Circles and Arrows

Thought it was because of his middle name?

2010-11-04T06:39:00.000-07:00

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 Ever read historical references to the Supreme Court decision "...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.

Oil spill? What oil spill?

2010-10-12T12:24:00.000-07:00

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?

Waiting for Nowhere

2010-10-07T13:22:00.000-07:00

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?

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

2010-08-17T08:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Original Recipe or Extra Crispy?

2010-07-09T07:33:00.000-07:00

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?

Follow the Blago

2010-07-01T07:17:00.000-07:00

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."

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

2010-05-28T11:03:00.000-07:00

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.

New Feature: The Chuck Todd "Daily Homer"

2010-05-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

We're not the first to opine that Chuck Todd, Chief White House correspondent is a "homer" for POTUS.

Starting today, we introduce a new feature, "The Chuck Todd Daily Homer."

It will chronicle the madcap, zany antics of one "F. Chuck Todd" (as the master would put it) as he leads daily contortions and calisthenics on behalf of the White House Press "Corpse" and MSNBC in lap-dogging presidential positives, ignoring pesky negatives, glossing over toughies or otherwise carrying the water for this Administration.

Today's display about the president's "alleged" job offer to Sestak is only the most recent example. Anyone who watched Morning Joe this morning would have thought this fill-in host for Meet the Press was substituting for Press Sec. Robert Gibbs.

First -- Get the people ON the record, Chuck. Regardless of Sestak's job, that's your job.
Second -- Stop being such friends with Axlerod and grow a pair: "Who cares if your telling me what you heard, David, you're on this interview to answer to this question because we can't speak directly to your boss. If you don't know, the next time you talk to the president, ask him. Then come back when you know the answer to that question because I'm not going to stop asking it."
Third -- It’s not up to Chuck to defend "the press corpse" for not covering the story enough (even if he did cover it). Yes, a few outlets have run a story on this, but they stop pursuing when they get Axlerod's tap dance. "The Press" is much larger than him, and he knows it--and they AREN'T covering this story enough.
Fourth -- It's also not Chuck's job to argue FOR the Administration and inject his hypothesis as to what "may" have happened between the Prez and Sestak: "Sestak may have thought he heard a job offer..." What's up with that? And it's not Chuck's job to whip out the obligatory "Dick Cheney Story." Wasn't Obama supposed to be different that the last Admin? Wasn't he supposed to be "the most Transparent" president? You've beat up that horse enough; why not hold this Admin to the Bull$#@* they promised instead?
Fifth -- If anything you, as "WH chief correspondent" and the other WH press corps should use this (among many things) to beat a daily drum to have a live press conference from the Communicator in Chief instead of being his lap dogs. Almost 1 year and no chance to ask him about this scandal, the recent primary election losses, Arizona Immigration Law, union pension bailouts, the Euro troubles, Greece/Portugal crisis, Gulf Oil Spill, his Supreme nominee, the still open Club Gitmo, the Koreas, KSM trial, etc. Would you really have sat idly by and allowed Bush to go this long w/o a presser with all this stuff going on?
Lastly -- You never did answer Joe's statement that were this the Bush Admin, newspapers, politicians and pundits would be shouting from the rooftops, Chuck.

But--What a way to kick-off this Feature!

USA Today Takes 2 Weeks to Put 2 and 2 Together

2010-05-25T06:44:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, after the surging performance of the Tea Parties in primary elections across the country, the vaunted USAToday business pagerather smugly chastised we who apparently don't like to be overtaxed with this little back-hand rebuff:
"Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for
a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found." ---Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, May 10, 2010
Well, aren't we red-faced for our wrong-headed, self-centered fixation about our citizen obligation to the US Treasury! We should be GLAD we're only paying what we are; in fact, there's obviously more room to grow taxes and we'll still be better off. Good thing USAT pointed that out for us, we might actually have voted for one of those Tea-Partiers under this false pretense.

Oh, except this little ditty two weeks later (by the same author), "PRIVATE PAY SHRINKS TO HISTORIC LOWS."

"Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds." -- Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, May 25, 2010.

Although we'll give Mr. Cauchon and the paper props for actually running the second story, but ... duh ... why run the first article? Can you say, "No $@!&, Sherlock." But it gets better.

Can you guess which sector grew during this time? Yep, you guessed it:

"At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."

Still later in the article, comes another couple of quotes from a new "Mr. Obvious" economic expert from the Maize and Blue in Ann Arbor.

"The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower
rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says."
This revelation is only eclipsed by the entirely predictable and complete asinine comment from a mouthpiece economist from the Lefty, "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities":

"It's the system working as it should," Paul Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

And the skies will clear, the flowers bloom, the birds will sing, no more "ring around the collar," pounds and inches will melt away in just 7 days, and the lion will lay down with the lamb.

Mr. Van de Water is right about one thing, "the system is working" as the Administration expected it would.

Kinda gives the whole, "I hope he fails" remark (that someone made) new meaning, doesn't it?

MSM Whistling Past the Tea Party Graveyard

2010-05-19T07:42:00.000-07:00

Yeah, that's it Katie, Keith, Wash Post, etc. The success of anti-incumbents and Tea Party candidates is "trouble" for the GOP.

Can you just hear the jubilation in the White House and at the DNC after Tuesday's primary election results?

(At least Matthews got it right about Specter's race)

Will the MSM stop at nothing to carry the water for the Dems?

A Tale of Two Protests

2010-05-18T07:11:00.000-07:00

I'm all for peoples' freedom to protest, exercise their first amendment rights.

But some observations from this news story compared to coverage of, say, recent Tea Party events or last summer's Health Care "town hall meetings" are vivid examples of mainstream media's double standard.

Protests of Massey Energy's annual stockholders meeting in Richmond, Va., from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Here, the deaths of 11 formerly hard-working but poor, non-unionized, and recently deceased Appalachian miners are being exploited to protest the rich, greedy, shameless capitalist investors and uncaring, ruthless, regulation-dodging businessMEN.

1) No mention of racial make-up of participants or the percentage of minorities participating. No questions to identified minorities as to whether they felt lonely, no curiosity about what they had against the company (as if it would be somehow different from others), and no indicated surprise about them being there.

2) Funding source. Story mentions persons were "bussed" from several states. No mention of who paid for the buses or the motivation to bring the protesters to the meeting.

3) Emotional state. No real examination of motive, and no depiction of their emotional state--were they "angry," (reserved for right-wingers) or just "concerned"? "Outraged" is reserved for describing left-leaning causes.

4) Goals. What did the protesters hope to achieve? We assume it's to ask company not to put profits over people, but what does that mean exactly and what sort of specific outcome do they seek? Do they want to see specific safety measures instituted or will just allowing the union into more mines be OK as an outcome?

5) Goals II. The article belatedly does mention that at least a portion of the protester were calling on the ouster of the Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship (and three board members). However the article doesn't examine if they "hated" Mr. Blankenship personally, whether they considered their protestations as a form of "hate" or if they just disagreed with his policies and performance? Also not known is whether Blankenship's race had anything to do with why the protesters were there.

6) Packing? No mentions of persons carrying weapons AND no mention that the reporter scanned the crowd specifically looking for visible weapons.

7) Artistic expression. No mention of signage carried by protesters (other than banner) or various "keywords" (or insignia) that appeared on the signs. Does that mean that there were none or that certain words did appear on signs but we just not mentioned in the story?

8) Who Dat? Protesters identified as "union members," "miners" and "environmentalists" but no indication whether they are true volunteers -- i.e. participating at their own expense -- or expenses being reimbursed by outside interests (such as the Unions, political parties, or environmental groups, and which ones.) Furthermore, there's no mention as to whether the protesters were actually being compensated (paid) to be there. Therefore no "take" or editorializing as to whether such monetary support changed the legitimacy of the protest.

9) Media incited. No indication that the group had been listening or watching a particular media outlet, say MSNBC or Real Time with Bill Maher, or Daily Show.

10) Party/Party. No mention of how the majority of the protesters voted or which party they were affiliated with. Again, we don't know if that question was asked by the reporters, only that it did not make the print edition.

11) Fearless leader. No clear idea of who or what organized the protest. Article uses the term "protest organizers" but not whether they were spontaneous group, organized for this event only, or part of an on-going group or organization. The article eventually mentions "CtW Investment Group, a money adviser affiliated with organized labor" who initiated a campaign against Massey, but does that mean CtW was behind the protest?

12) Arrests. Mentions the arrest of two 20-somethings (one from New York the other "of the Washington area" -- two areas well known as hot spots of coal mining activity.) Well, at least they did report of the police action.

13) Rally description. The newspaper uses the term "raucous" -- does that mean gregarious, light-hearted frat boy raucous ("boisterously disorderly"), OR mean-spirited, angry, emotionally inflammatory raucousness ("disagreeably harsh or strident")?

14) Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa. No mention of how the presence of the protesters made the stock-holders feel (threatened? amused? welcomed?) No mention of the term "intimidation" affecting the meeting attendees or whether the unfurling of the banner would have been "disruptive" to the business being conducted inside the meeting room.

[Editor's Note: We have to give the RTD credit when credit is due. The paper did post a very good editorial not long ago comparing the Tea Parties and the Arizona Illegal Immigration law protests. Good for them on the Editorial Page. ]

Now, to work on the news side of the fence.

Couldn't have said it better....

2010-03-23T08:02:00.001-07:00

"It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, .."

(You have to wait for the guy's comment at the end of this report).

Thanks to Matt D. for finding this story.

The fastest flash in the pan in recent memory

2010-03-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

Well the MSM is all aflutter about (NY-D) Rep. Massa's weird performance on Glenn Beck.

Funny, they don't propose the sinister same motives about his later appearance on Larry King. I guess Larry didn't have an agenda when he booked him. (Oh, maybe he did, but much more pure than Glenn: ratings!)

But before they get all 'holier than thou' on us, it is the MSM that needs to get real. Imagine if this would have been a GOP Representative going off about the Left's favorite whipping boy -- Karl Rove. Some rookie Republican calling Rove the "son of the devil's spawn' and asserting Karl would be willing to 'sell his own mother' for political victories, can you imagine the stampede to book that guy? Not only Larry (who cares anymore anyway?), but Sponge Keith Squarepants, handsome Rachel, the horses' a$# Mr. Ed, Tingley Chris, Comedy John, hobo Bill, etc., would have lined him up in a second.

And the guy would have been toasted by everyone from the editorial pages of the NYT to WashPo, and probably displaced POTUS on next week's cover of Time (well, maybe shared it with BO). He'd be hailed as "a courageous whistle-blower" unmasking the distasteful, bare-knuckled, slash-and-burn GOP political machine praying at the alter of Lee Atwater. Not only that, they'd be calls for immediate Congressional and perhaps criminal investigations, accompanied by the timeless "this puts the (GOP) president's agenda on hold" while these "serious charges" are looked in to.

Rather than smirking about how the Right (and Larry) got played by Massa, the MSM and the Left ought to be asking, how did this guy get elected as a New York liberal democrat? After all, he was YOUR guy until Monday. Another question: How many more do they have like this one?

Just what you'd expect from a hard-hitting journalist asking the tough questions...

2010-02-19T07:36:00.000-08:00

Great Moments in CBS News history:

Edward R. Murrow ("This, Is London.")

60 Minutes ("I'm Mike Wallace, I'm Morley Safer, I'm Dan Rather, I'm Harry Reasoner....tick, tick, tick, tick").

Walter Kronkite ("President Kennedy ... [sigh] .. is dead")

And now, Perky Katie: Harper's Bazaar.

How the mighty have fallen.

Sad day for the Eye Network.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/katie-couric-fashion-interview

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

2010-02-05T08:07:00.000-08:00

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

A very good question, Nancy.

Note how it reads if you subsitute a name here or there.

“The fact is that President [O's] misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President [O] took office, the country has lost [8.7] million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover."

Dear Germans: Take it easy; things will be all right

2010-01-21T10:01:00.000-08:00

Saw a post mortem on the Mass Senate Election in Spiegel recently. Seems they are ready to cash in their Obama Bonds and call it a day. After reading: The World from Berlin: The World Bids Farewell to Obama, you really hope they keep the sharp objects away from those peeps and lock the windows with ledges.

Problem is that Spiegel's foreign “observers” on both the Left and the Right (and Center) completely missed it what is rather obvious to we lowly US citizens not in NYC, LA or DC. Whether it’s expected by their publication, inherent in their natures, or I’m just so incredibly prescient (LOL!), they just can’t see the Black Forest for the trees. So I fired off a letter to der Editor.

Senator Brown's victory wasn't because of the Republican Party machine and the loss isn't because the country is now poised to swing back to knuckle-dragging cavemen days. And it’s not because Oakley ran a poor race (look what she had to use for ammo). Contrary to what the POTUS told George Stephanopoulos, the anger that swept Brown into office WAS NOT the same anger that propelled him into the presidency. The anger that produced Brown was in response to what was coming OUT of today’s Oval Office.

First of all I told the German editors, Healthcare is NOT as big of an issue to everyday Americans as Europe sees in most of the Domestic and Foreign news media; it really has never been high among – unaided – polls of Americans. It’s only talked about because it’s a priority for Democrats seeking a platform and (naturally) those that don’t have health insurance. On a good day, Healthcare is lucky to be in the top 10 issues we think about, but it IS higher on our minds than global warming.

The real cause of Massachusetts was what happened during the later stages of the Healthcare debate in Congress in December 2009 and early January 2010. People finally had enough of how much Obama lied to them. There I said it, he L I E D. Thank you, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-R).
Whether or not one agrees with the causes of the Iraq War, and whether one thinks Bush lied about when and what evidence was known or not known about Saddam links to Al-Qaeda or presence of WMDs, the truth is that a case was made at the time, and the US Congress and the UN OK’d going in. None of that debate was personally administered by Mr. Bush. The same cannot be said by Mr. Obama in the case of healthcare, yet no one could speak this truth to power.

Until Massachusetts on Jan. 19.

So for starters, here are the four reasons I shared with Spiegel’s audiences for the “Shot heard ‘round the world, part 2”.

First, Barry said 1) OmamaCare won't add to deficit or cost us more, which is not correct; even we poorly educated Americans realize you can't add 40 million more people, especially those whose – pre-existing conditions – healthcare IS going to be more expensive, without costs going up to pay for it.

2) Then, when you have to literally bribe the 4 last Senators in his own party to convince them to vote for it, (i.e. the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Buy-out) -- how good can the plan be? If it’s SO good and noble and landmark, why aren’t they climbing all over themselves to vote for it?

3) Next, Barry campaigned on and promised to open up the final bill-writing process and put it on TV (C-SPAN). Transparency was Obama’s middle name. Until December, when he reneged on that promise without explaining why, he ignored the director of C-SPAN’s open offer to carry the deliberation (and Nancy Pelosi flouted the mere thought of the promise), and didn't even TRY to make this happen.

4) Lastly, BAM said that “the era of lobbyists and special interests having influence” and being brought in for secret "sweetheart" deals was over. Until the Labor Unions didn't like hearing their "Cadillac" healthcare coverage was going to be taxed; they said “excuse me, Mr. President” went up to the WH for a meeting and lo & behold Obama decided to exempt them from the proposed tax.

THIS is why Massachusetts happened.

Mr. Brown was a no-body until after Christmas Eve, when most of this Healthcare double-dealing started to happen. Well in-between tropical Christmas vacations, NBC/Leno/Conan internal troubles, a heartbreaking international disaster in Haiti, it turns out that the People were paying attention. And they didn't like it what they saw. That is what really happened.
So I tried to calm Spiegel’s readers by assuring them it wasn't because Massachusetts voters loved water-boarding, it wasn't because they don't want good schools for their kids.

It was simply because the President promised one thing and ignorantly, blatantly tried to get away with the opposite. Until the US media can have the courage to plainly say that Obama didn’t tell us the truth, the Germans (and all foreign media) will continue to be puzzled by American politics.

Mr. President, tear down this wall

2010-01-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together,
not negotiating
behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together,
and broadcasting
those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the
American people can see what the
choices are."

Then - candidate Obama (he really wasn't much of a senator, spent most of his time getting ready to run) - at a debate vs. Hillary Clinton

Los Angeles, Jan. 31, 2008

In Touting 'Climate Justice' Protesters, Networks Oblivious to Communist Participation | NewsBusters.org

2009-12-17T12:19:00.000-08:00

In Touting 'Climate Justice' Protesters, Networks Oblivious to Communist Participation NewsBusters.org

THANK YOU, Brent Baker.

Yes, finally somebody has written what I've been saying, yelling back at my television and annoying anyone who would listen to me -- quick to spot a holstered sidearm but blind to the 'ol hammer and sickle.

Where are the media's questions that they asked of GOPers and conservatives: "How do you feel about these people ("scary people") involved in your rally, in your movement, in your cause.?"

Has someone ever asked Algore how he feels about the preponderance of Commies, Anti-Capitalists, and anarchists involved in HIS cause? Has anyone delved deeper into why that political stripe might be attracted to carbon emissions being controlled, penalized or limited?

This is very similar how the media never shows the Gay Solidarity Parades in NYC's Stonewall or San Fran's Castro districts anymore. Doesn't fit the script about mainstream. Instead, we get Ms & Ms Milquetoast getting married on the city hall steps.

Witch Twin Has the Toni?

2009-12-17T07:34:00.000-08:00

I'm reminded of the line for the Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil (no editorial comment, honest) attempts to ransom the world's countries for, (pinkie finger to lip),

"one-HUN-dred BILL-ion DOLLARS, brah, brah-ha, brah-ha-ha-ha-ha...."

Lining pockets with "Green" Money

2009-12-07T09:41:00.000-08:00

My local newspaper reprinted an article from POLITICO about the curious connection between gold brokers and their advertisements on conservative talk shows. Basically, Glenn, Bill, both Michael s, Laura, Mark, G-man, etc., shilling for these companies that are dangerous to the gold markets when not out-right stealing money from the mouths of poor widows on pensions.

Here's my take:

There have been and will always be people of all stripes who don't read the fine print of what they're buying for many things, especially investments. But does that make it a Right-Wing Wacko cabal to manipulate the gold market?

These are ADVERTISERS and the celebrities and shows are COMMENTATORS. They are not "news" reporters/journalists and their product is not presented as unbiased news (unlike POLITICO). "Let the buyer beware" is no different for Gold than it is with GM cars, Citibank accounts, Goldman Sacks portfolios, or dare I say, an AARP membership. Sometimes you don't get what you expected. Howie Long isn't going to give me my $ back if I don't like my Chevy.

What's more brazen is that with this one article, POLITICO has invested more time and investigative energy into this straw dog controversy than it has directed at a real scandal, like ClimateGate.

Don't you think a certain politician has a financial interest in promoting the "sky is falling" AGM movement? His bloviations are accepted as "true" and reported as "news" because he won a couple non-science based popularity awards, yet he and others stand to gain considerably if certain laws are passed and policies adopted.

Will POLITICO look into his holdings and those of his firm? Such entanglements have numerous, deeper and more serious repercussions for us all than some Pennsylvania housewife not getting the number of shiny coins she expected.

As it appears on Politico

I found it was a much more interesting read when I recommended selected substitutions of mean, cruel conservative words with pure, wholesome, kind Progressive buzzwords. Here's my suggested re-write:

"For years a certain strain of progressive thought has held that there was one sure hedge against free market economies, domestic energy independence and conservative rule – global warming.

Now that belief has led to a kind of harmonic convergence between ideology and commerce.
Anyone tuning in to mainstream media or NBC News’ Today Show and CNN’s Anderson Cooper shows is bombarded by “news reports” for man made global warming, mainly in the form of data from UN-affiliated research at the Univ. of East Anglia, with reporters and anchors intoning that melting icecaps and marooned polar bears caused by fossil fuels, big business and western lifestyles are devastating the planet and making Kyoto and Copenhagen the “last best hopes” for the earth.

The dire tone sounded in the news often echo the occasionally apocalyptic climatologist’s forecasts of the shows’ guests, many of whom have investments or grant funding riding with the governments or UN agencies, appear in their Oscar-winning movies, or have had their researchers as experts to trash the global warming doubters course set by former President George Bush and congressional Republicans, and to preach the attractions of cap and trade. "

Right-wing talkers go for the gold - - POLITICO.com

2009-12-07T09:40:00.000-08:00

Interesting. If you change a word here or there, substituting the hated conservative labels and substituting them with liberal buzzwords, it's amazing what you get:

Right-wing talkers go for the gold - - POLITICO.com

As it appears on Politico:
For years a certain strain of conservative thought has held that there was one sure hedge against economic depression, civil disorder and liberal rule – gold. Now that belief has led to a kind of harmonic convergence between ideology and commerce.

Anyone tuning in to conservative talk radio or Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck shows is bombarded by commercials for gold, mainly in the form of collectible coins, with announcers intoning that inflation and deficits caused by big government spending are devaluing the dollar and making gold the best investment money can buy.

The dire tone sounded in the ads often echo the occasionally apocalyptic economic forecasts of the shows’ hosts, many of whom have endorsement contracts with the gold retailers, appear in their ads, or have had their executives as guests to trash the economic course set by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, and to preach the attractions of gold.

Re-write with Selected Word Substitution
For years a certain strain of progressive thought has held that there was one sure hedge against free market economies, domestic energy independence and conservative rule – global warming. Now that belief has led to a kind of harmonic convergence between ideology and commerce.

Anyone tuning in to mainstream media or NBC News’ Today Show and CNN’s Anderson Cooper shows is bombarded by “news reports” for manmade global warming, mainly in the form of data from UN-affiliated research at the Univ. of East Anglia, with reporters and anchors intoning that melting icecaps and marooned polar bears caused by fossil fuels, big business and western lifestyles are devastating the planet and making Kyoto and Copenhagen the “last best hopes” for the earth.

The dire tone sounded in the news often echo the occasionally apocalyptic climatologist’s forecasts of the shows’ guests, many of whom have investments or grant funding riding with the governments or UN agencies, appear in their Oscar-winning movies, or have had their researchers as experts to trash the global warming doubters course set by former President George Bush and congressional Republicans, and to preach the attractions of cap and trade.

The Most "Rusted" Name in News

2009-10-27T14:06:00.000-07:00

"CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks"

So reported the New York Times on Oct. 26.

The NY Times media writer (Bill Carter) might have his opinion as to what the ratings mean.

"The results demonstrate once more the apparent preference of viewers for opinion-oriented shows from the news networks in prime time."

If I may be so bold, perhaps -- just perhaps -- it could mean that they are just tired of CNN. (the audience gasps!) At least, this incarnation.

Whether that fatigue is better described by "weariness" or "wariness" is the real predicament for the network, because one condition is far easier to respond to than the other.

One is a change of personnel, and maybe a studio set. The other is a change in how they report the news and what news they decide to cover. (again, the audience gasps)

Why is it that when a new car design becomes so popular, it quickly attracts imitation (most sincerest form of flattery)? Why is it that a food flavor becomes discovered or developed -- like Chipotle today, or pesto years ago -- (mesquite was "all that" back in the day). And remember "Ice" beer? Heck, everybody had to hurry out one of those.

Except in news.

FOX comes along and consistently spanks every other (cable) news outlets and threatens even the Legacy Nets in viewship and certainly brand loyalty. And rather than check into what product FOX brings to market and learn why its popular (and dare I suggest, emulate it a bit), the competitors pronounce the numbers to be an aberration or blame the (sizable) audience as being "brainless, mind-numb robots," "unthinking Dittoheads," or as our dear POTUS recently described us, non-critical thinking automatons who "do as we're told."

Oh, that's right. The Left doesn't understand how markets work.

Young people, beware! Your enormous ObamaCare tax is being imposed - The Hill's Pundits Blog

2009-10-13T15:22:00.001-07:00

Young people, beware! Your enormous ObamaCare tax is being imposed - The Hill's Pundits Blog

Shared via AddThis

MarketWatch First Take: Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics - MarketWatch

2009-10-12T12:26:00.001-07:00

MarketWatch First Take: Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics - MarketWatch

Posted using ShareThis

SNL must not be carried in Oslo....

2009-10-09T20:15:00.001-07:00

Apparently Saturday Night Live isn't carried in Scandinavia.

Couple thoughts:
Maybe now we know why he hasn't made Afghanistan more of a priority. Talk to the General once and drag your feet just long enough until the announcement was made; will be kinda tough to increase the troop levels now, don't you think?
Next, I didn't think my regard for the Nobel process could get any lower after Jimmy and Al got theirs. Don't know how many houses Barry has built (without Rezko's help, that is) and I don't think he's won an Academy award for documentary film making. But he does deliver a darn fine teleprompter speech.
Apparently Nobel doesn't follow its own rules because at the time of the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, he'd only just been "immaculated" on Jan. 20. So they had just the first day signing of the "Close Gitmo" order (which hasn't happened yet and may not meet its deadline) and his Inauguration speech go base it on. His address to Joint session of congress ("We do not torture") didn't happen until later in Feb., and his Cairo University speech didn't happen until June.

Guess as long as you go around the world apologizing for America, the Nobel is yours.

Is today the day the US media suddenly notices the Emperor has no clothes?

2009-10-02T12:31:00.000-07:00

That nobody in the audience swooned when he spoke should have been a hint. But will today's Olympic decision be the day that inquiring minds of the US media finally snap out of their self-induced, teenage girl crush on da Emperor to notice how he's dressed?

I can't decide if POTUS is a high-stakes gambler from the back rooms of smokey pool halls on Chi-Town's South Side or he trusts much his advisers waaaaay too much. (There's a third option I'd rather not ponder.)

It wasn't just that he & the Mrs. made the HIGHLY publicized trip to lobby the IOC, but he actually had much more involvement that hasn't yet been reported (no doubt to come out later after the "win" in a documentary or a TIME magazine exclusive to show how his diplomatic prowess and "behind-the-scenes" personal efficaciousness carried the day.) Don't know if that story will be allowed to come out.

The gamble was this: there IS a reason why sitting presidents don't tend to get hip-deep involved in the Olympic pitch business.

Nobody likes to lose on such a public stage, and on the WORLD stage to boot.

Editor's note: Lest I be accused of ripping off "The Master," he also mentioned this fact on his show while I was driving around shouting the same thing at the radio. Great minds do think alike ;-)

THUS, Did Barry roll the dice that the cult of personality he enjoys with the US media would sway the IOC; OR, was it his advisers who assured him that would be the case even in cold, gray Denmark?

If it's the former, he's been reading too much of his own press.
If it's the latter, it might be time to get some new advisers that are brave enough to tell him the one about the Emperor's new clothes.

Where have you gone Woodward and Bernstein?

2009-09-25T12:10:00.000-07:00

OK so this story in the Washington Post today completely split my skull open.

ACORN Funded Political, For-Profit Efforts, Data Show
Actions Were Before Leadership Change

For starters: That sub-head cracks me up. Does that 'shake-up' make ACORN all better now or diminish the funny business in the past? That's like saying a convict's crimes occurred "... back when he was free and in public, not when he's in prison like he is now; when he gets out, all those crimes will never have happened."

Is it the Post's job to defend or give the Organization an "out" -- ("Oh, well, that explains it -- this happened BEFORE the fine people leading it now were in control.") Do you think that tactic would work for a story on executives at GM, AIG or several certain large banks?

The question I'd love to ask (and I did) the editors is much more important and fundamental: Where was the WashPost when all this was going down, "before the leadership shake-up" last year? The paper that gave us Woodward and Bernstein; this bastion of Journalism excellence; Protector of the Second Amendment and emissary of the Fourth Estate.

Why did it take an over-the-top laughable undercover sting operation done by two clumsy rank amateur “filmmakers” to finally break this story? How do WP (and The Gray Lady) feel about being scooped by a couple of pikers? [Speaking of which --where was "60 Minutes" when all this was going on? That program can trace back sign-in sheets and track down guys who remember where GWB was at Air National Guard meetings, but these two "documentary filmmakers" beat them to the ACORN story?]

Oh, right. That would have been inconvenient to the guy they were busy putting into office. (I still haven’t heard anyone ask POTUS if – like Rev. Wright’s church—he recalls seeing anything like this when he was working with ACORN as a lawyer. Or did he miss those sermons too?)

But I digress.

Next, when will the MSM stop prefacing all ACORN stories by mentioning how the Org has "long been a target of conservative ire".... What does that have to do with the story at this point? Apparently The Post doesn't realize that’s actually dissing itself by basically saying the GOP finally got "The Media" to pay attention to what they’ve saying for all those years but the MSM ignored?

Such slanted and irrelevant phrases do nothing but prejudice the reader to the facts of the article, signaling that somehow the larger story is diminished from REAL graft and corruption to be found somewhere else -- in a GOP pet project no doubt. Does the MSM mention that the ACLU has long been a "pain-in-the-ass" to the traditional values groups every time they bring suit? Please, at least keep it out of the first 3 paragraphs and attempt to look impartial.

Lastly, every indication is that this group did something funky with taxpayer money collected from Reps, Dems, Indies, and Non-Affiliated taxpayers. This article makes it seem like the "mean old GOP" is at it again -- just being mean for the sake of it because they lost the election and Obama can speak well.

If true, ALL US taxpayers were plucked and we all should be rightly outraged no matter who brought it to light.

Speaking of which -- what does this say about Dems who knew or surmised what was going on? Did NOBODY on that side of the isle have an inkling of this? Did The Ds just sit idly by and knowingly allow tax monies to be mishandled and/or possibly misappropriated because they knew it was going to benefit their party, their causes or their candidates?

What did they know and when did they know it?

The White-Washer Scandal (wait, can I say that?)

2009-09-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

And now ..... (or more accurately, "... again") the NEA -- the National Endowment for the Arts -- is proud to bring you, the next scandal of the Obama Administration -- "White-washer." (Wait a minute, can I say that or does that make me a racist? Twice?)

"I don't know how many laws that breaks but I'm sure there are some."
Columnist George Will on "This Week"/ABC"

From the same people who brought you crucifixes dunked in urine jars as taxpayer supported important art, now comes "ACORN for the Arts Community."

EXPLOSIVE
NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

To those who think this is much ado about nothing, do I have to draw you a picture? You can't have a group of people largely beholden to government grants for their "work" white-washing the public airways, landscapes, museums, (and eventually schools) with partisan messages supporting their "employer" -- particularly when it's specifically devised to appear during and designed especially to (one-sidedly) influence public debate about a national issue.

Don't know art, but you know what you don't like? Then play a little game called, "Does it pass the Bush Test?"

Say for example, that BO inherited this secret art cabal from his predecessor (who, as we know, caused all of BO's problems wwnn ;-) who established it to "paint in a good light" (pun intended) HIS priorities -- the Iraq War, Second Amendment Rights, The Patriot Act, Pro-Life, etc.

Would not the Left be today going apoplectic, calling for Congressional hearings, asking for Independent Councils, and unleashing Eric Holder to prosecute the lawyers who OK'd the program?

The Bush Test also works in reverse.

When someday (hopefully sooner rather than later) another GOPer re-takes the Oval Office, would the Left be OK (and silent) if these same tactics are then adopted and re-directed to promote things counter to what they intended on the above phone call?

That's your answer.

If an ACORN falls in the woods

2009-09-18T12:31:00.000-07:00

If an ACORN falls in the woods and the

New York Times
Washington Post
The Three Blind Mice (i.e. Katie, Brian, and Charlie)
plus Keith, Chris and Rachel

ignore it, does it still get Federal funding?

I guess not.

(But to make up for lack of hard-hitting and timely news coverage, there's lots of stuff you can read about Teddy Kennedy....)

It's funny most every MSM story (now that word is out) include the facts that
1) Republicans have long been critical of the organization,
2) the people who shot the undercover footage were "conservative activists" and
3) FOX News has been airing the video a lot.

Do we know the perspective of the people who leaked the Abu Ghraib prison photos?
Who was the person who broke the Mark Sanford story?
And who where the two ABC/20/20 imposter's who took EMPLOYMENT and money while going undercover to expose butcher shop practices at Food Lion some years ago?

It doesn't matter because that was news. So is this. When you cause action on the floors of Congress without a police or government investigation, it's a pretty good sign this is a legit story.

What difference does it make if the undercover filmmaker was "conservative" -- do MSM describe Michael Moore as a "liberal documentarian?" (Maybe some do now, but during Fahrenheit 911 didn't.)

MSM should refer to the couple as "journalists" because they did their job and saved both Republican & Democrat taxpayers money wasted on this biased, corrupt and questionable organization.

Bad on the doorstep; couldn't take one more step

2009-09-15T09:38:00.000-07:00

The other day (ironically, an online article) the current publisher of our daily newspaper "reached out" to readers to assure us that the paper "hears us." (In fact, he borrowed -- don't know if it was intentional but it was curious in its use -- one of POTUS' favorite little ditties -- the 'ol "We get it" exclamatory sentence.

While responding to reader feedback lamenting the lack of "good news" in the paper, the publisher "got" how readers felt this condition was a leading contributor to the decline of readership and civic engagement with the daily newspaper. Then comes the recent study by our friends at PEW chronicling how the once vaunted Journalistic reputation for accuracy have become sullied lo these last few years. (A little known fact: while desirable, finding the "truth" or "falsity" of a story has never been the overriding tenet of American journalism. It is accuracy that has long been the ultimate goal journalists seek. This will be "news" -- excuse the pun -- to most people who think getting out the truth is the primary goal; it was for me when I learned it.)

The decline of "Traditional" news in the face of the Online world shouldn't necessarily lead to the public smackdown journalism is getting (see recent PEW research on People & The Press).

Here’s a hint, Einsteins. It’s the product, not the format, that’s REALLY hastening mainstream media's decline and the profession's abysmal sad stature. Aside from News and Politics, what modern human endeavors can blame their demise on their audience/market rather than the enterprise itself?

"What do you mean you don't want healthcare? We're trying to get you free healthcare you rubes! Why are you fighting us; we're trying to give you something for nuthin'?"

Well, maybe: a) not as many as you thought want what you are selling, and/or b) maybe they want the product but don't care for the brand you're selling.

"People just aren't interested in the news anymore." "Folks don't care about the vaunted journalistic profession; we're having to become 'entertainers' to get people to watch/listen/read." “FOX is evil.” “Rush’s dittoheads don’t think.” “Glenn Beck’s army of robots.” “Oh woe is me!”

Whose fault was the Edsel? The consumers who hated the ugly thing or the Ford execs for green-lighting the loser? Like the government, have the media considered that maybe it’s THEIR product that's weak, needs to be improved or re-thought and not lay all the blame on consumers?

Other businesses have to face changing their products, why should the news be different?

[Answer--"news" purists can't stand the fact that they have operate as a business. Theirs is a higher calling, a Constitutionally protected role. Unlike, say free healthcare. Some in the media would probably be happy to take a government pay level salary to do what they do if it meant they could be free of the pesky "free market" thing that forces their company to turn a profit. But I digress.]

And when the media does make changes and things don’t improve (think CNN, or the disappearing newpaper sector), is it because the market is wrong or the changes/"improvements” made were off the mark?

Here's what I ask my "news" buddies:

When you cover a story about a half glass of milk, and you decide to write how it’s half-empty, you have made a biased decision to cover it in that way. Does that mean a story written about the same glass being half-full is wrong, erroneous, or “slanted” any more than your point of view?

It shouldn't. Both reports are "accurate" in that the glass is half-filled.

For far too long, the consumer has only been told about the half-empty point of view, even though some of them KNEW there must be a half-full side of the story.

All FOX has done is to report the other story left untouched by their competitors (i.e. the glass is half-full). People can – and do -- get the reports on the half-empty from some other place (MANY other places).

And that's the reason the FOX is eating your lunch.

A Teachable Moment (last month)

2009-08-11T09:52:00.000-07:00

Back in July, study results about the educational preparation of America's workforce came out. You probably didn't hear about it, because the national media didn't cover it. Apparently "school's out for the summer" applies to the news business, too. I Googled and Yahooed the report's title and three pages deep into both searches found the first media coverage was in "Industry Week."

It basically said what we pretty much all know -- our schools are failing pretty miserably when it comes to preparing kids to enter the workforce. But the good news is they CAN put a condom on a cucumber and have seen "An Inconvenient Truth." (OK I added the good news part.)

The report -- "The Ill-Prepared U.S. Workforce: Exploring the Challenges of Employer-Provided Workforce Readiness Training" -- was authored by some pretty respectable and basically non-partisan partners: Corporate Voices for Working Families; the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD); the Conference Board and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The two professional societies were understandably interested that their members could go to their companies to get more $$$ for training these "skulls full of mush" as the "Great One" says. The Conference Board is certainly not what you'd call an anti-business organization, and CVWF has on its board a good cross-section of companies, Wall Street, and educational institutions.

But the point -- how lousy our schools are these days -- (as BAD as that IS) is not really the point of this particular blog. I see it as a teachable moment (pun intended) for the current healthcare debate.

I wonder if the current Administration and one-party power lock in Congress would attack with such fervent desire, point out faults with such vitriol and venom, propose such fundamental and far-reaching changes to "the present system" in order to overcome THIS "crisis" as they now do with healthcare?

Talk about something costing the country huge sums of money and being broken.
Talk about lost productivity and implications for future generations.
Speaking of how far behind America is compared to our all-knowing, all-seeing, all-doing-it-better-than-we-are friends in "Europe."
If ever there was an example of how well (ill) a "government option" works it is the state controlled, union dominated, bureaucratic, "never enough money" black hole of a government service.

That's US public education.

Like the Wall St. executives, would this ruling party summon the heads of the major Teachers Unions before the Congress and demand to know where the billions of US taxpayers dollars had gone for all these years for the lemons their members have produced?

Like the Auto Maker CEOs, would today's Leftist Government make the Unions accept non-union educators (if there are such people), theoreticians and business executives to "run" the schools because they obviously can't?

Would this Administration disparage the prevailing education establishment, union leaders, and kooky social relativist school boards as "... the people who got us here" from their "... failed policies of the past 40 years ..." and banish them from having any role in the reforms?

Funny how it's also another example how the private sector manages to excel without the endless pit of government money and primarily by the skin that parents, students, and their schools all have in the game.

"Cue the Hugger"

2009-07-03T06:04:00.001-07:00

Do these people have no shame? Talk about "exploitation!"

If GWB would have had even one photo opp forum like this "... an emotional forum before a supportive audience..." with wounded Iraq War vets who supported him, people would be screaming bloody murder. Remember what happened with the megaphone shot at Ground Zero!
Where are the media in calling attention to this?

Hopes were temporarily raised this week when First Mouthpiece Robert Gibbs had a run-in with the Wicked Witch of the West Wing at a daily presser.

(NOTE: By the way, the largest public relations professional society in North America awarded Gibbs "PR Professional of the Year." ) He was presented the award for:

"... Gibbs won it for the campaign's message and ability to stay on it, its use of new media, and the "visible emphasis on communications transparency, openness and expediency, and generated a feeling of real-time connectedness with the electorate due to the active dialog with voters...."
“When the collective Honors and Awards Committee met to determine who really made the most impact on this industry from innovation, dedication and strategic public relations, it was clear and unanimous — Robert Gibbs.

Besides his smarmy, stuck-up attitude and lame attempts at humor to extricate himself, the guy never answered the question. And when Helen Thomas -- who everyone knows had zero love for the Bushies -- is calling you out about lack of transparency and controlling practices, you know it's bad.

We live in hope that the American public -- and eventually the American media -- will eventually wake up form this Obama drug-induced coma and realize that this "stagecraft" way 0f governing is telepromtering the country into a big pile of BS that no amount of spin cycle will be able to cleanse.

Let the weapon inspectors do their work

2009-07-01T08:38:00.000-07:00

Seems to me that Congress, the President, Algore, and a long list of special interest groups are now doing exactly what Pres. Bush was criticized for in going to war in Iraq.

"There's no time to waste! We have to move
now!" "We have evidence that this is happening or could
happen..." "The best intelligence we have points to
this..." "Danger Will Robinson!"

Critics bemoaned and impugned Bush's motives (and questioned his authority), contradicted his evidence, disparaged his supporters, urged more time further examination, requested direct debate, presented conflicting evidence, proposed alternatives (and rallied like-minded supporters to publicly protest and repeatedly ridiculed the opposition).

Has any of that happened with Global Warming? No--anyone who felt or thought differently was marginalized as a "kook."

Bush's team and Congress (at that time) swayed enough people to go forward; OK, elections have consequences. But his critics were covered in the media and given a say in many forums crying foul (constantly) all the way until today.

Now a new president, a new Congress, and new campaign contributors are rushing the country into a similar situation screaming crisis!, crisis!, crisis!, urging immediate action all while a general assumption that:

the science is unmistakable (it's not)
the "experts" are unimpeachable (they're far from it)
the debate has already happened & they won (definitely hasn't)
and that the public supports it (polls show when fully informed of all pros/cons at stake we really don't).

Just this week, a Senator proposed investigating whether, allegedly, the Administration squelched an internal doubter and silenced his dissent. Was the media all over this story as they were when Pres. Bush was supposed to have done the same? Will that person break his silence on “60 Minutes” or be pictured in sunglasses and a headscarf on the cover of “Vanity Fair”?

Such a far-reaching, game-changing redirection of national programs, policies, government regulations and public sector requirements deserves greater consideration and open, honest debate. The earth has somehow made it through "the last 8 years" (the divining line of all things nowadays), it'll make it through a few more days or weeks so our representatives AT LEAST HAVE TIME TO READ THE LEGISLATION.

The president and his party could do well to heed Colin Powell's warning to Bush about Iraq:

"You break it, you own it."

Top 10 Comebacks for Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh to Barbara Boxer:

2009-06-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

Visitors might want to share their opinions and write to the lovely and talented Senator from California: (reminder: be nice)

Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3553
(202) 224-0454 fax

Have you ever wished that you could have thought of a good comeback when dealing with an idiot.

Usually the perfect "zinger" comes to us later on, like in the shower or driving (like George Costanza and the "Jerk Store" retort.) Here's my opinion on what the General should have said, but being an honorable man, he had the discipline to bite his tongue. (Now THAT'S "Army Strong.")

Here are my Top 10 comebacks to Sen. Boxer:

10. "I was going to say 'Madam' but then realized that you probably have never run an actual business."

9. "Chairman Boxer. My military training has instilled in me a code of conduct and decorum that requires that others be treated with respect. The terms “Sir” and “Ma’am” have historically been used as terms of respect and deference to those in senior authority. It was with this intention that I addressed you in that manner: to accord the courtesy and respect you have indeed earned by ascending to this lofty office. I only wish that you had the good manners to reciprocate this common courtesy to a Brigadier General in the United States Army."

8. (In a raspy voice like Marcie to Peppermint Patti, and with apologies to Charles M. Shultz) “I apologize if you find the term disagreeable, sir.”

7. "Senator—American is made up of many ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, political views, sex, color, creeds, occupations, life experiences, etc. The American people are routinely reminded to be accepting, understanding, and tolerant of the perspectives and traditions of others. The military is my culture; being a walking hemorrhoid from California is yours. I will try to remember to respect your request, but, should I forget or accidentally slip, I ask that you try to respect mine."

6. "I called Senator Baucus “Sir” a minute ago, would you like me to use that term with you, too?"

5. (In his best Bobby De Niro imitation) “Are you talkin’ to ME?”

4. (apologies to David Allen Coe) “I don’t have to call you Darlin, Dar-lin. I don’t have to call you by your name…”

3. "Next, the committee will hear testimony from Heidi Fleiss. She's also demanding to be called 'Senator' because like the Chairwoman, she's worked hard to get where she is too."

2. (Apologies to Jimmy Buffet) “I really do appreciate the fact you're sittin' here. Your voice sounds so wonderful, but yer face don't look too clear. They say you are a snuff queen; Honey I don’t think that’s true. (I'd stop here, because the General is a family man with undoubtedly better taste.)?"

1. "Sure. Would you prefer 'Senator Asshole' or just plain 'Senator?'”

Bam to "Axis of Evil": See no evil, speak no evil

2009-06-23T06:47:00.000-07:00

Couple things about O and Iran.

First, in the days before and during the Iranian election day, Bam & Company were glowing and crowing about how Bamster's influence. Cited for the overwhelming turnout and excitement was Bam's famous "extended hand to an unclenched fist" policy and of course the "great Cairo University speech." Yep, it was Obama the world had to thank for the "vigorous debate" demonstrated at the polls (pretty much taking credit for the high turnout and challenges to Ahmadinejad). Unprovable statement but unchallenged by mainstream media.

[Editor's NOTE: As opposed to say, the presence of a now democratic Iraq next door?]

Here's proof: If his speechifying was so influential, imagine what another one of his speeches could do for the people of Iran and the world now? Too bad, the US must stay out of things & remain silent. (Uh, maybe the time for that was before people started getting shot in the streets.) Only until Bam sees how things will shake out so he can claim credit for it (again unprovable but unchallenged by mainstream media).

Next, even after his lofty, wise and statesmen-like "see no evil, speak no evil" policy, Barry is being accused of tampering and interfering by the Supreme Leader regardless. Under Bush's enhanced interrogation policy (used on two really bad apples and killed no one), Obama claims we shamed one of our country's founding principles. Which of these cherished principles is honored by official silence while peaceful protesters are being shot in the streets by their own government's hand?

To be sure, the leading opposition candidate isn't a choir boy, nor would he necessarily be a friend to America or the West. But look at the movement, not the leader -- The answer is on the computer screens: the people protesting aren't wearing robes, headscarves and aren't sporting full beards and holding up pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini -- they are young, old, men and WOMEN, dressed in western style clothes, fairly well educated and modernized (based on their use of English seen in signs, mastery of video and Internet technology and calls for less government belligerence). How could THAT candidate be worse than what's in place now? If he wins, do you really think he's going to be pleased to have gotten not even a word of encouragement from us? If he looses, do you think Ahmadinejad is going to "owe" Bam one?

Lastly, here's the dirty "open" secret: Obama CAN'T say anything encouraging because that would then lead to images of protesters carrying signs reading "Obama, help us!" and "America, where ARE you?" which would then lead to calls for us to "DO something." And the US can't do anything with muscle or teeth because that is what GWB did next door in Iraq, and Barry, his party, Hollywood, the European Left, and most importantly all his financial contributor groups have spent the last 8 years bitching about.

"To sit across the table [from] a man whose regime has just killed
people, for example, it's going to be a public relations nightmare for the Obama administration." -- Abbas Milani, who directs the
Iranian studies program at Stanford University

[Editor's Note: Curious--when was the last time we saw photos in print or video on the news channels of the Iraqis pulling down that big stature of Saddam and beating it with their shoes?]

Guess we can't have that, now can we?

W says, "See I told you so"

2009-06-17T15:17:00.000-07:00

If GWB hasn't actually said "I told you so," he has every right to.

One wonders how things might be different in the streets of Tehran today had George Bush's critics within and without the government not been as obstructive and destructive back in 2003-2004. What if the global support from our "allies" could have embraced his/Cheney'/Rumsfeld's vision of Iraq being an "island of democracy” in that part of the world? A beacon of hope that other oppressed Muslim peoples could look to?

What if American resolve hadn’t wavered and allowed the collective Left to give moral support to the Iraqi Resistance (and Syria, Iran, etc.)? What if those who were killing our troops with IEDs and suicide attacks didn’t have as many occasions to rejoice upon seeing the US media reporting on all the deserved and undeserved Administration missteps? What if there had been no Abu grab pictures to give the Great Satan his black eye? What if the US ousting of Saddam hadn't been slowed and hobbled by the one-sided international coverage of staged & promoted street protests by the usual anti-capitalists, former Communists, anarchists, Earth Firsters, Hollywood/TV/pop music/pop culture elites, the Cindy Sheehan's and The "Peace" Movement rent-a-mobs?

What if GWB had the fawning cooperation of the US news media and entertainment elite to support his policies in that part of the world as Barak Obama now enjoys?

Can we imagine how much closer Iran would be to real reform today, and how much stronger our position would be to encourage those brave people now dying in the streets? (And of those who are dying in the streets—whom do you think they’d prefer to have occupying the White House today?)

GWB may not have been the most eloquent speaker to live at 1600 Penna. Ave., but I wonder if he's watching the news tonight down in Dallas and lamenting that it was all these others "who just didn't get it."

Well THIS isn't in the script

2009-06-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

Photo: LA Times

"The decision comes as many in the gay community have voiced disappointment with the president, especially after the administration filed a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act."

While the news story is from today, the photo dates back four weeks. Note: posters were NOT made by Right-wing wackos, see the rainbow flag above the "Fail" one. (My personal favorite.)

Of course it appears new to many of you because most of the country didn't see this photo or video images because the State Media Industrial Complex won't carry images like this. But like we're seeing in Iran, even the most locked-down media black-out has some leaks and here's one.

Either that or somewhere out in LaLa Land someone apparently didn't get the memo. (Note: this photo accompanied a story back in late MAY when The Teleprompter was raising money in Hollywood.)

Like we've been saying for years about other "special interest groups" -- it's not like your going to suddenly take your money and go vote Republican.

So what if it takes a little time--Bam's operating on HIS time, not yours. So my advice is to chill out, wait a little longer ("Milk" is coming out on DVD soon, so focus on that) and when he gets Healthcare and Cap-and-Trade done, then he'll get to you. Eventually. Maybe.

Tell us which is worse: a president who disagrees with you but tells the truth and lets you know where he stands; or, a guy who takes your vote, takes your money, uses your "people"-power, says what you want to hear, but doesn't do it?

If you really want to be a pain, ask him if a same-sex ceremony can be performed in the White House or Rose Garden. You know, just to see what he says.

And the transparency continues......

2009-06-16T16:13:00.001-07:00

A funny thing happened on POTUS' the way to "openness and transparency."

If you notice, one phrase is becoming more and more used (finally) the further we get into this administration: "Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to ____ (fill in the blank)...."

"Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position,
administration denies msnbc.com request for logs"

(Naturally, they had to throw in another Bush jab, first. Can't just criticize the Teleprompter on his own merits, no. Maybe he "picked something up" from W on the toilet seat in the OOffice?)

He realized what all the other guys had and the reason they insist on keeping it. Sure is easy to criticize and make points on the campaign trail; completely different thing once you have it. "Do as I say, not as I do."

msnbc.com video: The presidential teleprompter

2009-06-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

The presidential teleprompter . Folks: I’m a follow of this guy's Twitter site. Once again, your host, .... on the cutting edge!

June 2: TODAY correspondent Jamie Gangel takes a closer look at a member of the White House that has been getting a lot of attention — the president’s teleprompter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31051003#31051003

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

2009-06-05T11:32:00.000-07:00

I thought the government was supposed to have a separation of church and state?
:-)

Our local paper has a poll today, asking:
"Should consumers who trade in their older vehicles get government vouchers to buy newer cars?"

Obama voters would generally say:
"Yeah! Great idea. Would really help people make the switch to greener technologies and help GM & Chrysler get back on their feet."
--- Or worse ---
"Heck. You'd be dumb not to take advantage of free money."

Except of course what Obama voters don't consider is that the money for the voucher has to come from somewhere -- more like from "someone."

This, gentle readers, should illustrate to the difference between a "credit" and a "tax reduction" or "tax return." Tax returns and/or reductions are monies that are already the taxpayers -- money he/she has already earned that you allow them to keep or get back. This as opposed to monies coming from the raised taxes paid by other taxpayers who didn't (or couldn't) do this activity.

The same is true for all these "stimulus saved or created jobs." The only good news that could come from stimulus would be a job created in the private sector. While I'm happy people still have gigs and I wouldn't wish to be unemployed, I'd be much happier and the economy would be MUCH better off if the jobs were OUTside of government.

Wealth (and tax monies) can only be truly created by the marketplace from the private sector. Otherwise, you are just spreading tax money from one hand to the other.

With all the who-ha about "being green" and "sustainability," the above outlined strategy is itself an "unsustainable" daisy chain with the green of taxpayers.

For all their talk about separating Church and State, The Left routinely resorts to Robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is especially the case when they seek to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

(And "seize" is the operative word ;-)

Rush Punks SRM (again)

2009-06-04T08:07:00.000-07:00

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Talk Radio. Kathleen Hall Jamieson on History and Impact PBS: "The person who listened to political talk radio as a conservative is more likely to be a consumer of mainstream media than a person who isn't a high consumer of political conservative talk radio." (2-13-2004)

Can't believe MSM or as RL would say, "State Run Media," fell for this.

Rush is only saying this so that MSM/SRM is:
1) "forced" to ask her about her position in order to distance herself from appearing to appeal to him (whom the Left hates), and thus,
2) Put in position to illustrate her views do not represent the majority of Latinas, most of whom claim a Catholic background and many espouse "Pro-Life" positions vs. "Pro-Choice"; thus, proving the his point.

RL “Punked” them here like he did to Hillary during the 2008 Democrat primaries. A Rush endorsement does madam judge more harm within her Dem/Lefty base than his worst criticism could ever do. They're probably huddled right now thinking, “How can we disavow this "endorsement" without showing our true hand?”

Got into a convo with a Lefty about this. “April” was typical in calling Rush listeners every disparaging name in the book, so I had to correct her. Certainly, Political Talk format has its share of crude, rude and obnoxious audience, but really not any more than other formats, say ... Urban Contemporary.

(Editor’s note: Have you given that a listen? There's a LOT of hate on that air. An unabashed favoritism toward Bam that makes Fox or Talk Radio pale – pun, sorry -- in comparison. Where’s the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?)

To prove my point, I challenged her (and you, gentle readers) to check out the work of the Univ. of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication, and professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She researched this theory since the mid-90s (after the Republican Revolution Midterm sea-change) ostensibly to prove “April’s” assumptions. They were (and continue to be) surprised to find out Rush's audience was actually better educated, more exposed to different media news sources, more politically active and likely to be voters, than comparable listeners of even NPR. (Google it; it’s true. Bill Moyer's NOW 2-13-04)

Garden Variety Liberals (aka “Rush haters”) are actually more guilty of what they accuse Rush Listeners of being – robotic sheep that hear nothing but their master’s voice and can’t think on their own. While the rank-and-file libs you meet at parties or on the street readily discount Limbaugh (and talk radio generally) and demean the audience “across the fruited plain,” THEY do so at their own peril. They are also whistling past the graveyard when they pooh-pooh Rush as being “… just an entertainer, doing it for ratings.” Rush knows otherwise and (and so do most of his listeners).

This “he’s just saying that for the money” mantra from the Left actually provides Rush, in effect, with a cloak of immunity. But that’s Rush’s final insult to injury because he doesn’t.

The Lib Leaders, on the other hand, know better. That's why Air America was tried (… and tried, and tried, and tried—and failed). And that’s why "Fairness Doctrine" is being re-floated.

Survey says.... only white guys can be racist

2009-06-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

Apparently the overnight poll focus group data has come in and the RNC has determined the whole "racist" thing isn't playing well to the female 25-54 demo (as Keith Olbermann used to say when he was a sportscaster). They are ceding the high ground (and logic) for a position that's less "unsightly."

Successfully grafting their talking points into the "stream" of the "mainstream" media, the Donkey Party has unwittingly (they do this a lot) undone one bow of something nicely wrapped up to use it as a tourniquet for another wound. Apparently they've raised (or is it lowered) the standard by which one can be called "a racist."

Used to be, that anytime Person A said his (her) own race was in any way, shape or form "better" than Persons B-Z race, that constituted being a racist. Now, that's just a "poor word choice."

Getting carried away with their defense (they do this a good amount, too), the Dem talking points arguing against the "R" word applying to the good madam judge is that the standard for being called a "racist" is membership in the KKK?

"... she's been called the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux
Klan..." Patrick Leahy, D-VT.
(If that's the case, then I can only think of one certain elder Democrat
senator who would qualify, but not any Republicans.)

Still, even if mere KKK membership (not leadership like the senior senator from WVA) is the minimum standards for being a racist, then Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a lot of other folks have some apologizing to scores of white people they've labeled as racists over the years for reasons and causes not nearly as important as this.

Heck, we shouldn't even mention Rush's unsightly ESPN exit in 2003 and his infamous assessment (opinion) of the NFL's Donovan McNabb. And all Rush had was a one-night a week football analyst stint, not a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. (Many people thought Rush was Right, too.)

The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to "separate
itself" from Limbaugh.
""ESPN's credibility as a journalism entity is at stake," NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release. "It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets."

Recall how George Allen was roundly denounced on CNN and everywhere else by talking heads because he uttered just ONE word (a made-up, nonsensical name) at a campaign stop? He LOST his senate seat largely because of that backlash. For certain, if HE had it to do over, he would re-think his "poor choice of words." But does anyone think for a minute that Allen's little slip of the tongue wouldn't be dragged back out if he ever decided to make a political comeback?

Words have meaning, and like elections, they have consequences consequences. They do for people on the Right; but it appears as if people on the Left are immune.

I was born a poor black child....

2009-05-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

"I was born a poor black child....."
--Navin Johnson (Steve Martin's character in "The
Jerk")

Disingenuousness is not a very good way to start off a presidency or an appointment to the highest court in the land.

POTUS and Judge Sotomayor discussion of "empathy" as a desirable quality in a Supreme Court appointment is a complete straw dog. And they should stop trying to spin it that way.
From a president who on his first day chided his predecessors and dreaded “Washington Insiders” for past shenanigans and promised to “… proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics...,” we get an act of raw, boldface political gamesmanship. “Oppose THIS, all you Republicans.” (All that’s missing is “make my day.”)

This is a quota check mark nomination, pure and simple, so let’s at least acknowledge that much. Some would say, “Hey, that’s the way it is—elections have consequences.” To them I say, see above.

First, she points out that Holmes and Cardozo voted on cases upholding sex and race discrimination and that the Court until the 70s ever found for a woman in a gender discrimination case. Well, none of the nine guys on the Court in the 1970s had uteruses and THEY still found a woman’s right to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution. None were “Hispanic” in the 1960s, and yet somehow Ernesto Miranda was overturned by those same guys (8 white & 1 black). How does she explain that?

Next, as Cal Thomas says in his column today, if pulling oneself up from bootstraps biographies could guarantee smooth sailing through the process, Clarence Thomas should have been granted an express ticket to the bench instead of the trip to hell & back that was his confirmation hearing.

Then, she posits that her unique experiences and upbringing would prove valuable in seeking some yet unachieved wisdom from the Supreme Court, something white guys or men in general, or non-Latina women could not possibly understand nor hope to attain. Who’s to say her Latina perspective would be representative of:
a) all/most US women
b) all/most US Latinos
c) all/most fatherless diabetics?
d) etc.
Were Sandy O’Connor and Ruth Ginsburg in lock-step on all issues; you know, being they were both women? Do you think Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall would see eye-to-eye on all things because they were both black?

The fact that there's a "liberal opening" on the court now is proof that not even WHITE GUYS can agree on everything sufficient enough to keep the rest of all these second-class citizens under their thumb of domination and exploitation. (You'd think if ever there would be motive, that would be enough.)

No, Sonya, you’d only represent left-leaning, feminist, Latinas. And actually just one—yourself. The one thing you COULD represent with 100% certainty is that you are an American (you are, aren't you?) And don’t ask me how you can sit in judgment if you get some Gitmo detainees in front of you because none of them are women, Puerto Rican, or Liberal; OK they might be Liberal, but they probably all hate GWB, so you'll no doubt have that perspective in common.

Finally, I thought the goal has always been to find appointments who could be counted upon to check their experience, prejudices, and preconceptions at the door and seek only to see the case through the lens of the LAW and not through the color of their skin or thickness of their dogma.

If one has to have a “representative” on the Court in order to somehow come nearer to “justice” then what about a second generation descendant of coal-mining, deer-hunting, Eastern European Slavs?

Who represents me?

The Prez Gets Schooled -- Notre Dame

2009-05-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

The AP sent a few reporters to South Bend, Ind., last weekend for POTUS' speech. As a media insider, today I'll show you how you can tell a lot about a writer's perspective if you just pay attention to little things.

For example, the AP reporter’s (or editors) word choice describing the motivation of those holding signs: "...to express their anger ...." Anger? What’s so vociferous about “Shame on ND” or “Stop Abortion Now”? Must they be "angry" with all the connotations that come with that emotion ( i.e. wild-eyed, raving redneck, bible-thumping Pro-Life nut jobs)? Isn't it possible they could be reasoned, respectful, principled yet passionate people standing in opposition to his policies and opinions?

Perhaps they were “remorseful” over their country’s 30-year history of death or “saddened” by their president’s position or “heartbroken” over the fate of millions of unborn babies? Would pro same-sex marriage advocates protesting government policy be described off-handed as, “angry.” I think not. No, “opposed” would have sufficed here without the editorializing, especially in an article calling for “tolerance” and Obama’s plea to stop “reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Next, Norma McCorvey -- “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame -- is mentioned as one of the 27 arrested “trespassers.” While pleased this fact made it into the article (and that she now opposes legalized abortion), I can only wonder what the lead and headline of a story would have been if Rosa Parks would have reversed her position on Jim Crow bus seating, or Karl Rove would admit he opposed former Pres. Bush's Iraq policy. “Roe” is THE iconic figure in this entire issue, and she’s given three sentences seven paragraphs into the text, without a quote attributed to her or about her made by anyone else.

Perhaps we should consider a favorite saying adopted by many who subscribe to the "Progressive" perspective for lots of other societal or governmental incursions into the lives of individuals:

"There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children." (Nelson Mandela)

President Obama said in his inaugural address his Administration was going to "restore science to its rightful place" in public debate; he should do that with this issue. He should mandate that we "wield technology's wonders" by requiring abortion seekers receive a sonogram image of the "non-viable tissue mass" that she carries. After all, he said in Notre Dame that he hoped to reduce the numbers of abortions.

Such a requirement just might do that.

Maybe if we called it a "Swirly" instead?

2009-05-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

A good friend passed along Charley Krauthammer's Op-Ed today in the Wash Post. (Thanks)

A very good read.

Three things about Bam's speech on terrorist policy differences betwixt & between Admins.:

1) Up next, he'll make another meaningful change in the name from water boarding to "giving them a Swirly." Administered by some Chicago public school 9th graders in the Men's Room of P.S. #107 on the South Side, it will be just as threatening but then he can get away with this too.

2) Does the long list of flip-flops on Bush's "evil" policy and Bam's "Bush-lite" versions mean he has to give back all the accolades and positive poll numbers these empty promises generated from the weak minded fools + media sheep who supported him? And the Dems thought John F. Kerry flopped a lot. (Good thing the media's not paying attention and keeping score like they did in 2004).

3) On Bam's last "European Apology Tour," he apologized to just about everybody for just about everything GWB supposedly had done to "offend" world sensitivities. POTUS: Are you planning a trip down to Texas to apologize to W for trashing him before walking a mile in his shoes?

So, God Walks into a Bar ....

2009-05-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh is known to tell an old joke about God's interaction with the press on the End of the World.

One day, God decides he's had enough with his earthly experiment and decides to destroy the universe and start over. In one final gesture of magnanimity, God calls a press conference to announce his intentions and give believers and non a chance to put their affairs in order. He invites editorial teams from three major news outlets -- The New York Times, USA Today and The Wall St. Journal and gives them exclusives on the biggest story in history. Short & sweet, God tells them he's going to destroy the world in 24-hours and charges them to spread the word about the Apocalypse.

Dutifully, the papers compose their final editions. And on the "End of Days" the papers hit the newsstands, their headlines blaring:

USA Today: "GOD: WE'RE GONE!"
WSJ: "Mr. God Says World to End Tomorrow" (Subhead: "Markets to Close Early")
NYT: "God Says, World to End; Women, Children, Minorities Hardest Hit"

Last Friday, we see this item from the Old Grey Lady, (May 15, 2009) showing that sometimes life imitates art.

Minorities Affected Most as New York Foreclosures Rise

Now, is it just me, but doesn't this go without reason? Were not these the consumers Fannie and Freddie were so adamant to get loans to over the past 5-10-20 years? The article points this out plainly:

And the hardest blows rain down on the backbone of minority neighborhoods:
the black middle class. In New York City, for example, black households making more than $68,000 a year are almost five times as likely to hold high-interest subprime mortgages as are
whites of similar — or even lower — incomes.
This holds a special poignancy. Just four or five years ago, black
home ownership was rising sharply, after decades in which discriminatory lending
and zoning practices discouraged many blacks from buying. Now, as damage ripples
outward, black families in foreclosure lose savings and credit, neighbors see
the value of their homes decline, and renters are evicted.

So, after years of suffering bad press for NOT giving these (high-risk) consumers loans, and the occasional drive-through blockade or lobby storming/sit-ins by the rent-a-mob "community organizers" of the world, when the banks eventually DO make the loans (risky & all) now they are mean & evil?

This is not coming from a bank flack, either. ( I do not work for a bank; never have. None of my relatives work for banks; matter of fact, I'm not sure that I know anybody who DOES currently work for a bank.) Personally, I do bank at commercial banking institutions and have credit cards, a few of which took hits from the "crises."

All the agreements made were done by me, of my own doing and for which I am responsible. Yes, I received mail from banks and cards; it's also true that I went out into the world and sought information from mortgage lenders. But NOBODY from a bank burst through my front door, sat/shouted/sang/chanted (with media in tow) forcing me to sign anything. The signed commitments or contracts those are the deals I made --it's what I have to live with.

For me now to go back to them and ask them to change the rules, that's asking a big favor don't you think? (Now, the opposite is true--I don't think the banks should be able to change the terms of the deal on me either, but that's different post.)

With all this talk about "responsibility" lately, you'd think somebody would point out that its the consumer who is ultimately responsible for the bed he/she must lay in. If there's any non-personal responsibility to be taken here for the poor, dumb, helpless, high school graduates we've populated this country with it might be with government schools. Those institutions have apparently churned out millions of simpletons who don't know you that you have to eventually pay back the money you charge on a credit card, that can't calculate simple interest or manage to balance a checkbook. BUT they MIGHT know who Elizabeth Cady Stanton is, what the "hockey stick graph" shows or what the Mayan calendar and numbering system is based on.

Which one of those things is going to bring the country and the world into a global economic crisis if not known by everyday "Joe Six-packs"?

A funny thing happened on the way to "Responsibility"

2009-05-07T15:00:00.000-07:00

So, I'm reading the Washington Post today, about their coverage of Bam's great unveiling yesterday of the FY 2010 Budget. Finally, the Devil in the Details.

Bottom line, POTUS plans to spend $3.4 Trillion -- with a "T" -- next year. Oh, and the deficit will be $1.2 Trillion.

You'd think when a guy stands up, looks into a teleprompter and announces he plans to spend several "Trillion" dollars that he'd would get noticed. Well, he did, but not for using the "T" word. The MainStream Media is all flush with talk of $17 Billion -- with a "B" in alleged "cuts."

OK. Since nobody in the Washington Press Corps has the stones to ask the obvious question, I will. (I take that back, at least Jake Tasker at ABC Political Punch Blog mustered the courage; I don't know if asked the Teleprompter verbally.)

$17 Billion in budget "cuts"? That's what you're leading with?
And most coming from the Defense budget? Was anybody else asked to
cut?

$17 billion in the ENTIRE budget? (!!) Wells-Fargo needs to scrape up $15 Billion to just to shore-up after the Administration's stress test. You mean you can only find $2 Billion than a stressed out bank from a budget of more than 3 Trillion?

What's more incredulous is that three (3) Washington Post writers dutifully spent 40 (that’s 4-0, FORTY) paragraphs largely devoted to touting those meager $17 B in cuts to get to the essential point of the whole charade:

"The proposed cuts, if adopted by Congress, would not
actually reduce government spending. Obama's budget would increase overall
spending; any savings from the program terminations and reductions would be
shifted to the president's priorities."

ABC News (You have to look for it a while) but when you do: "Obama to cut budget"
NBC/MSNBC News: "Obama wants to cut $17 billion from budget"
CBS News: After leading with the Marine One fleet being cancelled, by, yes, the president's "budget cuts" they DID run this item on a CBS news blog: "Obama tries to control budget story line." Duh.

Over at AP, while still running with the $17B as the main focus, if you read closely one can see some cracks in the veneer. They dared mention that GWB tried to axe many of the same programs for years, but a Democrat controlled Congress put them back in anyway. And they even mentioned that things got hot for our buddy Robert Gibbs having to explain why the $17 B was much more important that that other "Trillion" number that had been mentioned.
Good for them.
Despite redoubling its efforts to portray itself as tough on waste and spending, the administration and Congress have taken the nation on a steady course of higher federal spending. In rapid succession has come passage of a $787 billion economic recovery bill, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill and Congress' $3.4 trillion budget for next year, which calls for increases of almost 10 percent over current funding for non-defense agency budgets.

I'm all for people respecting the office of the President; I didn't care for how extremely GWB was "dissed" by many newsies and 99% of Hollywood. And I'm not saying the current President should be disrespected or treated in any way but professionally.

But how the "professionals" in the Washington Press Corps can allow this guy to stand up there and boldface use terms like “A New Era of Responsibility” when he is actively planning on spending this much is beyond me.

Maybe if there was ring-kissing involved....

2009-05-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

I guess the Prez is reserving his quota for being in-the-presence-of-Christians for another "large Catholic" event later this month -- in South Bend, Ind.

Maybe if there was ring-kissing involved he would put in more effort. There will be robes and funny hats, though.

The part I LOVE is seeing what the POTUS' mouthpiece Robert Gibbs said:
"That's the way he'll publicly observe the day--privately."

I kid you not.

WP: Obama Supporters Going From 'Fired Up' to Tired Out

2009-04-27T06:26:00.000-07:00

Read good article in the Washington Post this weekend, A Hundred Anxious Days

About a local councilwoman and her exhaustion in trying to help people going through tough times in a down-and-out town in South Carolina. Daily, her voicemail is loaded with calls seeing her assistance with everything from avoiding foreclosure to paying the light bill. But the saddest thing about this story is the number of calls of people seeing help, but not for the obvious reason.

Surely, no one should take pleasure from hearing their pleas for help. No, but what IS sad about the article is that -- in this day and age, when an African American man can become president of the US -- there's not more people like him. I don't agree with the Prez on a lot, but I do acknowledge him for what he did. He came up from nowhere, product of a broken home (mom was a fruit-loop flower child and original Dad was an absentee), uprooted & moved all around the world, raised by grandparents, teased & ridiculed & called names because of bi-racial heritage and his funny sounding name, etc. Say what you will, he fought though that and got the best education he could and took advantage of "help-ups" not "hand-outs."

The real problem behind this story is that those callers to Mrs. Childs' phone DON'T HAVE A CLUE about what to do to help themselves; so they call her. After 45+ years of institutionalized "help" from the Government, the people behind those 17 blinking messages really DON'T know how to get THEMSELVES out of troubles. Worse yet, they ignored the process of how they got into troubled positions in the first place, and even if she can help them, they wont' take action so as not to call back.

For three or four generations they've been told, "you can't do it alone" and "your disadvantaged" or "you need help from some program to make it" or "somebody else is holding you back so just vote for us and we'll make them stop." But that lie hasn't come from the people or the party it's normally attributed. Who has been telling these people all this time that THEY can't do it? Who's been telling them: you must have these programs because you just can't get it done with your own two feet or two hands or the wits in your head?

Talk about using outdated thinking and worn-out policies to overcome the problems of the modern world!! The President and his Party need to bag the tired old ploy of pitting the have-not's against the haves.

It isn't that these folks are being held down by the same sinister oppressors (as may have been the case in the past). The new oppressor does indeed come from Washington, but not with scowl or an elephant on his lapel, but with a smile and a program and claims they're "here to help."

The sad thing with the blinking lights on Mrs. Childs' message machine isn't that there are people calling asking for help; the core problem is that for far too long in far too many ways and for far too many people there has always BEEN something or some program there to help them out. And people got comfortable with that; some would argue not only comfortable but "entitled" to them.

Being "uncomfortable" or "underprivileged" or plain old "poor" should be the greatest motivator to individuals to: a) work to get out of that condition, and b) change their ways so as not to revert back. The problem with America in the last half of the 20th Century is that to overcome our guilt (collectively as one people) and make up for the unfairness of past sins, we committed a far greater sin by making those conditions palatable. And these people waited & waited in four year increments for the Messiah to come. Well, now he's here.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Childs' phone will keep on ringing; and sooner or later, her bank account is going to be empty. Much like our US Treasury and the 50% of the people who pay income taxes for themselves and the other 50% who don't. Presently, everyone is focused on what is happening to "the poor." They ought to be focused on who's paying the bills, because without them, nobody can be served or saved.

"Not only did we not intend to offend Christians, why, we even HAVE some Christians in our Administration, including the VP himself!"

2009-04-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

(Note: Headline a homage to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's response to the bone-headed Right-Wing Extremists" memo.)

Gentle readers:

Do you recall back when John Ashcroft was US Attorney General, and spoke in the DOJ lobby that had a "topless" stature of Lady Justice?

News photographers and videographers took great delight in framing Mr. Ashcroft (a devout Christian) with the statue's knockers in the shot ("they're sculpted, and they're spectacular!").

Knowing it was going to be a repeated distraction, he directed that draping be placed over the statue’s “naughty bits” to avoid further mockery. Unfortunately, he was lampooned all the more by late-night hosts, comics and of course, Hollywood.

But that was OK because it was the Republicans and as we know they were fair game to ridicule. Today, why we’re just trying to get “a nice, plain backdrop.” Except of course for those killer stained glass windows -- man, did THEY look good.

The Prez selected the place for the speech for a reason (Georgetown, founded as a Catholic institution) to benefit from the venue. Most probably to help the idiot chancellor at Notre Dame with his upcoming commencement address. Darn, for a country that's not a Christian (or Judea-Christian) country, it's inconvenient to keep running into all these places with connections to those pesky faiths.

If the setting (potentially) embarrasses the Prez so much -- or he doesn’t want to offend the Muslim world and lose some of the points he scored with the Princely hand-kiss last week, then take the speech out of the venue completely, and don’t attempt to benefit from the place at all.

You can’t have it both ways. Can someone in the media call PLEASE grow a pair (not of those, but below, you know in the "tea bag") and them on this?

Thought for the Day: UN stands for "UNtouchable"

2009-04-14T06:28:00.001-07:00

Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects
--USAToday, April 14, 2009

"The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID's inspector general.... Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report." – (Emphasis added by C&A)

Question: Where are US citizens going to turn when we're even more personally and materially harmed by onerous "global warming" restrictions on freedoms and suffer "carbon taxes" levied on only on Americans?

This is your luck day, Mr. 4th Pirate

2009-04-13T12:11:00.000-07:00

This guy is the luckiest man on the Indian Ocean. (OK, maybe not this particular guy, but someone just like him.)

(thanks Drudge)

Remember during the first Gulf War (the one we didn't screw up), and the guy affectionately nick-named, "the Luckiest Man in Iraq?" That fellow became infamous during a televised military briefing featuring cockpit videotape from the US bomber jet using its laser guided bomb to take out a bridge in just seconds AFTER an Iraqi military vehicle drove over it. The explosion imagined seen in his rear view mirror probably didn't come near the wreckage found later in his Fruit-of-the-Looms when he realized what happened. (As Bill Cosby once said: "First you say it; then you do it.")

Well, something like that has just befallen the as-of-now unidentified "4th Somali Pirate." This guy is the last pirate standing from the successfully (thank Goodness) completed Navy SEAL sniper recruiting campaign on Easter Sunday. Conflicting reports had him either on board a Navy ship negotiating for his comrades, OR injured, voluntarily surrendered and in custody.

Whichever is correct, the guy didn't meet the fate of his three now deceased buddies who apparently never pirated Cinemax signals to watch any of those average Tom Berrenger movies. (I imagine he needed new underwear too.)

But that's not what makes him lucky. This is why he's so fortunate.

"The (Eric Holder's) Justice Department could bring charges against
a Somali pirate captured in a hostage standoff in the high seas...."

Lucky No. 4 will soon be winging his way back to a nice, safe jail cell in the US mainland. He'll have the best medical care (and probably the only dental care) he's experienced in his life, eating three-squares of his favorite ethnically/religiously sensitive foods, sleeping above the floor on lice- and bedbug-free beds. But best of all, he'll have the pick of the litter from this country's criminal defense lawyers, most likely assisted by the ACLU, to help him beat this rap.

I can hear it now:

"Honest judge, I was minding my own business, walking down the street, when these pirates came along, made me to get into their car and forced me join them on this boat-raiding mission. I'm innocent."

He'll probably sue for wrongful prosecution and emotional duress, and get a nice judgement by a jury for mistaken identity and the inevitable mishandling by military captors and penal system employees.

In other words, he doesn't know how good he now has it. Getting picked up by the US military was the best thing to happen to this guy in his entire, pathetic lifetime.

Sniping on Pirates

2009-04-13T07:03:00.000-07:00

There the USA goes again, unilaterally brandishing its sword at the drop of a hat! We should have just been patient and taken this to the UN, and let the world body work things out.
This policy of shooting hostage-taking pirates is simply not working. We need a new course, a new vision; we need a president who doesn’t resort to military answer to everything. Only then can we regain our international stature.
Oh, just great! Now our mariners will be even MORE at risk of piracy because of this success. Those people are going to be much “less safe” because of this successful policy, not more safe.
Why didn't we allow time for diplomacy to work its course? OR to impose sanctions to show our displeasure?
Why must violence be the answer? Are we saying that one American life is more valuable than these three Somalis?
Why don't we get to know the plight of these poor, destitute pirates whose terrible living conditions drive them to do such things? Did we consider that this might be their only recourse to survive?
Who are we to say that their actions or right or wrong? Maybe this is just their culture, their worldview; after all, they haven’t actually killed anybody before. All they wanted was money to feed their poor countrymen.
This is ALL about oil, plain and simple. Can't have the shipping lanes in danger so the US can get it's precious oil out for its gas-guzzling SUVs and climate-changing electrical power plants.
And I'll bet Haliburton is involved in here somewhere.

"And that's the way it is...."

2009-04-09T16:40:00.000-07:00

Next week, (April 15) “Perky” Katie Couric (homage to Rush) will receive the Walter Cronkite award for her torpedoing of Sarah Palin during the campaign. (Note: Get this, the “award” is presented by “the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California…” Anything pretending to be unbiased or objective with the name Normal Lear attached to it is LAUGHABLE)

A press post on Couric’s site proclaims:

“Evening News anchor Katie Couric was honored for her
"extraordinary, persistent and detailed multi-part interviews with Republican
vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin" which judges called a "defining moment
in the 2008 presidential campaign." She was given the award for Special
Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.

Today, John Ziegler a blogger on “Big Hollywood” is spot-on with his observation that there exists a double standard when it comes to this award:

“And is there any doubt whatsoever that had Couric asked the exact same questions and Palin had been perceived as having performed well (or if one of her softball interviews with Barack Obama had brought down his candidacy) that there would be no awards for her from USC or anyone else of note?”

Editor’s Note: Ziegler is working on a documentary about the shenanigans perpetrated by our friends in the Fourth Estate. You can hear clips of Sarah’s version of the Katie interview and judge for yourself. Check it out.

Now, I too shudder at the mere mention of Perky Katie (in general) and double shiver thinking about Walter’s Award going to Katie. I do realize Sarah was set-up for a fall, and that the media would have treated (and did) Democratic candidates differently. How Obama avoids getting questioned about his pick for VP running mate, the same guy who casually dismissed him as a serious Democrat presidential contender with “… the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…” is beyond me.

Having said all that, I'm sorry, but sometimes we have to own up and accept a problem. Thus it’s right around here where I depart from the Party Line.

I'm in the communications business and can plainly tell you that SOMEbody in that campaign should have known better about a LOT of things dealing with that interview—either Sarah or her PR staff. If the staff failed, then shame on them and Sarah should either say so (better yet, not say anything.) If the staff DID prep her sufficiently, then this was a case of “operator error” and Sarah needs to accept blame.

Since this debacle, I've wondered about the extent of the media training she had received either before the nomination or during the campaign. (For those who consider "Media Training" a dirty word taken to mean prepped to be evasive, not candid or untruthful, then think "experience being interviewed").

I've trained clients before. There were steps The McCain Campaign could have taken to avoid this possibility or mitigate the aftermath, but I don't know if they were pursued.

First – Media Training (or at least, practice). Some clients take to training like ducks to water; others don't do so well. One would assume that as an elected state governor, she's done an interview or two. But even so, with all due respects, that's Alaska TV; Perky Katie (like it or not) was the Big Leagues. Sarah looked like AA-rookie.

Second—The media’s not your friend. Perhaps Sarah’s natural personality is to be trusting. Best Case: Maybe Katie’s non-recorded, pre-interview cooing and fawning “girl-talk” in the Green Room beguiled Sarah into lowering her defenses. Worst case: Sarah is close to what she appeared to be – unprepared and uninformed. Whatever was the case, SOMEbody has to remind the interviewee – especially Republicans – that the news media is NOT your friend, never let your guard down and be ready!

Third—Pre-interview intelligence. Somebody has GOT to know something about the line of questioning; those ground rules are negotiated as part of the interview booking process. You certainly can’t ask for questions in advance, and you shouldn’t expect the reporter to stick to an agreement EVEN IF they agreed. But much like anyone who is caught on a “Borat” film – you HAVE to know what you’re getting into; if you don't, you get no sympathy from me.

Fourth—At least know the background on positions YOUR campaign is putting out. One of Katie’s questions followed up a campaign message that John McCain had been way out in front of the Subprime and Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac mess screaming “danger, danger” to the deaf eared news media and a disinterested public. Sarah didn’t have a “two-deep” message (or understanding) for a comeback, and it showed.

Fifth—You shouldn’t have to prep or train or practice giving honest, straightforward answers to relevant questions. This wasn’t as bad as the “Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?" question George Bush was sandbagged with by a BBC reporter during the primaries before the 2000 campaign. THAT is a gotcha question.

“What do you read?” isn’t hard to answer if you DO read; it is if you don’t.

Sixth—The campaign should have taken a page out of Herbalife’s 20/20 experience. Stipulated to all interviews that the Campaign would also be permitted to tape the interview concurrently and have the rights to use (and streamed it on YouTube) after the spot aired on CBS. If it was “gotcha-edited” you could have let the public see for themselves -- and shamed the Eye Network at the same time.

I’m sorry, Sarah or her team has got to own this one.

Tobacco Tax Increase will help poor children get healthcare: April Fools!

2009-04-06T08:50:00.001-07:00

[Full disclosure: I don’t smoke cigarettes; never have and don’t intend to start. But someone in my family does smoke a few a day.]

But that’s not why I don’t take joy of the fact that the cost of smoking just took a big jump last week. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, isn’t that what they say? (Whoops, sorry, unfortunate turn 'a phrase there. Smoking is STILL legal, at least right now.)

The reason I’m not overjoyed that those (“dirty, stinking, nasty, redneck, etc.") smokers are finally “getting it stuck to ‘em” is because those new taxes 1) are NOT going to ease my personal, non-smoking tax burden (or yours), and 2) in fact, will most likely increase my tax burden (and yours) in years to come.

So why shouldn’t I be happy about somebody else being taxed for their “sins”? Oh -- because poor kids are going to get healthcare coverage? Yeah, sure -- April Fools! (The irony of the tax's implementation date wasn’t lost on me.)

Taken to its logical end—when there are no more smokers (when they become voluntarily or involuntarily extinct) – who will be around to pay the taxes for the uninsured children's healthcare?

First of all, smokers HAVE been paying taxes over & above what we non-smokers have been paying for years, via the taxes paid on their habits that pre-dated these new taxes. Did my non-smoking taxes (or yours) ever come down because they paid? Did my non-smoking share of healthcare costs (or yours) go down because of the revenue smokers paid into the system but who died as of the results of their habits before the system incurred any costs for their care? (Shouldn’t that have been a “rebate” to us non-smokers, or at least stay in the kitty to cover the cost of another, longer-living smoker’s long, tortuous, painful and costly death?)

Next, my bet is the big new Federal Tobacco Tax (and various other state add-on Cig Taxes) won’t accomplish what advocates say (i.e. healthcare coverage for uninsured children). Then what noble goal will the taxes serve? Answer: to buy votes and curry slavish affection of an ignorant electorate who actually believe they’re “getting something” (i.e. healthcare coverage for uninsured children).

Much like the much-ballyhooed “Tobacco Settlement” of the 1990s, my bet is the monies raised from these new tobacco taxes won’t actually be going toward mitigating tobacco-related healthcare costs currently shouldered by smokers and non-smokers, as it is argued. More likely: new revenues will go to replace declining general revenues in government budgets.
Yet if, by some miracle, the new taxes DO go toward helping the poor little children – the taxes will inaugurate new outlays on YET ANOTHER new category of recipients forever depending on the government (as if there weren’t enough already).

The NEXT reason I’m not celebrating my non-smoking “found money” in my pocket is because I realize that the biggest hypocrite in the entire mix are those who advocated, proposed and voted for the tax. Think otherwise? Then explain the logic of counting on a revenue stream generated by a tax source that everybody agrees, hopes, and wants to shrink – smokers!

Taken to its logical end—when there are no more smokers (when they become voluntarily or involuntarily extinct) – who will be around to pay the taxes for the uninsured children (for certainly we’ll not run out of them, will we)?

Adding injury to this insult is the fact that government at all levels – along with non-governmental and healthcare agencies -- actively spends tax money at the same time trying to DISCOURAGE the very activity that it depends upon to raise money to fund the new benefits in the first place.

Talk about strange bedfellows.

Russia's Medvedev hails 'comrade' Obama

2009-04-03T11:45:00.001-07:00

From out of the AP's mouth to God's ear.

This requires no additional comment.

Something Smells Rotten in the State of Denmark

2009-04-02T07:36:00.000-07:00

Good gracious, my blood runs cold.

Today I read the scariest article I've ever seen on the pages of the Wall St. Journal. To understand today's rant, you simply must read it for yourselves. I urge readers to pick up a copy of today's WSJ or go online. And be afraid, be very afraid.

"The Socialist Solution to the Crisis." (WSJ Opinion, April 2,
2009) By Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the Party of European Socialists
and a former prime minister of Denmark (1993-2001)

Where does one begin to refute such distortions and wrong-headedness?

Among the chief points, he claims:

"... the simplistic dictum of more markets and less government -- championed by
Reagan, Thatcher and their ideological heirs -- has failed on a momentous
scale."

Editor's Note: You KNOW something truly sticks in the craw of a Lib when they go back to Ronaldus Maximus, conveniently skipping over three presidents hence.

As El Rushbo is prone to point out, Conservatism doesn't fail--it succeeds every time its tried. Maggie, Ronny, even JFK.

What's a demonstrated failure is Communism, and Socialism ain't all that and a bag of chips, either, which we're seeing played out on the streets of London's financial district. When was the last time you saw throngs of raging masked capitalists breaking windows and destroying Social Security buildings, Food Stamp and WIC offices, or ACORN community organizing facilities?

The problem with Reaganism and Thatcherism isn't that it failed; it's that it wasn't faithfully followed through by their political heirs nor was it adopted widely enough in the wake of its most shining victory – the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the US, the first President Bush bungled a 90 percent approval rating bowing to a playboy Arkansas charlatan who lulled the world to sleep during his watch.

The 1994 Republican Revolutionaries abandoned the principles that swept them into office – and rightly shown the door 14 years later. Working under the misapprehension of “Compassionate Conservatism” (as if Conservatism needed a qualifier) that they could actually receive “credit” for granting government largess to those accustomed to suckling at the teat of public treasury.

Next, if, as Mr. Rasmussen suggests, the global tough times are causing global consumers to cut back and demands for everything produced in the both the advanced and developing worlds, why then would sweatshops be pulling children be pulled out of school? Wouldn’t the adult labor force be just loitering, standing around underutilized? I thought sweatshops were only employed during greedy, heady times of go-go economic expansion?

Finally, for all the bluster we Americans are accused of having, Mr. Rasmussen takes a back seat to no one with his, “Look at us, see how the truly enlightened do things” swagger. I, for one, am tired of an elephant in the room no one speaks of, so I’ll say it here: if there is a global tax that needs to be assessed, it should be paid not BY the United States but TO the USA for the safety and security provided to those “Western economies” by American taxpayers and American lives.

I’m offended at being lectured by a politician from a country that has the LUXURY of using funds for socialistic policies because they don’t have to invest in military protection provided by Uncle Sam. In the movie, A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson’s flawed but candid character, Marine Col. Jessep, utters the best rendering of this sentiment. The eventual (and unfortunate) downfall of the Colonel does not make his words any less salient and especially poignant to me, for I live in a heavily military populated area.

“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way.”

Where have you gone, Ed Murrow?

2009-03-26T12:44:00.001-07:00

Whew. Good thing 99% of journalism is overlooking stuff like this because of the national emergency and all. Too much is at stake for anything untidy like this to get out and divert our attention to all the Change that’s being laid down.

You know, each day, I awake to hear what new policy is being put in place for my benefit, and rejoice. The morning news is brimming with Hope and Responsibility and Transparency that I don't know how I possibly functioned without before now.

And I’m continually astonished and oh, so very thankful how lucky we are as a country to have as our President the ONLY politician –apparently-- to make it out of the Chicago political system that is a straight-arrow, uncorrupted and clean as the wind-driven snow!

Oh Joy, Oh Rapture!

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The stories below are not from some Right-wing wacko book-writer, flame-throwing talk show host or the GOP. It’s from the Chicago Tribune, (which endorsed BHO for prez in 2008).]

"Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis,
mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack
Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that
required little effort."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-emanuelmar26,0,1946702.story

Whose Line is it Anyway?

2009-03-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

Tonight, a sitting US president will lower himself and his office to appear on a late night variety show -- The Tonight Show. (Congrats, Jay--big score).

Oh, isn't he wonderful. So down-to-earth. So unpretentious. So accessible to the common folk. (What's next, Judge Judy? I hear she's out-pulling some local news broadcast + of course, Perky Katie, in some markets.) But I digress.

Normally, when guests appear on the show, they bring a video clip of their most recent movie or TV special they are promoting. Since Barry is the president and EVERYTHING he does is covered by the news media (domestic and foreign), kinda makes you wonder why he needs Jay's audience too. But, again, I digress.

The ONE clip you WON'T see (and you'll no doubt not hear joked about) will be Barry's recent tango with the possessed TelePrompTer from-hell at the Irish Prime Minister's reception at the WH for St. Paddy's Day.

Apparently the 'prompter operator wasn't the only one who had too much of that green beer because the three of them couldn't get the pages straight. (But at least the Mic knew someone else's speech when he read it. )

Alas, we can't see the video because for some reason the video of this event has somehow been suppressed. Surely you don't mean it! You must be mistaken, C & A! It could never happen, right?

The pool of media that accompanies the president wherever he goes won't be
allowed into the NBC studio during Thursday's taping of that night's "The
Tonight Show with Jay Leno." That pool of about 14 journalists, made up of print
and radio reporters, one TV camera crew and a few still photographers, will
instead be held in a separate room where a live feed from the studio will be
shown.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Photographers-access-limited-apf-14688343.html

Imagine, you can find videos online showing police brutality, drunken co-ed catfights outside bars, cats-chasing-red-laser-dots, convenience store hold-ups, and the occasional dancing stand-up comedian, BUT we can't find moving pictures OR audio of the Prez thanking himself for throwing the party of a head-of-state.

And we won't have Will Ferrell as an additional guest mugging his best "Ron Burgundy" character mis-reading the TelePrompTer news, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoKAcVL_phI

Mostly because we can't make fun of Barry, (but also because Will's making too much $$$ making fun of the former president, which is of course completely open season to ridicule.)

Thankfully, we have the foreign press to keep us informed.
http://www.teleprompterpresident.com/

Here's looking at you, Barry

2009-03-19T13:34:00.000-07:00

I like to think of myself as a "problem solver" rather than a "ranter" we hear so much about these days.

So in the spirit of helping out my fellow man, I've conceived of a helpful way f0r political cartoonists to satirize our new President without running the risk of insulting the Race Industry for using negative stereotypes or instigating the faithful Brownshirts of this new "Reich."

My idea doesn't involve skin color, or ears, or primates, or teeth. It avoids references to any historical figure, especially if they be of any particular, failed, 20th Century socio-political construct or "-ist" ideology.

So this morning I emailed my good friend, Gary Trudeau, through his website.

Suggested that, since he depicted in Doonesbury GHWB (#41) as "invisible" and GWB (43) as "invisible" wearing cowboy hats and Roman general's helmet, he might consider using a caricature of a TelePrompTer for illustrating the new Prez in upcoming strips.

(My comment hasn't been posted yet on the “Blowback” section of his site, naturally. Probably just an oversight.)

But keep watching. If we start seeing the reflective reading device immortalized in the strip, I'm going to use my ACLU- and Trial Lawyer Lobby-given right to SUE HIS PANTS OFF for stealing my idea.

Frost/Obama

2009-03-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

(EDITOR's NOTE: I posted this same text below to Politico.com before/as it was being headlined on Drudge; after posting, I visited TDR and saw it headlined about the private citizen. But that's OK because great minds think alike).

Isn't there a law that prohibits the weight and power of the Office of the President from being used to target/abuse:
1) a specific private citizen or private business
And/or
2) a member of the press or "the media"?

Isn't this what Nixon was accused of doing to those on his "enemies List"? The candidate who pledged to run the most transparent administration in history has gone back in history and resurrected a “dirty tricks” team!

Where are the civil libertarians? Where are the Journalism and First Amendment professors? Where’s the ACLU?

What happened to this former editor of the Harvard Law Review? What happened to his pledge to listen to his critics?
If this has been planned and underway since October, then what does that make Obama, who stood before the world in January and promised to "... proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Surprise! $250K earners will soon try to earn $1 less

2009-03-03T11:53:00.000-08:00

Check out the results of the ABC News poll today on its Blog section.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/popup?id=6977870

Why is this a surprise? Heck, it's human nature and common sense. I'm not a millionaire, but I know this makes sense.

Evidently, The Prez and the Dems have chosen to disregard what every businessperson knows, the old saw, “make up on volume what you don’t on margin.” Of course, The Prez went to LAW school at Harvard, not the Business school. And because The Prez has been out organizin' communities, and really has never worked in "business" -- or started one -- at a management level, he can’t really be blamed for ignoring what every small businessperson has experienced this truism firsthand.

Given the chance and the opportunity, most everyone else would do this too. Why WOULD you want to intentionally inflict more tax pain on yourself if you are anywhere near that $250K threshold? As people leave that strata (there's going to be a LOT more $249,9990-ers pretty soon), the Government will HAVE to eventually go after them, first using the IRS, then as the Taxman in that $200-249K segment.

Taxing this group of people – and driving them to do the opposite (earn LESS) of what they would normally do (earn MORE and therefore pay MORE taxes) – makes about as much sense as taxing cigarette smokers to cover more healthcare funding needs while you're trying every trick in the book to get them to quit (including paying for smoking cessation programs and PSAs. Eventually, that pool will dry up (either from kicking the habit or kicking the bucket) and you’ll be on the lookout for a new funding source to replace them.

That's why it's a lie from the start that only "the rich" will be taxed more. And the President's party knows that; this happens all the time.

This is NOT retreading of some other Conservative Blogger, The WSJ or Rush; I am old enough to remember this for myself. I was there, and I know this happened.

While a candidate the 1990s, Mr. Clinton also promised "the middle class" (although the media doesn't remember this). The week of his inauguration as president, Bubba declared that things were worse than he was told/realized and that for the good of the country, the tax break promise had to wait.

So, during that much-touted, prosperous, booming economy of the 90s that Bubba supposedly gave us (although no one I ask can ever point to what precise program or policy he proposed to produce such a boom), the middle class didn't taste of a tax cut. He DID however pass the largest (at that time) tax increase in history, then cut back on Military spending (thank you Mr. Bush 1st); Welfare Reform passed and HilaryCare didn't (thus saving money all around) and thank you Mr. Gingrich, and Bubba got his budget surplus --- and a hummer. But I digress.....

25-Point Bonus Question: Do you know which party wrote appropriation and
spending legislation for the majority of the 1990s? It was under
Republican-controlled Congress, (especially the House's John Kasich, R-Ohio via
McKees Rocks Pa.), that the nation’s Welfare system was overhauled and a
balanced budget plan was enacted. Funny, you hear about this all
the time but never see videotape of the passage in Congress. Imagine
that!

Do you really think in times like these, the middle class is going to fare any better? If you believe that, I've got some sub-prime mortgages I'd like to sell you.

News Flash! Media finds Minority it can make fun of

2009-02-25T15:44:00.000-08:00

Apparently, in a move responding to years of badgering by The Right on this subject, the news media has finally identified a Minority who is approved for lampooning and mockery.

Thus, throwing off decades of political correctness, the major news media today has broken new ground in advancing "equal treatment for all" and has answered one of Conservative America's longest-held criticisms of the Fourth Estate.

Elites in Mainstream Media Circles of New York, Washington and Hollywood point to this as a sign of how unbiased they truly are and how "colorblind" they are when it comes to "poking a bit of fun" at those in the news.

http://www.breitbart.tv/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/indi.jpg

Jindal faces tough audience

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AAB3E1CF-18FE-70B2-A8145F45055D2927

Mr. Jindal's Neighborhood
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/02/mr_jindals_neig.html

Wonkette
http://wonkette.com/406564/bobby-jindal-enrages-volcano-monitoring-people-by-mocking-volcano-monitoring-people

Daily Kos even brought out the "turban" word. (OK, they were doing satire. Ooooh, so they get extra points in the equal treatment column for that.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/25/142731/819/982/701767

Reserved for
Late Night, _______________________
The Tonight Show, ______________
and
Saturday Night Live ________________

Obama's Fat (Chance) Tuesday

2009-02-25T15:27:00.000-08:00

Our friend Governor Jindal missed a golden opportunity to paint a vivid picture of what’s going on by squandering the most obvious analogy about the events of the past two weeks:
Mardi Gras in his state! (photo credit: guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009)

How fitting is was it that the President’s expertly delivered but completely improbable speech about his Year One agenda came on “Fat Tuesday?”

The day that is synonymous with New Orleans Louisiana. The day when people WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER rationalize to themselves and others their dalliances in the extremes of personal lusts, vices and gluttony. This Fat Tuesday was indeed a crescendo of extravagance and revelry ostensively to “get it out of one’s system” prior to a period of self-restraint, reflection and penance from these same shortcomings.

Could one have described better what’s just happened with the “Stimulus Package?” A week of “tomorrow may never come,” “come on baby, there’s a bomb hanging over our heads,” “Of course, I’ll still respect you in the morning” extravagance in pet projects and unprecedented government over-reach.

Last night was the “revelry.” Today comes the call for self-restraint and penance.

Unfortunately this is going to last longer than a mere 40 days and a resurrection at the journey’s end is not a sure thing.

Oh say can you see

2009-02-25T15:18:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times last week:

Obama has new flag frenzy
White House embraces a backdrop of red, white and blue
Jennifer HarperWednesday, February 18, 2009

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/obamas-new-flag-frenzy/

Actually, the Wash Times is way behind the power curve here. This even happened BEFORE the coronation—uh—Inauguration.

Remember the “I denounce the Rev”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/

and Denver Stadium “Acceptance” speeches?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCrIeRkMhA

And most especially on Election Night in Chicago.
http://billytokyo.com/electionnight.html

Not to mention every press op as “Office of the President Elect.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/despite-bells-whistles-office-president-elect-holds-authority/

But, at least someone has put this in print. Finally.
And I think he was channeling Patton at the "Address to the Joint Session" speech last night.

Now hold on, Mr. President

2009-02-13T06:08:00.000-08:00

Oh, where have you gone, Sam Donaldson?

Been talkin and readin about the O-Man's first Presser this week. The infomercial we watched on Monday night was supposed to help The Mother of All Stimulus Packages get by the public, the majority of which is even now trying to score entry into the President's next Town Hall Meeting so that they can win the lottery for a new kitchen or car or the odd play-by-play annoncer gig.

One professional media trainer site that I visited had graded him the next day with "A's" and "B's." And I'm like, "Dudes, which press conference were you guys watching? (They are so eager not to offend while everyone's still basking in the afterglow.....)

A's and B's! The temerity!

Well like Bo Diddly told Dan Aykroyd in "Trading Places":

Louis: "This is a Rouchefoucauld. The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland, and water resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the '80s. Six thousand, nine hundred and fifty five dollars retail! ... (I)t tells time simultaneously in Monte Carlo, Beverly Hills, London, Paris, Rome, and Gstaad.

Bo: "In Philadelphia, it's worth 50 bucks."

Because the Official Circles & Arrows Rating system is gonna be brave and call it like it was: A "C" at best, but only because it was his first one.

Rationale/Scorecard:

Use of teleprompter for prepared remarks -- He's supposed to be the smartest guy ever in the Office, not a good sign right off the bat. He's more addicted to that teleprompter than he is to cigarettes. (In fact, THAT would have been a better question than some of the ones he got. See #11 below) SCORE: 1 Demerit
Looking presidential. SCORE: bonus points. He fits in that space already.
Use of pre-designated "reporter list" instead of calling on them. SCORE: another demerit. So what if W did the same? O couldn't swing a dead cat in that room without hitting a friendly reporter. If he's got such an incredible "command of the issues" he should be able to figure out a seating chart. Speaking of which,.....
Not knowing where the "chosen" reporters were seated. SCORE: demerit to the press office team AND the Prez.
Not calling on Helen Thomas first. SCORE: Bonus points!!! (Just kidding)
Stacking media pool with talk radio shill Ed Shultz and Huffington Post. SCORE: 1 demerit (and my how low have the legit media fallen!?)
Low number of questions. SCORE: 1 demerit
Excruciatingly long, rambling, plodding answers. SCORE: 2 X double demerits
Sticking to message. SCORE: 1 bonus point. Eventually did come back to "4 million jobs" a lot, but took WAY too long to get there.
Getting the timeframe right about what got us to this point. SCORE: bonus point
Getting the reason partially right about what got us here ("the actions of the past 8 years"). SCORE: 1/2 bonus point
Implying the wrong part of the equation got us here. SCORE: 5 demerits. Continued Drunken Sailor spending (not tax breaks) is what buildt up the deficit.
What was it, 10 minutes on the first Question; 2 questions in the first 1/2 hour? SCORE: 1 demerit
Not answering the questions posed to him. SCORE: 1 demerit.
Answering the Wash Post's softball A-Rod steroid question was embarrassing. SCORE: 1 demerit on general principle, and 2 demerits to TWP for wasting a Q on this while almost a TRILLION dollars is being debated. Note to Wash Post: next time, why not ask him "Boxers or Briefs?" (Idiots.)

He'll no doubt get better. Bubba sure did. But Monday was not what we've come to expect from the "new" Great Communicator.

Stand up and remove your caps, please

2009-02-09T13:48:00.000-08:00

Isn't it amazing:
The President can, with great populist fanfare, officially limit the pay of private sector employees because they received federal funds. But he can't go back to members of his own party -- in power -- and request that they cut out the pork from this alleged "Stimulus Package."

And nobody asks him about that.

Why stop a bank management? What capping other workers’ pay? Ah, then suddenly that won't be such a good idea.

Public School Teachers. Let's cap them (at a price that might not be as high as it is now) after all they haven't exactly been turning out "hybrids" lately. Let's REQUIRE THEM to achieve certain performance measures, like the Bank CEOs. How much have years of producing sub-standard products (illiterate adult grads who can't read their diplomas) from the government school system cost this economy and the country. And the results of poor education isn't covered by a one-time bailout--we pay for that year in and year out.

Or auto assembly workers. Let them work at a certain level, then when they become presidents of the auto company, they can have a big bonus too. Or how about their unions? Why haven't they been stocking away money for a day like today; to re-fi member mortgages; cover gaps where health insurance doesn't cover; or offer re-training into other jobs or "green economy" opportunities? Why sit around a trust your precious member's futures to your adversary -- Management?

What about Hollywood actors compared to stage hands, extras; recording artist verses back-up singers or studio musicians. Then suddenly that won't be such a good idea.

Funny, when someone opposes giving federal grants to artists who submerge crucifixes in urine, that’s hysterical religious fanaticism or the knee-jerk reactionism of the boorish unsophisticated common man that approaches infringement on the First Amendment and freedom of speech. But when someone is given a bonus for heading a complex, nationwide, multi-billion (private) financial institution operating in the free market, that’s suddenly too obscene for the public to stomach.

This ain't Chicago, Mr. President, it's DC.

2009-02-06T07:44:00.000-08:00

Kevin Costner's Elliot Ness explained to a guy ("The Untouchables") that he didn't understand how things are done because "... you're not from Chicago."

Seems Mr. O found out how things are done in THIS town by the weak, frail, dejected and deflated Republican party. Guess nobody likes to have things rammed down their throats especially when they're only recently had lip service paid to them.

Obama to reach out to Republicans on stimulus plan
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT01087920090129

Instead of “if we don’t pass this now, it might be a catastrophe,” the rush -- Wooo, I said the word! -- might be translated as, “If we don’t pass this now, I might not be popular enough to have another chance to play Santa Claus to this extent again.”

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/newsletter/dp-news_cwobama_0206feb06,0,3919799.story

“Obama also has increasingly sought to rebut Republican criticism of the plan.
He also increasingly has reminded the GOP who is in charge now — and on whose
watch the economy collapsed.” -- AP Story

Wasn't it Al Haig who once said, "According to the Constitution, I'm in charge here." Who's in charge NOW? The Democrats have been in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate since January, 2007. I must have missed their numerous attempts at across-the-board emergency budget cuts to reduce the out-of-control deficit.

"I found this deficit when I showed up," Obama said,
earning a standing ovation. "I found this national debt doubled, wrapped in
a big bow waiting for me when I stepped into the Oval Office." -- AP Story

So your solution is to add to it by another $1 Trillion? Do you really think you’ll be hailed as saving the country in the future by little bronze plaques that read: “On this spot in the year 2011, for part of the low, low price of $1 Trillion, President Barak Obama put a solar panel on the roof of this building and turned it into a "green" building. Enter ye, therefore, and be glad knowing that you are still paying for it.”

“We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies
that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our
economy into a tailspin." – AP Story

First of all, the economy hasn’t been in a tailspin for "the last 8 years." We've had 73 months of expansion, since the last recession, better than the average length of expansion post WWII (57 months). As a matter of fact, a lot of people did pretty well for a good portion of those 8 years and they all weren’t Rich Republicans, Corporate CEOs and Oil Companies. In fact, people WANT to get back to the economy when the Dow was at 14,000 and our 401Ks were increasing in value.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession really
started in December 2007. The NBER based their assessment on monthly statistics,
not quarterly. Jobs peaked in December of 2007 and have been declining ever
since then. Duration of recessions can change. The last expansion lasted 73
months (2002-2007) and prior expansion lasted 120 (1990s) months. The average
expansion since the end of World War II has lasted 57 months. The typical
postwar recession has lasted 10 months. According to financial economic
researchers this recession has the possibility of lasting longer. The good news
is that we have been in a recession longer than we have realized.
“He said tax cuts alone as a way to stimulate the economy
are "a losing formula." – AP Story

If tax cuts are so inept at helping things around, and so evil and so "costly" to provide (back to the people who paid the money in the first place....), then why offer one at all--especially aimed that Obama's/Democrats constituents?

I’ll tell you what’s a losing formula: taking money that NET current and future taxPAYERS contribute and giving it to non-US citizens (illegal and legal immigrants) and/or to people who essentially pay “zero” income taxes, making them the recipients of a so-called, “tax-cut.”

As the WSJ points out:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/05/unclear-how-stimulus-will-dole-out-tax-relief/

The so-called “Making Work Pay” credit is the
largest tax cut for individual taxpayers in the stimulus plan. It would cost
the government roughly $145 billion, out of the total $900 billion, 10-year
cost of the package.
Here’s how it works: individuals are eligible for a refundable credit of the lesser of $500 or 6.2% of earned income. In other words, most workers with more than $8,100 of annual earned income will get the full $500.

Notice they use the word, “workers” not "taxpayers." Not necessarily the same thing, and someone can pay income taxes without being LEGALLY in this country – and therefore eligible for the “MWP tax cut.” He defended how quickly the bill is moving through Congress and
belittled those who call the measure simply a spending bill: "What do you
think a stimulus is? That's the whole point!" --AP Story.

"How quickly the bill is going through Congress?" Sure. If you by-pass normal committee rules and don't listen to the minorty party on anything, things can move pretty fast.

Spending can be stimulating, sure, but for WHAT purposes? Spending for pork’s sake or to put money in people’s hands to spend on US goods and services or invest in businesses? How is “... tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction ...” going to do that? OR “$... 400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's...” – that’s nearly a half-billion dollars right there? How many jobs are going to be created there?

Still think there’s not more to cut? Go here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

“Buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees” (some of which are going to have to be “foreign made” because Detroit can’t produce that many cars that quickly based on the models they have now. Not to mention the useful life left in the fleet that we’ve already purchased.)
Or worse yet, funding to LEASE, not BUY “alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.”

And why would you want to spend $75 million for "smoking cessation activities” especially when the Prez just signed the $33 Billion SCHIP legislation covering only 4 million more children (kids up to the age of 30 of course) with healthcare, and using an increase in the FEDERAL CIGARETTE TAX TO PAY FOR IT?

... funded primarily by boosting the federal tax on
cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 a pack."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-kids-health-care_thufeb05,0,30310.story

Mr. O, dude, we’re going to need all the smokers we can get, not fewer.

And from the NYTimes, comes this:

"Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?th&emc=th

During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in
the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while
failing to generate a convincing recovery….

Economists tend to divide
into two camps on the question of Japan’s infrastructure spending: those, many
of them Americans like Mr. Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and
those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.

Snif, Snif -- Uh-oh, someone's pants on fire

2009-02-03T07:38:00.000-08:00

Well, lookey here.

Today's topic comes not from some "Right Wing Wacko" blog or “... that detestable windbag R*$# Limb%$#@!” No, today's big news comes from the New York Times and Associated Press, so it MUST be true., right?

Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test
Here's a great quote from that article:

“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major,
major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time,
and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly
why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can
believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

However, let's give credit where credit's due--this was on Page One of NYT, and it leads to a Editorial Page rebuff as well(!) I loved the asterisk line in that NYT article.

Even so, The Times STILL can't bring itself to bash The Anointed One as much as they would have, say.... oh GWB, when terms like "cronyism" and "morally corrupt" and "business as usual" were tossed around like they were free.

Start with the headline, which gently broaches how O's pledge "... faces an early test." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well isn't that special!" How about, "So Much for Pesky Campaign Promises" or "Obama: Skip that Whole No-Lobbyist Thang" or dare we say, "Read His Lips: No Ex-Lobbyists."

Here's another softy to set the stage:

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash
between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved
willing to compromise.

So here, the Times explains, The O man is "willing to compromise" his position (but not his integrity, of course) -- a very statesmanlike and presidential quality. Contrast that with, say, "abandons pledge when politically expedient" (a more direct assessment but not quite as nuanced).

Last week, the press was ready to carve the monument-worthy policy in granite; today's article sought to inject a little realism with the "awwww, everyone says that when they're new" ploy:

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his
determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to
reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of
governing.

(We could have used some more of that language during the campaign, old Girl.) But then -- in the very next sentence -- (and to mix my metaphors ;-) the Times suddenly grows a pair!

Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules
of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been
trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

The article later includes some very tough remembrances of O's campaign rhetoric, which bordered on Limbaughesque. The Times being Limbaughesque--that's something you'll need to read for yourself, just remember to keep reading where the good stuff is buried!

The AP also bravely addresses the subject, and with a semblance of a spine with this article,

PROMISES, PROMISES: No lobbyists at WH, except ...

So even if the press begins to snap out of its post-Coronation -- Sorry -- post-Inauguration stupor, they can't find watchdog groups to be quoted besmirching The Anointed One lest they be tarred and feathered like RHLIII recently for daring to say he hopes people see that the Emperor has no clothes.

Here's one from the AP article:

Maybe he shouldn't have promised so much, some open-government advocates say. They're willing to cut him some slack — for now.

And another:

"It was probably a mistake to come down so hard on lobbyists," said Melanie
Sloan, who is not shy about criticizing lobbyists or politicians as executive
director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "I think the
Obama folks' intentions were great here," she said. "But sometimes you realize
you can't actually govern on just what you campaigned on."

(Editor's note: If Sloan knew this wasn't possible, where was she and CREW when "He" campaigned on that statement? Where was the media in critically examining "the audacity" of this hope? Why did the press swallow the spoon-feed without questioning whether such a promise was even possible?)

Here's today's winner of "His heart was in the right place" award:

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 is one of Washington's best-known advocates of
more open and honest government. He called Obama's executive order
"unprecedented and almost revolutionary in nature" and "a direct attack on the
culture of Washington and the way business is done here."
"A few waivers will not undermine it," he said, provided they are justified and limited.

Yep, in 2 paragraphs, ol Fred goes from "unprecedented and almost revolutionary" to Oh, well, nice try.

[Editor's Note: This is from a (naturally) lefty group that can't wait to get more government funding of elections and eliminate private funding -- which would theoretically prohibit some future Right-handed candidate from doing what Obama did last November: raise a lot of cash, spent it as he wished, out-spent his hamstrung opponent (you know, the guy who DID accept public financing) by 3- or 4-to-1.]

Not only that, he actually expects The Prez to "fix the system" that he opted out of.

The best way to limit the influence of wealthy special interests, Wertheimer
said, is to increase public funding for presidential elections and restrict
the amount that private business can pump into campaigns and politics. That
could pave the way for tighter restrictions on influence-peddling in
Congress, he said.
Obama declined public financing for his campaign so he could raise and
spend hundreds of millions of dollars on his own. Some people saw that a virtual
death knell for campaign public financing, but Wertheimer said he believes Obama
will deliver on aides' promises to help "repair the system."

Now there's an example of going beyond "benefit of the doubt" to "suspension of disbelief."

But that is the topic for another day.

Relax & enjoy this while we have it!

Obama's Missed Opportunity

2009-01-30T10:26:00.000-08:00

Here's something you don't see everyday. President Obama missing an "opp" -- photo or otherwise.

Obama calls $18B in Wall Street bonuses 'shameful'

Not mincing words, Obama says $18B in bonuses to Wall Street bankers is 'shameful'

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-calls-18B-in-Wall-apf-14202672.html

I agree, it is shameful.
It is the height of irresponsibility.

The Stimulus Bill, I mean.

If you are going to (rightfully) come down on these idiot businesses for their unbridled greed (bonuses, corporate jets, redecorating offices, resort & spa trips), then why not call out all the House members who are using this "emergency" as a chance to belly up to the public trough for more pork projects? (How these numnuts rose to be Captains of Industry is beyond me. But I digress...)

Obama should have kicked the Stimulus bill back and told his OWN party:
"NO!-- this is NOT the time or the place to make a pork
"grab." Go back to the drawing board and bring out a bill that
includes only genuine stimulus (job-creation right now and/or tax breaks that
encourage investment in businesses and NOT bonuses or perks)."

If he would have done that, he would have earned the respect of ALL citizens (Blue and Red) but I dare say he would have especially made many more fans Republicans! This (fantasy) bitch-slap would have drawn lines in the sand (and you know who I mean) and given his rhetoric SO much more credence that his administration could have stored-up so much "consent of the governed" he could probably get past anything but Health care without much of a fight for the rest of the year.

The media would have sung his praise (even more than they are now if that's possible), his critics would have been thunder-struck and pretty much silenced on this issue, and the new bill would have FLOWN through the House with 99 percent of ALL representatives.

Obama not only missed a chance to really bring the country together by proving his pledge to "Change Washington" and make a statement about no more “business as usual,” he missed an early "Golden Opportunity" to make a statement that would have been remembered in US history as much as "Tear down this wall."

Too bad.

Rush to Judgment

2009-01-28T08:19:00.000-08:00

During the protests of the Iraq War, did Pres. Bush ever have the temerity to say, "I won" reelection and all these protesters be damned? Did Mr. Bush ever tell people publicly not to buy Dixie Chicks CDs, cancel their HBO because of Bill Maher’s constant disparagement, or refrain from movie-going to see any of Hollywood’s long litany of anti-war, anti-Bush drivel? No, in fact, he stated clearly time and again that such folks were within their rights to do so.

When actor/”activist” Sean Penn traveled to Iran and Venezuela and met with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, wasn’t that physical act by a private citizen more than just a simple statement of hoped-for failure of Bush’s foreign policy? When the VERY FIRST bill taken up by the new Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 was a measure to tie-up war funding, wasn’t that actual interference with a presidential directed policy and not merely a verbal broadside advocating its failure?

Did any of the legion of famous celebrity Bush critics, professional protesters or 527-groups ever give him a “honeymoon,” adopt a grace period, or embrace Mr. Bush’s two inaugural invitations to “come together, set aside partisan rancor and work for a more civil tone” in Washington?

So why now is what Rush said any different from the idiotic non sequitur, “I support the troops but I’m against the war?”

Suddenly, NOW a cause worth fighting for

2008-11-10T08:06:00.000-08:00

Leave it to the NY Times to come late to the party.

Good ‘ol Tom Friedman suggests in a recent column that since The Chosen One* has been elected, NOW would be a good time for our allies to pitch in and help with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand any foreigner who objected to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the
gross mishandling of the postwar. But surely everyone in the world has an
interest in helping Obama, who opposed the war, bring it to a decent and stable
end, especially now that there is a chance that Iraq could emerge as the first
democracy, albeit messy, in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Obama was
against how this Iraq war started, but he is going to be held responsible for
how it ends, so why don’t all our allies now offer whatever they can — money,
police, aid workers, troops, diplomatic support — to increase the odds of a
decent end in Iraq? Ditto Afghanistan. --Thomas Friedman, "Show Me the Money" NY Times, Nov. 9, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09friedman.html?em

Gosh, do ya think? Where have you been, Mr. Friedman?

Is it only NOW that this is such a good idea? Why, after all the billions of dollars of American tax money (not to mention the precious American soldiers’ lives) that you’ve relentlessly bemoaned for years, would the “… first democracy, albeit messy, in the heart of Arab-Muslim world…” be a GOOD thing? How many servicemen have died that perhaps might have lived had voices such as yours not been silent – more accurately, detracting – of this cause?

Here's why now: The heavy lifting is over, things are working and it’s safe.

This is one of many reasons this cause was worth supporting 5 years ago, only then it would have really mattered and saved SO much between and now. How many lives have been sacrificed (American and Iraqi)? How much treasury has been spent? How much ill-feeling has been fomented in the world thanks to you and other late-comers now deciding this might be a worthwhile thing?

It’s very bold of you to cherry-pick this convenient point in history to rightly point out those “free-riders on American power” and call for their assistance. The cost in lives and limbs have been paid by others you claim to have been concerned about; but their lives weren't enough to convince you to call for such an all-out effort THEN. The economic costs have been so great that you thought "surely" they would have voted Bush out long ago; but it still wasn't enough for you to send a rally cry THEN. The political price has been paid by Mr. Bush who unwaveringly held to his convictions, principles and his word (which the Left calls, stubbornness or closemindedness) even in the face of withering criticism, the disparagement of his personal reputation and the Presidential office, and even the detriment of his own political party’s election fortunes.

Oh, sorry. I just answered my own question.

O's campaign workers feel like 39% citizens

2008-11-06T08:36:00.000-08:00

Well, that didn't take long.

The Messiah's team needs to send out the VP-elect because these ungrateful people don’t sound very patriotic.

After all, they just got done working for Change. They just got done making a revolution. They just got done working for something they believed in.

Imagine, being upset because they weren’t getting “their money.”
Imagine, receiving less than they were “due.”
Imagine, “getting paid half of what I earned.”

They sound upset. They sound very inconvenienced. They sound very much taken advantage of. They sound, … well, … like 39% bracket taxpayers.

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280

Obama campaign workers angry over unpaid wages
Posted: Nov 5, 2008 03:38 PM EST

(and note how the comments function had to be turned off by the webhost because of the “large volume of emails” the story generated.)
Hmmmmmm.

Spend wisely email speaks volumes, but for wrong reasons

2008-03-21T07:47:00.000-07:00

Got an email forwarded to me today. You may have seen it:

Just about says it all..............

Spend wisely........... How to use the rebate.
As you may have heard the Bush Administration said each and every one of us would now get a nice rebate.
If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to
China. If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs, if we
purchase a computer it will all go to India, if we purchase fruit and
vegetables it will all go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala, if we
purchase a good car it will all go to Japan, if we purchase useless crap
it will all go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American
economy.
We need to keep that money here in America, so the only way to
keep that money here at home is to buy prostitutes, beer and visit
Indian casinos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.

Realizing this is just a funny viral email, I get the joke. OK, mildly amusing.

Unfortunately quips like this play well in e-mail forwards -- or populist stump speeches of some politicians -- in America these days. Thanks for that is due to the pathetic amount of basic economics (or common sense) that our citizens are exposed to these days through television news, most newspapers, and the majority of elementary, secondary and even post-secondary liberal arts educational institutions.

It is America’s bumper sticker mentality that often comes back to bite us. So let's use our amusing little email above as a "teachable moment." How many Americans of voting age can (or might be willing) to think this through? Where they even exposed to this in school?

It is true that a portion of the money you spend at your local Wal-Mart (or the Toyota dealership, or the Radio Shack, etc.) DOES INDEED go to recoup Wal-Mart's cost of purchasing the goods -- whatever they may be and wherever they were made.

However, a goodly portion goes to pay the salaries of the LOCAL Wal-Mart employees (or Toyota salesmen or mechanics, or Radio Shack salespeople, etc.) who checked you out, stocked the shelves, cleaned the building or managed the operation.

Those Wal-Mart employees pay income taxes, and probably local property taxes (if they own a home with their families) because they probably live in that area near the Wal-Mart. After paying taxes, those good local Wal-Mart people spend what’s left of their salaries on living expenses, and perhaps some for recreation, investing, saving for schooling or donating as they see fit.

Some of the purchase goes toward the Wal-Mart’s heating, lighting, air conditioning and water bills that are charged to them by American energy utilities (who pay corporate taxes) and who have Americans working for them near the power plant. The power company employees also pay income taxes and spend or save what’s left on living expenses, recreation, investing, saving for schooling or donating as they see fit. Some of that also goes to investors (like 401-Ks of individuals like you or me or grandparents, or mutual funds, or even wise union pension funds) as a return on their gamble to invest money on the power company in hopes for a return on that investment. Profits on which they will pay taxes again (sooner or later).

Some of the Wal-Mart money also goes to pay local (and perhaps state) business taxes, local property taxes on the land where the Wal-Mart sits, and for things like garbage collection, to locally based crew of refuse collection workers who must live in or around the Wal-Mart’s general area. These people do the same as the employees above when they get paid.

Some of the money goes to the LOCAL newspaper or radio station or TV station, to advertise all the great stuff you can get at Wal-Mart (for such a very low price). Those local media then pay similar business taxes as above, and pay their local employees who similarly spend as the people mentioned above. Plus, because of Wal-Mart’s advertising (and that from other tax-paying businesses), you are able to hear, read or watch – in most cases – a local weather report, or news report, or programming that you enjoy and that adds value to your daily life.

Not to mention the VERY happy union longshoremen being paid exhorbanent amounts for working the import docks in California, the Gulf Coast, Virginia, Baltimore or New York/New Jersey -- or the domestic union railhandlers and independent, private carrier or Teamster truck drivers who move Wal-Mart's goods to markets like yours.

Whatever’s left goes to the company’s headquarters (in Arkansas) where Wal-Mart employs a lot of people (who do similarly as above), spends a lot on national advertising, and pays lots of taxes (as above).

[Editor's Note: This was once called, "Trickle Down Economics" but since the capitalists and economists on the editorial page of the NY Times pooh-poohed this theory, we get little pearls of wisdom like the witty email that started off this rant.]

Regardless, all of the above activity happens this so that you can:

shop in a pleasing, clean, comfortable, well-lit environment
choose between several alternatives of varying attributes (variety) for most everything on your shopping list
find them in good quantity (rarely any scarcity or shortages; if so, you get a rain check)
shop when YOU want to shop (at 2 a.m. or lunchtime or 11 p.m.)
and buy it at such a low price.

The e-mail's original author didn't seem to think his rebate would amount to much.

(The worst part of the rebate is we (US Treasury) has to borrow against ourselves to provide it.) That being said, anyone who doesn’t want their $600 or $1,200 rebate in May can send theirs on to me. I’ll take it.

Might even go shopping at Wal-Mart.

I'll have to think about it.

2007-03-05T07:27:00.000-08:00

How much does it pay?
(To be read in the style of George Costanza)

Hey! Great bumping into you the other day!

Thanks for looking me up. I know, I know .... REALLY hard to track down these days. Lucky you caught me when you did.

Yeah, you could probably tell that the job offer caught me completely off guard. I mean-- Wow, whew -- didn't see that coming, ya know? Actually, I should be used to it by now, because .... it happens a lot. But it's just like they say: you think your prepared for it when it happens, but you really never are. Funny. Funny.

And thanks for not being a hard case and asking for a resume or references or anything. Because, after all, what business is that of potential employers, what my "employment history" has been like? Screw them. If they don't want me as I am -- they'll just have to do without me. And those references ... let's face it, they don't mean anything. All politics really.

Skills for the job? Well, you know I could do it; would be perfect for me actually. I mean, I'm out there anyway, so I DO know that market. And the salary IS $2.85 more than minimum wage right now. But, ... you see, ... I'm not too sure about the long-term viability of the position. That's the thing. It IS March already and tax day is April 17, and what then? You see, I'm not sure I'd be gaining anything, plus look at all I'd be giving up!

And, if I may, it's just, well, it's a bit on the confining side, wouldn't you say? A bit. You know, having to show up at a particular time, ... on a particular day. Standing there, waving at these people -- on their way to work or to the GAP or wherever. All caught up on their busy little lives. Yuppie scum, I hate 'em.

But you say the uniform is provided? Hummm. I DO look good in light green velvet. As an aside, you know, if it was socially acceptable, I'd drape myself in velvet.

And I'd have a dedicated territory, you say? Good, cause right now you wouldn't believe how nervy people are these days. Damn insensitive commuters. Pesky church "do-gooders." And insolent teenagers! Disrespectin' my space and, uh, .... Oh, sorry about that -- forgot about that little incident. That WAS your guy, wasnt' it. Whoopsie! Open mouth, insert foot. Geez, THAT's embarrassing.

Anywhooooo, ... Actually, despite what you might think, I'm really not that much of a "hard" salesperson. Hate that. I mean, other than that "I'm Homeless, will work for food" pitch I use now. Was never really comfortable with that.

But you obviously get it; so you understand. OK, I'm unemployed and have no prospects. Since I AM wearing this "homeless" sign, you can tell I have no home (which is, you know, mostly due to that unemployed and no prospects thing). But since you asked, I'm actually in a sort of "transitional period" right now, trying to balance my art and my career goals. I've got this "be-my-own-boss, work-for-my-self" sort of thing, going here. Don't know whether I'm ready to give all that up, you know?

But hey, uh, about your offer. Gonna, ... gonna need some time. Little time. And, uh, I'll have to check on some things I've got going and stuff. Really wasn't what you'd call, "l-o-o-k-i-n-g" looking, but it's aways flattering when it happens. So let me think about that.

I'll have my girl call your girl... we'll do lunch. Thanks again.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/305948_paynt05.html

Monday, March 5, 2007
Tax service owner is true to his
word
By SUSAN
PAYNTERP-I COLUMNIST

You wanted to know what happened after the sad tableau in last Monday's column.

Remember the homeless woman taunted and ridiculed by a
costumed sidewalk Uncle Sam hawking for Liberty Tax Service's Burien branch?

Did the franchise owner really track her down, apologize and
offer her the job of Lady Liberty as he said he would? Did she take it?

Yes and no.

Jean-Claude Valsaint, who owns the franchise with his wife,
Edith, scoured the streets the very next day. He found the woman with the
"Hungry" sign on a nearby sidewalk, and he stopped, parked and approached her.
"I told her who I am and how sorry I was about what happened to her,"
Valsaint told me late last week. "I pointed to another Lady Liberty waving
nearby so she'd be sure what I was talking about. I gave her my card and some
money and offered her the job."

The woman asked how much the gig paid. Valsaint told her eight
bucks an hour.

She said she'd think about it so he gave her his address and
said he'd keep the offer open. He's still waiting and says he won't give up.
He'll go to talk to her again. "I was a little disappointed that she wasn't more
eager to work, but I felt sorry that this guy did this to her."

Photo: Gilbert W. Arias / P-I
Liberty Tax Service franchise
owner Jean-Claude Valsaint helps Maria Del Villar Lopez with her Lady Liberty
costume at his office in Burien. A homeless woman he offered a job to has yet to
take his offer.

Then again, perhaps not.

2007-02-05T07:08:00.000-08:00

One thing I'll say for Lefties, they are determined.

When they think they really have something that works, they'll ride that horse till its dead--no matter how far-fetched. (Sorry, the animal cruelty reference is by my suggestion) .

In this case: the war in Iraq. (Note that its not "the war against Terror," probably because that didn't test as well in focus groups. Who could, after all, be against a war against terror; no, it's easier to remind people about where we currently are fighting, not what we're fighting against. But I digress....)

Today, our Lefty of choice is Staurt Elliott, the New York Times’ Marketing & Advertising columnist. Although -- perhaps -- a bit detatched from the World News or Op-Ed page, nonetheless he IS eminently qualified as a serious war critic given this particular milieu (isn't he?).

[I promised myself no references to the Seinfeld episode where Elaine attempts to re-name her current boyfriend because of its similarity to an infamous serial killer. I promised not to recall her taunting voice as she angrily rejected “Stuart” as a possible replacement name. Guess I just broke that promise. Again, I digress…]

In the pages of today’s NEW YORK TIMES:

"Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/business/media/05adcol.html?th&emc=th

Perhaps. Let's do read more, shall we?

In this story, gentle readers, we find the renowned observer of world events and geo-political commentator, Mr. Elliott, opining that Mr. Bush’s folly is so grievous, and the acceptance of this fact so pervasive throughout our collective consciousness that it is even coming through in our advertising. Gasp! And if that indignity wasn’t enough, Mr. Elliott goes on to lay out his case for the striking connection between American society’s angst, dissatisfaction, and overall pissy attitude with the “Iraq war” and of all things sacred – Super Bowl advertising!

Gasp, again!

(Stay with me on this.)

Mr. Elliott rapier-sharp perception instinctively saw through the fatalism, violence and foreboding present at the very core of Sunday’s collection of light beer, job-finding web sites, overnight delivery, and erectile dysfunction and soft drink ads. He observed that such negative energy, apparently reflecting the feeling of our national body politic, “… linger(s) just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials …” but that “often came across as cruel or callous.”
As proof, Mr. Elliott proposes this example:

“For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch,
one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at
his opponent’s head.”

Why, any fool should surely see the connection, except of course Rummy or Condi. It’s a plain as the nose on your face. (Editor’s note: Dripping sarcasm here.)

But Mr. Elliott still holds out a small bit of hope for those of us that 2008 is just a few years away…..

"Those who wish the last four years of history had never happened could find
solace in several commercials that used the device of ending an awful tale by
revealing it was only a dream."

Yeah. And they probably used permanent ink putting those spots on that white dog in that Bud commercial, too.

Damn this war!

Conservatives are more generous. Like I been tellin ya ....

2006-11-17T14:02:00.000-08:00

Read an interesting news story today:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More
Generous
By Frank Brieaddy Religion News
Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about
to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him
nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in
the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious
conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of
charitable activities, irrespective of income.

This begins to address what I’ve always wondered about “advocacy” groups, causes or protestors. In TOS episode of Star Trek (Mirror, Mirror), a time-pressed Capt. Kirk hurriedly tries to convince the Alternative Universe Mr. Spock to start an overthrow immediately rather than wait hundreds of years for it to happen inevitably. "The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock."

Kirk's point was why waste time? Why wait for somebody else to do it? Kirk's point is instructive here to the present-day, "real" Alternative Universe (Lefties).

Which is easier, to continually –year-after-year-after-year – lobby, beg, moan, plead for funding from someone else or rally those that think as you do to address the problem as you see it? Then you’ll not run the risk of mean, nasty conservatives cutting budgets or blocking your initiatives.

Instead of going to all the trouble to organize opposition, staging events, funding lobbying campaigns, to get at public money, why not take collections, donate funds or profits from any number of revenue generating mechanisms known in this world and raise all the money you want (or can) and do with it what you want—like help the cause you believe in.

Why wait? Why wait for something to come from the public trough? Why “wait until next election”? Why “wait until we take back control….” Why wait “until we overcome”? If its so important, and if you (believe) you’re getting the run-around or somebody is stopping your funding—why wait? Go out and do it yourself. Foil their evil plot by not waiting for them to stop, give up or go away.

Want to stop forests from being harvested for lumber? Buy them off the people who own them & let them grow all you want. (And pay taxes on the land, or give it to a non-profit or charity.)

Want to pay teachers more? Take a collection from Hollywood, or The Village, or at this year’s Sundance – or better yet, whatever you were going to spend on Sundance only spend a fourth, at most a half – and spend those funds on teacher bonuses. I don’t think there’s any regulation that prohibits public school teachers from receiving gifts or grants or “bonues” from independent sources, is there? If it’s important enough for you to march in the streets hoping to get funding for “some day”, why isn’t it important enough for you to do something about it right now?

Want to help the homeless? Instead of teaching them how to safely eat out of garbage bins (True: Google "Dumpster Dining" and see what you come up with), how about the next time you sell that $20 million home in the Hollywood Hills, how about endowing a homeless shelter in your name and get a 2.000 sq.ft. single family house in the 'Burbs like the rest of us.

Think of all the money that's wasted on organizing plans to get grubby hands on someone else's money! How stupid is that?

Cut out the wasted time, energy and MONEY that’s aimed at getting grubby hands on the Public’s time, energy and money. Do something TODAY that really and actually helps those poor underserved constituents that you claim to speak for or serve. Don’t make them languish in their horrible conditions another day longer—do it yourself or get others who you can convince to help you.

And do it today. I can hardly wait.

2006-11-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

How can $4 prescriptions be a bad thing? Just wait.

In case you missed it in the run-up to the midterm elections, a tremendous example of the consumer benefits of free market enterprise is at hand. While it’s possible that you may NOT have heard about it, a better guess is that most folks simply haven’t heard ENOUGH news about it -- in sufficient amounts and in several formats and venues -- for it to truly register.

Lukewarm news reports have been circulating since September about one of the most profound events in recent memory regarding national healthcare debate: Wal-mart has entered the generic drug supply business.
http://www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4464.aspx

Almost immediately, competitors joined the fray, bringing not only more outlets for such products, but C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N to Wal-Mart’s gambit.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-09-21-walmart-drugs_x.htm

The reason you haven’t heard more about it is that opponents of the free market, American consumerism, and the usual lineup of self-appointed Big Government healthcare advocacy groups, special interests and the usual cabal of Wal-Mart haters (labor unions, Democrats, AARP, etc.), haven’t yet devised a response. But rest assured, after the distraction of the election is over and there’s more time to devise a campaign against it, you’ll start seeing more news coverage.

Then it will be a bad thing.

Take for example, the whole Medicare Part D Coverage advocated by President Bush and signed into law. Remember how much effort was put into defeating it (which didn’t work)?

Why would anybody who proports to be a big advocate of such entitlements work against something like this? OK, not to your liking... change it or add to it (if you can) later. Is it not important that at least some of our Medicare recipients get additional coverage? Must we wait until all get blanket coverage or nothing until then?

Sounds like either someone's afraid the pricetag will get noticed by somebody.

Recall all the media coverage about the program’s deficiencies, its registration complexities and confusion, and the looming reasons why recipients should think twice about signing up for it?
Since when has the Party of FDR or the news media EVER seen an entitlement program that they DIDN’T like?

This is the first one that I can remember EVER in my lifetime. (I’m in my 40s) Even though it helps an additional amount of people who aren’t already receiving benefits, if it’s not totally 100% free healthcare, it’s not a good thing. Wouldn’t you think that if this party really cared about people, if the program helped even one old person with their drugs, that the Dems would support it?

I guess the message is if the Donkeys didn’t give it to you, it’s not a good thing.

The pre-election Democrat Party funded ad campaign run in selected tightly contested districts about the poor old lady who attempts to pay for her prescriptions only to be informed by the kindly and caring pharmacist that she’s fallen into the dreaded gap of “Medicare Part D coverage.” HORRORS!

And what’s worse, “President Bush and his allies” made sure that Congress couldn’t negotiate with “Big Drug Companies” for lower costs. What can the old woman do? “There’s nothing you can do about it, . . . except vote for change in November.”

Nowhere is it mentioned, of course, that this little bennie alone will cost taxpayers $400 Billion (with a B) over 10 years. Still Not Enough.

Doensn't mention that without Medicare Part D she wouldn’t have had the prescription coverage in the first place and whatever she’s saved to date is money she didn’t have to spend.
Still Not Enough.

You see? $4 perscriptions aren't a very good thing after all.

Madonna and Child

2006-10-25T08:16:00.000-07:00

How gracious. How generous. How touching.

How sad.

It's really a Hobson's Choice to live a life of wealth and privilege among strangers or be third-world poor but live with people of you heritage and perhaps even blood relatives who love you --or at least care for you -- unconditionally?

Is it better to be "a nobody" living in anonymity but not realizing how poor you are than to be a tabloid media curiosity, hounded by the paparazzi for the rest of your life, and surrounded by other spoiled celebrity rich kids in a culture of low morals and the temptations of all sorts of excess (drugs, alcohol, etc.)?

Was the child richer in terms of what really matters in life -- a sense of place, living with your own kind, finding your own destiny -- than what he'll inherit by being "David Richey?"

Is she really doing him that much of a favor? Who's to say, as Madonna did say, that he would "never have a life" if she had not denighed to rescues the boy from that orphanage? Who's to say that he COULDN'T rise from those depths on his own someday, perhaps to be a great leader of his own people or country? Maybe he could work and study hard and be a brilliant scholar or scientist or industrialist or artist, etc.

I think its just another example of something rich and powerful celebrities do to appear that "they care." Even if she spent eight days visiting orphanages supported by her charity. Its' my impression is that the child is just Madonna's "flavor of the month." Like she needed to get herself one of those to keep up with the Joneses, or in this case the Pitts. Right up there with the trendy designer dogs now all the rage in Hollywood and on 5th Avenue.

This child's life won't be the bed of roses most think it will be. True, the baby won't grow up in the poverty he apparently was born into, but what about the love of a family? He won the lottery in that sense.

Who believes Madonna is actually going to raise the child? She won't--her nannies and personal assistants and "staff" will do most of the work and probably most of the parenting. Just look at the news coverage so far--the baby was being carried through the airport by one of Madonna's "entourage." It would be a slight improvement if the child was completely parentless or totally abandoned -- an orphan -- but its still sad.

What good will it do? Oh, brother.

2006-06-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

The president’s critics crack me up. They can't bring themselves to admit even the death of Terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a good thing.

For how long have we heard critics say, "What progress are we making?" "Bin Laden is still loose. Zarqawi is still loose." "Bombings are still happening....etc."

(As if the two dead Hussein brothers, Saddam caught in a rat hole and in jail for genocide, two overwhelmingly successful free & fair elections, ratification of a democratic-style constitution, seating of a government and selection of a prime minister weren't enough "progress".)

Well, here is good news--demonstrated progress. He was here yesterday, he's not around today. That's good.

But the echo of the bombs hasn't yet faded, and what do we hear & see on CNN? "Will Zarqawi's death even mean anything?"

The answer is, YES, all these things DO matter, especially for all those who are so concerned about “bringing the troops home."

If Zarqawi’s not around to plan one more suicide attack or engineer one more IED, isn't that a good thing?

If people want the troops home, stop aiding & abetting the enemy (who watch the news more than most Americans) by giving them encouragement that we'll turn tail and run when things get difficult.

These things ARE progress because once done, it's one less thing that NEEDS to be done. And that is truely what's going to bring the troops home.

This is ESPECIALLY good news if -- IF -- what CNN and others are reporting is true--that Zarqawi was "ratted-on" by someone in his own organization! If that doesn't point to hope & signs of break-down among the terrorists, what does?

Critics need to take a chill. Give W his moment. Enjoy an American victory as an American instead of joining the chorus of our enemies. (Yes, enemies. The people killing & maiming all those soldiers critics are supposedly so concerned about AREN'T Cheney, Rummy, and W –they are people like Zarqawi.)

To those critics, I say: Stop being a bunch of bitter, obstinate critics. Be happy for the country that this guy won't be killing anyone again. You can go back to hating George Bush again tomorrow, because that’s what you really are concerned about anyway.

"Tolerance for me but not for thee."

2006-03-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

Ever notice how the most intolerant tend to be those who cry "free-speech" only when it comes to their point of view?

More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."

SF Chronicle, 3/25/06

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/MNG6OHU6RR1.DTL

I find it ironic that SF's Board of Supervisors produced an official document denouncing a particular group for exercising their right to peaceful assembly and free speech.

A city that supposedly prides itself for embracing diversity reverts to judgmental (and childish) name-calling such as "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting."

In "America's most tolerant and progressive city" about the ONLY thing that draws a governmental condemnation and is categorized as "provocation" is 25,000 youths celebrating their free observance of religious beliefs, and finding solutions to "the spread of sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide..."

I guess it's "tolerance only for me and not for thee."

What's a good liberal to do?

2005-08-25T09:04:00.000-07:00

Lemme see if I can sort this out….

People who care about endangered sea turtles apparently think that without sexy babes, macho Mexican men won’t pay attention to attempts to stamp out illegal trafficking in their eggs.

But we can’t “stereotype” Mexican men as being “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individual, because that would be offensive.

But, how can it be offensive if Mexico is making “public policies the government is promoting in terms of gender issues." And I guess the problem is “real” or else why would the “government” be taking such steps and promoting such policies?

But another problem is that using sexy babes detracts from all the progress women have made getting “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individuals to stop thinking of them as sex objects. So they are not against saving turtle eggs, just against how the message is being communicated.

But, only machismo–addicted, one-track-mind individuals are driving the black market for these eggs, which they think will keep them or make them even more “machismo”–addicted, one-track-mind individuals. So, given that they pretty much ignore laws, jail time, fines, and social disdain for gobbling these eggs, unless they hear the message from objects that they desire, (i.e. the sexy babes), they’re pretty much gonna keep the demand up for them.

So, without sexy babes, sea turtles are gonna die.

Well at least they are fetuses so they won't feel any pain.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_TURTLE_CONTROVERSY?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-08-23-15-51-09

What is a good Liberal to do?

Damn that George W. Bush’s evil and illegal war in Iraq! If that was over, everything would be fine in the world.

"Hey, hey, hey, hey. How many people died today"

2005-05-18T14:32:00.000-07:00

Ok, Newsweek. (and your parent, Wash. Post). We we subjected to those idiotic, childish "Hey, hey, what'ya say..." chants from the anti-war drones over the past year. Will the newsweekly become the new fodder for these whines?

Naw, probably not.

Will dirty, dingy, unbathed students and Hippie throwback wannabes hold up signs across the street from Newsweek's offices, or stage sit-ins in the corporate lobby.

Doubt it.

But if it was any other type of American company that put out such a defective product, you can be the worldwide commie, peacenik army would be out in force.

If Newsweek made widgets, or SUV tires, or chemicals, or bowls of chilli, it would be the target of some trial lawyer somewhere. And the lawsuits would follow. And the jury verdicts would be requested. And the Lawyers would take their 30% to 50%.

Wonder what the press would do if they had to live by the same standards that most businesses had to endure when it comes to "product liability."

Teddy's Timing About as Bad as His Ramblings

2005-04-26T13:50:00.000-07:00

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy took a certain amount of glee in "celebrating" an anniversary that most Americans would rather forget or at least move on from. (Wonder if the media will speculate on how he's trying to capitalize on this the way they slammed conservatives for trying to leverage the Terri Schiavo situation?)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL

http://www.drudgereport.com/matttd.htm

The senior senator from Massachusetts took the occasion of one of the more regrettable -- and embarrassing -- episodes in US military history to try to score some political points against his hated president. (You know, the one who naively named an education bill in honor of Mr. Kennedy in his first term).

In my opinion, either he's back on the bottle or he should consider hitting it again. Because if his writing is an example of a sober, lucid teatoller he should stick to the fundraising circuit.

Anyway, his timing couldn't come at a worse time to basically disprove the major blatherings of his missive today. Somewhere between his whining about how "nobody likes us anymore" and how hopeless and inadequate the Administration's policies have been in the Middle East, come these headlines:

Cleric convicted of promoting war against U.S.
D.C.-area
Muslim urged followers to help Taliban
Ali al-Timimi, 41, was convicted on all 10 counts of an indictment brought in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/26/cleric.trial/index.html

Sources: U.S. nearly catches al-Zarqawi
Vehicle chase nets bin Laden
lieutenant instead
The sourceWASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. troops nearly captured wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi earlier this year in Iraq -- and instead netted a trusted lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, sources said Monday.
The sources said it's a significant find -- a clear indication that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden are in two-way communications and that bin Laden couriers are able to get into Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian-born terrorist whose group has claimed responsibility for numerous car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.zarqawi/index.html

Last Syrian troops leave Lebanon
BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The last Syrian soldiers have left Lebanon, surrendering to international and Lebanese popular demands and ending its 29-year military presence in its smaller neighbor.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/lebanon/index.html

Abbas Names Tough New Palestinian Security Chief

GAZA (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday named a tough new
commander for Palestinian internal security who helped lead a 1990s crackdown on
Islamic militants, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050426/wl_nm/mideast_palestinians_dc&sid=84439559

U.S. Likely to Clear GIs in Iraq Shooting

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&amp;amp;ncid=718&e=5&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_italy_iraq

Wash Post "outs" Bill Moyers as a liberal commentator? Who Knew?!

2005-04-22T11:19:00.000-07:00

So, after all this time arguing that PBS wasn't "slanted" and certainly not "biased" toward the Liberal side of the fence, comes today's Washington Post (of all places):

"PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas" (By Paul Farhi, WP Staff Writer Friday, April 22, 2005; Page C01)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html

Poor Bill Moyers (for years host of the right-down-the-middle news magazine, NOW) outed as a Lib right there on Page C-1. "Liberal commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations."

It was in the Wash Post, so it MUST be true.

Then comes the sequence showing how -- can you believe it -- those pesky "conservative" influences seem to be takin' over the place. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting has now a "majority" of members on the 8-person board appointed by -- guess who: W, the latest two-term president who got to appoint members to the 6-year posts.

I guess it was OK that another two-term president was able to make his appointments unnoticed, but nobody in the media checked their party affiliation cards. Until now. (Why should they, they were Democrats and they're OK. They would never think to bring an "agenda" with them, would they?)

And do you know what those mean, rabid, power-gorged rascals did? Well hold onto your hats:
"In negotiations with PBS earlier this year, the corporation also
insisted, for the first time, on tying new funding to an agreement that would
commit the network to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of its programs
-- an idea that PBS's general counsel described in an internal memo as amounting
to "government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially
in violation of the First Amendment." "

And then there's this choice little passage:

Late last week, CPB's board declined to renew the contract of its chief
executive, Kathleen Cox, a veteran administrator at the agency. She was replaced
by Ken Ferree, a Republican who had been a top adviser to Michael Powell, the
former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Ferree appointment
followed the dismissals or departures in recent months of at least three other
senior CPB officials, all of whom had Democratic (emphasis
added) affiliations.
"We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said
there wasn't concern here," said one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on
anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget. "When you
put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge." (italics
added)

Well. I suppose anything going against that tidy grain of Liberalism apparently in place over at CPB and PBS WOULD appear as a "pattern" developing.

And it begs the question: are these unnamed sources --and the reporter by extension -- assuming that the changes being introduced by a "conservative"/Republican administration would automatically be problematic, less-reputable, or otherwise "sinister" just because they are from such an administration?

And if such changes are to be open to such loaded assumptions, where was the Wash Post asking questions when previous administrations were making similar appointments?

Holy Smokes!

2005-04-20T08:30:00.000-07:00

Well, it didn't take long. This new pope has been christened a "homophobe" before he's even christened pope.

The over-the-top lefties are already screaming from the rafters before the (white) smoke has cleared.

Thought this article was interesting on the take of the AIDS and alternative lifestyle advocates.

"AIDS groups, gay activists dismayed over new pope"
--Yahoo! Health news/AFP/April 20, 2005

First, that Pope Benedict is a "homophobe" already, "more strict than Pope John Paul."

"The former positions taken by the Catholic Church had already prevented
the use of condoms and helped the spread of AIDS," said Franco Grillini, a gay
left-wing Italian lawmaker who is the honorary president of the gay rights group
Arcigay.

Note that phrase: The Church's positions "... helped the spread of AIDS ..." How does the Church's position (prohibiting condom use by the faithful) was actually HELPING the spread of this (mainly) sexually transmitted disease? If two people are married (which, in the eyes of the Church, are the only people supposed to be engaging in sex) and are not breaking other commandments (i.e. sixth commandment) and are being FAITHFUL to each other, the FAITHFUL are really not in a lot of danger. The odd (and dramatically ever-decreasing) infected blood transfusion or organ donation notwithstanding, irresponsible (prohibited) sex is the ONLY way to contract the disease.

The Church has been advocating abstinence and fidelity to the FAITHFUL for over 2,000 years (and Old Testament traditions well before that). What's so NEW about what this pope is advocating?

How can one help SPREAD a sexually transmitted disease if your position is NOT TO CONDONE the SEX and to active advocate the opposite?

The position is perfectly understandable -- IF -- one see the Church's perspective and steps away from the alternative (that everyone is doing it/going to do it anyway). Why must the onus for change be on the Church and NOT on the part of the un-churched (a.k.a. "Unfaithful"). Why is it so easy to advocate that the CHURCH must change, and not even consider changing the ways of permissive SOCIETY and mortal FASHION?

Continuing:

"This (new) pope has been violently homophobic," he (Grillini) told AFP by
telephone from Bologna following the election of the arch-conservative
German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger..."

Since when do we have only two options: Agree with me or be labeled "a -phobe" (that you fear me). What ever happened to Agree or Disagree, minus the "fear". Can't you have agreement without association or disagreement without animosity? Why should I accept only the "Agree" or "Fear" options? "Jews" and "Christians" don't always agree, but does each -- as a general rule -- "fear" the other?

This line made me laugh:

"He (Grillini) said the Church's opposition to condom use was practically
set in stone, ..."

Yeah, as a matter of fact, it IS set in stone. You wonder if they realize what they're saying.

Finally, there's this (below) which takes the cake because it comes from a "man of the cloth":

In South Africa, where some 25 million Africans are living with HIV and AIDS,
Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed hope that "the whole question of
disease, HIV/AIDS particularly," would be addressed by the new pontiff, who
should also "look again at the prohibition that the Church has placed on
condoms."

If people didn't respect their faith, the instructions of their Church leaders and live by the teachings of the Church regarding extramarital sex (and by extension, drug use), what makes them so likely to suddenly and whole-heartedly embrace condom use so as not to spread infected?

After all, the best educated, most affluent, most savvy, and most health-accessable "at-risk" population in the world (Western homosexuals, IV drug users) haven't learned that lesson after 25 years.

It appears that few in the Human Race have learned all that much in the thousands of years we've been walking around here.

Thank you Mr. President (Clinton)

2005-04-18T08:06:00.000-07:00

Ah, yes. The lasting legacy of this WJC. Following in the footsteps of FDR, JFK, Jimmie ("lust in my heart") in this rich tradition. Even these guys had time & guts to stand up to Nazis, The Commies, and well, I guess we'll stop there.

If we ever need to consider the significant impact of this 1990s-era president, you need look no farther than below.

Or to look at it another way, Bubba had the morals of a teenager.

Oral sex safe and not really sex, say U.S. teens

CHICAGO (Reuters) - One in five U.S. teenagers say they have engaged in oral
sex, an activity that some adolescents view as not sex at all and certainly less
risky than intercourse, according to a report.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050404/80/fflsd.html

Why can't America be more like Europe?

2005-04-18T07:52:00.000-07:00

Ah, yes. Why doesn’t America be more like Europe?
Man, you know it’s bad when the BBC even reports this type of news.

(Sounds like they need a couple more weeks of mandatory, employer-funded vacation.) I guess they are starting to figure out that SOMEBODY has to PAY for all this stuff. And when people aren't working, they don't collect taxes. W/o taxes, you either borrow more against yourself (like we do in the good ol USA) or the BBC writes a story like these.

Germany's new 'great depression'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4456087.stm

"Record numbers of Germans are suffering from depression and other mental
illnesses, a new report says."

What!!!!!???? Cut HEALTHCARE? And PENSIONS!!!???
My, those evil Republicans are everywhere!!! How did W and Carl Rove get this passed?

Germany's jobless face tough choices
Analysis By Ben Richardson BBC News business reporter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4228849.stm

“A key factor in this growing sense of unease has been attempts by Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder's government to reform Germany's inflexible labour market, and
cut state spending on healthcare and pensions.”

Commies: They haven't gone anywhere

2005-03-21T08:59:00.000-08:00

FYI. From a friend visiting England over the weekend.

See, they Commies didnt go anywhere.
After the Wall fell, most folks said well, thats that.
Only problem was, the Commies didnt quit; they just decided to hide in plain sight and go legit (sort of). In a classic Judo technique (use the opponents superior size/strength against him) they decided to use the Wests own openness/liberty against us.

Theyre still out there, masquerading as Green people or anti-war advocates. This explains why you can get thousands (sometimes hundreds of) people out in a protest. Thats how many Commies are still out there in the peace/anti-war community, in the environmental movement, in Socialist-leaning governments, in world bodies like the UN, The World Court.

Now, if thats what you want your other US national party to be associated with and caring about, then youve got other problems.....

Hi there,
You know, during my work, I do get a chance to get out every now
and then. During my current extended stay in London, I'd planned to get a chance
to visit a museum or two, watch the changing of the guard, etc. And I stumbled
onto a "party..." You'll know what I'm talking about if were paying attention to
the news this past Saturday and Sunday.
I hope this note finds you
well.
Sorry for the size of the files.
Cheers,
Ken

Top 10 observations on Rathergate

2005-03-18T06:37:00.001-08:00

"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast.
"I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to
discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept
that."
....
But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic
competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead
of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and
not true about the
president's military service, they ask me questions:
'How do
you know this and
that about the documents?' "

—Quotes from
Howard Kurtz column,
Sept. 16, 2004

Ah, but it was always about you, Danno.

As I clean out my old, sent email files, I've culled some reflections on the "downfall" a week after Dan said goodbye.

Didn't you just love how, even if the documents were forged, the accuser demanded the subject still be addressed? Those bogus documents provided the impetus for the whole story to begin with.
If I were GWB – who HAD already addressed this subject at least one campaign before this past one – I wouldn’t respond either to a “When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” line of questioning.
What was really scary was that few people seemed to equate this episode as they would any other "Big Business corruption" or "media empire that has too much power" (read: Murdoch) story. To ME this was Manchurian Candidate scary. Think about it: a single, national news organization (which really answers to no one directly in the citizenry) has the power and the audacity to run a story that is so badly flawed and one that could substantially affect the outcome of a US presidential election! That Dan/CBS had the FREEDOM to do so is an amazing "only in America" quality that we on one hand should marvel about, while at the same time chill to the bone how close it was to causing a "bloodless coup."
And THEN to completely get off with basically a pass (from others in The Press, not to mention the Government, courts, ACLU, and the populace in general), with only "a thorough internal investigation." ?!?! As Bob Dole said, "Where's the outrage!?" over that? People on both sides of the aisle should think about that one.
How could an alledged “respected” news operation run a story so one-sided that any J-School student knows better to research? How can an unbiased reporter NOT at least talk to the family of the man who allegedly wrote the documents? CBS didn't even give them the 'ol 5:01 p.m. phone call trick: "We're running this story tonight and wanted to give you a chance to respond." Even if they didn’t corroborate what you suspect, at least they would give you pause to “redouble” your efforts to make sure it’s right. Why not take the time to ensure it is right?
But we forget, Dan had to rush this out because Kitty Kelly --remember her?-- was scheduled on NBC the next week. Maybe CBS should have waited until Hans Blix had more thoroughly searched for these weapons before attempting their own “shock and awe.”
Looking back, this should be a textbook example why Campaign Finance Reform is a bad idea: it leaves the voting public at the mercy of a single media strata (“the News Media”) to say -- without real accountability -- substantially whatever it wants to. Worry about defamation? So what--the election wouldn't be postponed or cancelled until after the media and the aggrieved party would go to court. The damage would be done and a US Presidential Election you can't have a "do-over" because some news outlet "made mistakes in rush to get the story" or "to beat a deadline" or "scoop the competitor." Thank goodness for blogs!
Campaign Finance Laws, as this issue could demonstrate, the danger in potentially restraining or outright preventing a candidate's options to defend him/herself without going through that same media. Who would THEN control the power over what the public heard or saw?
What Dan missed at the time (or decided not to cover) and what I found truly ironic (actually laughable) was the hyprocacy. Of all political topics -- given recent presidential histories and the softball, sympathetic and "blind eye" he turned during the 1990s-- Dan rekindled old stories that didn't gain traction the first go-round. Seemingly without any attempt to be "balanced", Dan questioned the "honesty" and the "character" of W to be president but never even mentioned a NYTimes best selling book or the charges of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. How could the media critics, or CBS' investigation panel not bring that up?
While simultaneously featuring pictures of dead Americans on his news cast as a tribute to their ultimate sacrifice (some even National Guard fatalities) Dan coasted aspersions upon National Guard service by saying "W" coasted through Vietnam by serving in this capacity. How does that NOT constitute a disservice to the Guard troops deployed today that Dan seemed to care so much about when they were dying in Iraq.

Regardless of what Dan may have thought about Bush's time served, W certain has more legit standing in the role of Commander in Chief than, say, another recent president (who "loathed the military") and who "sent other people's children in harm's way." I guess Mogadishu didn't ring a bell. Somehow the president who did that was found worthy to serve in this capacity for 8 years and Dan didn't spend a fraction of the time pursing that Vietnam-era story. Talk about giving someone a pass....

OK. Would you believe vengeance for trying to kill his father?

2005-03-18T06:13:00.000-08:00

News Item: Source: AP 3/18/05
Oil prices briefly hit a new high above
$57 a barrel
Thursday and analysts said the recent rally appears to have
steam left even
after OPEC's president said the group may authorize pumping
an extra half-million barrels a day. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices_71
======================================
Hmmmm. I guess the whole "mind-numbed robotic" recitation of the toe-tapping Lefty mantras like, “No War for Cheap Oil" and "No Blood for Oil" have to be scratched off the list.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

Thank you, President Carter

2005-02-11T11:09:00.000-08:00

Gosh, thanks for all that swell help you provided to avoid such a situation, Mr. President.
Take a look at these nuggets and tell me who we really have to thank for today's wonderful news on N. Korea's nukes.

Here’s a good NewsMax piece that pretty much sums up the problem.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

Check out this Fact Sheet from the Center for Defense Information. Pretty straightforward.
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

On Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush
disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium
for use in nuclear weapons. With its admission, North Korea, also known as the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, abrogated the Agreed Framework
signed in 1994 with United States, under which the North Koreans agreed to
freeze their nuclear weapons program.
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1444.htm

This op-ed originally appeared in the Sept. 2, 2003, edition of USA TODAY.

We face the strong possibility of another Korean war, with potentially
devastating consequences, so the endangered multilateral talks in Beijing are of
paramount importance. It is vital that some accommodation be reached between
Pyongyang and Washington.

Another good post from a recent college grad that fortunately didn't get brainwashed in college and came out with an accurate observation of a president in office before he was born.

Jimmy Carter: Unsuccessful President

http://www.politixgroup.com/comm112.htm

Will Anti-War protesters think it's worth it now?

2005-02-10T14:35:00.000-08:00

Wonder what people who protested the war against terror will say about this?

Brings up an interesting scenario: If these had been the causes for which we (the USA) thought were "fightin' words," would as many people have been in the streets urging us to go in & clean house? Especially what he says about "real freedom."

Warning: the terrorist spokesperson is NOT very tolerant or diverse in his beliefs.

Al-Qaeda number two hits out at US in new audiotape
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050210/1/3qhze.html
Source: Agence France-Presse

Talon-Gate examined

2005-02-10T06:45:00.000-08:00

See today's C-4 Story in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz on this debacle. Interesting reading with something for everyone. Since most of what will be reported/talked about will undoubtedly lean left, I pick out a few of the nuggets that break the other way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12640-2005Feb9.html

Note: I always enjoy reading Howard's column and seeing him on "Reliable Sources" and other shows. I think he plays it pretty much as even as can be expected.

First of all, this was a BAD idea. No question. Each party should realize that you live by the Web, you die by the Web.

The amazing thing is that people this high up in whatever position think this is something that they could get away with. Aren't they supposed to be the "best minds" out there? Geez. The process that approved this guy for credentials should be examined, especially given the pen name.

But then again, there are probably some reporters working in the press corps with "ethnic names" that have been shortened/American-ized for purposes of climbing up the media food chain, so who really knows. Like all those double given names, or first + middle names (i.e. Glenn Allen, David Scott or Sam Roberts--there's gotta be a few "Rabinowitz"-es or "Kazerinski-'s" or Berezansky's in that bunch. But, I digress....)

Still, bad idea and it deserved to be exposed. Too bad a guy's career and family get trashed, but that's hard ball politics.

Does that link it to some cabal involving the "compensated commentaries" by two "conservative" columnists? Apparently so, cause it got a letter generated to the White House by some Congresswoman. I guess that in the WH press corps, he stood out like a sore thumb. What does THAT say to you? Should be enough right there.

Next, what strikes me as very out of the ordinary is the use of "Liberal" and "Conservative" here. Looks like when referring to Web sources, these lables are OK to use in polite society. Don't mind this at all and it's something ALL media should adopt. Rather than marginalizing the Web sources, I actually think it liberates them.

Used to be (and for the most part, still is) that the label "conservative" gets applied, but never the counterweight "liberal" when modifying a person or policy or position. If you read a lot of Mainstream news, you might think there are only three positions:

Extreme Right (sometimes called "Far" or simply "Extremist")
Conservative, and
The correct way (which is by some common sense the position taken by anyone with a Big "D" after their name.)

Think about it, have you ever heard something discussed in the media descibing something as "extreme Left" if is wasn't repeating what a Conservative or Republican said? Now think of how many times you seen/read/heard "conservative" tossed around.

And I'm not even saying that's "wrong"--somebody should have the courage of one's convictions. But it's fun to notice the differences in application. Anyway, ... back to the story!

We'll allow that -- for the sake of brevity -- Kurtz or his copy editors probably left a bit out of this article (like that reference to Guckert/Gannon's report on Kerry being "the first Gay president." I haven't read the post in question, but one can assume the CONTEXT of that characterization could have come in comparison between the infamous "first Black president" title applied to Bill Clinton and how Kerry was faring with L/G/B/T folks.) Let's grant him/them that OR you can track-back that article if you can find it since a lot of Guckert/Gannon's stuff has come down.

Here's another point that I think will get overlooked (and if a reporter out there really wants to be "unbiased" they should think about following up this angle):

Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who writes on
InstaPundit.com, said the tactics used against Gannon "seem to me to be
despicable.

"If I were a member of the White House press corps, I'd be
really
worried," Reynolds said. "If working for a biased news organization
disqualifies you, a lot of people have a lot to be worried about. If
being
involved in a dubious business venture is disqualifying, I suspect a
lot of
people have a lot to be worried about. I guess I don't see what all
this has
to do with his job."
--Wash. Post, Howard Kurtz, Feb. 10,
'05

Reynolds is probably right, except where but the Web are people going to hear about the results of such an examination? What is even more intriguing is the prospect of one news organization investigating and reporting the backgrounds of ANOTHER news org and "outing" them for either being on the Left or the Right. There could be wars going on. My guess the first news org on the list will be Fox.

Regarding "outing" journalists' and their political leanings.... I've often thought that this should be standard practice. George Stephanopolous as an employee of ABC News and Bill Moyers formerly of PBS are two prime examples.

How these guys can be presented as "journalists" without being identified as former Democrat staffers is a crock! And I don't mean once in four years when reporting from a Convention or Presidential/Mid Term elections--I mean EVERY time they sign on. It should be, "Good evening, I'm Bill Moyers. A former speechwriter for Pres. Johnson...."

There are kids just coming into voting age who might not know their backgrounds, or those people with short memories, the uncaring/uninformed, and unfortunately, there are some among the elderly, who think that because they are on TV or in the newspaper, they are true "unbiased" journalists.

Now--I think "journalists" who get involved with organized politics at the volunteer or paid staff level have pretty much cast their die. Not that they can't do a good job reporting and that they are incapable of being truthful or honest, but they need to let people know from whence they came. Guess it's like being a recovering alcoholic--you never really "get clean" but stay clean one day at a time. I think they owe it to people who watch/read/listen to them and extend to them an aura of "journalistic credibility." Reporters/journalists of BOTH political stripes should have no problem with doing that.

Here's the next one:

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), welcomed the news. In his question at the presidential news conference, Gannon had said that in an effort to disparage the U.S. economy "Harry Reid was talking about soup lines," which is not accurate and which Gannon later acknowledged was a characterization he picked up from Rush Limbaugh. "New media or old media, the fact is the question he asked was based on a lie, and that's unacceptable," Manley said. "Fundamentally, what he was reporting was not truthful."
--Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, Feb.
'05

Boy, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Do I even need to bring up Memo Gate again? Explain to me how this is any different, Mr. Manley.

Gannon, Mapes, both too close for comfort

2005-02-10T05:45:00.000-08:00

Kinda makes you wish the Congresswoman (and anybody else) would take as much interest in the media connections between Mary Mapes and various elements of the Texas state Democratic aparatus. Doesn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34557-2001Apr3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218004/posts

http://ratherbiased.com/news/content/view/284/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6039850/site/newsweek/

But because Talon News Service probably has more viewers/readers/listeners than CBS News does at this point, I can see her concern.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/index.html

Here's lookin at you, Gipper

2005-02-09T14:56:00.000-08:00

Invite you to go get your stamps on today, the first day of issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=485184&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

RR remembered.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/10836521.htm

Where do crabby people come from?

2005-02-08T14:57:00.000-08:00

Cookie klatch lands girls in court--Denver Post (Feb. 4, 2005)
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E2691638,00.html

When I first read this, I figured they scared some poor old widow or something.

Wonder if anyone told this lady that if a batch of late night cookies from two high school teeny-boppers are going to give her heartburn, wait till she sees what a burning dung pile of international BAD publicity is going to do.

She’ll have to move to get away from all the nasty mail she’s about to get. Especially when the girls get on Larry King or TODAY or Letterman. The upside for the girls is they're probably going to get their $900 back, twenty-fold.

I always wondered where crabby old people come from.
Now I know: crabby young people.

What’s wrong with people?!?