Thursday, November 04, 2010

Thought it was because of his middle name?

Ronaldus Magnus used to say, "There you go again, Sam" when responding to another stupid question put forth by the always pesky and mostly irritating Sam Donaldson of ABC News.

I'm tempted to invoke RWR here in responding to Eugene Robinson's idiotic op-ed in today's Wash Post.

I am not a member of the Tea Party, and don't purport to speak for the movement. But unlike Mr. Robinson, I seem to have a better grasp of the obvious. So, to help this misguided MSM-er, provided here are simple answers to the questions he poses.

Why is the Tea Party upset?
Maybe they don't like left-handed smokers? (OK, just kidding). To paraphrase James Carville: "it's the ideology, stupid."

I ask myself what's so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He's black.
Well, technically he's only half-black; as he points out in this piece, Barry's on-food-stamps mother was white. But those like Mr. Robinson are the ones who keep score of such things. Besides, what color are Nancy (green with sparkly red shoes), Barney (rainbow), Harry (milquetoast) and Uncle Joe (does Botox have a color)?

Take it back from whom? Maybe he (Rand Paul) thinks it goes without saying, because he didn't say.
Maybe context of Paul's speech would useful to study. Tea Partiers want to take back the government from liberals, whatever the color of their stripes.

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this Tea Party ire?
The better question is what is it about the Tea Party that provokes and sustains MSM misinterpretation and disdain? Critics such as Mr. Robinson -- not the Tea Party -- are the ones who have to get over skin color. Pigment fixation is on the Critics side of the argument and thus they'll see it everywhere they look. Why is it so hard for the MSM to understand that?

What makes some people feel more disenfranchised now than they were, say, during the presidency of George W. Bush?
For starters: how about doubling the amount of National Debt in 18 months that occurred under W in 8 years.

Bush was vilified by critics while he was in office but not with the suggestion that somehow the government had been seized or usurped.
Really!?! What planet was Mr. Robinson living on from December 2000 until Jan. 2009? Ever hear of a "hanging chad"? Ever read historical references to the Supreme Court decision "... that 'gave' the election to GWB....." Ever hear of Dan Rather and the Air National Guard personnel files? (We can't even read Barry's writings or see grades from his Harvard Law Review editor days.) Ever see the Comedy Central's series, "That's My Bush!" or the cartoon series "Lil' Bush"? Did he ever hear of the movie, "Recount"? Didn't he ever hear Algore introduce himself as "once the next president of the United States"?

Naw, GWB was never "pursued by a lavishly funded effort that tried its best to delegitimize his presidency."

But why would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?
How about for the 300 million of us who presently have healthcare plans now facing the prospects government mandates, insurer-of-choice uncertainty and indisputably higher costs? How about czars telling us how much salary is too much to make? How about meddling in everyday life from the trans fat in our foods to the light bulbs we use?

If the truth be told, it's probably because GWB went to Yale and BHO went to Harvard. (So did W for his MBA, but we're talking football here).

Critics like Mr. Robinson will continue to underestimate (and lose to) the Tea Party if they refuse to see it's not about race. They should remember: The first of the 12 Steps is to admit you have a problem.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Oil spill? What oil spill?


Obama administration lifts ban on deep-water drilling
--Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2010

Wow--Imagine that!

I knew POTUS was "Superman," but I didn't realize he used his Planet Krypton powers to fly around the world at super speeds, reverse the rotation of the Earth, and turn back time in order to save the Deep Water Horizon from exploding, thereby avoiding the oil spill and erasing the need for the drilling moratorium! Just think of all those thankful oil industry voters who can now concentrate on the elections. Just in the nick of time!

That's right, Jimmy. Just three weeks before the elections, and this gets pushed through, "..well ahead of the Nov. 30 date ..."

(Yes, but are they writing any new permits?)

Where is the investigative news media? Why aren't they covering this little maneuver? Too busy chasing red herrings at the Chamber of Commerce.

Do you think this might have something to do with the elections in Louisiana? Hey--if someone made such an accusation even though they don't have a bit of evidence, would that be enough to get journalists to ask questions? You know, like with the C of C funding sources?

If you are/were a Donkey voter, how do you rationalize this obvious, naked, cynical, politically timed move to blatantly attempt to sway votes and save seats (and Dem backsides, too). That's just my opinion, mind you. But I only know what I read in the paper.

Where are the Greenies now?
Where are the Alternative Energy advocates?
Where is General Electric and MSNBC?
Where are the Hollywood movie stars?

Looks like this Admin checked whatever principles it had at the door.

Have you?

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Waiting for Nowhere








Not to be outdone by "Waiting for Superman," now comes the union point of view.

"Race to Nowhere" which the Washington Post describes as "a quiet counterpoint to the better-known "Waiting for 'Superman,' " which focuses on failing urban schools."

Not wanting to pooh-pooh the documentary juggernaut that celebrates minority kids, parents and community thumbing their noses at conventional public education, the Post explains why that simple (common sense) answer implemented in Harlem can't possibly be expected to work elsewhere:
"Race to Nowhere" explores a different problem, the strains of competing in a pressure-packed academic culture that is highly test-driven and pushes some students to the edge.

Seems the little cherubs in this film are too wound up learning facts and figures to be tested to pass mean old standardized tests.

And SURPRISE! For this flick we have screenings inside schools (guess that's what passes for "quiet" in the eyes of the Post). "Quiet" meaning you'll probably not see a lot of people plunking down $ to see this in a theater like they did "Superman." Sounds like the distribution method for this propaganda piece is to inflict it onto captive PTA audiences or disguise it as a night dedicated to finding answers to education reform. Do you think it's going to be critical of unfit, tired but tenured teachers?

Well, which is it?

Are our schools so poor that we're turning out droves of idiots that (always) need more money -- or -- are they hyper achievement academies that produce stressed-out geniuses all headed to the Ivy League? (The US ranking -18 out of 36 industrialized nations- as evidence to the former. ) Where are all these creative little tykes? Seems a lot of them are posting sex videos and PowerPoints online.

Watch the trailer. Imagine the horror: Sometimes you have to study 6 hours. You have sports to play; instruments to practice. Extracurricular activities to get into a "good" school.

Really? Well, darn, guess that means you can't go out partying with friends, playing video games and watching 6 hours of TV or Facebooking. Our parents would have called it "keeping you off the streets at night."

Sorry, no sympathy here. None of these angels in Race to Nowhere have it more stressful than those defying the odds by growing up poor, minority, in a single parent household, dodging crime and drug dealing AND getting good grades in Harlem.
Buck up, kiddos. The world you enter will expect results, not the creative time and self-esteem you'll enjoy living with your parents until you are 26.

But can you guess which movie wins the “Best Documentary” Oscar?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Where's a snail-darter when you need one?

Read with interest good ol Howie Kurtz "Media Notes" today "Making of a mosque mess."
(We'll skip the "Mr. Obvious" stand that The Teleprompter recited on Friday and his equally obvious "walk-backs" on Saturday and Sunday.)

How short memories are around here! And what strange bedfellows Islamic worship centers make with Liberal views on property rights. Suddenly the champions of Eminent Domain and the Endangered Species Act have become hawkish on laissez-faire property ownership and use.

Return with me now as we go back in time to recent US property rights cases, which are replete with sanctions against what lawful owners may do with their personal property.

  • Take for example the EPA's preference for fringe-toed lizards, kanab ambersnails, and fairy shrimp over land owners. Dare I invoke the dreaded "snail darter" or the muther of all animal rights trumping property rights--the Great Northern Spotted Owl?
  • Then there are those pesky "neighborhood associations" suing flag-waving veterans who want to put out Old Glory out front. And how about the activists complaining about mountain top mining practices messing up the views for, oh, about 10 people in the hollers of West Virginia?
  • Oh, and let's not forget the "preservationists" (Civil War) in Virginia and community organized (anti-capitalists, etc.) against Wal-Marts in Chicago.
  • Does anybody recall the Disney theme park retreat from Northern Virginia back in the 1990s? (The land that was too sacred for a historical theme outside the US Capitol is now a sprawling housing development full of Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae McMansions.)
Granted, some of these examples had to do with law (i.e. Endangered Species and Clean Water acts), which NO ONE is denying they have a right to build if lawfully zoned and legally owned. Yet others have to do with aroused popular opinion or organized community protests (some of which were bussed into the communities they protested).

Where were all the concerns about legal property rights then?

Companies, individuals and private groups withdraw finely laid plans all the time due to unpopular opinion or activism. This is no different.

A larger question has to do with the delay in replacing St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church--the ONLY house of worship actually destroyed by 9/11 attacks. It still has not yet been rebuilt.

Friday, July 09, 2010

Original Recipe or Extra Crispy?


I've been wanting to blog about this topic since the matter came up last week with the July 1 "new law day". This little ditty in the WashPost finally gave me the impetus to sound off.

Now, I'm not a Harvard Law prof, but it seems to me that Mr. Kennedy's examples aren't exactly "apples-to-apples."

First of all, he brings up the Crack Conspiracy Theory (which immediately should signal caution) but since he brought it up, let's go with it.


Unless Mr. Kennedy is stooping to use racial profiling (and with that name, I can't see how this is possible) crack-heads don't necessarily have to be African-Americans (haven't we been told that?). No, crack cocaine laws apply to those persons of any color carrying/using/dealing crack, just as powder cocaine laws apply to those felons. The law has to do with "the thing" NOT the person holding the "thing."

More apropos analogies might be, say, a tax on Rap music CDs or skin tattoos, which theoretically (or dare I say stereotypically) were once the provenance of one racial group more than another. Yet even these examples aren't the same as this law because a sizable portion of Rap consumers are indeed Latinos and Whites; and just tune into any NBA game and you'll see that many non-Caucasian players (regrettably) sport "tatts" nowadays.


It would be interesting to know two things:

1) the percentage of tanning booth customers who are "people of color," AND,

2) if the law-writers knew or discussed this statistic while drafting the legislation (even the snarky off-the-record jokes told in the House & Senate cloakrooms).


But since the Tanning Tax's purpose -- in fact, not in effect -- is to single out tanning beds for an excise (or special) Tax, and the means of this extra revenue is derived from people who seek to DARKEN skin color, how can this tax NOT be considered directed at (and therefore primarily disadvantage) one racial group over another?


A tax on Jheri curl, anyone?

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Follow the Blago

This cracks me up--Have you seen yesterday's "Swampland" blog on TIME magazine?

Talking about how the Blago trial in Chicago is opening up a can of worms regarding the complete "transparency" of our Dear Leader. (Now there's a news flash.) Seems that in the wacky, zany world of Chicago politics*, expressing a preference by name and sending in a go-between to lobby for a certain candidate IS NOT the same thing as meddling in the Senate seat replacement process.

(* = which is the Media's term for letting things slide--could you imagine hearing "that's just Texas politics" for explaining the US Attorney firings a few years ago?)

But here is my favorite passage:


"Since the press had no information suggesting otherwise, President
Obama was allowed to move on from the scandal." --
Michael Scherer

ALLOWED! The press "had no info suggesting otherwise..." WTF?!? Did the "press" think Barry deserved a Mulligan since it was just his first drive off the first tee? Mustn't allow a quid pro quo scandal get in the way of a good "immaculation" (nod to RHL3)

Isn't "The Press" supposed to get otherwise information? I couldn' t believe it when it was happening and I really can't believe someone is no suggesting that maybe the news didn't look into this enough. Duh!

And since when does the press take spoon-fed "internal" investigation at face value? (Oh, since Barry just won, that's since when.) BO: "...Um, .... we investigated ourselves, really hard... and we found that we did nothing wrong. Honest. So I guess that answers that." Hey, have you seen my way-cool Office of the President-Elect seal?"

That whole fiasco was akin to "Nothing to see here folks. Nothing to see. Move along, move along."

Friday, May 28, 2010

Surprise: C&A Doesn't Blame POTUS for Oil Disaster

Gentle Readers: Surprise!

Contrary to what you might think, Circles & Arrows does not think the lengthy ongoing response Deep Horizon Oil Rig disaster is the fault of the POTUS. Don't wait for a pithy punchline, that's it. We don't think the current situation is due much to what he's done -- or not done -- (except maybe Bobby Jindal's permits to build-up barrier islands).

Ironically, though, Obama is feeling the brunt of the ugly stick he and his kind have fashioned lo these past 40 or 50 years. The Left has dumbed-down three consecutive generations into believing there is nothing a government cannot do if given 1) the acquiescence of the population and 2) enough of other people's money. To be sure, Barry has picked-up and carried this banner farther and faster than anyone in his Party (except for maybe LBJ) but he is only the latest in that long line, not the first.

If anything the oil rig disaster off Louisiana's coast shows that no government, or administration, can do EVERYthing. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, "big brother" government is not all powerful; indeed (outside the realm of laws, which are backed up by guns and just as deadly paperwork) it's not all that powerful to begin with compare to the forces of nature. This is especially true when dealing with human encounters with the physical world, such as a Space Shuttle re-entering Earth atmosphere, an uncapped oil well 5,000 feet below the surface or, say, shoddy levies against a category 3 hurricane.

Some time ago, a guy made a mint from writing that "When Bad Things Happen to Good People." That's a truth that people should be taught instead of "there's a government program for that."

The reality is that POTUS cannot go out and run the underwater submersible and cap the raging oil gusher. Nor could George Bush fly helicopters filled with water down to the Super Dome. About all Barry can do in this instance is pick up the phone and tell people -- who he can order or control -- to do something; he has to rely on others to do their part and rely that still others he doesn't directly control will cooperate or at least won't hinder what his troops are doing. He has a few hundred "Brownies" that he's been given (or has selected/appointed) and his reputation is tied to what they are able to do.

The details of the condition are somewhat different from 5 years ago, but the reality is the same. It's NOT Barry's fault now just as it was not W's fault then.

What this whole fiasco DOES illustrate (a fact which nobody really seems to have observed to date) is: this is what happens when things go unscripted. THAT is a true measure of leadership. We'll see how this plays out.

Pres. Obama has done more than enough other stuff to find fault with in 1.5 years, but right now, this isn't one of them.