This is a few paragraphs from Mark Steyn's latest column in the Orange County Register.
"How," asks the lady from CBS, "does $335 million in STD prevention stimulate the economy?"
"I'll tell you how," says Speaker Pelosi. "I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have, er… there is a part of the bill on the House side that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these measures."
Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries. To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won't be any children or grandchildren, so there's that problem solved.
The more interviews Speaker Pelosi gives explaining how vital the STD industry is to restarting the U.S. economy, the more I find myself hearing "syphilis" every time she says "stimulus." In late September, America was showing the first signs of "primary stimulus" – a few billion lesions popping up on the rarely glimpsed naughty bits of the economy: the subprime mortgage racket, the leverage kings. Now, the condition has metastasized in a mere four months into the advanced stages of "tertiary stimulus," with trillions of hideous, ever more inflamed pustules sprouting in every nook and cranny as the central nervous system of the body politic crumbles into total insanity – until it seems entirely normal for the second in line of presidential succession to be on TV gibbering away about how vital the federalization of condom distribution is to economic recovery.
The rules in this new "post-partisan" era are pretty simple: If the Democratic Party wants it, it's "stimulus." If the Republican Party opposes it, it's "politics" – as in headlines like this: "Obama Urges GOP To Keep Politics To A Minimum On Stimulus." These are serious times: As the president says, it's the worst economic crisis since the Thirties. So politicians need to put politics behind them and immediately lavish $4.19 billion on his community-organizing pals at the highly inventive "voter registration" group ACORN for "neighborhood stabilization activities."
"Neighborhood stabilization activities." That sounds like a line item from the Baath Party budget when Saddam sends the lads in to gas the Kurds. What does it mean in a nontotalitarian sense? Do you need a federally subsidized condom to do it? If so, will a pathetic $4.19 billion be enough?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Not With A Bang But A Whimper -- Obama's Contacts With Al Qaida
from Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from Al Qaida in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said Al Qaida has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to Al Qaida on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States," a diplomatic source said. "Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An article in Geostrategy-Direct on Nov. 19, 2008 noted that "perception, whether solidly based on reality or not, is the basis for geopolitics. And the fact is that many Muslims throughout the world perceive Barack Obama to be one of their own even though he is a professed Christian."
On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which contains 245 suspected Al Qaida members. The president said he would also dismantle unspecified CIA holding centers for Al Qaida detainees.
"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," Obama said in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite channel on Jan. 26. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy -- we sometimes make mistakes -- we have not been perfect," Obama said.
The two presidential decisions prompted calls for reconciliation by a range of leading Muslims. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi called on the United States to launch a dialogue with Al Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden while the Al Qaida-aligned Gamiat Islamiya urged an immediate four-month ceasefire.
At this point, the sources said, Al Qaida appears divided over Obama. They said Al Qaida's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri has regarded Obama, identified as a Muslim in much of the Arab world, as dangerous to the jihad movement, while others believe the new president was intent on ending the so-called global war on terrorism, begun in 2001. The U.S. war was sparked by Al Qaida air strikes in New York and Washington, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.
"Addressing the Islamic world, Obama said we are in need of a new direction," a statement by Gamiat leaders said. "So he is calling for adopting a new approach that differs to the blocked and irrational path that [former U.S. President George] Bush followed."
As a result, Gamiat has opposed a call by Al Qaida leader Abu Yehya Al Libi for renewed attacks on the West, particularly Britain and the United States. The Egyptian-based Islamic network warned that such attacks would force Obama to rescind his decision to close Guantanamo and resume the U.S. offensive against Al Qaida.
"These positions -- Obama announcing a diplomatic approach towards Iran and its nuclear file, his willingness to close Guantanamo Bay, and his request that judges suspend trials for four months in Guantanamo Bay -- show that there is a new opportunity that must be explored and not thrown away before making sure that it is just a mirage," Sheik Essam Derbala, a Gamiat leader, said.
The diplomatic sources said Obama's effort has been endorsed by most of the U.S. intelligence community. They said the community has assessed that Al Qaida, isolated in northwestern Pakistan, would not reemerge in Afghanistan, even under a Taliban regime.
"The United States has imposed attrition on Al Qaida, disrupting its command, control and communications and isolating it," George Friedman, a U.S. strategist and director of Stratfor, said in a report. "To avoid penetration by hostile intelligence services, Al Qaida has not recruited new cadres for its primary unit. This makes it very difficult to develop intelligence on Al Qaida, but it also makes it impossible for Al Qaida to replace its losses."
Still, Saudi Arabia has been concerned over any reconciliation between Al Qaida and the United States. The sources said Saudi King Abdullah fears that Obama's effort would legitimize Al Qaida and bolster its status in the Gulf Arab kingdom.
"Calling for a dialogue with Al Qaida alone is evidence of the extent of our shortsightedness and our failure to understand what is more of a threat to us than to the West," Tariq Al Homayed, editor of the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat daily, said. "What we need is to tackle the threat posed by Al Qaida's ideology rather than Al Qaida members."
Al Homayed, said to be close to the Saudi leadership, envisioned a contest among Arab states to sponsor an Al Qaida-U.S. reconciliation conference. He urged the Saudi leadership to clearly oppose such an effort.
"Interaction with Washington and Obama is important, especially with regards to what concerns us," Al Homayed wrote in an editorial. "But if our reactions are going to resemble those that are mentioned above, then this will be frustrating, not for Washington, but for us, the people of the region who are hoping for a better future."
END OF QUOTED MATERIAL
WOW
Is Obama guilty of sedition? Is he dumb enough to think that Al Qaida might be honest and up front with him? What would be gained since all the serious jihadis would just leave Al Qaida for other organizations?
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from Al Qaida in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said Al Qaida has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to Al Qaida on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States," a diplomatic source said. "Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An article in Geostrategy-Direct on Nov. 19, 2008 noted that "perception, whether solidly based on reality or not, is the basis for geopolitics. And the fact is that many Muslims throughout the world perceive Barack Obama to be one of their own even though he is a professed Christian."
On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which contains 245 suspected Al Qaida members. The president said he would also dismantle unspecified CIA holding centers for Al Qaida detainees.
"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," Obama said in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite channel on Jan. 26. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy -- we sometimes make mistakes -- we have not been perfect," Obama said.
The two presidential decisions prompted calls for reconciliation by a range of leading Muslims. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi called on the United States to launch a dialogue with Al Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden while the Al Qaida-aligned Gamiat Islamiya urged an immediate four-month ceasefire.
At this point, the sources said, Al Qaida appears divided over Obama. They said Al Qaida's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri has regarded Obama, identified as a Muslim in much of the Arab world, as dangerous to the jihad movement, while others believe the new president was intent on ending the so-called global war on terrorism, begun in 2001. The U.S. war was sparked by Al Qaida air strikes in New York and Washington, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.
"Addressing the Islamic world, Obama said we are in need of a new direction," a statement by Gamiat leaders said. "So he is calling for adopting a new approach that differs to the blocked and irrational path that [former U.S. President George] Bush followed."
As a result, Gamiat has opposed a call by Al Qaida leader Abu Yehya Al Libi for renewed attacks on the West, particularly Britain and the United States. The Egyptian-based Islamic network warned that such attacks would force Obama to rescind his decision to close Guantanamo and resume the U.S. offensive against Al Qaida.
"These positions -- Obama announcing a diplomatic approach towards Iran and its nuclear file, his willingness to close Guantanamo Bay, and his request that judges suspend trials for four months in Guantanamo Bay -- show that there is a new opportunity that must be explored and not thrown away before making sure that it is just a mirage," Sheik Essam Derbala, a Gamiat leader, said.
The diplomatic sources said Obama's effort has been endorsed by most of the U.S. intelligence community. They said the community has assessed that Al Qaida, isolated in northwestern Pakistan, would not reemerge in Afghanistan, even under a Taliban regime.
"The United States has imposed attrition on Al Qaida, disrupting its command, control and communications and isolating it," George Friedman, a U.S. strategist and director of Stratfor, said in a report. "To avoid penetration by hostile intelligence services, Al Qaida has not recruited new cadres for its primary unit. This makes it very difficult to develop intelligence on Al Qaida, but it also makes it impossible for Al Qaida to replace its losses."
Still, Saudi Arabia has been concerned over any reconciliation between Al Qaida and the United States. The sources said Saudi King Abdullah fears that Obama's effort would legitimize Al Qaida and bolster its status in the Gulf Arab kingdom.
"Calling for a dialogue with Al Qaida alone is evidence of the extent of our shortsightedness and our failure to understand what is more of a threat to us than to the West," Tariq Al Homayed, editor of the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat daily, said. "What we need is to tackle the threat posed by Al Qaida's ideology rather than Al Qaida members."
Al Homayed, said to be close to the Saudi leadership, envisioned a contest among Arab states to sponsor an Al Qaida-U.S. reconciliation conference. He urged the Saudi leadership to clearly oppose such an effort.
"Interaction with Washington and Obama is important, especially with regards to what concerns us," Al Homayed wrote in an editorial. "But if our reactions are going to resemble those that are mentioned above, then this will be frustrating, not for Washington, but for us, the people of the region who are hoping for a better future."
END OF QUOTED MATERIAL
WOW
Is Obama guilty of sedition? Is he dumb enough to think that Al Qaida might be honest and up front with him? What would be gained since all the serious jihadis would just leave Al Qaida for other organizations?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ah, The Humanity
While trying to get me to vote for him, Obama promised to close Gitmo in the first 100 days of his administration. Now he's promising to do it in a year. It's anybody's guess what the next promise will be.
Hat Tip/MsUnderestimated
" A Corpulent Drug Addict" I Love The Bipartinship
Hat Tip/MsUnderestimated
Begala says it's OK to call Rush a drug addict since he is one; even though it's completely gratuitous. It is hate merely for the sake of hate in this context. But now that Obama has his surrogate bringing up the drug issue it brings up certain questions about Obama. He has admitted to using illegal and addictive drugs. How do we know he isn't still using marijuana and cocaine? He was never closely questioned or followed by the media. And he did not release his medical records. Is the reason he wouldn't release his medical records because they show that he is still using cocaine? I've never brought up this issue before. But Begala is full of anger and therefore prone to projection. So, he's probably not really even talking about Rush but about his boss.
How Stupid Are You? Are You Dumb Enough To Not BELIEVE In Evolution?
This is all from the Chicago Sun Times. First a CBS Morning Show interview with Michelle Obama.
CBS "EARLY SHOW" INTERVIEW WITH MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE INTERVIEWER: MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ INTRODUCTION BY: JULIE CHEN
8:06 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008
MS. CHEN: During Maggie's exclusive interview with Michelle Obama yesterday, we learned how tough it is on the campaign trail, as well as where she stands on some of the issues. This morning Mrs. Obama gives us a personal look into her marriage to Barack Obama, life at home with their two daughters, and the future.
(Begin videotaped segment.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Finish this sentence.
MS. OBAMA: Okay.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: "I wish I was more" --
MS. OBAMA: I wish I was more -- probably patient. I'm getting there. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: "I wish Barack" -- "I wish Barack wasn't so" --
MS. OBAMA: I wish Barack wasn't so busy all the time. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I knew you'd say that. Who cooks at home?
MS. OBAMA: When we cook, I cook. But a lot of times we -- you know, it's a lot of ordering out. It's a lot of folks bringing food, you know. It's -- this year has not been usual.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.
MS. OBAMA: But outside of this year, I would generally cook.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Are you a good cook?
MS. OBAMA: I'm a good cook when I have time to do it. But I'm not -- you know, I'm not somebody who has to cook. If there's somebody else who's got a good meal, we're there. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: If he's had a long day and he just wants to come home and have Michelle's what -- what's the best meal you make that he loves?
MS. OBAMA: Oh, he loves my shrimp linguine. It's garlicky, with sun-dried tomatoes. That's one of his favorite dishes.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is there ever a time, at the end of the day, when you and Senator Obama are home and you just think, "What have we gotten ourselves into?"
MS. OBAMA: (Laughs.) Well, first, we'd have to be at home together. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Laughs.) Which doesn't happen?
MS. OBAMA: And as you probably know -- you have kids -- your kids become your focus. And when we're not doing this, we're thinking about what we need to do to make sure that the girls are on point, that they've got their Halloween costumes, that we send in the project for the next assignment, that we're going to make it to the parent- teacher conference. That tends to consume all that extra energy and time that you have to daydream and ponder and think about what we've gotten ourselves into.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: What do your girls say they want to be when they grow up?
MS. OBAMA: Malia says she wants to be an actress. But she wants to go to a good school like Yale so that she can get a job if the acting thing doesn't work out. (Laughs.) Sasha says -- I think she wants to sing or dance. They're still into wanting to perform. I'm trying to, you know, get them focused on, like, law or something like that, but right now they love the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana. So I think they see themselves as Disney potential. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Favorite romantic movie. And can you recite a line from it?
MS. OBAMA: Oh, gosh. See, this is tough. I'm not good at lines from movies. Gosh, you're stumping me on that one.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Best spontaneous romantic gesture from your husband.
MS. OBAMA: Well, I think this -- our anniversary. It wasn't -- nothing is as spontaneous these days. But the fact that he took time off the campaign trail, flew home, took me to a wonderful dinner, gave me a beautiful gift -- that I won't share -- and that, you know, the fact that he did it in the midst of all this, because I told him, "You know what, let's just not worry about our anniversary this year; we can celebrate later." He's, like, "Absolutely not."
MS. RODRIGUEZ: How many years?
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Wow.
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen years.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Where do you see yourself in 16 years?
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen years. Barack will have served two successful terms in the White House, and our children will have been in college and they'll be starting their careers. And, you know, we'll be starting to think about that next phase of life. But I'm hoping that he and I have some time to travel, spend time with friends. You know, I see us moving into the next phase of our adult life.
Now the questions asked in a CBS interview of Cindy McCain:
(CBS) CBS News anchor Katie Couric talked one-on-one with Cindy McCain about her husband's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. They also discussed social issues, such as abortion. Couric began by asking McCain if the governor has been rattled by the intense media scrutiny
Katie Couric: When did you and your husband first discuss her as a possibility?
Couric: Do you feel confident, Mrs. McCain, that the vetting process which is getting a lot of attention was as thorough as it needed to be and that Sen. McCain knew everything he needed to know?
Couric: The scuttlebutt, if you will, behind the scenes is that Sen. McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but social conservatives would have found him unacceptable because of his position on abortion.
Couric: Some, even Republicans, seemed surprised that Sen. McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I'm just curious, do you agree with that?
Couric: Where do you stand on abortion?
Couric: So do you oppose it even in cases of rape and incest?
Couric: So that's where you two differ in terms of your position on that.
Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?
Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.
Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That's what he told me, and that it should go to the states.
Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn't be overturned.
Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?
=====================================================================================
Basically Michelle's interview could be titled: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE HOW BEAUYIFUL AND WONDERFUL YOU ARE ??
And the Cindy interview could be titled HOW DEEP DO I HAVE TO DIG TO MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID ??
CBS "EARLY SHOW" INTERVIEW WITH MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE INTERVIEWER: MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ INTRODUCTION BY: JULIE CHEN
8:06 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008
MS. CHEN: During Maggie's exclusive interview with Michelle Obama yesterday, we learned how tough it is on the campaign trail, as well as where she stands on some of the issues. This morning Mrs. Obama gives us a personal look into her marriage to Barack Obama, life at home with their two daughters, and the future.
(Begin videotaped segment.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Finish this sentence.
MS. OBAMA: Okay.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: "I wish I was more" --
MS. OBAMA: I wish I was more -- probably patient. I'm getting there. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: "I wish Barack" -- "I wish Barack wasn't so" --
MS. OBAMA: I wish Barack wasn't so busy all the time. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I knew you'd say that. Who cooks at home?
MS. OBAMA: When we cook, I cook. But a lot of times we -- you know, it's a lot of ordering out. It's a lot of folks bringing food, you know. It's -- this year has not been usual.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.
MS. OBAMA: But outside of this year, I would generally cook.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Are you a good cook?
MS. OBAMA: I'm a good cook when I have time to do it. But I'm not -- you know, I'm not somebody who has to cook. If there's somebody else who's got a good meal, we're there. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: If he's had a long day and he just wants to come home and have Michelle's what -- what's the best meal you make that he loves?
MS. OBAMA: Oh, he loves my shrimp linguine. It's garlicky, with sun-dried tomatoes. That's one of his favorite dishes.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is there ever a time, at the end of the day, when you and Senator Obama are home and you just think, "What have we gotten ourselves into?"
MS. OBAMA: (Laughs.) Well, first, we'd have to be at home together. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Laughs.) Which doesn't happen?
MS. OBAMA: And as you probably know -- you have kids -- your kids become your focus. And when we're not doing this, we're thinking about what we need to do to make sure that the girls are on point, that they've got their Halloween costumes, that we send in the project for the next assignment, that we're going to make it to the parent- teacher conference. That tends to consume all that extra energy and time that you have to daydream and ponder and think about what we've gotten ourselves into.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: What do your girls say they want to be when they grow up?
MS. OBAMA: Malia says she wants to be an actress. But she wants to go to a good school like Yale so that she can get a job if the acting thing doesn't work out. (Laughs.) Sasha says -- I think she wants to sing or dance. They're still into wanting to perform. I'm trying to, you know, get them focused on, like, law or something like that, but right now they love the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana. So I think they see themselves as Disney potential. (Laughs.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Favorite romantic movie. And can you recite a line from it?
MS. OBAMA: Oh, gosh. See, this is tough. I'm not good at lines from movies. Gosh, you're stumping me on that one.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Best spontaneous romantic gesture from your husband.
MS. OBAMA: Well, I think this -- our anniversary. It wasn't -- nothing is as spontaneous these days. But the fact that he took time off the campaign trail, flew home, took me to a wonderful dinner, gave me a beautiful gift -- that I won't share -- and that, you know, the fact that he did it in the midst of all this, because I told him, "You know what, let's just not worry about our anniversary this year; we can celebrate later." He's, like, "Absolutely not."
MS. RODRIGUEZ: How many years?
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Wow.
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen years.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Where do you see yourself in 16 years?
MS. OBAMA: Sixteen years. Barack will have served two successful terms in the White House, and our children will have been in college and they'll be starting their careers. And, you know, we'll be starting to think about that next phase of life. But I'm hoping that he and I have some time to travel, spend time with friends. You know, I see us moving into the next phase of our adult life.
Now the questions asked in a CBS interview of Cindy McCain:
(CBS) CBS News anchor Katie Couric talked one-on-one with Cindy McCain about her husband's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. They also discussed social issues, such as abortion. Couric began by asking McCain if the governor has been rattled by the intense media scrutiny
Katie Couric: When did you and your husband first discuss her as a possibility?
Couric: Do you feel confident, Mrs. McCain, that the vetting process which is getting a lot of attention was as thorough as it needed to be and that Sen. McCain knew everything he needed to know?
Couric: The scuttlebutt, if you will, behind the scenes is that Sen. McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, but social conservatives would have found him unacceptable because of his position on abortion.
Couric: Some, even Republicans, seemed surprised that Sen. McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I'm just curious, do you agree with that?
Couric: Where do you stand on abortion?
Couric: So do you oppose it even in cases of rape and incest?
Couric: So that's where you two differ in terms of your position on that.
Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?
Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.
Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That's what he told me, and that it should go to the states.
Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn't be overturned.
Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?
=====================================================================================
Basically Michelle's interview could be titled: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE HOW BEAUYIFUL AND WONDERFUL YOU ARE ??
And the Cindy interview could be titled HOW DEEP DO I HAVE TO DIG TO MAKE YOU LOOK STUPID ??
Wolf Blitzer Attacks Republican Party For The Color Of Their Skin
Racism is alive and well on CNN. I'm not precisely sure what his exact point is. Would he not allow Steele to have the job because he's black? Is there a certain number of black people the Republicans have to put in that room before they can give that job to Steele? The race card is the last one in the deck.
What is obvious is that Blitzer judges people by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character. I'ts also obvious that he will go to strange, twisted lengths to make the Republican Party look bad. Not the least pretense of fairness or objectivity here.
HatTip/Newsbusters
I'm A Little Envious of Liberals . . . .
This is copied and pasted complete from Afroconservative.
I was talking to my best friend this afternoon on my lunch break. I was telling her how I was a little envious of liberals. Yes. I admit it. J
But here’s why…
Liberals have the luxury of being all emotive about everything! They don’t really need to make substantive statements that are backed up by facts. All they have to say are things like: “I feel that everyone needs to have health insurance!” “War is bad!” “Torture is horrendous under any circumstances!” “The death penalty is inhumane!” “We need to save the environment!” “Oil companies make obscene profits!” “We care about poor people!” “Guns are bad!” “Let’s go green!” “We need more funding for decrepit schools!” “Poor people don’t have a choice but to commit crimes!”
Ah, the liberal utopia where we save trees but kill babies…
Obamabots might know or might not know that Obama is not going to rescind the Bush Tax-cuts --as promised. You think they care? His election doesn’t remove the global threats that America faces. He is not going to close Gitmo (within the first 100 days)-- as promised! Look, I can go on and on about his broken promises but... do you really think they care? Maybe the far lefties do…
You know why? Because it’s about the way Obama makes them feel. He is a master of deception. I give him mad props!!! He might even be better at mendacity than Clinton! Whew -now that's a tough record to break!
When I have discussions with my coworkers about how raising the minimum wage will cost jobs…I don’t get smiles, and sighs of content. I get looks of contempt for bursting their utopian bubbles.
So, there’s my mini gripe about why I’m a little envious of liberals. There I said it. You happy?
They can say anything, almost do anything (Like tell us it's patriotic to pay taxes but barely donate any of their personal incomes to charity), and still have this large following all because they know how to make people feel really really good!
Ignorance really is bliss.
I was talking to my best friend this afternoon on my lunch break. I was telling her how I was a little envious of liberals. Yes. I admit it. J
But here’s why…
Liberals have the luxury of being all emotive about everything! They don’t really need to make substantive statements that are backed up by facts. All they have to say are things like: “I feel that everyone needs to have health insurance!” “War is bad!” “Torture is horrendous under any circumstances!” “The death penalty is inhumane!” “We need to save the environment!” “Oil companies make obscene profits!” “We care about poor people!” “Guns are bad!” “Let’s go green!” “We need more funding for decrepit schools!” “Poor people don’t have a choice but to commit crimes!”
Ah, the liberal utopia where we save trees but kill babies…
Obamabots might know or might not know that Obama is not going to rescind the Bush Tax-cuts --as promised. You think they care? His election doesn’t remove the global threats that America faces. He is not going to close Gitmo (within the first 100 days)-- as promised! Look, I can go on and on about his broken promises but... do you really think they care? Maybe the far lefties do…
You know why? Because it’s about the way Obama makes them feel. He is a master of deception. I give him mad props!!! He might even be better at mendacity than Clinton! Whew -now that's a tough record to break!
When I have discussions with my coworkers about how raising the minimum wage will cost jobs…I don’t get smiles, and sighs of content. I get looks of contempt for bursting their utopian bubbles.
So, there’s my mini gripe about why I’m a little envious of liberals. There I said it. You happy?
They can say anything, almost do anything (Like tell us it's patriotic to pay taxes but barely donate any of their personal incomes to charity), and still have this large following all because they know how to make people feel really really good!
Ignorance really is bliss.
How Free Is America ???
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shruggs & Ross and Rachel's niece) quoted Shransky today. Shransky said you can judge the freedom of a society by whether or not you can go into the public square and say, "The president sucks." A large part of our public square is the dinosaur media. When Bush was president you were less likely to even be allowed into the public square if you did not say, "Bush sucks." Now the ruling princes are out right discussing all of the reasons why it is wrong for anyone to say. "Obama sucks." In the public square Rush Limbaugh is vilified for criticizing Obama.
Do you feel the loss of freedom, folks? It's like a cold wind. The beginning of our loss of freedom is palpable. And this loss is obvious to anyone not complicit.
Do you feel the loss of freedom, folks? It's like a cold wind. The beginning of our loss of freedom is palpable. And this loss is obvious to anyone not complicit.
It's The Big Rock Candy Mountain -- Dem Says: "We're All Going To Get Money"
This woman would not stop talking. I've often seen lefty intolerance for opposing points of view. This woman does it in a subtle and irritating manner.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Senate Ethics
All below is pasted and copied from Instapundit.
It’s been over seven months since it was revealed that Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) got a sweetheart deal on his Washington, D.C., townhouse directly from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of troubled subprime-mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. Participating in the “Friends of Angelo” program saved Dodd about $75,000 on his mortgage, and raised more than a few eyebrows about whether Dodd should be accepting such hefty gifts from entities he’s tasked with overseeing and regulating.
Since the scandal broke last June, no action has been taken by the Senate to formally ascertain if Dodd engaged in any wrongdoing. Nor has Dodd tried to clear his name in any way. What’s troubling about Dodd’s scandal isn’t so much that it remains unresolved but that it’s a textbook example of how scandals in Washington are swept under the rug.
It has now been 189 days since Dodd promised to release his mortgage documents, but he still hasn’t done so.
And don’t forget Kent Conrad: “Senator Conrad’s role in the scandal has gone straight down the memory hole.”
It’s been over seven months since it was revealed that Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) got a sweetheart deal on his Washington, D.C., townhouse directly from Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of troubled subprime-mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. Participating in the “Friends of Angelo” program saved Dodd about $75,000 on his mortgage, and raised more than a few eyebrows about whether Dodd should be accepting such hefty gifts from entities he’s tasked with overseeing and regulating.
Since the scandal broke last June, no action has been taken by the Senate to formally ascertain if Dodd engaged in any wrongdoing. Nor has Dodd tried to clear his name in any way. What’s troubling about Dodd’s scandal isn’t so much that it remains unresolved but that it’s a textbook example of how scandals in Washington are swept under the rug.
It has now been 189 days since Dodd promised to release his mortgage documents, but he still hasn’t done so.
And don’t forget Kent Conrad: “Senator Conrad’s role in the scandal has gone straight down the memory hole.”
BDS Is Just A Temper Tantrum
This is a quote from some guy named Zo.
"When a little kid doesn't get what he wants, the adult who has thwarted his will is, to borrow a phrase, the Worst Person in the World. But the second that kid gets what he wants, everything is suddenly wonderful. It's like for the last 8 years, Bush was the mean babysitter who didn't let Ashton Kutcher and Ashley Judd eat ice cream for dinner and stay up past their bedtime. But now they've got a new babysitter and he's so cool and he's promising all sorts of amazing things and oh isn't everything just totally super awesome?"
Hat Tip/doubleplusundead
"When a little kid doesn't get what he wants, the adult who has thwarted his will is, to borrow a phrase, the Worst Person in the World. But the second that kid gets what he wants, everything is suddenly wonderful. It's like for the last 8 years, Bush was the mean babysitter who didn't let Ashton Kutcher and Ashley Judd eat ice cream for dinner and stay up past their bedtime. But now they've got a new babysitter and he's so cool and he's promising all sorts of amazing things and oh isn't everything just totally super awesome?"
Hat Tip/doubleplusundead
Algore Has Made $100 Million Off Global Warming Scam
This is two paragraphs pasted and copied from The Hill.
Gore, a former Tennessee senator and Nobel Peace Prize winner, spoke on the dangers of global warming, urging senators to pursue a treaty to lower carbon emissions at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December.
Inhofe called Gore's message "desperate," and noted the irony of it being delivered on such an icy day in D.C. "They almost had to cancel it because of freezing weather, and last year they did cancel it because of cold weather," Inhofe said. "I'd say he has a real serious problem. But he's already made his $100 million, so I don't think he needs to worry too much about it. But the science and logic are on our side, and we are winning."
Gore, a former Tennessee senator and Nobel Peace Prize winner, spoke on the dangers of global warming, urging senators to pursue a treaty to lower carbon emissions at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen in December.
Inhofe called Gore's message "desperate," and noted the irony of it being delivered on such an icy day in D.C. "They almost had to cancel it because of freezing weather, and last year they did cancel it because of cold weather," Inhofe said. "I'd say he has a real serious problem. But he's already made his $100 million, so I don't think he needs to worry too much about it. But the science and logic are on our side, and we are winning."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Team Obama Loves Lobbyists
I have copied and pasted this from Patterico's Pontifications.
Inoperative: Obama’s Pledge: “When I Am President, [Lobbyists] Won’t Find a Job in My White House”
Filed under: General, Obama — Patterico @ 6:56 am
November 3, 2007:
One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.
– Barack Obama
January 27, 2009:
Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists – and then hired one to be his top aide.
Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer.
Patterson’s appointment marks the second time in President Barack Obama’s first week in office that the administration has had to explain how it’s complying with its own ethics rules as it hires a bevy of Washington insiders for administration jobs.
Uh, they have to explain only if you force them to.
To their credit, a Politico reporter did try to ask about the first violation of this pledge, during the lovefest that ensued when Obama visited the press room several days ago. The reporter was pointedly shot down by an irritated Obama.
We’ll see if the press stays on him. Pardon me if I have my doubts.
What is the defense, anyway? That the former lobbyist won’t be working “in” the White House?
Or maybe’s it’s just a calculation by Obama that he can say: to hell with my campaign promises when they’re inconvenient — and the press won’t say boo.
Inoperative: Obama’s Pledge: “When I Am President, [Lobbyists] Won’t Find a Job in My White House”
Filed under: General, Obama — Patterico @ 6:56 am
November 3, 2007:
One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.
– Barack Obama
January 27, 2009:
Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists – and then hired one to be his top aide.
Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer.
Patterson’s appointment marks the second time in President Barack Obama’s first week in office that the administration has had to explain how it’s complying with its own ethics rules as it hires a bevy of Washington insiders for administration jobs.
Uh, they have to explain only if you force them to.
To their credit, a Politico reporter did try to ask about the first violation of this pledge, during the lovefest that ensued when Obama visited the press room several days ago. The reporter was pointedly shot down by an irritated Obama.
We’ll see if the press stays on him. Pardon me if I have my doubts.
What is the defense, anyway? That the former lobbyist won’t be working “in” the White House?
Or maybe’s it’s just a calculation by Obama that he can say: to hell with my campaign promises when they’re inconvenient — and the press won’t say boo.
Goodbye Harvard, Goodbye Stanford and To Hell with Berleley
Academia is so deeply tainted by group think and prejudice that it is probably beyond repair. I doubt that the energy and expense necessary to attempt to open it up from within is worth it. It would be more efficient to just found alternative schools that would actually practice academic freedom, take democracy serious and teach courses and books that sustain Western principles. If a body of conservatives scholars were to join together and write a manifesto that outlined the death of learning and academic freedom, established basic policies for the founding of institutions that would eschew indoctrination for teaching and begin its founding it would be a marvelous new beginning and a PR coup. Throngs of conservative parents with money to spend are dying for such schools.
Voo Doo Science
When I was a psychiatric nurse I spent nearly twenty years taking care of eating disorder patients. It is not so much one disease as a cluster of related diseases. And this guest of Laura's sounds like she's unable to understand or appreciate the complexities of psychiatric illnesses. No one understands what causes eating disorders. But it is commonly accepted that the disease begins long before the teen years. And her mumbo jumbo about having an authentic relationship with your body is just plain nutty as an answer to the problem of eating disorders. Laura's attitude of respect for the kid's basic worth would be much more likely to prevent an eating disorder than anything her guest suggests. This is just another not-quite-subtle attack on childhood sexuality of the kind that lefties have long used to breakdown the the pillars of society.
HatTip/Jane Q. Republican
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tolerance
There is no point in asking a Muslim if they believe in tolerance or peaceful co-existence since they feel no obligation to speak honestly to nonMuslims. But this video lays out the lack of tolerance practiced in many Muslim countries.
Hat Tip/Boudica BPI Weblog
Hat Tip/Boudica BPI Weblog
Sell Out ???
Hat Tip(for vid)/JammieWearingFool
After Obama's campaign got millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign donors it is natural to question where his primary loyalty lies. Since the system was designed to keep investigations from happening and since the dinosaur media is not doing their job a foul smelling suspicion will remain attached to this presidency.
I Am Not A Crook
Simply amazing. When will these biased broads treat Ann Coulter half as well as they treat this nutball crook? Couldn't they at least ask him some questions America would like to know the answers to? Like, what did Obama know and when did he know it? At what point in the process is Blago going to roll over on Obama?
Rachel Maddow Is a Big Stupid
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Bernstein is very polite but what he is basically saying is that Rachel doesn't know what she's talking about. He is serious enough a journalist to approach an accusation with some healthy skepticism. She is so biased and out of touch that she thinks any negative allegation about someone she hates is ETERNAL TRUTH. They actually like pay her money. And then they wonder why fewer and fewer people pay any attention to them at all. Toward the end of the MSM, their audience will have probably dwindled to just conservatives stopping in for a laugh at the latest moronic/biased utterance.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Better to Shoot the Conservative Bastards Like Rabid Dogs
Recently the Think Progress site ran an interesting piece. The writer expressed disgust that the same conservative writers with whom Obama had dinner recently had the nerve to publicly disagree with him. Implied therein is a strange belief that these conservatives should have been won over by spending an hour with the great man. How could mere mortals not be so enchanted by the physical presence the great Obama? And how could their way of life and thinking have not been transformed by being in his Presence?
The writer and many commenters seem to feel that these few minutes spent with these few writers is what Obama meant when he promised bipartinsanship in the election. Basically he spent a few minutes on the effort and all of the tens of millions who voted against him didn’t change their tune so f___ ‘em. He has now officially been bipartisan. He kept his promise, it didn’t work and now we know that change might not be such a great idea.
It is difficult to be bipartisan when your base thinks it’s a ridiculous, maybe traitorous cause. And a reading of the comments makes this pretty clear. It’s a long comment thread. Much of it degenerates into petty and endless squabbling between pairs of commenters that frequently characterizes the dregs of the net. I will copy intact some of the comments that show the hate and antipathy to even allowing basic human dignity to those on the right that seems to characterize lefty discourse.
Before I do the copy and paste I have a couple of quick observations. Obama spent much, much more time bragging about this promise on the campaign trail than he probably will spend implementing it. It was merely a campaign promise. A campaign promise in the great tradition of, “You weren’t stupid enough to believe that were you?”
Each comment below is exactly as it appeared.
lokidog Says:
I hope President Obama has learned a simple lesson: reaching out to rabid dogs will only get your hands ripped off.
Better to shoot the bastards and put them out of their misery - and help the nation out at the same time.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
==========================
grover nerdkissed Says:
let’s hope he doesn’t bother kissin’ those pimply asses again.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
================================
WaltB Says:
Barak had to give it a try. He can easily say he tried to reach out to these fools, while all they can do is whine and complain. Now he can go back to reminding them who won.
Come to think about it, now he could also use some of Bush’s favored strategies, invoke the Patriot Act on them and send them all (Rush especially!) to Gitmo!
January 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm ===================
=============================================
Klem Kiddilehopper Says:
Let’s start playing hard with those as*holes!
First take Krauthummers wheelchair away, and let him crawl around forever!
Make Brock work as the towelboy in gay bathhouse, never to leave!
Kristol should be put in a round cage with Malkin, both of them butt-naked and roll them from one Repug meeting to the next one!
January 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
===============================
TXProgressive Says:
Obama did the right thing in dining with them. It’s not Obama’s fault that his dinner guests have the mental and intellectual maturity of 7 year olds.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hat Tip/NewsBuisters
The writer and many commenters seem to feel that these few minutes spent with these few writers is what Obama meant when he promised bipartinsanship in the election. Basically he spent a few minutes on the effort and all of the tens of millions who voted against him didn’t change their tune so f___ ‘em. He has now officially been bipartisan. He kept his promise, it didn’t work and now we know that change might not be such a great idea.
It is difficult to be bipartisan when your base thinks it’s a ridiculous, maybe traitorous cause. And a reading of the comments makes this pretty clear. It’s a long comment thread. Much of it degenerates into petty and endless squabbling between pairs of commenters that frequently characterizes the dregs of the net. I will copy intact some of the comments that show the hate and antipathy to even allowing basic human dignity to those on the right that seems to characterize lefty discourse.
Before I do the copy and paste I have a couple of quick observations. Obama spent much, much more time bragging about this promise on the campaign trail than he probably will spend implementing it. It was merely a campaign promise. A campaign promise in the great tradition of, “You weren’t stupid enough to believe that were you?”
Each comment below is exactly as it appeared.
lokidog Says:
I hope President Obama has learned a simple lesson: reaching out to rabid dogs will only get your hands ripped off.
Better to shoot the bastards and put them out of their misery - and help the nation out at the same time.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
==========================
grover nerdkissed Says:
let’s hope he doesn’t bother kissin’ those pimply asses again.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
================================
WaltB Says:
Barak had to give it a try. He can easily say he tried to reach out to these fools, while all they can do is whine and complain. Now he can go back to reminding them who won.
Come to think about it, now he could also use some of Bush’s favored strategies, invoke the Patriot Act on them and send them all (Rush especially!) to Gitmo!
January 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm ===================
=============================================
Klem Kiddilehopper Says:
Let’s start playing hard with those as*holes!
First take Krauthummers wheelchair away, and let him crawl around forever!
Make Brock work as the towelboy in gay bathhouse, never to leave!
Kristol should be put in a round cage with Malkin, both of them butt-naked and roll them from one Repug meeting to the next one!
January 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
===============================
TXProgressive Says:
Obama did the right thing in dining with them. It’s not Obama’s fault that his dinner guests have the mental and intellectual maturity of 7 year olds.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hat Tip/NewsBuisters
Labels:
. Barack Obama,
bipartisanship,
campaign promises
Sunday, January 25, 2009
New Rule: the Rules Don't Apply to the Rule Maker
Obama is as successful giving up lobbyists as he is at giving up cigarettes: not at all.
Hat Tip/NewsBusters
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"I Won"
Obama: "I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
What he won is the office from which to attempt to accomplish what he wants. Does Barack think that his having been elected president gives him automatic victory in every congressional vote? What is wrong with this man? Is he as ignorant of American history as this remark implies? I tend to think not but I'm still waiting for evidence.
As for him instructing us to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, I bet Rush can't believe his good fortune in getting so much free PR.
What he won is the office from which to attempt to accomplish what he wants. Does Barack think that his having been elected president gives him automatic victory in every congressional vote? What is wrong with this man? Is he as ignorant of American history as this remark implies? I tend to think not but I'm still waiting for evidence.
As for him instructing us to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, I bet Rush can't believe his good fortune in getting so much free PR.
The Global Warming Hoax
First is a comment from a thread on the hoax du jour.
After having spent most of my life preparing to be an academic researcher, I quit just short of my Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences out of disgust. I had been studying to be a climate researcher, and had already obtained a master's degree in statistics.
Why did I quit in disgust? At the time when I left the field ten years ago, the science was already mostly gone from climate research, and it seemed to have been replaced by true believers engaged in the worst form of confirmation bias. The actual science behind the belief of run-away man-made global warming is pretty awful, and involves far more details than what I can put into a single comment to a newspaper article.
But the short version is as follows: The dirty secret is that carbon dioxide is not very effective at absorbing and re-emitting radiation (heat). In short, it does not absorb over much of the infrared spectrum, and much of the area where it does absorb is already covered by water vapor. To get the run-away alarmist greenhouse effect, it is assumed in the climate models (but not verified at all by observations) that the small amount of additional heat from CO2 will cause more water to evaporate from the oceans without (overly simplifying here) causing additional clouds. Water vapor is a very potent "greenhouse" gas, hence the amplification effect in the climate models.
So what are the problems with the above feedback argument? There are three of them. The first is that if this water vapor feedback exists, then why did we not get a run-away greenhouse effect when the earth was actually considerably warmer than the present, such as during the Medieval Optimum (about 1000 AD, when Greenland was farmed by the Vikings), or, say, during the Holocene Maximum about 6,000 years ago? The second argument is that the assumptions about clouds in the climate models are terrible ... the assumption are the conclusions here, and satellite observations do not support the assumptions. The final point is that the theory is failing in its predictions. As an example, if the climate models were correct, then the mid-atmosphere (about 15,000 feet up) should be warming the most rapidly ... satellite data indicate no warming signature at all.
So we have a theory that makes illogical assumptions, has failed to occur in history, and is failing in its predictions. This is not to say that the earth did not warm up during the 20th Century (though it might be cooling off again now, the earth is always growing warmer or colder throughout history), or that CO2 has no effect. It is just not a big effect, and the natural tendency of humans to believe that we are wrecking an otherwise perfect world (recall our religious creation myths) does not a scientific fact make.
I could go on with so many points here, but this is already too long of a post. By the way, I would *not* want to be Al Gore ... the future will not judge that Nobel Prize very well.
What follows is more on the same subject from Watts Up With That.
As followers of the enhanced greenhouse controversy are no doubt aware carbon dioxide cannot, unaided, drive catastrophic global warming — it simply lacks the physical properties.
In order to generate interesting outcomes climate modelers include impressive positive feedback from increasing atmospheric water vapor (marvelous magical multipliers, as we call them). By trivial warming of the atmosphere increased CO is supposed to facilitate an increase in the atmosphere’s capacity for the one truly significant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which then further heats the atmosphere, facilitating more water vapor and so on.
So, the obvious question is, is the atmosphere getting “wetter” and, if so, where?
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.
Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.
Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. None of the above time series leads to a plausible conclusion that we should anticipate any increase in weather activity.
After having spent most of my life preparing to be an academic researcher, I quit just short of my Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences out of disgust. I had been studying to be a climate researcher, and had already obtained a master's degree in statistics.
Why did I quit in disgust? At the time when I left the field ten years ago, the science was already mostly gone from climate research, and it seemed to have been replaced by true believers engaged in the worst form of confirmation bias. The actual science behind the belief of run-away man-made global warming is pretty awful, and involves far more details than what I can put into a single comment to a newspaper article.
But the short version is as follows: The dirty secret is that carbon dioxide is not very effective at absorbing and re-emitting radiation (heat). In short, it does not absorb over much of the infrared spectrum, and much of the area where it does absorb is already covered by water vapor. To get the run-away alarmist greenhouse effect, it is assumed in the climate models (but not verified at all by observations) that the small amount of additional heat from CO2 will cause more water to evaporate from the oceans without (overly simplifying here) causing additional clouds. Water vapor is a very potent "greenhouse" gas, hence the amplification effect in the climate models.
So what are the problems with the above feedback argument? There are three of them. The first is that if this water vapor feedback exists, then why did we not get a run-away greenhouse effect when the earth was actually considerably warmer than the present, such as during the Medieval Optimum (about 1000 AD, when Greenland was farmed by the Vikings), or, say, during the Holocene Maximum about 6,000 years ago? The second argument is that the assumptions about clouds in the climate models are terrible ... the assumption are the conclusions here, and satellite observations do not support the assumptions. The final point is that the theory is failing in its predictions. As an example, if the climate models were correct, then the mid-atmosphere (about 15,000 feet up) should be warming the most rapidly ... satellite data indicate no warming signature at all.
So we have a theory that makes illogical assumptions, has failed to occur in history, and is failing in its predictions. This is not to say that the earth did not warm up during the 20th Century (though it might be cooling off again now, the earth is always growing warmer or colder throughout history), or that CO2 has no effect. It is just not a big effect, and the natural tendency of humans to believe that we are wrecking an otherwise perfect world (recall our religious creation myths) does not a scientific fact make.
I could go on with so many points here, but this is already too long of a post. By the way, I would *not* want to be Al Gore ... the future will not judge that Nobel Prize very well.
What follows is more on the same subject from Watts Up With That.
As followers of the enhanced greenhouse controversy are no doubt aware carbon dioxide cannot, unaided, drive catastrophic global warming — it simply lacks the physical properties.
In order to generate interesting outcomes climate modelers include impressive positive feedback from increasing atmospheric water vapor (marvelous magical multipliers, as we call them). By trivial warming of the atmosphere increased CO is supposed to facilitate an increase in the atmosphere’s capacity for the one truly significant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which then further heats the atmosphere, facilitating more water vapor and so on.
So, the obvious question is, is the atmosphere getting “wetter” and, if so, where?
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.
Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.
Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. None of the above time series leads to a plausible conclusion that we should anticipate any increase in weather activity.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bail Out Or Payoff ??? Or Democrat Version of Trickle Down???
This is from a recent WaPo story:
"Many of the large American companies that received billions of taxpayer bailout dollars by pleading that they didn't have enough money to lend to customers were, at the same time, spending millions of dollars dispatching lobbyists to influence the federal government.
"A Washington Times review of lobbying disclosure reports found that 18 of the top 20 recipients of federal bailout money spent a combined $12.2 million lobbying the White House, the Treasury Department, Congress and federal agencies during the last quarter of 2008.
"For instance, the government bought $3.4 billion in American Express Co. stock on Jan. 9 as part of an aid package. In the last quarter of 2008, the company spent more than $1 million on federal lobbying."
I guess the rest of us are just hoping this money will trickle down.
Hat Tip/Volokh Conspiricy
"Many of the large American companies that received billions of taxpayer bailout dollars by pleading that they didn't have enough money to lend to customers were, at the same time, spending millions of dollars dispatching lobbyists to influence the federal government.
"A Washington Times review of lobbying disclosure reports found that 18 of the top 20 recipients of federal bailout money spent a combined $12.2 million lobbying the White House, the Treasury Department, Congress and federal agencies during the last quarter of 2008.
"For instance, the government bought $3.4 billion in American Express Co. stock on Jan. 9 as part of an aid package. In the last quarter of 2008, the company spent more than $1 million on federal lobbying."
I guess the rest of us are just hoping this money will trickle down.
Hat Tip/Volokh Conspiricy
SHOW TRIALS: "Why Should The Innocent Fear?"
Why indeed? Since Democrats have become experts at finding just the right court to come up with the decision they're seeking how could we trust a judicial process overseen by the Democrats presently in control? Matthews let it be known that he's not uncomfortable with witch hunts or show trials. Matthews is no fool: he knows that show trials were put on to find the innocent guilty and to further the ambitions of the regime staging them. But, unfortunately, too many Americans do not remember Stalinist history. Gaffney is right about ending the Obama honeymoon. Matthews is a main spokesman of the one of the main PR arms of the Obama administration. I think I have a headache.
Hat Tip/NewsBusters
Most Ethical Congress Ever Doesn't Pay Its Own Taxes
If they are the most ethical congress ever and the Ways and Means Committee chairman doesn't pay his taxes, does that mean that paying taxes is unethical? Can I go to jail for paying taxes? I'm pretty sure I could go to jail for not paying my taxes. So what's a confused guy to do?
Obviously Rangel needs to be straightened out by the Ethics Committee. But Nancy Pelosi won't name a chairman to the ethics committee. So the ethics committee no longer meets. Is this the only way this congress can be ethical: by procedural manipulation?
Hat Tip/Founding Bloggers
Dr. Phil Plays Dumb Rather Than Attack Coulter Head On
What is the great Philbert afraid of? I guess he knows he'd be made to look like a fool if he attacked Coulter openly and honestly.
Hat Tip/JammieWearingFool
Democrat Protesting Oversight of Fannie and Freddie Blames 'Lynching'
Orwellian transparency might be all some Democrats will accept. And Meeks is not at all subtle about playing the race card.
Hat Tip/Boudica BPI Weblog
Labels:
Democratic party,
Orwell,
race card,
transparency
More Transparency
Another transparency update while there is still enough light to see anything.
As you can see from the video our new president gets along very well with the press. There is never any problem as long as they don’t ask him a substantive question. His visit to the press room was obviously meant to show the royal ass and have it kissed. And way too many reporters were more than happy to pucker up.
There has been some dissent from the press. CBS reporter Bill Plante said in language most of the press corps doesn’t understand, “We have a tradition here of covering the president.” Was it just my imagination or did I hear some other reporters in the background yell, “Why don’t you just shut your whiney, sniveling, traitorous, unAmerican mouth and do what you’re told.” These days I’m not always sure which side of the looking glass I’m on.
I have this from a Politico report:
““It is ironic, the same day that the president is talking about transparency, we were not let in,” CNN’s Ed Henry said on the air Wednesday night after news of the second swearing-in broke.
“Henry’s main gripe was that television reporters weren’t permitted to cover a historic moment, when Obama once again raised his right hand and took the oath before Justice John Roberts. The only images came from White House photographer Pete Souza.
“Three wire services — The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse – refused to move those images, in protest of the White House’s handling of the event.
“The wire services’ photographers were also denied access to photograph Obama sitting in the Oval Office on the first day, and similarly refused to move the White House approved photos.
“Michael Oreskes, the AP’s managing editor for U.S. news, told his own news outlet that “we are not distributing what are, in effect, visual press releases.”
I would suggest that these guys shut up before Gitmo remains open just for the likes of them.
Thus continues the Orwellian transparency. A transparency notable for how much is covered up and the presumption that the public has no right to know not granted them from on high.
Hat Tip/Jane Q. Republican
Monday, January 19, 2009
Family Friendly Political Pay Off
Here are a few paragraphs from a Breitbart story today.
The wife of Vice President-elect Joe Biden let it slip that her husband had a pick of two jobs in the Obama administration.
Jill Biden said President-elect Barack Obama gave Biden the choice of being secretary of state or vice president.
.. … … ..
The vice president-elect tried to hush his wife as soon as the words came out of her mouth, with a loud "shhh!"
Jill Biden said the job of vice president was better for the family, because as secretary of state he would travel too often.
Here is a post from this blog from 8-23-08 titled, 'Why Biden?'
Why indeed. Obama is not necessarily planning to keep him as a running mate. But he might be useful at present. Hillary Clinton's supporters are an unhappy lot and many would like to dislodge Obama during the convention. Many super delegates must be skittish looking at Obama's poor performance and slippage in the polls. His hypnotic worship of Europe and China will only serve to continually drive mainstream voters away from him.
Putting Biden on the ticket can get him past the dangers of the convention. Biden has long standing and deep ties to many super delegates, labor leaders, Washington insiders and Democrat party insiders. Biden will insulate him against any possible revolts at the convention.
Then, after the convention Obama could replace Biden with someone more to his liking. And Biden would then join the many people that Obama has been forced by convenience to throw under the bus.
I submit that Obama approached Biden and asked him what it would cost to get around the super delegates and Biden went back and forth between State and VP before sealing the deal.
The wife of Vice President-elect Joe Biden let it slip that her husband had a pick of two jobs in the Obama administration.
Jill Biden said President-elect Barack Obama gave Biden the choice of being secretary of state or vice president.
.. … … ..
The vice president-elect tried to hush his wife as soon as the words came out of her mouth, with a loud "shhh!"
Jill Biden said the job of vice president was better for the family, because as secretary of state he would travel too often.
Here is a post from this blog from 8-23-08 titled, 'Why Biden?'
Why indeed. Obama is not necessarily planning to keep him as a running mate. But he might be useful at present. Hillary Clinton's supporters are an unhappy lot and many would like to dislodge Obama during the convention. Many super delegates must be skittish looking at Obama's poor performance and slippage in the polls. His hypnotic worship of Europe and China will only serve to continually drive mainstream voters away from him.
Putting Biden on the ticket can get him past the dangers of the convention. Biden has long standing and deep ties to many super delegates, labor leaders, Washington insiders and Democrat party insiders. Biden will insulate him against any possible revolts at the convention.
Then, after the convention Obama could replace Biden with someone more to his liking. And Biden would then join the many people that Obama has been forced by convenience to throw under the bus.
I submit that Obama approached Biden and asked him what it would cost to get around the super delegates and Biden went back and forth between State and VP before sealing the deal.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Psalm 91
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide
under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.
under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.
Pelosi Has Changed Legislative Process For My Own Good
Prompted by a story in the Hill.
Committee chairmen in the house of representatives are angry at Nancy Pelosi. They are angry that she has taken the writing of legislation out of their hands. It is now being written in her office and the chairmen don’t like that. Pelosi has said that her unusual move is necessary so that ‘emergency’ bail out bill and other legislation ‘essential’ to the economy can be passed as quickly as possible.
This is PURE BS.
The federal government is already massively in debt. This debt has helped to ruin the economy. So we need to rush as fast as we can to do more of the same damage? Maybe this makes sense to Pelosi. Or maybe she wants to do this before any kind of consensus against it builds among the public.
To take such large steps without debate or discussion is contrary to American tradition and the spirit of our republican government. It might make sense if we could somehow be certain that these measures would improve the situation. But we don’t know that. And that makes this new trend especially suspicious.
I know that the chairmen of the committees don’t care about debate and discussion. They are upset about losing out on the opportunity to add spending they will benefit from to any legislation. They long ago ceased seeing themselves as employees of the people who voted for them. With campaign ‘reform’ legislation they made certain bribes to congressmen legal and now behave as if they are owned by the people and companies that give them these bribes. Feinstein used her position on a committee to give a half billion dollar contract to her husband’s company. Which also explains why Feinstein’s voting record was so much more friendly to the Bush administration than her rhetoric. Barack Obama used his seat in the senate to give a million federal dollars to his wife’s employer which got Michelle O. a six figure raise. So, I guess we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Committee chairmen in the house of representatives are angry at Nancy Pelosi. They are angry that she has taken the writing of legislation out of their hands. It is now being written in her office and the chairmen don’t like that. Pelosi has said that her unusual move is necessary so that ‘emergency’ bail out bill and other legislation ‘essential’ to the economy can be passed as quickly as possible.
This is PURE BS.
The federal government is already massively in debt. This debt has helped to ruin the economy. So we need to rush as fast as we can to do more of the same damage? Maybe this makes sense to Pelosi. Or maybe she wants to do this before any kind of consensus against it builds among the public.
To take such large steps without debate or discussion is contrary to American tradition and the spirit of our republican government. It might make sense if we could somehow be certain that these measures would improve the situation. But we don’t know that. And that makes this new trend especially suspicious.
I know that the chairmen of the committees don’t care about debate and discussion. They are upset about losing out on the opportunity to add spending they will benefit from to any legislation. They long ago ceased seeing themselves as employees of the people who voted for them. With campaign ‘reform’ legislation they made certain bribes to congressmen legal and now behave as if they are owned by the people and companies that give them these bribes. Feinstein used her position on a committee to give a half billion dollar contract to her husband’s company. Which also explains why Feinstein’s voting record was so much more friendly to the Bush administration than her rhetoric. Barack Obama used his seat in the senate to give a million federal dollars to his wife’s employer which got Michelle O. a six figure raise. So, I guess we ain’t seen nothing yet.
The First Step Toward A Private Army???
This runs counter to all American tradition (at least outside of Tammany Hall and Chicago politics). I have copied and pasted directly from Ace of Spades.
Obama Mullng Turning Army of Supporters Into His Own Private FEMA
—Ace
Your own... personal... FEMA...
In what would be another unprecedented step, Obama's political staff is deciding whether to create a service organization that would use the vast corps of its grass-roots campaign supporters. As described by one source knowledgeable with the discussions, this nonprofit arm would be used to help victims of natural disasters, but would do so under the Obama umbrella while continuing to build the overall network's massive e-mail database.
Unacceptable. Obama is seeking to create a shadow bureaucracy answerable not to the taxpayer but only to himself.
Thanks to Arthur.
Obama Mullng Turning Army of Supporters Into His Own Private FEMA
—Ace
Your own... personal... FEMA...
In what would be another unprecedented step, Obama's political staff is deciding whether to create a service organization that would use the vast corps of its grass-roots campaign supporters. As described by one source knowledgeable with the discussions, this nonprofit arm would be used to help victims of natural disasters, but would do so under the Obama umbrella while continuing to build the overall network's massive e-mail database.
Unacceptable. Obama is seeking to create a shadow bureaucracy answerable not to the taxpayer but only to himself.
Thanks to Arthur.
Together We Fought the Censorship that Never Happened
Below Is a great post from Da Techguy that I've copied and pasted.
The Wall Street Journal’s review of the the Nation’s magazine The Nation’s guide to the Nation delivers some comedy that I suspect the book doesn’t intend. But there is one part of the review that hits a particular nail on the head:
The Nation guide recommends a bookstore in Madison, Wis., by saying: “George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do not want you to shop at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative.” Yeah, remember that clerk, Dylan, the guy who was named Rainbow employee of the month last June? He’s in Gitmo now.
Gird Yourself for Exciting Yet Imaginary Battles! As far as The Nation is concerned, just about every progressive bookstore, musician, theater troupe and mime is committed to fighting the stranglehold of censorship. Except, well, they don’t actually get censored, so it’s like they’re committed to fighting the stranglehold of Klingons.
That line encompasses everything about the left and oppression these days. Over and over they talk about speaking truth to power and how there were censored by the Bush administration except that they don’t challenge any power that might actually strike back. Those days a long gone. Maybe they are referring to the violence inherent in the system.
The Wall Street Journal’s review of the the Nation’s magazine The Nation’s guide to the Nation delivers some comedy that I suspect the book doesn’t intend. But there is one part of the review that hits a particular nail on the head:
The Nation guide recommends a bookstore in Madison, Wis., by saying: “George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do not want you to shop at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative.” Yeah, remember that clerk, Dylan, the guy who was named Rainbow employee of the month last June? He’s in Gitmo now.
Gird Yourself for Exciting Yet Imaginary Battles! As far as The Nation is concerned, just about every progressive bookstore, musician, theater troupe and mime is committed to fighting the stranglehold of censorship. Except, well, they don’t actually get censored, so it’s like they’re committed to fighting the stranglehold of Klingons.
That line encompasses everything about the left and oppression these days. Over and over they talk about speaking truth to power and how there were censored by the Bush administration except that they don’t challenge any power that might actually strike back. Those days a long gone. Maybe they are referring to the violence inherent in the system.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Dwindling Support for Wide Ranging Health Care Reform
Copied and pasted from Maggie's Farm
This survey also suggests that as in the past early support for a number of reform proposals could fade in the face of arguments that opponents might raise in a public debate. For example, seven in ten Americans (71%) say they favor the idea of employer mandates. But when given the argument often made by critics that this may cause some employers to lay off some workers support falls dramatically, to just under three in ten (29%). The same pattern holds on the topic of individual mandates. Roughly two in three (67%) favor requiring all Americans to have health insurance with help for those who could not afford it. When given the criticism that some people may be required to buy health insurance they find too expensive or do not want, support falls to two in ten (19%).
Americans seem most concerned that any health care plan not raise their costs or involve government limiting or dictating their choices. According to the survey, nearly two-thirds (65%) say they would be less likely to support a plan that would get the government get too involved in personal health care decisions, more than six in ten (61%) would be less likely to support a plan that increases people’s insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs, and more than half (56%) would be less supportive of a plan that limits an individual’s choice in doctors.
“As we have learned from past debates, public support looms for health reform largest at the beginning of the debate, but it's relatively easy to chip away at that support with arguments about tradeoffs,” said Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser vice president and director for Public Opinion and Survey Research.
HT/Maggie's Farm
This survey also suggests that as in the past early support for a number of reform proposals could fade in the face of arguments that opponents might raise in a public debate. For example, seven in ten Americans (71%) say they favor the idea of employer mandates. But when given the argument often made by critics that this may cause some employers to lay off some workers support falls dramatically, to just under three in ten (29%). The same pattern holds on the topic of individual mandates. Roughly two in three (67%) favor requiring all Americans to have health insurance with help for those who could not afford it. When given the criticism that some people may be required to buy health insurance they find too expensive or do not want, support falls to two in ten (19%).
Americans seem most concerned that any health care plan not raise their costs or involve government limiting or dictating their choices. According to the survey, nearly two-thirds (65%) say they would be less likely to support a plan that would get the government get too involved in personal health care decisions, more than six in ten (61%) would be less likely to support a plan that increases people’s insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs, and more than half (56%) would be less supportive of a plan that limits an individual’s choice in doctors.
“As we have learned from past debates, public support looms for health reform largest at the beginning of the debate, but it's relatively easy to chip away at that support with arguments about tradeoffs,” said Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser vice president and director for Public Opinion and Survey Research.
HT/Maggie's Farm
Friday, January 16, 2009
Both Sides of Obama's Mouth Get Talked Out of Within Ten Seconds
If Bush made the best decisions he could under the circumstances, why didn't Obama vote for him?
Hat Tip/Hot Air
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Lest We Forget
History that every educated person once was aware of has disappeared from the collective memory. The upside to amnesia is that makes it easier to hate George Bush (apparently a necessity of life for some).
Please Don't Offend the Protesters
This is copied and pasted from Patterico.
I was fortunate not to be among the LAPD officers dispatched to the Federal Building in West L.A. on Saturday, where they confronted a boisterous but mostly peaceful group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The senior commanding officers of the LAPD’s West Bureau, in a decision sadly typical for some in the department’s upper ranks, directed that officers not wear their helmets and face shields while manning a skirmish line and squaring off against the more provocative of the demonstrators. The helmets, officers were told, were “too intimidating.”
In this video, you can see a group of officers surrounded by protesters angered over the arrest of one of their comrades who had hung a banner from a traffic signal. You can also see one of those officers being struck with a protest sign. (I don’t know if this was the same officer who was later treated at Cedars Sinai Hospital after being struck in the head with a sign.)
I’m told that the officers ordered to wade into that crowd without the protection of their helmets and face shields were not at all happy about it. And you can bet that the senior officers who gave the order, if they were anywhere near the Federal Building at all, were in little danger of having their delicate domes creased by someone swinging a sign. It’s pathetic, but we’re getting used to it.
–Jack Dunphy
Hat Tip/Patterico's Pontifications
I was fortunate not to be among the LAPD officers dispatched to the Federal Building in West L.A. on Saturday, where they confronted a boisterous but mostly peaceful group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The senior commanding officers of the LAPD’s West Bureau, in a decision sadly typical for some in the department’s upper ranks, directed that officers not wear their helmets and face shields while manning a skirmish line and squaring off against the more provocative of the demonstrators. The helmets, officers were told, were “too intimidating.”
In this video, you can see a group of officers surrounded by protesters angered over the arrest of one of their comrades who had hung a banner from a traffic signal. You can also see one of those officers being struck with a protest sign. (I don’t know if this was the same officer who was later treated at Cedars Sinai Hospital after being struck in the head with a sign.)
I’m told that the officers ordered to wade into that crowd without the protection of their helmets and face shields were not at all happy about it. And you can bet that the senior officers who gave the order, if they were anywhere near the Federal Building at all, were in little danger of having their delicate domes creased by someone swinging a sign. It’s pathetic, but we’re getting used to it.
–Jack Dunphy
Hat Tip/Patterico's Pontifications
More Name That Party
Mayor Gary Becker of Racine, Wisconsin was arrested on suspicion of using his computer to solicit sex from a child. The AP does not state his party affiliation. But we know from much past experience that the AP only covers up for Democrats. This game is becoming less challenging. It has become so easy to figure out the answer: accused of wrong doing + no dinosaur media statement of party affiliation = Democrat.
Lawyer
Lawyers are a frightening bunch.
I'm not so sure Darwinists would agree that men are descended from frogs.
Good Idea: Global Terror Offender Registry
The conservative blogosphere is abuzz with this terrific proposal from RadioViceOnline: we need a national terror offender registry. What a perfectly simple and reasonable plan. Which will be what ensures the huge, liberal obstacles to implementing it, of course.
We’re finding out some information concerning the recidivism rate of terrorists who have been released from Guantanamo Bay. Some - not the majority - seem to be going back to the fight. With that knowledge in hand I’d like to suggest a National Terrorist Offender Registry.
We could make them register with local authorities when they move into town, and have a cool Google map that displays where they live, their photo and what they were convicted of.
Hmm… they may elect to live out of the country, so maybe we could make it a world-wide registry…
The Obama administration is planning to close the Guantanamo detention center soon after arrival in the White House so we’ll need to move quickly to make this law.
Word from the Pentagon is that more than one in 10 released detainees go back to their old ways - you know - terrorizing people and fighting the jihad.
Granted, these are Pentagon figures and no details as to how the recidivism rate was calculated. But when the American judicial system has someone in custody and they are released to create another crime, people get pretty mad.
Hence, the Terrorist Offender Registry. Many states already have sex offender registries, all we would need is another table in the database.
Obama is planning to start closing up shop on the first day of his presidency, but with almost 250 prisoners, it’s going to take some time - some figure more than a year - to complete the process.
If you are reading this and you are a blogger, please post this to your site and encourage others to do the same. Contact your legislators and encourage them to propose/support this excellent idea.
Those who are in agreement: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, Gateway Pundit, and Power Line,
Hat Tip/Jane Q. Republican
We’re finding out some information concerning the recidivism rate of terrorists who have been released from Guantanamo Bay. Some - not the majority - seem to be going back to the fight. With that knowledge in hand I’d like to suggest a National Terrorist Offender Registry.
We could make them register with local authorities when they move into town, and have a cool Google map that displays where they live, their photo and what they were convicted of.
Hmm… they may elect to live out of the country, so maybe we could make it a world-wide registry…
The Obama administration is planning to close the Guantanamo detention center soon after arrival in the White House so we’ll need to move quickly to make this law.
Word from the Pentagon is that more than one in 10 released detainees go back to their old ways - you know - terrorizing people and fighting the jihad.
Granted, these are Pentagon figures and no details as to how the recidivism rate was calculated. But when the American judicial system has someone in custody and they are released to create another crime, people get pretty mad.
Hence, the Terrorist Offender Registry. Many states already have sex offender registries, all we would need is another table in the database.
Obama is planning to start closing up shop on the first day of his presidency, but with almost 250 prisoners, it’s going to take some time - some figure more than a year - to complete the process.
If you are reading this and you are a blogger, please post this to your site and encourage others to do the same. Contact your legislators and encourage them to propose/support this excellent idea.
Those who are in agreement: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, Gateway Pundit, and Power Line,
Hat Tip/Jane Q. Republican
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
"Fuzzy-Wuzzy"
(Soudan Expeditionary Force)
We've fought with many men acrost the seas,
An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.
We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.
Then 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.
'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore.
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!
'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air --
You big black boundin' beggar -- for you broke a British square!
Rudyard Kipling
We've fought with many men acrost the seas,
An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.
We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.
Then 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.
'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore.
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!
'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air --
You big black boundin' beggar -- for you broke a British square!
Rudyard Kipling
A Translation From Talking Head Lingo To English
Over the past week I have heard commentators being asked, "Why are you being critical and divisive when what everyone wants is to join together and work together for the common good?" The literal English translation of this media mantra is, "You're a hateful, slimebag selfish boor who is obviously out of touch with the times. We will allow you freedom of speech only when you have proved that you deserve it. In the mean time, shut up and listen to your betters."
The Growing Problem in Europe
Below is an excellent post copied from Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
I really like the way the Sultan Knish writes. In a recent article entitled, Whatever You Do, Don't Upset The Muslims, he writes:
While Europeans occasionally dare to speak about a Muslim problem, they won't for long. If you let the cockroach problem in your house get bad enough, you stop having a cockroach problem, and the cockroaches start having a people problem. Soon enough Europe won't have a Muslim problem, Muslims will have a European problem... and if anyone wonders how they will take care of it, a short look at the way Sudan, Indonesia, not to mention most of the Middle East have taken care of their Christian problem should answer that question. Men may have qualms about killing cockroaches, but cockroaches have no qualms about killing men.
--
--
This is also being covered extensively by Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.
I really like the way the Sultan Knish writes. In a recent article entitled, Whatever You Do, Don't Upset The Muslims, he writes:
While Europeans occasionally dare to speak about a Muslim problem, they won't for long. If you let the cockroach problem in your house get bad enough, you stop having a cockroach problem, and the cockroaches start having a people problem. Soon enough Europe won't have a Muslim problem, Muslims will have a European problem... and if anyone wonders how they will take care of it, a short look at the way Sudan, Indonesia, not to mention most of the Middle East have taken care of their Christian problem should answer that question. Men may have qualms about killing cockroaches, but cockroaches have no qualms about killing men.
--
--
This is also being covered extensively by Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Joe Speaks Truth to the Lock Step Media
Lincoln put 10,000 in prison without trial, suspended habeas corpus and put the chief justice of the Supreme Court in jail. FDR put tens of thousands of Japanese in camps without trial and fire bombed Dresden. But somehow George Bush has gone too far and has shredded the constitution.
Hat Tip/NewsBusters
Stare Decisis When Convenient
Supreme court nominees have started to pledge to apply stare decisis to Roe v. Wade. (I'm waiting to see a senator give up that much of their constitutional power to another branch of government.) But if this stare decisis stuff is so great, let's really put it to use. How about the right to bear arms? There is a much, much, much longer history of citizens being allowed to own guns than there is of the 'right' to abortion. Why, oh why doesn't stare decisis apply here? Could it be that the senate judiciary committee thinks there has been a 220 year long misapplication of the constitution in the case of the second amendment? But I think that if guns could be used to perform abortions the second amendment would be safer. Of course, you'd have a hard time convincing me that any member of congress gives a fat f**k about my constitutional rights. I think they only feel they need to answer to K Street.
I originally posted this in 2007 but I like it and decided to recycle it.
I originally posted this in 2007 but I like it and decided to recycle it.
Labels:
Roe v. Wade,
second amendment,
stare decisis,
Supreme Court
New Game
This is copied and pasted entirely from Patterico's Pontifications.
Bipartisanship
Filed under: Obama, Politics — DRJ @ 7:25 pm
[Guest post by DRJ]
Let’s play a game called Bipartisanship. These are the rules:
Read one paragraph.
Identify which politician is acting in a bipartisan manner.
Here we go:
“Acting at Barack Obama’s behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork. Obama also sharply criticized Bush’s handling of the money and promised radical changes.”
Bonus question: Which of these politicians campaigned to restore bipartisanship in Washington? (Hint: It’s a trick question.)
Thanks for playing.
– DRJ
Bipartisanship
Filed under: Obama, Politics — DRJ @ 7:25 pm
[Guest post by DRJ]
Let’s play a game called Bipartisanship. These are the rules:
Read one paragraph.
Identify which politician is acting in a bipartisan manner.
Here we go:
“Acting at Barack Obama’s behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork. Obama also sharply criticized Bush’s handling of the money and promised radical changes.”
Bonus question: Which of these politicians campaigned to restore bipartisanship in Washington? (Hint: It’s a trick question.)
Thanks for playing.
– DRJ
OBOT
Everything below is taken word for word from Flopping Aces.
YOU MIGHT BE AN OBOT IF…
You feel tingles running up or down your legs when That One is orating. (OK, I’m just getting warmed up, and I had to get that one out of my system. :)
You’ve never paid any attention to politics until Obama ran for President, and now you’ve become a political expert by reading Huffington Post and/or Daily Kos.
You get called a Cheetoh a lot but you don’t know why.
You believe there are only about 200 PUMAs in the country.
You weep with joy while repeating the mantra “YES WE CAN!”
You think Hillary Clinton tried to “steal” the Democratic nomination.
You fly into a rage when anyone suggests Obama is unqualified for the presidency.
You’ve used the word “racist” more than any other word in the last year.
You’ve developed a keen interest in Hawaiian body surfing.
For the first time in your life, you are proud of your country, but only because it elected a black president.
You believe that with Obama as president, this is a New Age when all wars will end, everyone will be provided for, and you don’t have to worry about paying your mortgage anymore!
You think Obama is a Great Man because of his magnificent accomplishments … like getting elected, and uh, uh, uh…
You think all Hillary Clinton supporters are middle-aged lesbians (not that there’s anything… yada yada yada… )
You get a lump in your throat when you hear the words “President Obama.”
You get a lump in your pants when you see Michelle Obama.
You think Bill Ayers was a non-issue, and was done wrong by the evil media.
You plan to name your children Barack and Baracka.
You believe that saying his middle name is racist.
You think the political platform of “change” is original to Obama.
You believe PUMAs are Republicans pretending to be disaffected Democrats, kind of like Joe Lieberman.
YOU MIGHT BE AN OBOT IF…
You feel tingles running up or down your legs when That One is orating. (OK, I’m just getting warmed up, and I had to get that one out of my system. :)
You’ve never paid any attention to politics until Obama ran for President, and now you’ve become a political expert by reading Huffington Post and/or Daily Kos.
You get called a Cheetoh a lot but you don’t know why.
You believe there are only about 200 PUMAs in the country.
You weep with joy while repeating the mantra “YES WE CAN!”
You think Hillary Clinton tried to “steal” the Democratic nomination.
You fly into a rage when anyone suggests Obama is unqualified for the presidency.
You’ve used the word “racist” more than any other word in the last year.
You’ve developed a keen interest in Hawaiian body surfing.
For the first time in your life, you are proud of your country, but only because it elected a black president.
You believe that with Obama as president, this is a New Age when all wars will end, everyone will be provided for, and you don’t have to worry about paying your mortgage anymore!
You think Obama is a Great Man because of his magnificent accomplishments … like getting elected, and uh, uh, uh…
You think all Hillary Clinton supporters are middle-aged lesbians (not that there’s anything… yada yada yada… )
You get a lump in your throat when you hear the words “President Obama.”
You get a lump in your pants when you see Michelle Obama.
You think Bill Ayers was a non-issue, and was done wrong by the evil media.
You plan to name your children Barack and Baracka.
You believe that saying his middle name is racist.
You think the political platform of “change” is original to Obama.
You believe PUMAs are Republicans pretending to be disaffected Democrats, kind of like Joe Lieberman.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Soros - Franken - U. N. Connection
The American Thinker says that George Soros was especially interested in removing Norm Coleman from the senate. They feel that it was related to Coleman’s successful investigation of corruption at the U.N. Also, by attacking a Soros friend at the U.N., Coleman jeopardized channels that Soros maintains to secure inside info about international banking and foreign governments that make currency speculation especially profitable. Soros was also involved in the election of a Democrat as Minnesota Secretary of State that helped Franken’s perversion of the recount. A relevant passage from the American Thinker piece:
"Norm Coleman was the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and as such took a leading role in uncovering and investigating the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. Coleman was the leader in the Senate when it came to scrutinizing the operations of the United Nations; he appeared frequently in the media. The United Nations had never before come under such public criticism in the Senate. The mandarins and their fellow travelers were made very uncomfortable by the work of Senator Coleman.
They do not forget their adversaries.
This scandal involved not just negligence of the UN officials that set up and monitored the program (which immeasurably helped keep Saddam Hussein in power and, in a sense, helped create the conditions for the invasion of Iraq), but also involved corruption that reached the highest levels at the United Nations.
Coleman was dogged in his pursuit of the wrongdoers at the UN. The investigation tarnished the image of Mark Malloch Brown (UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy and right-hand man at the UN) who was seen as spinning away any culpability of Annan and the UN itself in this travesty of a program. Coleman thereby clearly earned the wrath of George Soros, for the ties between Brown and Soros are tight and seemingly mutually beneficial."
"Norm Coleman was the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and as such took a leading role in uncovering and investigating the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. Coleman was the leader in the Senate when it came to scrutinizing the operations of the United Nations; he appeared frequently in the media. The United Nations had never before come under such public criticism in the Senate. The mandarins and their fellow travelers were made very uncomfortable by the work of Senator Coleman.
They do not forget their adversaries.
This scandal involved not just negligence of the UN officials that set up and monitored the program (which immeasurably helped keep Saddam Hussein in power and, in a sense, helped create the conditions for the invasion of Iraq), but also involved corruption that reached the highest levels at the United Nations.
Coleman was dogged in his pursuit of the wrongdoers at the UN. The investigation tarnished the image of Mark Malloch Brown (UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy and right-hand man at the UN) who was seen as spinning away any culpability of Annan and the UN itself in this travesty of a program. Coleman thereby clearly earned the wrath of George Soros, for the ties between Brown and Soros are tight and seemingly mutually beneficial."
Labels:
Al Franken,
Norm Coleman,
Soros,
U. N. foolishness
Sunday, January 11, 2009
I Found a Good Blog Quite by Accident
I came across a good site. The blogger's name is Anggun Cipta Sasmi. Her site is Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
She writes about happenings in south asia as well as about things going on between Muslims and nonMuslims in Europe. Apparently she is a beauty pagent winner and a singer.
She writes about happenings in south asia as well as about things going on between Muslims and nonMuslims in Europe. Apparently she is a beauty pagent winner and a singer.
Beware the L. A. Times
There is an old saying that, "Figures don't lie but liars can figure." Case in point is the Los Angeles Times. Patterico says, "deceptive headline designed to scare people: “Job losses at highest level since 1945.” Problem is, “it isn’t until well past the jump that we are told that this is in absolute numbers in a country with double the population that it had in 1945.”"
So the problem is about one half as bad as the LAT says. A term I picked up from Da Techguy's Blog describes this perfectly. They are 'reality challenged.'
Hat Tip/Patterico's Pontifications
So the problem is about one half as bad as the LAT says. A term I picked up from Da Techguy's Blog describes this perfectly. They are 'reality challenged.'
Hat Tip/Patterico's Pontifications
Saturday, January 10, 2009
After Teacups
I was not on the parapets at Cretae
Dreading sails against the red low moon
When my ruin overthrew me.
Nor did it claim me with the plunge of Grecian spears
Surging up in dark ships from the sea
That ancient night. There rode no portent of my fears
On the long breeze sweeping in from Cyprus;
Nor later with the rank mists when I fought
Bogged in the marshes, clubbing my arquebus.
I touched on no presentiments
In the whimper of gulls low over our galley
Waiting our bodies, no more than with the Spaniard
Heaving a saber in that fetid valley.
I have not found death snarling in that surge of lances,
In midnight clangor of the mouthing bells,
The legionary shout, the Gothic shields,
The flare and rumble of burning citadels,
Faint moonlight on a taken bastion.
But dissolution clutched me
Descanting at Mme Atelie’s salon
Of balls at Nice and coursing at L’Enprix.
I sipped my tea with marked exactitude,
Refusing Claret, speculated on
The bleak breasts of a marble nude,
Noting the while the fluttering of trivial hands.
Her eyes were winds down a wintry chasm
Where frozen surf beats rock and frozen sands.
Outside a spring swarmed up the avenues,
Spattering hydrangeas with a gust of bloom.
by Robert Penn Warren
Dreading sails against the red low moon
When my ruin overthrew me.
Nor did it claim me with the plunge of Grecian spears
Surging up in dark ships from the sea
That ancient night. There rode no portent of my fears
On the long breeze sweeping in from Cyprus;
Nor later with the rank mists when I fought
Bogged in the marshes, clubbing my arquebus.
I touched on no presentiments
In the whimper of gulls low over our galley
Waiting our bodies, no more than with the Spaniard
Heaving a saber in that fetid valley.
I have not found death snarling in that surge of lances,
In midnight clangor of the mouthing bells,
The legionary shout, the Gothic shields,
The flare and rumble of burning citadels,
Faint moonlight on a taken bastion.
But dissolution clutched me
Descanting at Mme Atelie’s salon
Of balls at Nice and coursing at L’Enprix.
I sipped my tea with marked exactitude,
Refusing Claret, speculated on
The bleak breasts of a marble nude,
Noting the while the fluttering of trivial hands.
Her eyes were winds down a wintry chasm
Where frozen surf beats rock and frozen sands.
Outside a spring swarmed up the avenues,
Spattering hydrangeas with a gust of bloom.
by Robert Penn Warren
Sophisticated Fool
"When you look at me and you start to flirt
I have to wipe the dribble off the front of my shirt"
16-bit Intel 8088 chip
with an Apple Macintosh
you can't run Radio Shack programs
in its disc drive.
nor can a Commodore 64
drive read a file
you have created on an
IBM Personal Computer.
both Kaypro and Osborne computers use
the CP/M operating system
but can't read each other's
handwriting
for they format (write
on) discs in different
ways.
the Tandy 2000 runs MS-DOS but
can't use most programs produced for
the IBM Personal Computer
unless certain
bits and bytes are
altered
but the wind still blows over
Savannah
and in the Spring
the turkey buzzard struts and
flounces before his
hens.
Charles Bukowski
you can't run Radio Shack programs
in its disc drive.
nor can a Commodore 64
drive read a file
you have created on an
IBM Personal Computer.
both Kaypro and Osborne computers use
the CP/M operating system
but can't read each other's
handwriting
for they format (write
on) discs in different
ways.
the Tandy 2000 runs MS-DOS but
can't use most programs produced for
the IBM Personal Computer
unless certain
bits and bytes are
altered
but the wind still blows over
Savannah
and in the Spring
the turkey buzzard struts and
flounces before his
hens.
Charles Bukowski
Most Ethical Congress Ever Has Decided to Turn Off Its Ethics Committee
Not even Nixon would have tried to pull this.
Change is filtering into the halls of congress. That new transparency that block the public seeing what is going on is being firmly embraced as evidenced by this example:
“ . . . . despite promises from Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Rangel is being investigated in at least four areas — including his failure to report income taxes on a Caribbean villa and the use of rent-controlled apartments in New York. Pelosi said in November, "The report will be completed by the end of this session... which concludes January 3, 2009."
The Hill newspaper reports the investigation will be further delayed because the ethics committee is currently without a chairman.
And Cybercast News reports Rangel will likely hold onto his Ways and Means chairmanship because the House voted Tuesday to eliminate term limits for committee heads. Michael Steel, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s press secretary, says "There's no limit whatsoever on the amount of time Chairman Rangel can remain chairman, despite the ethical questions he faces."“
‘The most ethical congress ever’ won’t even allow the ethics committee to operate. But we feel compelled to give them an Orwell Award. Ethical now means congressmen being allowed to do whatever they want without any oversight much less any input from the citizens who think they employ them. Do I sound angry? No shit, Sherlock.
Maybe they turned off their Ethics Committee because they thought they were about to run out of ethics.
Change is filtering into the halls of congress. That new transparency that block the public seeing what is going on is being firmly embraced as evidenced by this example:
“ . . . . despite promises from Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Rangel is being investigated in at least four areas — including his failure to report income taxes on a Caribbean villa and the use of rent-controlled apartments in New York. Pelosi said in November, "The report will be completed by the end of this session... which concludes January 3, 2009."
The Hill newspaper reports the investigation will be further delayed because the ethics committee is currently without a chairman.
And Cybercast News reports Rangel will likely hold onto his Ways and Means chairmanship because the House voted Tuesday to eliminate term limits for committee heads. Michael Steel, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s press secretary, says "There's no limit whatsoever on the amount of time Chairman Rangel can remain chairman, despite the ethical questions he faces."“
‘The most ethical congress ever’ won’t even allow the ethics committee to operate. But we feel compelled to give them an Orwell Award. Ethical now means congressmen being allowed to do whatever they want without any oversight much less any input from the citizens who think they employ them. Do I sound angry? No shit, Sherlock.
Maybe they turned off their Ethics Committee because they thought they were about to run out of ethics.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Richard Gere, Galactic Hypocrite
Yes, everybody gets loved but the evilBushHitler and the allracistRepublicans. I have a sense he's just like the people he's complaining about. The only difference being who he hates. And the evilBushHitler is a necessary fall guy otherwise the responsibility for the present state of affairs would spread into the Democratic congress and even to people like me and Gere.
Hat Tip/NewsBusters
Always Be Closing: a Hash of Orwell, Mamet, Dostoevsky, Mill, etc.
That is a room full of talent. But I have put it here because it illustrates why lefties are so given to Orwellian double speak. The Fairness doctrine is anything but fair. The Employee Free Choice Act is about taking freedom away from employees. The Democrat Party is not democratic: the superdelagates have virtual veto power over any choice arrived at democratically. Obama’s transparency is apparently designed to keep information from the mass of citizens. Racism once meant one race feeling superior or oppressing other races but no longer seems to apply when whites are oppressed. These are just the first examples to come to mind.
Why does the left habitually resort to twisting language beyond recognition? I’m sure there are many reasons. One of the first that comes to mind is their lack of respect for rules and boundaries. I don’t think most of them even care that debasing the language weakens social order. Many might even be glad to participate in the destruction of society since the final conclusion of most every lefty thought process and action is anarchy. (But I’m not going to seriously delve into that here beyond the observation that their misuse of language is a destructive and nihilistic process.)
Alec Baldwin’s (and David Mamet‘s) ‘always be closing’ speech fits in because liberals often twist language for marketing purposes. If they were open and honest about employee free choice, the Fairness Doctrine and the nondemocratic process of the Democrat party they would be about as successful as the Green Party. But to paraphrase Alec B., “They're sitting out there waiting to give you their vote. Are you going to take it? Are you man enough to take it? Because someone else will.”
And some of the marketing involves convincing themselves they are in the right. A perfect example of this is Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. He is a poor student suffering from dire poverty in Czarist Russia. He accepts the basic tenet of utilitarianism that whatever serves the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the highest good. He then takes this and manufactures a rationalization system whereby he feel justified in murdering a rich old woman. He reasons that he will take her wealth, become an engineer and help countless people thus more than wiping out the smaller evil of the one murder. How progressive! He has embraced the evil of murder with a mental trick and strangely enough his little transgression furnishes him with a bunch of money: how convenient. Rather like ACORN’s lax oversight led to forged voter registration forms and finally to many votes for Democrats while they mouth bromides about the democratic process or whatever.
A large web of lies are created to justify perverting the language, thereby speeding the dissolution of society. And the creators of the lies and perversions end up with lots of votes, money, power and a strangely inflated sense of moral superiority.
For Whom the Bell Tolls
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hitchens' Middle Finger
I loved this when it first aired and time does not dull it. Incredibly Maher pays too much attention to his audience. They believe anything he says so he thinks that if he says something it is true. Thanks to Founding Bloggers for posting it.
How Much Time Does Congress Spend inRecess?
Uncle Jay is funny. But I think we would all be better off if congress spent even less time working. They would have less time to give away trillions of dollars to the people who have given them bribes. And they'd have less time to pass laws to make those bribes legal (they call them campaign contributions instead of bribes but as you can see from the results the only difference is the name).
Hat Tip/Gateway Pundit
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Main Question
This all leads to the main question. What does Prince Bandar’s successor know about Obama’s past life that will give him power that no American could have over him? What does Putin know that the New York Times was too lazy and/or biased to find and report? What does Ahmadinejad know that the Washington Post was too biased and insular to find? Was there some nugget that the AP turned its back on while worshiping Obama that will be used by a foreign power to endanger our national security? We’re not even a month from the inauguration and already media incompetence has fed into the weakness of the Obama administration. What weakness? The weakness that comes from lying and covering up and being allowed to get away with it. Democracy only works in the light of day. And there was an unhealthily small amount of it in the recent election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
