork in his hand or a torch? So they didn't change the law, they didn't circumvent the law, they merely issued guidelines that the government could follow that, in their legal opinion based on a sober reading of the law, would NOT violate any laws. For that Obama concludes that, under some circumstances, a lawyer could be open to persecution, ooops sorry, prosecution because he doesn't like where their opinion led them.
And the press' hyperbolic language doesn't help any. "gruesome" techniques? Give me a break. Putting a caterpillar on someone's leg? Third graders do it all the time. Except they put them in their classmate's hair or down their pants. Waterboarding? How many liberal activists have we watched waterboard each other at 'protests' in the past couple of years? Dozens? They alone have proven that waterboarding, when made public in the manner it was used, is completely useless, that it's only value lay in the terrorist not knowing what was going on or when it would end. If they'd known that all they had to do was sputter along for a minute or so we'd back off they'd find it no more unbearable than Joey Anarchist does when his buddy Sally Windowsmasher does it to him on the streets of DC at noon. Stress positions? Have you ever participated in the more physical team sports - wrestling, football, etc? Ever been subjected to 'stress positions' as a punishment or training aid? If your coach was any good you did...and you know that if you're told to squat up against a wall with your arms out for 30 seconds it's a piece of cake, but when you're told to do it until you're allowed to stop, it's hell, even if it also ends in 30 seconds. Now that or enemies know that these "gruesome" practices are actually limited to prevent physical trauma they can easily train themselves to resist them, making them useless. Anyone that has the poor taste to call them "gruesome" or sign off on such language as an editor has obviously never reviewed the torture manuals we found in Iraq or heard the stories told by Iraqis of what was done to their loved ones by Saddam and his foul offspring.
As for the Teleprompter, saying that subjecting someone to something that does them no physical harm under strict guidelines and constraints put into place explicitly to prevent physical harm has lost their moral bearings is beyond pathetic. Feeding someone alive to dogs fits that description. Feeding them to a plastic shredder fits that description. Raping them in front of their family fits that description. Allowing them to put a caterpillar on someone's leg to get them to tell us what they have planned to kill thousands of people is a better reason than putting one in Betty's hair at recess and that happens all the time.
And, finally, if you had ANY QUESTION about the partisan nature of the release of these memos, let them be laid to rest. When even partisan organizer Leon Panetta agrees that the documents should have been heavily redacted before any release but Obama goes ahead and releases them with almost no redaction, you know that there can be no purpose but a political one, likely meant to demonize the previous administration in a calculated effort to keep the focus off of his own political floundering, socialist plans, and budget obliterating spending.
Finally, this - this makes no frigging sense at all: The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture. I thought they ALREADY decided that ALL of these things are torture. Isn't that what all those hundreds of articles and TV bleatings and speechifyings was ABOUT?
And prosecuting administration officials is out because they approved the measures since they were based on the legal opinions of government lawyers and their interpretation of the law.
But now, apparently, Obama is open to prosecuting those government lawyers simply because they were asked to review laws and come up with legal measures that could be used to interrogate suspects without violating the law. Are you effing kidding me? Is that a pitchfork in his hand or a torch? So they didn't change the law, they didn't circumvent the law, they merely issued guidelines that the government could follow that, in their legal opinion based on a sober reading of the law, would NOT violate any laws. For that Obama concludes that, under some circumstances, a lawyer could be open to persecution, ooops sorry, prosecution because he doesn't like where their opinion led them.
President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.There's a term usually used for such actions...it goes like this: "thought police"
The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said...
The president had said earlier that he didn't want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.
But the administration's stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear and Obama declined to make it so. "There are a host of very complicated issues involved," Obama said.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.
The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government's first full accounting of the CIA's use of waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions...
Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.
"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."
The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.
"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."
And the press' hyperbolic language doesn't help any. "gruesome" techniques? Give me a break. Putting a caterpillar on someone's leg? Third graders do it all the time. Except they put them in their classmate's hair or down their pants. Waterboarding? How many liberal activists have we watched waterboard each other at 'protests' in the past couple of years? Dozens? They alone have proven that waterboarding, when made public in the manner it was used, is completely useless, that it's only value lay in the terrorist not knowing what was going on or when it would end. If they'd known that all they had to do was sputter along for a minute or so we'd back off they'd find it no more unbearable than Joey Anarchist does when his buddy Sally Windowsmasher does it to him on the streets of DC at noon. Stress positions? Have you ever participated in the more physical team sports - wrestling, football, etc? Ever been subjected to 'stress positions' as a punishment or training aid? If your coach was any good you did...and you know that if you're told to squat up against a wall with your arms out for 30 seconds it's a piece of cake, but when you're told to do it until you're allowed to stop, it's hell, even if it also ends in 30 seconds. Now that or enemies know that these "gruesome" practices are actually limited to prevent physical trauma they can easily train themselves to resist them, making them useless. Anyone that has the poor taste to call them "gruesome" or sign off on such language as an editor has obviously never reviewed the torture manuals we found in Iraq or heard the stories told by Iraqis of what was done to their loved ones by Saddam and his foul offspring.
As for the Teleprompter, saying that subjecting someone to something that does them no physical harm under strict guidelines and constraints put into place explicitly to prevent physical harm has lost their moral bearings is beyond pathetic. Feeding someone alive to dogs fits that description. Feeding them to a plastic shredder fits that description. Raping them in front of their family fits that description. Allowing them to put a caterpillar on someone's leg to get them to tell us what they have planned to kill thousands of people is a better reason than putting one in Betty's hair at recess and that happens all the time.
And, finally, if you had ANY QUESTION about the partisan nature of the release of these memos, let them be laid to rest. When even partisan organizer Leon Panetta agrees that the documents should have been heavily redacted before any release but Obama goes ahead and releases them with almost no redaction, you know that there can be no purpose but a political one, likely meant to demonize the previous administration in a calculated effort to keep the focus off of his own political floundering, socialist plans, and budget obliterating spending.
Finally, this - this makes no frigging sense at all: The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture. I thought they ALREADY decided that ALL of these things are torture. Isn't that what all those hundreds of articles and TV bleatings and speechifyings was ABOUT?
Again - Where's The Outrage
To recap: Bush asked the Justice Department to come up with a determination if terrorists were covered by international rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, etc. The answer he got back was "no". (Obama's AG agrees with this determination, by the way.) So they came up with a way that they thought these terrorists could be dealt with instead of simply lining them up against a wall and pulling the trigger...the way criminals engaged in 'unlawful' warfare were handled in the past (not wearing uniforms, targeting noncombatants, etc). Turns out the Supreme Court said the plan wasn't up to snuff...ok, it was scrapped in favor of the plan the Supreme Court suggested. Then the Supreme Court rejected their own plan as unconstitutional...go figure that one out. Anyway, Obama has rejected all of this at the urging of the leftists in this country.
Bush asked the Justice Department to determine what forms of coercion could be legally applied to terrorists. They came up with a list, some items off which were used, some were not (even though the press incorrectly reported that they were). A fair evaluation, whether you approve or not, would indicate that the list only included items that made the terrorist uncomfortable, physically or psychologically, but placed them in no actual danger or physical torment. Use the word 'torture' or not, the facts support this limitation. Still, the leftists cried 'torture' and Obama swept these practices away...well, under the rug actually as he has reserved the right to use them at his discretion.
Bush fired a handful of US Attorney's, appointees that serve at the whim of the President, after performance evaluations found that they were not productive and/or concentrating sufficiently on the priorities of their employer (not that they were failing to ignore other priorities). Again, there was outrage and some sort of 'Constitutional Crisis' because the President replaced some of his employees that performance evaluations showed weren't cutting the mustard. No one paid any attention when Clinton cut the cheese by firing all the US Attorneys (except one), including the investigating a political crony of his in Arkansas.
Bush asked the Office of Legal Counsel to determine if the "DC Voting Rights Bill" was constitutional. Outrage, naturally, when they concluded that it was not (which isn't the most farfetched opinion in the world, what with the Constitution specifically saying 'you can't do that').
Yet there's no outrage when Obama's AG asks his Office of Legal Counsel the same question, gets the same response, and then goes lawyer shopping to get a answer he likes better from Obama's new Solicitor General. What's up with that? I'm going to quote a bit of a Rich Tucker column here, pay particular attention to the quote I present at the end:
Bush asked the Justice Department to determine what forms of coercion could be legally applied to terrorists. They came up with a list, some items off which were used, some were not (even though the press incorrectly reported that they were). A fair evaluation, whether you approve or not, would indicate that the list only included items that made the terrorist uncomfortable, physically or psychologically, but placed them in no actual danger or physical torment. Use the word 'torture' or not, the facts support this limitation. Still, the leftists cried 'torture' and Obama swept these practices away...well, under the rug actually as he has reserved the right to use them at his discretion.
Bush fired a handful of US Attorney's, appointees that serve at the whim of the President, after performance evaluations found that they were not productive and/or concentrating sufficiently on the priorities of their employer (not that they were failing to ignore other priorities). Again, there was outrage and some sort of 'Constitutional Crisis' because the President replaced some of his employees that performance evaluations showed weren't cutting the mustard. No one paid any attention when Clinton cut the cheese by firing all the US Attorneys (except one), including the investigating a political crony of his in Arkansas.
Bush asked the Office of Legal Counsel to determine if the "DC Voting Rights Bill" was constitutional. Outrage, naturally, when they concluded that it was not (which isn't the most farfetched opinion in the world, what with the Constitution specifically saying 'you can't do that').
Yet there's no outrage when Obama's AG asks his Office of Legal Counsel the same question, gets the same response, and then goes lawyer shopping to get a answer he likes better from Obama's new Solicitor General. What's up with that? I'm going to quote a bit of a Rich Tucker column here, pay particular attention to the quote I present at the end:
In any event, many members of Congress want to give D.C. representation in their august body, so they’ve drawn up a bill that would create two new seats -- one for the District (which would elect a Democrat) and one for Utah (which would presumably elect a Republican and thus maintain the current congressional balance).I guess it depends on what the meaning of "not be a political process" is...right?
One minor problem: Such a measure is unconstitutional.
Don’t take my word for it; ask the experts. “Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional,” The Washington Post reported in a front-page story April 1...
This was the conclusion of the Obama administration Office of Legal Counsel, by the way. They’d reached the exact same conclusion as the supposed partisan hacks in the Bush OLC had two years earlier.
That’s no surprise, since the facts in the case are pretty simple. Our Constitution says members of the House of Representatives must be chosen “every second year by the people of the several states.” Since D.C. isn’t a state, it can’t choose representatives...
Except that Eric Holder disagrees. “The attorney general weighed the advice of different people inside the department, as well as the opinions of legal scholars, and made his own determination that the D.C. voting rights bill is constitutional,” Justice spokesman Matthew Miller explained.
Well, he may have weighed the advice, but only to reject the advice he weighed. Instead, the Post reports, Holder “sought the opinion of the solicitor general’s office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.”...
Holder’s decision, overruling his own employees, seems to contradict what he said just months ago. “We don’t change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over,” Holder told senators during his confirmation hearing. “The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.”
Monday, April 20, 2009
Their Heads Would Explode
Allow yourself, for just a moment, whether you be on the left, right, or stuck in the middle, to imagine that it is the year 2005.
The newspapers have just reported that the Department of Homeland Security has prepared for the President, following his re-election, a report entitled:
Leftwing Extremism: Current Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
Is there even one teeny, tiny part of your brain that doesn't think that the left, including the radical protesters, the casual liberal, the papers, the tv commentators and news, the talk shows, the morning shows...wouldn't have gone ABSOLUTELY EFFING BONKERS NUTTY at that?
Yet they shrug at Obama having his radically political appointee to head up DHS prepare Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment which considers you a threat if any of the following applies to you:
The government is now the target of a lawsuit.
And, yes, all you 'deniers' out there...this is indeed another indicator (not by itself, but when coupled with other issues) of an impending socialistic government...the stigmatization of the political opposition, their classification as actual "enemies" as opposed to a political "enemies list", and a government "finding" that the political opposition is dangerous and therefore warrants surveillance...the type of surveillance that Bush reserved for actual terrorists and their contacts.
I'll say it again and be no more happy about it...Be afraid. If you don't find it dangerous that this administration is actually preparing documentation and justifications for potential spying and/or physical suppression of its political opponents, you haven't learned anything from Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Chavez' Venezuela, etc. Free governments don't broadly classify their political opponents as terrorists and violent extremist threats.
The newspapers have just reported that the Department of Homeland Security has prepared for the President, following his re-election, a report entitled:
Leftwing Extremism: Current Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
Is there even one teeny, tiny part of your brain that doesn't think that the left, including the radical protesters, the casual liberal, the papers, the tv commentators and news, the talk shows, the morning shows...wouldn't have gone ABSOLUTELY EFFING BONKERS NUTTY at that?
Yet they shrug at Obama having his radically political appointee to head up DHS prepare Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment which considers you a threat if any of the following applies to you:
# Opposes restrictions on firearmsAnd heaven help you if you are a veteran...you are a particularly worrisome potential terrorist threat to the administration according to DHS.
# Opposes lax immigration
# Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
# Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
# Opposes same-sex marriage
# Has paranoia of foreign regimes
# Fear of Communist regimes
# Opposes one world government
# Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
# Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
The government is now the target of a lawsuit.
And, yes, all you 'deniers' out there...this is indeed another indicator (not by itself, but when coupled with other issues) of an impending socialistic government...the stigmatization of the political opposition, their classification as actual "enemies" as opposed to a political "enemies list", and a government "finding" that the political opposition is dangerous and therefore warrants surveillance...the type of surveillance that Bush reserved for actual terrorists and their contacts.
I'll say it again and be no more happy about it...Be afraid. If you don't find it dangerous that this administration is actually preparing documentation and justifications for potential spying and/or physical suppression of its political opponents, you haven't learned anything from Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Chavez' Venezuela, etc. Free governments don't broadly classify their political opponents as terrorists and violent extremist threats.
Where's The Outrage
I'm fully aware that I'm viewing through a partisan prism here, but indulge me...
Didn't the left completely freak out about the following:
* Bush declaring martial law before the 2004 election to stay in power (how'd that work out?)
* Bush spying on everyone library book checkouts (nope)
* Bush spying on every telephone call made in America (yeah, that's possible...false)
* Bush declaring terrorists 'enemy combatants' (for lack of a better term for people not covered by international "rules" of warfare of the Geneva Conventions as they relate to prisons of war) and sticking them in Cuba without trials in the US as US citizens are entitled to
* Bush declaring martial law before the 2008 election to stay in power (still no)
* Bush banning abortions (nope)
* Bush banning stem cell research (nope, neither adult nor embryonic)
* Bush turning America into a theocracy (doesn't look like it)
Again, I'm drawing just from memory here on things that the left frothed at the mouth over when they weren't busy portraying Bush and/or members of his administration as Nazis, fascists, etc.
So, pardon me for asking, but...
Where is the left's outrage over Obama's proposal to give him unlimited abilities to 'shut off' or limit the internet at his discretion?
Isn't that the sort of thing the left should be absolutely freaking out about? Or does the left only get worked up when someone makes up some totalitarian rumor about a Republican - not when a Democrat actually proposes things like the ability to have unfettered control over the internet (plus there's that other plan they've got where they'd have control over your power, too, so they can dial down your electricity, down to zero, if they want, if they think you're using more than your 'fair' share)?
I guess once you get right down to it, though, it's all about perspective.
Gitmo? Bad for Bush to put terrorists there. OK for Obama to close it and bring the terrorists here.
Terrorist holding sites in Afghanistan? Bad for Bush. Obama continues policy? Silence.
"Harsh" interrogations? Bush=torture! Silence when Obama says his administration won't use them, but notes that, in reality, they reserve the right to use them if necessary.
Terrorist surveillance? Bush=eavesdropping on Granny! Silence when Obama votes for it and says it will continue and/or be expanded on his watch. Outrage when Clinton authorizes electronic surveillance (ESCHELON) or spies on religious and militia groups without warrants after the OK City bombing? Yeah, right.
Extraordinary renditions? Bush=torture! Silence when Obama says the practice will continue...like the silence when Clinton started the program.
See, it's all about perspective.
And from the left they like to pretend that us on the right only get worked up about things when Democrats do them, not Repbulicans. Like excessive spending. Except, of course, that it's a big, fat lie. What happened to the voting patterns of Republicans after Congressional Republicans started spending like drunken Pelosis? Can you say "2006"? Open borders? Yeah, the right sure was quiet when Bush tried to push through an amnesty program with the Democrats. Other examples I've missed?
Didn't the left completely freak out about the following:
* Bush declaring martial law before the 2004 election to stay in power (how'd that work out?)
* Bush spying on everyone library book checkouts (nope)
* Bush spying on every telephone call made in America (yeah, that's possible...false)
* Bush declaring terrorists 'enemy combatants' (for lack of a better term for people not covered by international "rules" of warfare of the Geneva Conventions as they relate to prisons of war) and sticking them in Cuba without trials in the US as US citizens are entitled to
* Bush declaring martial law before the 2008 election to stay in power (still no)
* Bush banning abortions (nope)
* Bush banning stem cell research (nope, neither adult nor embryonic)
* Bush turning America into a theocracy (doesn't look like it)
Again, I'm drawing just from memory here on things that the left frothed at the mouth over when they weren't busy portraying Bush and/or members of his administration as Nazis, fascists, etc.
So, pardon me for asking, but...
Where is the left's outrage over Obama's proposal to give him unlimited abilities to 'shut off' or limit the internet at his discretion?
Isn't that the sort of thing the left should be absolutely freaking out about? Or does the left only get worked up when someone makes up some totalitarian rumor about a Republican - not when a Democrat actually proposes things like the ability to have unfettered control over the internet (plus there's that other plan they've got where they'd have control over your power, too, so they can dial down your electricity, down to zero, if they want, if they think you're using more than your 'fair' share)?
Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems.I mean, isn't this the sort of thing the left usually acts like they care about?
The proposed legislation, introduced April 1, also would give the President the power to “order the disconnection of any Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."
Some critics of the bill say that phrase needs to be more clearly defined...
“This is pretty sweeping legislation,” says Harris. “Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic,” she said. “There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”
In addition, an agency appointed by the President would control how and when systems are restored...
I guess once you get right down to it, though, it's all about perspective.
Gitmo? Bad for Bush to put terrorists there. OK for Obama to close it and bring the terrorists here.
Terrorist holding sites in Afghanistan? Bad for Bush. Obama continues policy? Silence.
"Harsh" interrogations? Bush=torture! Silence when Obama says his administration won't use them, but notes that, in reality, they reserve the right to use them if necessary.
Terrorist surveillance? Bush=eavesdropping on Granny! Silence when Obama votes for it and says it will continue and/or be expanded on his watch. Outrage when Clinton authorizes electronic surveillance (ESCHELON) or spies on religious and militia groups without warrants after the OK City bombing? Yeah, right.
Extraordinary renditions? Bush=torture! Silence when Obama says the practice will continue...like the silence when Clinton started the program.
See, it's all about perspective.
And from the left they like to pretend that us on the right only get worked up about things when Democrats do them, not Repbulicans. Like excessive spending. Except, of course, that it's a big, fat lie. What happened to the voting patterns of Republicans after Congressional Republicans started spending like drunken Pelosis? Can you say "2006"? Open borders? Yeah, the right sure was quiet when Bush tried to push through an amnesty program with the Democrats. Other examples I've missed?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Banning Books
Jonah Goldberg on Obama Administration supporting book banning (how many, exactly, leftists hooted in joy or horror at the false report that Gov. Palin was a book banner?):
Before it was screened in Washington, James Carville -- who played a Comstockian scold in the movie -- said in a speech introducing the film, "Milos Forman lost his parents in the Holocaust." And then he pressed the point home: "The first thing a totalitarian state goes after is pornography, and when they do, the public applauds. It gets worse from there."Here's a fun (not really) game - take what you just heard (probably for the first time) from Goldberg and see how it fits into the following political philosophy:
This is the sort of statement that is so stupid it almost sounds smart. Cracking down on porn was hardly the first priority of the Nazis or Soviets. More important, if a state is already totalitarian, it has already "gone after" the things that really matter -- like liberty. Banning "On Golden Blonde" is an afterthought.
Now, I'm not in favor of a federal ban on porn (though it's fine with me at the state or local level). But the notion that smut is the canary in the coal mine of our liberties is a profoundly asinine and dangerous myth, and it may be costing us the things that really matter.
The argument from supposedly liberty-loving liberals goes like this: We protect "extreme" and unpopular speech because if that is safe, they'll never get to our core liberties. If they can ban trash, argue the slippery-slopers, what's to stop them from banning criticism of politicians?...
Just last week, the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that it has no principled constitutional problem with banning books.
The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves a documentary-style film, "Hillary: The Movie," that ran afoul of campaign finance laws designed to censor so-called stealth ads as well as electioneering paid for by corporations or unions...
Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn't be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy" for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money. Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.
Virtually every newspaper in America is owned by a corporation; does that mean they can't endorse candidates anymore?...
But when the Obama administration approves the constitutionality of banning politically relevant books before the Supreme Court, where's the outrage? Yes, there are some sober, responsible editorials. But the soapboxes stand unmanned by the self-appointed paragons of freedom.
But perhaps they're right to be silent. It's not as if anyone is trying to ban Hustler.
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.And, yes, you may go ahead and see whether you think the McCain-Feingold travesty also fits.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A Or B?
Choose:
1. Need to move yourself or some cargo?
A - Cost-effective, affordable, profitable transportation industries like freight trains and bus companies (even when 'giving away' some seats at a buck!) or get a U-Haul for $19.99?
B - Government-controlled, perpetually late and perpetually losing money AMTRAK?
2. Got an important package to get to St. Louis?
A - Guaranteed overnight delivery from profitable FedEx or UPS?
B - Oh, look, the government-run Post Office is broke and raising delivery prices again on your package that absolutely, positively might get there at some point and, hey, let's give the Postmaster a big bonus (yes, that happened!)?
3. Need a loan?
A - Profitable and reliable (when left to their own devices) financials like the ones reporting record profits for the beginning of 2009?
B - Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who also gave the people running them huge bonuses)?
4. Hurricane?
A - Pre-storm staging throughout the projected path with typical post-hurricane goods like non-perishables, plywood, tarps, duct tape, generators, etc. by profitable private enterprises like Home Depot, Lowes, and Wal-Mart that often re-open and start serving community needs with things like bottled water as soon as the storm's over?
B - FEMA?
5. Uh-oh, April 15!
A - Blessedly easy to use and fairly affordable, dependable, and guaranteed tax preparation in an evening with products from profitable private enterprises like H&R Block and Intuit's TurboTax?
B - Call the IRS and try to get your questions answered knowing that the guys heading up the Treasury and the House committee that writes the tax laws can't figure out how to pay their own taxes?
Yup, they're doing such a bang-up job we should probably look forward to the government running all health care and telling our businesses how to operate, right? After all...
6. Can't balance your budget?
A - Real world? Go out of business/declare bankruptcy, get help?
B - Government? Triple spending including giveaways to people that don't contribute, take actions to degrade income including punishing the people the most that do the most to stimulate the economy (when left alone), tell private businesses to be more like you or you'll take them over, and call it A New Era of Responsibility!
1. Need to move yourself or some cargo?
A - Cost-effective, affordable, profitable transportation industries like freight trains and bus companies (even when 'giving away' some seats at a buck!) or get a U-Haul for $19.99?
B - Government-controlled, perpetually late and perpetually losing money AMTRAK?
2. Got an important package to get to St. Louis?
A - Guaranteed overnight delivery from profitable FedEx or UPS?
B - Oh, look, the government-run Post Office is broke and raising delivery prices again on your package that absolutely, positively might get there at some point and, hey, let's give the Postmaster a big bonus (yes, that happened!)?
3. Need a loan?
A - Profitable and reliable (when left to their own devices) financials like the ones reporting record profits for the beginning of 2009?
B - Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who also gave the people running them huge bonuses)?
4. Hurricane?
A - Pre-storm staging throughout the projected path with typical post-hurricane goods like non-perishables, plywood, tarps, duct tape, generators, etc. by profitable private enterprises like Home Depot, Lowes, and Wal-Mart that often re-open and start serving community needs with things like bottled water as soon as the storm's over?
B - FEMA?
5. Uh-oh, April 15!
A - Blessedly easy to use and fairly affordable, dependable, and guaranteed tax preparation in an evening with products from profitable private enterprises like H&R Block and Intuit's TurboTax?
B - Call the IRS and try to get your questions answered knowing that the guys heading up the Treasury and the House committee that writes the tax laws can't figure out how to pay their own taxes?
Yup, they're doing such a bang-up job we should probably look forward to the government running all health care and telling our businesses how to operate, right? After all...
6. Can't balance your budget?
A - Real world? Go out of business/declare bankruptcy, get help?
B - Government? Triple spending including giveaways to people that don't contribute, take actions to degrade income including punishing the people the most that do the most to stimulate the economy (when left alone), tell private businesses to be more like you or you'll take them over, and call it A New Era of Responsibility!
What If?
Our military recently rescued a merchant vessel's captain by killing by sniper fire 3 terrorists holding him hostage at sea. An additional terrorist was in our custody at the time after he surrendered.
A single man, the captain, was rescued, saved.
What if...
Our military surrounds a lifeboat at sea containing four terrorists. The terrorists demand a ransom. If the ransom is not paid they will detonate a small nuclear device concealed in a western nation's capital. They will not say where, but our intelligence indicates that the terrorists are known to have ties to North Korea and therefore can be reasonably expected to truly have a functional nuclear device. They are surrounded, but the terrorists, though exposed to view, are prepared to detonate the device by means of a dead man's switch if they are killed. After a few days of negotiations and privation, one terrorist surrenders and is in our custody. In on the plot, he knows where the device is located. He may even know how to disable it.
What do you do with that terrorist? Bring him to DC to "stand trial"?
Three bullets managed to rescue one man, Captain Phillips, and we should all be glad of that and proud of not only our military, but the president for making the right call in what was, frankly, an easy call. Yes, one man's life was at stake and the success was far from a given. But the odds were OK. And, let's face it, one man's life was at stake and we didn't know if he would be allowed to live anyway if this dragged out any longer. Reportedly the go ahead was only given because it looked like the terrorists were growing too agitated to be trusted not to kill him.
With millions of lives at stake and a terrorist in our custody...what do you do, Mr. President?
And it doesn't have to be as hyperbolic, 24-ish as a nuke...it could be a delivery van packed with stolen military grade explosives, maybe some nuclear material, parked in an urban area. You get the point.
A single man, the captain, was rescued, saved.
What if...
Our military surrounds a lifeboat at sea containing four terrorists. The terrorists demand a ransom. If the ransom is not paid they will detonate a small nuclear device concealed in a western nation's capital. They will not say where, but our intelligence indicates that the terrorists are known to have ties to North Korea and therefore can be reasonably expected to truly have a functional nuclear device. They are surrounded, but the terrorists, though exposed to view, are prepared to detonate the device by means of a dead man's switch if they are killed. After a few days of negotiations and privation, one terrorist surrenders and is in our custody. In on the plot, he knows where the device is located. He may even know how to disable it.
What do you do with that terrorist? Bring him to DC to "stand trial"?
Three bullets managed to rescue one man, Captain Phillips, and we should all be glad of that and proud of not only our military, but the president for making the right call in what was, frankly, an easy call. Yes, one man's life was at stake and the success was far from a given. But the odds were OK. And, let's face it, one man's life was at stake and we didn't know if he would be allowed to live anyway if this dragged out any longer. Reportedly the go ahead was only given because it looked like the terrorists were growing too agitated to be trusted not to kill him.
With millions of lives at stake and a terrorist in our custody...what do you do, Mr. President?
And it doesn't have to be as hyperbolic, 24-ish as a nuke...it could be a delivery van packed with stolen military grade explosives, maybe some nuclear material, parked in an urban area. You get the point.
Strike Twenty! YerrrrrrOut!
Can we stop pretending the NY 20th is a "republican leaning district"? Can we put that little fallacy to bed, now?
I don't want to know how many "registered republicans" and "registered democrats" there are as if that somehow trumps election results. (And if you really want to dig into that, think about how it is in the left-leaning press' interests to continue to pretend that the 20th is "republican leaning". As long as they pretend that, they can pretend that the "republicans" that live there are voting time and again for democrats and pretend that means something nationally.)
It's just not true. Sure, Sweeney wasn't a great candidate running for re-election against the nationally rehearsed and backed Gillibrand, but at the time, despite the Times Union's "gotcha!", he wasn't a terrible candidate (hoo-boy has that changed!). Certainly not a candidate to get tossed for a party-line democrat in a "republican leaning district". And we're to believe that all those leaning republicans chose to lean again for her in 2008 and now for unknown party-line democrat Murphy over local big-name pol Tedisco? Get real. The only way that happens is that there is NO WAY that the 20th is "republican leaning" anymore. And how often are the registration rolls cleared? How many of those "registered republicans" are dead, moved out of district, or, more likely, moved out of state given the way the state is bleeding people? Small hint - if you keep voting for democrats, you're not a republican - certainly not someone that registers for a party, the type that, you know, normally votes for the party they're registered in.
It's time to the retire phrase "republican leaning district" in the 20th. It does nothing but provide punchlines to the liberal press and, even if the registrations are correct, it certainly is proven a lie by election results. If you 'lean republican' you vote republican...if you keep voting for democrats you're probably a democrat, don't you think? You certainly at least lean that way.
I don't want to know how many "registered republicans" and "registered democrats" there are as if that somehow trumps election results. (And if you really want to dig into that, think about how it is in the left-leaning press' interests to continue to pretend that the 20th is "republican leaning". As long as they pretend that, they can pretend that the "republicans" that live there are voting time and again for democrats and pretend that means something nationally.)
It's just not true. Sure, Sweeney wasn't a great candidate running for re-election against the nationally rehearsed and backed Gillibrand, but at the time, despite the Times Union's "gotcha!", he wasn't a terrible candidate (hoo-boy has that changed!). Certainly not a candidate to get tossed for a party-line democrat in a "republican leaning district". And we're to believe that all those leaning republicans chose to lean again for her in 2008 and now for unknown party-line democrat Murphy over local big-name pol Tedisco? Get real. The only way that happens is that there is NO WAY that the 20th is "republican leaning" anymore. And how often are the registration rolls cleared? How many of those "registered republicans" are dead, moved out of district, or, more likely, moved out of state given the way the state is bleeding people? Small hint - if you keep voting for democrats, you're not a republican - certainly not someone that registers for a party, the type that, you know, normally votes for the party they're registered in.
It's time to the retire phrase "republican leaning district" in the 20th. It does nothing but provide punchlines to the liberal press and, even if the registrations are correct, it certainly is proven a lie by election results. If you 'lean republican' you vote republican...if you keep voting for democrats you're probably a democrat, don't you think? You certainly at least lean that way.
Foreign Policy
I've made the argument about a zillion times that Bush improved our foreign relations immeasurably. During his time in office he forged alliances with new, conservative leaders that replaced liberal, America-hating leaders all around the world. Places like France, Germany, Italy...
Meanwhile he was attacked for somehow damaging our relations with the rest of the world. No. Just with the rest of the world's liberals. To paraphrase Barry Teleprompter - "He won."
So what exactly has the Teleprompter Won We Have Been Waiting For done to help our foreign relations?
* Sent a wet kiss to Iran that was laughed at and rebuked.
* Sent Clinton to Russia to try to help our relations with the new dictators over there, and she botches that.
* Sent a secret letter to Russia claiming that if they helped us with Iran we'd sell our eastern Europe and forego the missile defense system. They made Obama's behind the back dealing public (making it clear to our allies in Europe that we didn't 'have their back') and rejected it.
* Watched as North Korea launched a test missile that could lob nukes into America and did nothing.
* Tried to talk down to Germany and got smacked down by Merckel.
* Sent wet kisses to Cuba's communist dictators.
* Actively sought out socialist dictators of Venezuela and Bolivia at the recent Americas conference.
* Embarrassed himself and America with his childish spurning of Britain's PM, Gordon Browne, not to mention the dime-store, last minute 'gifts' he gave them.
* Gave the Queen of England an Ipod...with his own speeches on it.
* Has given the cold shoulder to our stauchest South American ally, Colombia.
* Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, this is going well for America.
Washington Times:
Meanwhile he was attacked for somehow damaging our relations with the rest of the world. No. Just with the rest of the world's liberals. To paraphrase Barry Teleprompter - "He won."
So what exactly has the Teleprompter Won We Have Been Waiting For done to help our foreign relations?
* Sent a wet kiss to Iran that was laughed at and rebuked.
* Sent Clinton to Russia to try to help our relations with the new dictators over there, and she botches that.
* Sent a secret letter to Russia claiming that if they helped us with Iran we'd sell our eastern Europe and forego the missile defense system. They made Obama's behind the back dealing public (making it clear to our allies in Europe that we didn't 'have their back') and rejected it.
* Watched as North Korea launched a test missile that could lob nukes into America and did nothing.
* Tried to talk down to Germany and got smacked down by Merckel.
* Sent wet kisses to Cuba's communist dictators.
* Actively sought out socialist dictators of Venezuela and Bolivia at the recent Americas conference.
* Embarrassed himself and America with his childish spurning of Britain's PM, Gordon Browne, not to mention the dime-store, last minute 'gifts' he gave them.
* Gave the Queen of England an Ipod...with his own speeches on it.
* Has given the cold shoulder to our stauchest South American ally, Colombia.
* Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, this is going well for America.
Washington Times:
Continuing what has become an interesting back-and-forth in U.S.-Latin American relations, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought out President Obama at a joint meeting a book Saturday morning to give him a book attacking capitalism and American intervention in the Western Hemisphere.Miami Herald:
"Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina," or "Open Veins of Latin America," by Eduardo Galeano, describes centuries of invasions and other attempts to influence Latin American affairs by outside powers, including the U.S.
Mr. Chavez handed the book to Mr. Obama after the American president spoke at a meeting of leaders from the Union of South American Nations, which was taking place on the side of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
The book exchange comes a day after Mr. Obama sought out and shook hands with Mr. Chavez and his close ally, Bolivian President Evo Morales, at the opening ceremonies of the summit.
The first full day of the Summit of the Americas began with a gift during President Barack Obama's Saturday morning meeting with Andean nations: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez walked over to Obama and handed him a book, in Spanish.Chavez gives him a book attacking America and Obama wants to give him his frigging autobiography.
The book, Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina (The Open Veins of Latin America) by Eduardo Galeano is described by an unidentified Chilean delegate, as 'an academic book that is the basis for the 60s-era `dependency theory' that Latin America depends on the North,'' according to the White House media pool report.
Obama's response to the gift: ''I thought it was one of Chávez's books,'' he said. ''I was going to give him one of mine.''
Imagine Larry
Larry Elder plays what if:
President Barack Obama, in an appearance on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno, made a self-deprecating but ill-advised joke, in which he referred to the Special Olympics. He quickly apologized. Crisis averted.There's more and it's worth reading.
Fair enough.
But the real story is the media double standard: Imagine the uproar if a President John McCain made the Special Olympics comment.
For that matter, imagine if a President McCain mistook a White House window for a door; his secretary of Treasury had not paid taxes; he granted two dozen waivers to his no-lobbyists-in-government rule; and he had promised bipartisanship but got only three across-the-aisle votes for his "stimulus" package.
Imagine if President McCain, after promising a "clean break" from his predecessor, retained "extraordinary rendition," the FISA program, the option of wiretapping without warrants, and the option of using "enhanced interrogation techniques"; he promised to close Gitmo, then said it would take as long as a year, but then our European allies refused to take in "detainees" from their own countries; he reneged on/fudged his promise to have all combat troops out of Iraq within "16 months of his presidency"; he adopted for Afghanistan the same counterinsurgency strategy used in Iraq, which, as a candidate, he'd criticized for not "achieving its objectives"; and he used the same "state secrets" argument as did the Bush administration in the same court case, to avoid turning over certain national security documents in an ACLU-brought case on behalf of an alleged torture victim/detainee...
Imagine if President McCain acted "outraged" -- as though he, his secretary of Treasury, and a party leader (Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.) had not previously known about and approved the controversial AIG bonuses; executives at Freddie and Fannie, failed institutions now taken over by government, were getting bonuses, too; and during this recession, after criticizing taxpayer-funded corporate retreats, President McCain and First Lady Cindy McCain threw taxpayer-funded White House parties nearly every night, hiring entertainers such as Stevie Wonder and the Jonas Brothers.
Imagine if, as sitting president, McCain appeared on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno and cracked jokes, while -- as the media would have written -- "millions of Americans have lost their homes and their jobs with millions afraid they're next, yada, blah, etc."; he tripled the projected annual deficit and intended, within a short period, to double the national debt; and he promised to "create or save" an ever-changing number of jobs -- never offering a yardstick to define a "saved job."
Imagine that McCain's vice president made a number of gaffes, including not knowing the "recovery" Web site despite going on national television to promote it and revealing on television -- through his wife -- that he'd had the option of a job as secretary of State or VP -- thus showing the administration's extreme disrespect toward the current secretary of State.
Imagine if, of the 18 important sub-Cabinet positions in the Treasury Department, none were filled...saying that he wasn't a "socialist," McCain defended himself by asserting that "it wasn't on my watch" that we'd bought shares of banks -- but omitted that, as senator, he'd supported and voted for it; and he constantly said he'd "inherited" the deficit despite -- as a senator -- voting for TARP and other programs that had wildly increased it...
Imagine if, despite a reputation for "eloquence," President McCain relied on teleprompters for even the most minor of statements, verbally stumbling and flailing when the teleprompters malfunctioned; he broke protocol and tradition by pre-picking and giving notice to the reporters to be called on in press conferences; and he admonished the out-of-power party by denouncing a popular talk show host and imploring the opposite party to refuse to listen to him.
Imagine if the media kept referring to him as "popular" when his poll numbers were virtually identical to those of George W. Bush at the 50-day mark in their respective presidencies; and his chief of staff, in a newspaper article about his achievements as a House member, said in front of a reporter that the opposition party could "go f--- themselves."...
He's A Terrorist, She's A Terorrist, Wouldn't You Like...
I'm not going to try to wax eloquent on this baseless foolishness. Just think of it this way - Channel 9 News reported that the Albany Tea Party included "men, women, senior citizens, and children". To the Obama administration, each and every one of them (particularly any who happened to be veterans) are potential terrorists that should expect increased scrutiny. The men, women, and children that marched in DC in January in support of the pro-life movement? Members of right-wing extremists groups...except the ones that are just 'potential' extremists. Believe in the Constitution and its checks on federal authority? Are you ready to be questioned by the new Department of Homeland Security - which was formed to protect us from terrorists and external threats, but in just 3 months appears to have been refocused on Obama's thought police. Mind you it was the same people doing this that accused Bush and his "brown shirts" of going after ordinary Americans.
As I said, I don't need to get into it, IBD does it more than adequately:
As I said, I don't need to get into it, IBD does it more than adequately:
The secretary of homeland security equates dissent with extremism. If you're pro-life or support the right to bear arms, you need to be watched. And did you know Timothy McVeigh was a disgruntled veteran?I usually say this tongue-in-cheek...but not this time: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Despite their best efforts, the left was never able to actually find a single instance of the PATRIOT Act lawfully being used to improperly invade anyone's privacy. Will we be able to give the Obama administration such a perfect score? We know that Clinton failed the test as he was known to have ordered domestic spying on "right wing" groups (such as 'militias' and religious groups) following the OK City bombing, despite no evidence of a threat. Obama has thusfar continued, openly or more-secretly, nearly every Bush program regarding terrorists. Will he follow Bush's policies regarding non-terrorists...or will he truly ressurect the Clinton administration? Was Mr. Orwell off by 25 years? Let's not jump to conclusions just yet and hope not.
If we are to believe the report released this week by Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," the vast right-wing conspiracy is alive and well and dangerous.
The Tea Party activists who demonstrated against onerous taxation past, present and future are "right-wing extremists" who bear watching as they conspire against government authority. Perhaps we'd better check their trunks for guns and ammonium nitrate.
Where are those who fiercely opposed the Patriot Act and its provisions that focused on real terrorists such as al-Qaida and its operatives? They objected to monitoring conversations between actual foreign terrorists and their U.S. contacts. But if you have a bumper sticker opposing gun control or open borders, you're fair game.
Found on the second page of the report is this ominous warning:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that . . . are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
So if you're pro-life and want to control our borders, don't be surprised if you wind up on a terrorist watch list, especially if you're also a veteran. The report warns that the "possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
The evidence DHS presents is somewhat less than compelling. We are told:
"After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans — including Timothy McVeigh — joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups."
So if you happen to have a "Don't Tread On Me" flag like those flown during the American revolution, hide it along with your picture of Rush Limbaugh.
Unlike genuine left-wing extremists, such as the Earth Liberation Front, that routinely commit life-threatening terrorist acts, this document targets mere political thought — conservative political thought. Are you now or have you ever been a conservative? We disagree with what you say and will defend to the death our right to investigate. Put down that bumper sticker and back away slowly...
Momentum?
The local media's making a lot of hot air about Paterson's attempt to distract the state from the massive 8+% state spending hike this year during a recession and his constant stream of inept governance by trying to introduce a gay marriage bill in NY. Boy, if now isn't the time to worry about something like that, I don't know when is. Sorry to say this, gay couples, but the governor is using you for political cover the way the president used our troops in Iraq. Does that bother you? Or is it "win at any cost"?
In particular the media (rabid supporters, of course, of the idea) is claiming that the time to strike is now, while the iron is hot so to speak, because of the "momentum" towards gay marriage.
Momentum?
Are you kidding me?
In a couple of states unelected judges have decided that gay marriage has to be allowed, despite the fact that it's never been a practice at any time in the history of mankind. In VT the legislature voted for it and even overrode the governor's veto.
That's considered momentum.
What's NOT considered momentum to the press is that every single time voters have had the chance to vote for gay marriage they have rejected it. 100% of the time. Personally I'd consider that momentum. When the Supreme Court decided that certain individuals could not be punished by death, they based their decision in large part upon the fact that many states had done away with the death penalty in their state, either for a particular group or for all criminals. Yet, magically, when the will of the people, as they say, is clearly against gay marriage, suddenly there is "momentum" due to a handful of unelected judges and one of our smallest state's legislators (not the voters mind you, but the legislators). In another state, MA, the practice is only legal because the legislature has negligently refused to abide by the will of the voters who actively opposed the measure imposed on them by a couple of judges and CA is trying to do the same thing - get a couple of judges to overturn a sizable majority of the state who had just voted to take that decision out of the hands of those very judges.
Momentum? No way.
When states started taking the death penalty off the table, that was used as an excuse to make it illegal for anyone to use it because it showed that the "momentum" was there. Now, conveniently, the press finds "momentum" in the exact opposite direction. Despite the fact that there is a 100% failure rate to legalize gay marriage when voters vote on it, they find "momentum" in the fact that a couple of 'rogue' states have allowed it, despite the will of the people. In particular this holds true in MA, which of course is used in the 'list' of states 'allowing gay marriage' which proves 'momentum', where an amendment to the state constitution would almost certainly be enacted if the legislature allowed a vote on it, as they're supposed to legally, but they know this and refuse to let people vote on it.
This seems like a good time to revisit my previous take on the matter, as I wouldn't want the above to be taken out of context of my position on the matter.
In particular the media (rabid supporters, of course, of the idea) is claiming that the time to strike is now, while the iron is hot so to speak, because of the "momentum" towards gay marriage.
Momentum?
Are you kidding me?
In a couple of states unelected judges have decided that gay marriage has to be allowed, despite the fact that it's never been a practice at any time in the history of mankind. In VT the legislature voted for it and even overrode the governor's veto.
That's considered momentum.
What's NOT considered momentum to the press is that every single time voters have had the chance to vote for gay marriage they have rejected it. 100% of the time. Personally I'd consider that momentum. When the Supreme Court decided that certain individuals could not be punished by death, they based their decision in large part upon the fact that many states had done away with the death penalty in their state, either for a particular group or for all criminals. Yet, magically, when the will of the people, as they say, is clearly against gay marriage, suddenly there is "momentum" due to a handful of unelected judges and one of our smallest state's legislators (not the voters mind you, but the legislators). In another state, MA, the practice is only legal because the legislature has negligently refused to abide by the will of the voters who actively opposed the measure imposed on them by a couple of judges and CA is trying to do the same thing - get a couple of judges to overturn a sizable majority of the state who had just voted to take that decision out of the hands of those very judges.
Momentum? No way.
When states started taking the death penalty off the table, that was used as an excuse to make it illegal for anyone to use it because it showed that the "momentum" was there. Now, conveniently, the press finds "momentum" in the exact opposite direction. Despite the fact that there is a 100% failure rate to legalize gay marriage when voters vote on it, they find "momentum" in the fact that a couple of 'rogue' states have allowed it, despite the will of the people. In particular this holds true in MA, which of course is used in the 'list' of states 'allowing gay marriage' which proves 'momentum', where an amendment to the state constitution would almost certainly be enacted if the legislature allowed a vote on it, as they're supposed to legally, but they know this and refuse to let people vote on it.
This seems like a good time to revisit my previous take on the matter, as I wouldn't want the above to be taken out of context of my position on the matter.
*The joining of a man and a woman has been recognized since time immemorial in human culture as a "marriage".
*The joining of a man with multiple women has been recognized at various times, up to and including the present day, by some cultures as a "marriage". Commonly known as polygamy.
*The joining of a man with a young girl has been recognized by some cultures as a "marriage".
*The joining of a man with his sister has been recognized by some cultures as a "marriage". Commonly known as incest.
However, until very recently (though there may be minor aberrations, as expected)...
-The joining of two people of the same sex has never been recognized by a culture at large as a "marriage"...
-
Please note that my musings on the subject, above and below, relate narrowly and strictly to the application of the term 'marriage' to these unions by human society and not to the other aspects of potential non-traditional unions, their necessity, possibility, or acceptability beyond nomenclature...
4) The 'civil rights' argument is particularly ridiculous. Nothing is stopping an individual in American from marrying. A marriage is a man and a woman. Any man can marry any woman (subject to some restrictions, as explored above) and vice-versa. What is not permitted is the redefinition of 'marriage' such that two men or two women are joined and their union called by a name that does not fit. Their union is no more a 'marriage', as it has always been defined, than it is a 'pumpkin' or a 'BMW'. To twist the argument back upon proponents, asking that their unions be called a 'marriage' is seen by opponents as their asking that their unions be called a 'typewriter' (yes, I'm fully aware that the comparison is not perfect, thanks for noticing). Even more troubling is the comparison to the black civil rights movement. It's unlikely that it is a coincidence that the 'gay marriage' initiative was so heavily supported by blacks in California. I return again to the 'children' defense. There was nothing to prevent a black man and white woman from producing a child. There was nothing intrinsically different, other than skin color and ancestry, about a marriage between a black and white than two whites or two blacks. To a blind person their union is identical in every way to a same-race marriage. Not so with a same-sex couple. The issue is not at all the same. To a blind observer there is no physical reason that a white cannot marry a black, a jew marry a muslim, an indian marry a pakistani, a protestant marry a catholic, etc. Removing the one element that some would consider a reason to prevent these marriages (remove religion from different religions, nationality from conflicting nationalities, etc.) you end up with a marriage like every other marriage. Removing the one element from same-sex unions that makes them different from other unions removes the basic premise of the union itself (before you get mad, I'm not saying that same-sex couples' unions are based solely on sex, do you think I'm some sort of closed-minded leftist?). What I'm saying is that if you remove the single difference between this type of union and the others, gender of the participants, you are left with a relationship that is fundamentally different than all other types of unions called 'marriage'. That is the point I am trying to make with this argument, that you have a fundamental difference that goes beyond skin color, meaning the 'civil rights' argument is not a reasonable argument as it relates to the 'children' theory as to why same-sex unions have never been considered marriages. If you take a black woman and a white man and put them in a room and make the white man black, nothing about their marriage and coupling would be, in the end, different than if you did not make him black. Same with a jew and a muslim. Make the muslim a jew and nothing they do together would, in the end, be fundamentally different than if one remained a muslim. However, take two women and put them in a room and call it a 'marriage'. There is nothing they can do, fundamentally at the physical level, that will follow the 'children' theory that would be same as if you took one of them and made them a man. Changing the gender of one participant, unlike with all other variations, will fundamentally alter the nature of their relationship.
-
In conclusion, I repeat the point I made above, because some might have lost sight of the aim of my musings here - my musings relate narrowly and strictly to the application of the term 'marriage' to these unions, not to the other aspects of potential non-traditional unions, their necessity, possibility, or acceptability. Simply put - why has man never before defined marriage to include same-sex unions and what driving force of human nature cries out for such a redefinition of the institution of marriage rather than, say, the creation of a new institution? Separate but equal, you ask? Perhaps. But, unlike with a racial aspect, I again point to the argument I made above, black and white children can both attend school, learn the same lessons, and achieve the same goals. There is nothing fundamentally different about their education that cries out for blacks to be educated in an institution that is fundamentally different, but equal (that is, at the end of the day they have a high school degree and can perform the same intellectually), to the education of whites. Placing same-sex unions under the umbrella of 'marriage' requires a fundamental alteration to the umbrella itself. You don't need to recreate a school to teach blacks there next to whites. You do need to recreate the definition of 'marriage' to call same-sex unions and heterosexual unions both 'marriage'.
I just think we should be honest about the terms of the debate, the history of the subject, and the potential repercussions. I feel that neither side is willing to do that at this time.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Inconvenient Truth About The Tea Parties
There is one inescapable, inconvenient truth out there about the Tea Party protests. As Seinfeld might say, it's "a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there", too.
See, the protests were NOT simply anti-liberal or anti-democrat, or anti-Obama protests. Not by a long shot. In most of the reports I've read and watched online, including the one from right here in Albany, speakers repeatedly, openly, and clearly stated a belief that both political parties are to blame for the things they rallied to protest. And the statement elicited cheers of support. See, that's inconvenient to everyone in power - both Republicans who would otherwise have wanted to tap into the protests and especially to the left (including the press), who want to mischaracterize the protests as simply protests by conservatives unhappy that Obama won the election. Hogwash. A simple review of the stories written about the protests nationwide and interviews and statements by the attendees make it clear that this is a complete fabrication, unsupportable by facts. The speakers' words don't support it. The on-site interviews don't support it. The homemade signs (not provided by ACORN) don't support it.
The media has gone rather quiet on the protests after a one-day burst of generally disdainful reporting yesterday (channel 9 did an absolutely commendable job, though, both with the pre-rally report Wednesday morning and the after-protest report that was given nearly 3 minutes of straight-down-the-middle well-edited coverage). Why? Two big reasons. One is that the turnout wildly exceeded expectations. Hundreds showed up when dozens were expected. Thousands turned up with hundreds were expected. The press had their 'small, poorly organized' stories already lined up. Those had to be jettisoned. They also had their 'angry, pro-gun, ranting, white middle-age male, Obama-bashing' stories all written. Oops. The videos and pictures posted all over the internet (yes, conservatives are figuring out how to use the internet to their advantage) of the events make it clear that that storyline did not fit. Desperate attempts to link many thousands of protesters at hundreds of sites nationwide, organized freestyle by local volunteers communicating by internet, to Dick Armey fell completely flat. Efforts to worry at FoxNews about it look ludicrous given the coverage of every tiny protest by leftwing nuts by every other news outlet in America. The most graspingly pathetic last-ditch attempt at invalidation was the effort to portray the protests as nothing more than some sort of money-making scheme. That one's just laughable. Made even more laughable by the fact that tea-partiers would applaud someone's free market attempt to market supportive merchandise rather than feel sullied by it...and those trying to mock it don't get that at all. Presumably they'd rather have nice, neat, organized, souvenir handouts paid for by the government and distributed by government-paid ACORN "volunteers".
Simply put, it was not what they were expected...none of them. Not even the local organizers. And that's what's so inconvenient. IBD also makes the inconvenient truth clear:
See, the protests were NOT simply anti-liberal or anti-democrat, or anti-Obama protests. Not by a long shot. In most of the reports I've read and watched online, including the one from right here in Albany, speakers repeatedly, openly, and clearly stated a belief that both political parties are to blame for the things they rallied to protest. And the statement elicited cheers of support. See, that's inconvenient to everyone in power - both Republicans who would otherwise have wanted to tap into the protests and especially to the left (including the press), who want to mischaracterize the protests as simply protests by conservatives unhappy that Obama won the election. Hogwash. A simple review of the stories written about the protests nationwide and interviews and statements by the attendees make it clear that this is a complete fabrication, unsupportable by facts. The speakers' words don't support it. The on-site interviews don't support it. The homemade signs (not provided by ACORN) don't support it.
The media has gone rather quiet on the protests after a one-day burst of generally disdainful reporting yesterday (channel 9 did an absolutely commendable job, though, both with the pre-rally report Wednesday morning and the after-protest report that was given nearly 3 minutes of straight-down-the-middle well-edited coverage). Why? Two big reasons. One is that the turnout wildly exceeded expectations. Hundreds showed up when dozens were expected. Thousands turned up with hundreds were expected. The press had their 'small, poorly organized' stories already lined up. Those had to be jettisoned. They also had their 'angry, pro-gun, ranting, white middle-age male, Obama-bashing' stories all written. Oops. The videos and pictures posted all over the internet (yes, conservatives are figuring out how to use the internet to their advantage) of the events make it clear that that storyline did not fit. Desperate attempts to link many thousands of protesters at hundreds of sites nationwide, organized freestyle by local volunteers communicating by internet, to Dick Armey fell completely flat. Efforts to worry at FoxNews about it look ludicrous given the coverage of every tiny protest by leftwing nuts by every other news outlet in America. The most graspingly pathetic last-ditch attempt at invalidation was the effort to portray the protests as nothing more than some sort of money-making scheme. That one's just laughable. Made even more laughable by the fact that tea-partiers would applaud someone's free market attempt to market supportive merchandise rather than feel sullied by it...and those trying to mock it don't get that at all. Presumably they'd rather have nice, neat, organized, souvenir handouts paid for by the government and distributed by government-paid ACORN "volunteers".
Simply put, it was not what they were expected...none of them. Not even the local organizers. And that's what's so inconvenient. IBD also makes the inconvenient truth clear:
Investor's Business Daily attended one of these historic events, the Fishkill Tea Party in upstate New York, just east of the Hudson River. The original Fishkill Tea Party took place Aug. 26, 1776, when 100 women forced a storekeeper named Abram Brinckerhoff to sell them tea at the lawful price of 6 shillings per pound. This year's Fishkill Tea Party nearly filled Dutchess Stadium, the county's minor-league ballpark.Oddly enought this all got me thinking that what we saw Wednesday justified something I'd said earlier. I found that earlier post from back on January 13. Here's part of what I said then:
In a region of liberal New York state where Democrats have been consolidating their power during the last two elections, thousands traveled long distances to support pretty much the classic Reagan political agenda — and not just on taxes and spending.
Banners and placards sported slogans that included "Don't Spread My Wealth. Spread My Work Ethic," "Who'll Bail Me Out?" "Atlas Will Shrug," "Tea Today. No Kool-Aid," and "Acorn Didn't Have To Bus Us Here," referring to the left-wing activist group that specializes in voter registration drives benefiting liberal Democrats...
It was quite clear, however, that the tea partiers feel betrayed by Republicans, not just the Democrats now in power in both the executive and legislative branches in Washington.
One youthful speaker described the cause of the financial crisis as an "assault on our free market system paired with corporate bailouts." The Bush White House late last year lobbied skeptical congressional Republicans hard on a $14 billion auto industry bailout.
Johnson pointed out that "we know that they know that nobody can read 1,000 pages overnight," referring to the rush to get a stimulus bill passed and to the lawmakers who signed it without knowing much of what was in it.
The crowd may not have been aware that apart from liberal Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, the GOP in Congress formed a united front against the Democrats' tax-and-spend behemoth. But the Republican brand is blemished.
During 12 years of dominance in Congress and eight years in the White House, the GOP failed to kick its addiction to pork and make tough decisions on controlling entitlement spending...
Is the left more organized on the web? Perhaps the fact the younger people tend to more cutting edge on the web and also tend to be liberals leads to an edge here. But is it impossible to overcome? Hardly. There are a lot of web-savvy young conservatives. And it's not like the web is an overwhelming advantage, you're mostly preaching to the choir if you have web-savvy young Democrats firing up other web-savvy young Democrats.Prophetic? No. As that post's title makes clear, it's not that confusing. Rather than making any claims about my post being prophetic, I would rather strongly suggest that one would have to be blind to have missed it. It was all there, ready to ignite. $4 trillion dollars worth of new spending strikes a pretty big spark.
Young conservatives are just as prepared and ready and willing to fire each other up about the GOP...
The liberal grassroots are undeniably more fired up about Democrats nowadays. You'd have to be clueless or blind (or a Republican senator) not to see this and appreciate it.
The conservative grassroots are just as ready to be fired up about the GOP...
Young conservatives are just as prepared and ready and willing to fire each other up about the GOP. But they have been betrayed at nearly every turn by the GOP. They are ready, willing, and able, but have no one to get behind. Look at how the rightweb got behind the House Republicans in their protest over Pelosi and team's refusal to address one of the major issues of our time - energy. The rightweb got itself fired up and ignited action and enough buzz that the Democrats had to fold on the issue - and now we are headed towards the ability to drill for our own oil. What else does this sound like? Harriet Miers. Amnesty. Auto bailout. Ringing any bells, GOP? The rightweb is more than willing to fire up (with the help of talk radio) to support legitimate conservative issues, like defending our borders, appointing decent judges, and smart energy and economic policies. What else do these all have in common? The right web had to get fired up to attack the GOP! This same energy is ready to be harnessed to support conservatives seeking office. For evidence, just go to a conservative website and read the comments (from conservatives) after the Palin pick went public.
The conservative grassroots are just as ready to be fired up about the GOP. Just ask Gov. Sarah Palin. Barring just-post-9-11 George Bush, no other Republican has been able to generate so much heart-in-throat, absolute swooning, 'they're like me and I want someone like me representing me' support that would compare to the kind of lust we see in liberals for Great Leader or even Hillary or the pantsless one than Gov. Palin. No one else generated the kinds of crowds that Great Leader drew than Gov. Palin. Yet who was it was was backstabbed by, not just the left, but Republicans, including her own running mate? Gov. Palin. Who was it was called on to generate massive buzz and huge crowds in Georgia to make sure a Republican retained that Senate seat? Who was it that accomplished that goal, generated those crowds? Gov. Palin. Yet who is it that the GOP is trying to edge out? Gov. Palin. The grassroots is sere, tinder-dry, explosively dry, ready to rage...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
