Posts
Contiguous
52 minutes ago
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Liberté!
The extremely judicious Joe Gelman at Neocon Express is getting harangued by the French Embassy for highlighting Sarkozy's recent comments. Vive la liberté de discours!
The Enemy of My Friend Is My Endorsor?
Columnist Michael Freund questions the endorsements of Obama by overtly anti-Israel groups.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Found A Worm In My Apple Today
One of the only female columnists worth reading, Anne Applebaum disappoints today BIG TIME. Mrs. Polish Defense Minister follows in the footsteps of the rest of her cowardly set and jumps on the Obama train with the same wishy-washy complaints. This is a woman who acknowledges her support of McCain in 2000.
Her reasons:
1. "The appointment of Palin"
So instead, Anne endorses a candidate whose own running mate questions his experience and ability? Good deal.
2. "Though he is a true foreign policy intellectual, his supporters cultivate ignorance and fear: Watch Sean Hannity's " Barack Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" on YouTube if you don't believe me."
Let's get this straight: Anne Applebaum is not disturbed by Obama's consistent close connections with radical and unscrupulous elements like Ayers, Wright, Davis, Pfleger, Rezko and even his praise of Khalidi, but a bunch of uneducated bible thumpers repulses her? Makes perfect sense.
3 & 4. "Worse, McCain has -- in a fatal effort to appeal to the least thoughtful, most partisan elements of his base -- moved away from his previous positions on torture and immigration."
McCain has not in any way shape or form gone back on his anti-torture position. I can't believe that she would even make such a statement. My only guess is that she is confusing McCain's changed position on the Gitmo Commissions. Proceeding with the Gitmo Commissions is not a disavowal of his stance against torture.
As for his stance on immigration, it is evident that to appeal to the conservative Republican base he was going to have compromise on some aspect of his platform. He made the right choice. The immigration issue in this country falls well below the wars, the economy, the environment, energy, and health care.
The thing is, Applebaum is one of a string of moderate "so-called" Republicans who convinced the conservative right that McCain was the right pick. They did this because they did not want to see a repeat of 2000 [McCain loss in the primaries and choice between the lesser of two bad choices]. They did this because he is the right man for the job. He is the best man for the job. He is the ONLY man for the job. Now she is jumping ship for doing what she and the rest of them asked him to do--appeal to the base [the same base that repulses her] in order to get the nomination? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that picture?
Spare us the whole negative campaign tactic narrative after Palin endured smear job after smear job from the left, after McCain has endured smears regarding his military record and years as a POW of all things, and after an anonymous American has had his life TORN APART by the press and even government officials supporting Obama for asking a question. Spare us the whole, I don't like what the Republican party has turned into, "This isn't my Republican party" rant.
Neither party is perfect. They each have undesirable elements: racism, religious fanaticism, criminality, and selfishness present themselves on each side of the aisle equally. People will be repulsed by the worst elements on the side opposing them and use it as justification for the "rightness" of their positions. When similar complaints are made of their side, people scoff and rebuke those complaints, then turn around and use the fact that the complaint was even made as more fodder against their opponent.
With respect to this election, it is evident that on the core issues we all want the same things. Both candidates honestly want peace in the Middle East. Both candidates honestly want to strengthen our economy. Both candidates honestly want to solve our health insurance coverage problems. Both candidates honestly want a viable solution for our energy and environmental problems.
The stripped down question we are all left with is whose tactics and ability to handle these problems will be most effective and in keeping with our unique national identity?
Obama is embarrassed by our national identity for good reason: the historical treatment of blacks in this country is an abomination. But our history of racial oppression is only a tiny part of our present national identity and certainly not unique to the U.S. And all the hope and expensive change in the world isn't going to change that aspect of our national identity. It will always be there under the surface. No tax refund, no magical health care plan, and no amount of sticking it to the people we choose as representative of the oppressors of old will make our past go away. Instead, we need to focus on the aspects of our national identity that make us great. That is exactly what McCain means when he says, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
So whose tactics are you going to choose? A candidate who bases his solutions around the cult of perpetual victimization in this country or a candidate who bases his plans on the ingenuity and resourcefulness of ALL individuals? A candidate who stands over our country with the authority of a parent chastising a naughty child or a candidate who knows when to compromise his personal opinions for the greater good of the country who does not seek to punish? A candidate who apologizes to brute nations for our perceived wickedness or a candidate who speaks softly while carrying a big stick?
McCain is still the best candidate like he was back in 2000. He is still the best candidate like he was back in 2007. He's the same person we all wished was in office on 9/11. He's the person we ALL regretted [and were chastised for] not electing. I don't want to live with that sort of regret again.
Her reasons:
1. "The appointment of Palin"
So instead, Anne endorses a candidate whose own running mate questions his experience and ability? Good deal.
2. "Though he is a true foreign policy intellectual, his supporters cultivate ignorance and fear: Watch Sean Hannity's " Barack Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" on YouTube if you don't believe me."
Let's get this straight: Anne Applebaum is not disturbed by Obama's consistent close connections with radical and unscrupulous elements like Ayers, Wright, Davis, Pfleger, Rezko and even his praise of Khalidi, but a bunch of uneducated bible thumpers repulses her? Makes perfect sense.
3 & 4. "Worse, McCain has -- in a fatal effort to appeal to the least thoughtful, most partisan elements of his base -- moved away from his previous positions on torture and immigration."
McCain has not in any way shape or form gone back on his anti-torture position. I can't believe that she would even make such a statement. My only guess is that she is confusing McCain's changed position on the Gitmo Commissions. Proceeding with the Gitmo Commissions is not a disavowal of his stance against torture.
As for his stance on immigration, it is evident that to appeal to the conservative Republican base he was going to have compromise on some aspect of his platform. He made the right choice. The immigration issue in this country falls well below the wars, the economy, the environment, energy, and health care.
The thing is, Applebaum is one of a string of moderate "so-called" Republicans who convinced the conservative right that McCain was the right pick. They did this because they did not want to see a repeat of 2000 [McCain loss in the primaries and choice between the lesser of two bad choices]. They did this because he is the right man for the job. He is the best man for the job. He is the ONLY man for the job. Now she is jumping ship for doing what she and the rest of them asked him to do--appeal to the base [the same base that repulses her] in order to get the nomination? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that picture?
Spare us the whole negative campaign tactic narrative after Palin endured smear job after smear job from the left, after McCain has endured smears regarding his military record and years as a POW of all things, and after an anonymous American has had his life TORN APART by the press and even government officials supporting Obama for asking a question. Spare us the whole, I don't like what the Republican party has turned into, "This isn't my Republican party" rant.
Neither party is perfect. They each have undesirable elements: racism, religious fanaticism, criminality, and selfishness present themselves on each side of the aisle equally. People will be repulsed by the worst elements on the side opposing them and use it as justification for the "rightness" of their positions. When similar complaints are made of their side, people scoff and rebuke those complaints, then turn around and use the fact that the complaint was even made as more fodder against their opponent.
With respect to this election, it is evident that on the core issues we all want the same things. Both candidates honestly want peace in the Middle East. Both candidates honestly want to strengthen our economy. Both candidates honestly want to solve our health insurance coverage problems. Both candidates honestly want a viable solution for our energy and environmental problems.
The stripped down question we are all left with is whose tactics and ability to handle these problems will be most effective and in keeping with our unique national identity?
Obama is embarrassed by our national identity for good reason: the historical treatment of blacks in this country is an abomination. But our history of racial oppression is only a tiny part of our present national identity and certainly not unique to the U.S. And all the hope and expensive change in the world isn't going to change that aspect of our national identity. It will always be there under the surface. No tax refund, no magical health care plan, and no amount of sticking it to the people we choose as representative of the oppressors of old will make our past go away. Instead, we need to focus on the aspects of our national identity that make us great. That is exactly what McCain means when he says, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
So whose tactics are you going to choose? A candidate who bases his solutions around the cult of perpetual victimization in this country or a candidate who bases his plans on the ingenuity and resourcefulness of ALL individuals? A candidate who stands over our country with the authority of a parent chastising a naughty child or a candidate who knows when to compromise his personal opinions for the greater good of the country who does not seek to punish? A candidate who apologizes to brute nations for our perceived wickedness or a candidate who speaks softly while carrying a big stick?
McCain is still the best candidate like he was back in 2000. He is still the best candidate like he was back in 2007. He's the same person we all wished was in office on 9/11. He's the person we ALL regretted [and were chastised for] not electing. I don't want to live with that sort of regret again.
Political Fashion Wars
Here's today lesson in analogies.
Sound analogies:
- John McCain's wardrobe is to Barack Obama's wardrobe.
- Mitt Romney's wardrobe is to John McCain's wardrobe.
- Joe Biden's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Barack Obama's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Sarah Palin's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Joe Biden's wardrobe is to Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
- John McCain's wardrobe is to Joe Biden's wardrobe
- Barack Obama's wardrobe is to Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
- Cindy McCain's wardrobe is to Michelle Obama's wardrobe.
Fallacious analogy:
- Sarah Palin's wardrobe is to Michelle Obama's wardrobe.
See background at Ace of Spades.
Sound analogies:
- John McCain's wardrobe is to Barack Obama's wardrobe.
- Mitt Romney's wardrobe is to John McCain's wardrobe.
- Joe Biden's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Barack Obama's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Sarah Palin's wardrobe is to Hillary Clinton's wardrobe.
- Joe Biden's wardrobe is to Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
- John McCain's wardrobe is to Joe Biden's wardrobe
- Barack Obama's wardrobe is to Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
- Cindy McCain's wardrobe is to Michelle Obama's wardrobe.
Fallacious analogy:
- Sarah Palin's wardrobe is to Michelle Obama's wardrobe.
See background at Ace of Spades.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Truther Lacks Standing [In Addition To Other Things]
Here's the deal folks. [Don't you hate when politicians and journalists use the term folks? It's so condescending.] Berg did not have standing. Hillary had standing. Edwards had standing. BIDEN had standing. If Obama wins, McCain will have standing. They are the only ones who have suffered an injury. You will not see any of them file suit as it would be POLITICAL SUICIDE. The End.
I completely agree that the issue as to whether a person who has held valid dual citizenship can be eligible for the presidency needs judicial resolution--or at the very least legislation by Congress.
If this doesn't get resolved via the courts, then we need to draft legislation and stalk our Congressmen and Senators.
**It might behoove Senator Obama to present his actual birth certificate, though, and briefly buck against being the shademeister that we all know he is.
I completely agree that the issue as to whether a person who has held valid dual citizenship can be eligible for the presidency needs judicial resolution--or at the very least legislation by Congress.
If this doesn't get resolved via the courts, then we need to draft legislation and stalk our Congressmen and Senators.
**It might behoove Senator Obama to present his actual birth certificate, though, and briefly buck against being the shademeister that we all know he is.
Clinging To Our Guns, Religion, and... Happiness?
Republicans are Happier!!!
The Washington Post is incredulous. Forgive my language, but I shit you not. David Montgomery asked the following question:
Has this guy even ATTENDED a Republican rally? I'm serious. Is he going by the Ruth Marcus or David Singleton accounts: both of which have been completely debunked?
Here's the deal. I'm a Republican. I like my party. That being said, the anger displayed at these rallies is G rated in comparison to the violence [both in language and in action] we have witnessed this election coming from our opponents. The way Ruth Marcus and David Singleton have portrayed [LIED ABOUT is a more accurate description, but I'm Republican and happy, so I can afford to be generous] these rallies, one would think that attending a McCain Palin rally was akin to going to a Pantera concert. The rather uncool reality is that the level of violence is more akin to a John Tesh or Kenny G affair... And, odd as it might sound, that makes me happy.
The Washington Post is incredulous. Forgive my language, but I shit you not. David Montgomery asked the following question:
The data, alas, do not account for those furious Republicans at McCain-Palin rallies. Are they happy in their anger?
Has this guy even ATTENDED a Republican rally? I'm serious. Is he going by the Ruth Marcus or David Singleton accounts: both of which have been completely debunked?
Here's the deal. I'm a Republican. I like my party. That being said, the anger displayed at these rallies is G rated in comparison to the violence [both in language and in action] we have witnessed this election coming from our opponents. The way Ruth Marcus and David Singleton have portrayed [LIED ABOUT is a more accurate description, but I'm Republican and happy, so I can afford to be generous] these rallies, one would think that attending a McCain Palin rally was akin to going to a Pantera concert. The rather uncool reality is that the level of violence is more akin to a John Tesh or Kenny G affair... And, odd as it might sound, that makes me happy.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Hilarity Part Three: Treacher
Jim Treacher conducted hardhitting interviews with some of Obama's donors. After reading it, you too may want to donate. Compelling work.
Must-Read Further Hilarity: Iowahawk
Iowahawk's brilliant response to someone who criticized his defense of Joe the Plumber when FOX news was picking apart Bill Ayers. Voici, dans tout sa gloire: I AM BILL.
Hillary Was Robbed
Politics is a dirty game and the Clintons don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes down to it. Say what you will, though, they haven't undermined our basic electoral process just to get into power. This is what patriotism in politics means: respecting our democratic process despite our difference of opinions. Many a dyed in the wool R love Hillary. We may disagree with her on some issues, but she is a centrist in the realest sense of the word: she and McCain. On a personal note, a Clinton-McCain election would have been the first time I actually felt confident in both candidates and not that I was choosing the lesser of two evils.
THIS is old school Daleyesque dirty Chicago politics and IT IS NOT OKAY. One may have said that this was just Hillary being sour grapes. THERE IS A PATTERN HERE, HERE, AND HERE. When is it going to end? Nevermind, we all know the answer to that question.
Democrats, this election would not be nearly as close if you had just done your job and nominated Hillary. She would have RUN AWAY WITH IT. The sad part is, that a win is not an accomplishment for your party after eight years of GWB's administration: a slaughter is. The way things are looking, we already know it's not a slaughter. That, in and of itself, is a win for the Republican party. It's too bad that McCain inherited this administration. He's fighting the steepest grade uphill political battle in the history of presidential elections.
THIS is old school Daleyesque dirty Chicago politics and IT IS NOT OKAY. One may have said that this was just Hillary being sour grapes. THERE IS A PATTERN HERE, HERE, AND HERE. When is it going to end? Nevermind, we all know the answer to that question.
Democrats, this election would not be nearly as close if you had just done your job and nominated Hillary. She would have RUN AWAY WITH IT. The sad part is, that a win is not an accomplishment for your party after eight years of GWB's administration: a slaughter is. The way things are looking, we already know it's not a slaughter. That, in and of itself, is a win for the Republican party. It's too bad that McCain inherited this administration. He's fighting the steepest grade uphill political battle in the history of presidential elections.
We Were Warned
Thomas C. Reeves in 1991:
Ironically, the highlight of JFK's presidency was the Cuban Missile Crisis where a young John McCain sat at the ready on the USS Enterprise off of Cuba.
*Updated "expensive campaign efforts" link care of Jim Treacher.
"America needs great presidents, which means that this country must find and elect people of high moral character, as well as intelligence and experience. Character and conduct are clearly linked, and the personal weaknesses of a chief executive can often turn out to be public liabilities. It is wise to encourage the careful scrutiny of presidential aspirants that has become the practice in recent years. It is neither priggish nor unrealistic to seek to determine, to the best of our ability, which presidential aspirants live by values that we hope they will uphold in public, values such as honesty, responsibility, fairness, loyalty, and respect for others. Indeed, the pursuit seems simply sensible.
At the same time, the American people must resist the temptation to be won over by a handsome face, expensive campaign efforts, and thrilling rhetoric. In the early 1960's, we became involved in a sort of mindless worship of celebrity; it was a love affair largely with images. That could happen again, despite the media's experience with Vietnam, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra affair. In our longing to find heroes in a greedy, anonymous, and insensitive age, we might once more be swayed by someone who is wonderfully attractive, has a glib tongue, a bottomless wallet, and a conscience that asks little and demands even less. And the target of our affections might be much worse than Jack Kennedy." ~ Thomas C. Reeves, A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy, page 420 (1991)
Ironically, the highlight of JFK's presidency was the Cuban Missile Crisis where a young John McCain sat at the ready on the USS Enterprise off of Cuba.
*Updated "expensive campaign efforts" link care of Jim Treacher.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Mutually Exclusive Interests
American Jews' support of the Democratic Party? I have never understood this and continue to not understand. I also do not understand the support of the Democratic party's fetishization of the authority of the U.N., a body that allows for pervasive anti-Semitism to substantially affect their decision-making process.
INCENSED!!!
How is this not all over the news? You have got be effing kidding me. That's what Obama thinks of you, military. He really "appreciates" your service!!
Care of Say Anything.
What does this election teach us? The party affiliation of election officials is vital.
Care of Say Anything.
What does this election teach us? The party affiliation of election officials is vital.
I Don't Suppose That
Al-Qaeda supporting John McCain has anything to do with either:
1] He is staunchly against prisoner torture or
2] They are scared poopless of him and think that their endorsement will dissuade stupid Infidels from voting for him.
Perhaps. It comes as no surprise that the people at The Washington Post cannot possibly conceptualize of the old bait and switch. That would require common sense.
1] He is staunchly against prisoner torture or
2] They are scared poopless of him and think that their endorsement will dissuade stupid Infidels from voting for him.
Perhaps. It comes as no surprise that the people at The Washington Post cannot possibly conceptualize of the old bait and switch. That would require common sense.
Full French Interview With McCain When Vietnam POW
I challenge any of you to watch this video interview without getting at the very least a lump in your throat. For all my fellow military wives, I know that this will hit home hard.
Speaking as a military spouse, I can positively say that those in the media and those listening to the media who question McCain and his actions vis a vis his wife and family after his return home have no room to speak. The stresses put upon the average military marriage are like nothing to which you will ever be able to relate. Better marriages fail to survive Recruiting Duty, retirement, or seven month deployments--let alone the stress and emotional baggage of five years of separation and uncertainty.
Speaking as a military spouse, I can positively say that those in the media and those listening to the media who question McCain and his actions vis a vis his wife and family after his return home have no room to speak. The stresses put upon the average military marriage are like nothing to which you will ever be able to relate. Better marriages fail to survive Recruiting Duty, retirement, or seven month deployments--let alone the stress and emotional baggage of five years of separation and uncertainty.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Chinese Democracy Review
Okay, not my usual subject matter, but the album name definitely sounds like something I would talk about.
On a recommendation from a friend, I took on a project finding and listening to the leaked GNR album Chinese Democracy. And I have to say, it's not vomit worthy. I feared it would be Axl Rose's SMiLE. But it isn't and I'm somewhat shocked.
Izzy is definitely missing, but the new guitarist is pretty, well, good. Axl can still turn a well-crafted musical composition. The singing isn't Axl of younger days, but he still can pull off that signature falsetto wail, which is, frankly, amazing at his age and lifestyle. It definitely has the stamp of Axl.
I'm still on the fence as to whether I can say that I actually like it or not. I can definitely picture young drunk twenty-somethings dancing on a bar to this, but I'm not sure at this stage and current taste if I can picture myself having a hankering to rock out to it.
On a recommendation from a friend, I took on a project finding and listening to the leaked GNR album Chinese Democracy. And I have to say, it's not vomit worthy. I feared it would be Axl Rose's SMiLE. But it isn't and I'm somewhat shocked.
Izzy is definitely missing, but the new guitarist is pretty, well, good. Axl can still turn a well-crafted musical composition. The singing isn't Axl of younger days, but he still can pull off that signature falsetto wail, which is, frankly, amazing at his age and lifestyle. It definitely has the stamp of Axl.
I'm still on the fence as to whether I can say that I actually like it or not. I can definitely picture young drunk twenty-somethings dancing on a bar to this, but I'm not sure at this stage and current taste if I can picture myself having a hankering to rock out to it.
Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers
We have come full circle. The debate as to what constitutes socialism is now at the forefront. The narrative is right where the Republican party wants it to be. Hopefully, it's not too late for this election.
I couldn't post a comment for Ruth Marcus' piece, "The 'Socialist' Scare" in the Washington Post. So I'm posting it here because I have serious questions as to whether Ms. Marcus and I were even at the same rally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Marcus, what an irresponsible take and explanation of the Woodbridge rally. You should be ashamed of yourself. Of course, you probably are not because it's all for the "greater good" of getting your guy elected, isn't it?
Your ignorance comes through loud and clear when you say that the Obama for Change bumper stickers were all Soviet symbols. The C with the star was a take on the flag of the Nation of Islam. Anyone with half a brain and certainly someone who is publishing a piece in the WaPo should know this. They should also know that McCain supporters, including the McCain campaign itself got authorities and made him leave. Don't believe me? Watch This Clip. Several Muslim Republicans confronted the people and many people cheered and clapped when those people were forced to leave.
Second, the rally was calm. There were lots of young families there, including my own. You chose to highlight the handful of people among thousands yelling "socialism" without noting that many in the crowd were laughing when the remarks were made because the people shouting them looked silly--not shouting angrily in agreement as Ms. Marcus would have us believe.
What you willfully ignored was the positivity and optimism of Republicans. I met people of all ilks at that rally and people were as nice as can be. I saw moms in line at the port-a potties, reaching into their diaper bags and purses for wipes and tissues and napkins to give to strangers with other young children. I saw a man dancing with his daughter who was in a wheelchair. I saw a woman run up to another woman with a young child on her shoulders to fix the child's "plumber butt" [no pun intended]. Basically, I saw kindness. Kindness that the Democratic party thinks does not exist simply because we don't agree as to the extent that the government should be "evening the playing field". The purpose of OUR government is to maintain order and protect its citizens: NOT to provide a welfare state.
The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece. I have toilet paper that has more factual support.
**Update: Further evidence that this woman is just another idiot blinded by Obama's hypnotizing smile. We Republicans are so freaking SELFISH aren't we?
***My original title was, "Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers". I decided to edit it because my intent was not easily understood. I received an e-mail "correcting me" that Bentham is considered the Father of the Welfarism. I know this. My not-so-great title was intended to point to the difference highlighted in my comment: capitalism v. welfarism, which would explain my use of "or" in the title. The interns are busy watching Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf as a treat. They will be firmly reprimanded later.
****My earlier comment on the rally.
I couldn't post a comment for Ruth Marcus' piece, "The 'Socialist' Scare" in the Washington Post. So I'm posting it here because I have serious questions as to whether Ms. Marcus and I were even at the same rally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Marcus, what an irresponsible take and explanation of the Woodbridge rally. You should be ashamed of yourself. Of course, you probably are not because it's all for the "greater good" of getting your guy elected, isn't it?
Your ignorance comes through loud and clear when you say that the Obama for Change bumper stickers were all Soviet symbols. The C with the star was a take on the flag of the Nation of Islam. Anyone with half a brain and certainly someone who is publishing a piece in the WaPo should know this. They should also know that McCain supporters, including the McCain campaign itself got authorities and made him leave. Don't believe me? Watch This Clip. Several Muslim Republicans confronted the people and many people cheered and clapped when those people were forced to leave.
Second, the rally was calm. There were lots of young families there, including my own. You chose to highlight the handful of people among thousands yelling "socialism" without noting that many in the crowd were laughing when the remarks were made because the people shouting them looked silly--not shouting angrily in agreement as Ms. Marcus would have us believe.
What you willfully ignored was the positivity and optimism of Republicans. I met people of all ilks at that rally and people were as nice as can be. I saw moms in line at the port-a potties, reaching into their diaper bags and purses for wipes and tissues and napkins to give to strangers with other young children. I saw a man dancing with his daughter who was in a wheelchair. I saw a woman run up to another woman with a young child on her shoulders to fix the child's "plumber butt" [no pun intended]. Basically, I saw kindness. Kindness that the Democratic party thinks does not exist simply because we don't agree as to the extent that the government should be "evening the playing field". The purpose of OUR government is to maintain order and protect its citizens: NOT to provide a welfare state.
The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece. I have toilet paper that has more factual support.
**Update: Further evidence that this woman is just another idiot blinded by Obama's hypnotizing smile. We Republicans are so freaking SELFISH aren't we?
***My original title was, "Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers". I decided to edit it because my intent was not easily understood. I received an e-mail "correcting me" that Bentham is considered the Father of the Welfarism. I know this. My not-so-great title was intended to point to the difference highlighted in my comment: capitalism v. welfarism, which would explain my use of "or" in the title. The interns are busy watching Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf as a treat. They will be firmly reprimanded later.
****My earlier comment on the rally.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Is America Ready Yet?
I would have to agree. We are ready. We are so beyond ready to have the racial divide be gone that people are willing to elect THE WRONG GUY. The sick irony is that this campaign screams "RACISM!" at every criticism of his political philosophy. The divide between communism/marxism/protectionism and classical liberalism is one that is very wide and knows no color. Bring on Steele. Bring on Watts. Bring on Rice. Bring on Sowell! I would vote for any of these people in less than a heartbeat. But do not throw out the charge of racism when I disagree with Obama's "spread the wealth" and protectionist narrative. It is 2008 and globalization has so far advanced that there is no going backward.
Yes. America is so ready that we will elect ANYONE to the highest office in the land just to put our history behind us. That depresses me. It shows that we have not actually moved forward at all.
Yes. America is so ready that we will elect ANYONE to the highest office in the land just to put our history behind us. That depresses me. It shows that we have not actually moved forward at all.
McCain Is The Only Presidential Candidate I Trust With My Husband's Life
Bolton weighs in on Bidens comments regarding Obama being tested by international crisis.
Bidens comments beg a very personal question for me, with which candidates would I entrust my husband and his fellow Marines' lives: McCain whose understanding needs no explanation, two vice presidential candidates who are both parents to deployed soldiers, or a man whose closest knowledge of the military is that of boys playing with plastic army men? For the sake of the military community, any three of the former would be eminently more preferable to the latter.
Bidens comments beg a very personal question for me, with which candidates would I entrust my husband and his fellow Marines' lives: McCain whose understanding needs no explanation, two vice presidential candidates who are both parents to deployed soldiers, or a man whose closest knowledge of the military is that of boys playing with plastic army men? For the sake of the military community, any three of the former would be eminently more preferable to the latter.
Monday, October 20, 2008
I Was At This Rally
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/20/video-mccain-supporters-confront-guy-linking-obama-to-islam/
This was the McCain rally at Prince William County Complex, VA, on Sat., May 18th.* I was there with my husband and two young children. There were thousands of people in line and I would say that every one of them that I saw were ignoring these people. It was offensive. We were all commenting about how kind people were being to each other and then there were these ugly people spreading hate.
The irony is that socialism and marxism are not compatible with religion, any religion. Afghan War? Hello? My husband and I were snickering at their stupidity and there were many others who were right there with us. Good for the McCain campaign intervening.
*Doh! October 18th. I am such a blonde sometimes.
This was the McCain rally at Prince William County Complex, VA, on Sat., May 18th.* I was there with my husband and two young children. There were thousands of people in line and I would say that every one of them that I saw were ignoring these people. It was offensive. We were all commenting about how kind people were being to each other and then there were these ugly people spreading hate.
The irony is that socialism and marxism are not compatible with religion, any religion. Afghan War? Hello? My husband and I were snickering at their stupidity and there were many others who were right there with us. Good for the McCain campaign intervening.
*Doh! October 18th. I am such a blonde sometimes.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
How Does Powell Do It?
Since Reagan, Colin Powell has managed to find himself on the winning side of every presidential election and get a job [or two] in the newest administration. Funny, though, for all of his acumen in prognosticating national elections, he certainly got the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power WRONG WRONG WRONG. Ladies and Gentleman, have we just met our next Secretary of State? Yawn. His endorsement was just a repetition of the Obama campaign talking points. Nothing creative or personal. You would think by now the man wouldn't have to kiss fanny anymore. Powell=change? I thought Obama was running against the Bush administration?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Call Your Local Campaign For Change
And ask them to stop the smear campaign.
I am a VA resident and just received a pre-recorded phone call from a "Republican" woman who is voting for Obama. She proceeded to ask me to call my VA GOP office [and provided the phone number no less] and tell them to stop the smear campaign against the Hallowed Senator Government. She then followed up with a SMEAR claiming, basically, that McCain was just another Bush.
Here is a list of the Democratic headquarters by state:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/statepages
I plead with you all to take the same action vis a vis the Obama campaign. Ask them to stop the smear campaign. Ask them to repudiate Lewis' commentary. Ask them to repudiate the crap smear piece in Rolling Stone. Heck, ask them whatever you want. They can suck it since my number is registered on the DNCL and there is no way in bloody hell they got my number from a valid phone list.*
At the very least, do it for Mr. Wurzelbacher.
*Truthfully, the people who previously had this phone number owe money all over the place and I still get collections agents calling them after having this number for THREE YEARS. Shocker that they are Obama supporters. Klassy.
I am a VA resident and just received a pre-recorded phone call from a "Republican" woman who is voting for Obama. She proceeded to ask me to call my VA GOP office [and provided the phone number no less] and tell them to stop the smear campaign against the Hallowed Senator Government. She then followed up with a SMEAR claiming, basically, that McCain was just another Bush.
Here is a list of the Democratic headquarters by state:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/statepages
I plead with you all to take the same action vis a vis the Obama campaign. Ask them to stop the smear campaign. Ask them to repudiate Lewis' commentary. Ask them to repudiate the crap smear piece in Rolling Stone. Heck, ask them whatever you want. They can suck it since my number is registered on the DNCL and there is no way in bloody hell they got my number from a valid phone list.*
At the very least, do it for Mr. Wurzelbacher.
*Truthfully, the people who previously had this phone number owe money all over the place and I still get collections agents calling them after having this number for THREE YEARS. Shocker that they are Obama supporters. Klassy.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joe the Plumber
The Joe the Plumber craze is THE single best aspect of this year's presidential election mania. Seriously, the poor guy.
My favorite story out of the lot is that Joe is a "Keating". LOL
Quick to Ancestry.com!! Ten bucks says that Obama's more closely related to Cheney and Palin to Princess Di than Joe is to Keating. Of course, if the relationship can be documented within the tenth-cousin twice removed range, then MSM will bust something out of joy and Ancestry.com will make a killing on free advertising.
My favorite story out of the lot is that Joe is a "Keating". LOL
Quick to Ancestry.com!! Ten bucks says that Obama's more closely related to Cheney and Palin to Princess Di than Joe is to Keating. Of course, if the relationship can be documented within the tenth-cousin twice removed range, then MSM will bust something out of joy and Ancestry.com will make a killing on free advertising.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
It Is About Time, John. You Had Us Worried There For A Second.
McCain's new economic plan. I linked his speech in its entirety to avoid the NYTimes nonsense interpretation.
It's Not About Bad Judgment, It's About Cynicism
Contrary to my tone about this election, I do not think Obama is the spawn of Satan. I do not think he has nefarious intent against the United States. I also do not believe Obama's links to Wright, Ayres, Rezko, ACORN, et al. speak of bad judgment. The man is a cynic with only a self agenda: get Obama elected. His dealings with these people were merely the cost of doing business in dirty Chicago politics.
The reason why pretty elite like Brooks and Buckley have jumped ship on the Republican presidential ticket this election is not because Obama is some bastion of democracy, the economy, or human rights. Au contraire, it's precisely because he possesses the whole DC "chic" which precludes any sort of true ideology. He will play the game and go to the parties and the in-the-knowers will all be part of the scene.
This is why people say that they have no idea for what Obama stands but that they will vote for him just the same. He is compared to Lincoln with respect to his lack of experience, but the real distinction lies in the fact that even in his short resume, he has no record. He has held all of these impressive positions without TAKING or HAVING a position. That is quite an impressive feat indeed.
The reason why pretty elite like Brooks and Buckley have jumped ship on the Republican presidential ticket this election is not because Obama is some bastion of democracy, the economy, or human rights. Au contraire, it's precisely because he possesses the whole DC "chic" which precludes any sort of true ideology. He will play the game and go to the parties and the in-the-knowers will all be part of the scene.
This is why people say that they have no idea for what Obama stands but that they will vote for him just the same. He is compared to Lincoln with respect to his lack of experience, but the real distinction lies in the fact that even in his short resume, he has no record. He has held all of these impressive positions without TAKING or HAVING a position. That is quite an impressive feat indeed.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Gall
Katy Gall says the [ACORN voter fraud] investigation is a Republican attempt to create a "tempest in a teapot."
Actions that undermine the validity of our entire democratic process are merely a "tempest in a teapot." Silly concerned Americans.
School Sponsored Field Trips To Weddings?
Forget the fact that this was a gay wedding. Should schools be sponsoring field trips to weddings in general? There is a long long list of things that school budgets and tax dollars could be spent on. Let me just say this, sending kids to a wedding--any wedding--during school hours is NOT one of them.
Social considerations aside [because we all know that we can refuse to sign that permission slip and keep the child back from the field trip], weddings are no place for a school sponsored field trip. Period. If you want to invite your class to your wedding outside of school hours, then go for it. Don't do it on my child's educational schedule.
Social considerations aside [because we all know that we can refuse to sign that permission slip and keep the child back from the field trip], weddings are no place for a school sponsored field trip. Period. If you want to invite your class to your wedding outside of school hours, then go for it. Don't do it on my child's educational schedule.
The Tyranny of Music
Interesting Op-Ed on artists throwing tantrums over the use of their music by political candidates. Keep on kicking and screaming, Wilson sisters.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Oxymoron of The Week: Failure To Rein In One's Husband Is An Abuse Of Power
WaPo highlights the crux of the idiocy:
Let me get this straight, "failure to rein in one's husband is considered an abuse of power? I'm completely confused. Wouldn't inability to rein in one's spouse be considered exactly the opposite? Furthermore:
Who the heck is this Bitney dude? What a dumb dumb. Really, you do what the First Gentleman tells you? Are we doing this for First Ladies too? I was not aware that protocol had changed. Buddy, here's the deal. You work for his wife, not him. Grow a pair and ask your boss.
But I suppose his motivations could not be taken into account. Stellar witness.
Farce.
Even after Wooten had been suspended without pay for five days, the Palin family continued to work to get Wooten fired, Branchflower said. The ethics report determined that the governor' actions and failure to rein in her husband amounted to an abuse of power because she was pursuing a personal vendetta rather than serve the public interest.
Let me get this straight, "failure to rein in one's husband is considered an abuse of power? I'm completely confused. Wouldn't inability to rein in one's spouse be considered exactly the opposite? Furthermore:
Eventually, Todd Palin carried the discussions with Bitney into the Palin administration. The First Gentleman repeated his frustration in numerous visits and phone calls after Bitney became a top aide to Gov. Palin.
"You know, when the First Gentleman comes into your office and says you got a problem, you sort of feel compelled to look into it and see if something can be done," Bitney said.
Who the heck is this Bitney dude? What a dumb dumb. Really, you do what the First Gentleman tells you? Are we doing this for First Ladies too? I was not aware that protocol had changed. Buddy, here's the deal. You work for his wife, not him. Grow a pair and ask your boss.
But I suppose his motivations could not be taken into account. Stellar witness.
Farce.
Laissez-Faire Childbirth
Finally, a report that supports what many women have suspected all along, hospitals and doctors are engaging in too many interventionist procedures. And OB's wonder why their malpractice insurance rates are so high. Maybe they should stop blaming lawyers and take a good look at themselves. Everybody needs to read this report.
Re: Corporate Fraud Initiative, Amendment 53
The Race To The Bottom responsibly discusses (here, here, here, and here) Colorado's proposed Corporate Fraud Initiative or Amendment 53.
A vote of NO suggested by Daily Kos? How very laissez-faire of him. Even Adam Smith did not wear an Adam Smith necktie.
Truth be told, while Amendment 53 may not be a viable answer for Coloradans, such thinking is a step in the right direction. It is arguable that we wouldn't need an SEC if states would simply pass and enforce their corporate criminal laws. One problem is that state criminal law attorneys usually lack the specialized corporate and business law knowledge and background necessary to prosecute these crimes.
What is needed, is something along the lines of the federal government to create a special task force of corporate law attorneys in every state to prosecute for corporate malfeasance. Civil lawsuits and fines are not deterrents anymore as officers, directors, and executives protect their personal assets simply by purchasing D&O insurance. Jail time, it seems, is the only deterrent for the unscrupulous who have no problem negatively affecting entire markets [as is the case today].
If we were somehow able to limit the standing of shareholder derivative civil suits following criminal indictment ONLY [criminal proceedings perhaps done in a procedural manner similar to something like the Guantanamo Commissions: criminal commission with an expert panel (in lieu of an uneducated factfinder) reviewable by a judiciary] and effect this at the state level in EVERY state [to prevent against the race to the bottom phenomenon-hence the need to for such an initiative to come from the federal level], we might actually have something that could protect Joe-Investor while maintaining a classical liberal identity.
Of course, this is all just ideating "out loud". :)
A vote of NO suggested by Daily Kos? How very laissez-faire of him. Even Adam Smith did not wear an Adam Smith necktie.
Truth be told, while Amendment 53 may not be a viable answer for Coloradans, such thinking is a step in the right direction. It is arguable that we wouldn't need an SEC if states would simply pass and enforce their corporate criminal laws. One problem is that state criminal law attorneys usually lack the specialized corporate and business law knowledge and background necessary to prosecute these crimes.
What is needed, is something along the lines of the federal government to create a special task force of corporate law attorneys in every state to prosecute for corporate malfeasance. Civil lawsuits and fines are not deterrents anymore as officers, directors, and executives protect their personal assets simply by purchasing D&O insurance. Jail time, it seems, is the only deterrent for the unscrupulous who have no problem negatively affecting entire markets [as is the case today].
If we were somehow able to limit the standing of shareholder derivative civil suits following criminal indictment ONLY [criminal proceedings perhaps done in a procedural manner similar to something like the Guantanamo Commissions: criminal commission with an expert panel (in lieu of an uneducated factfinder) reviewable by a judiciary] and effect this at the state level in EVERY state [to prevent against the race to the bottom phenomenon-hence the need to for such an initiative to come from the federal level], we might actually have something that could protect Joe-Investor while maintaining a classical liberal identity.
Of course, this is all just ideating "out loud". :)
John McCandyCane
My three-year old daughter just told me, "Mommy, I like John McCandyCane and I like Obama too."
Christmas Cookies With Bill
Doesn't this make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? You know, I bet Bonnie and Clyde would have been really nice to get to know as an older couple too. Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...
Pounding Nails In The Coffin Of The Embryonic Stem Cell Debate
Japanese scientists have successfully generated stem cells without the use of a virus carrier. The problem with introducing these genes via virus is that it makes the host more susceptible to tumors and other problems caused by the viral genetic material.
Of course, the Obama manages to get this wrong as well. "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations." It is apparent that embryonic stem cell research in other nations suffers from the same sort of stigma that it does in the U.S. Consider this:
Obama also said, "However, embryonic stem cells remain the 'gold standard,' and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future. ..."
While Thomson, the man responsible for discovering these non-embryonic pluripotent stem cells, has called embryonic stem-cells "the gold standard", he did so not because of known limitations on non-embryonic stem-cells. Wouldn't a prudent compromise be to exhaust all non-embryonic stem cell avenues before having to rely upon those harvested from human embryos? The reason embryonic stem-cells are deemed "the gold standard" is because they are easier to work with and known because a handful of researchers have been working with them for the past ten years. Look at the sheer increase in interest in non-embryonic stem-cell research. Imagine what that many more scientists working on this could discover without having to further impede on the sanctity of a human life.
Of course, the Obama manages to get this wrong as well. "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations." It is apparent that embryonic stem cell research in other nations suffers from the same sort of stigma that it does in the U.S. Consider this:
"[James Thomson] said he's amazed at how quickly scientists have begun exploring the use of the reprogrammed skin cells he reported on last year. "People are jumping in very rapidly, much more rapidly than they did 10 years ago" after the initial discovery of embryonic stem cells, Thomson said.
In all, 812 labs in dozens of countries have requested the materials needed to reprogram ordinary cells into iPS cells, said Addgene, a Massachusetts-based repository for research supplies. By contrast, a half-dozen or so labs started working with embryonic stem cells in the months after his landmark 1998 paper, Thomson said."
Obama also said, "However, embryonic stem cells remain the 'gold standard,' and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future. ..."
While Thomson, the man responsible for discovering these non-embryonic pluripotent stem cells, has called embryonic stem-cells "the gold standard", he did so not because of known limitations on non-embryonic stem-cells. Wouldn't a prudent compromise be to exhaust all non-embryonic stem cell avenues before having to rely upon those harvested from human embryos? The reason embryonic stem-cells are deemed "the gold standard" is because they are easier to work with and known because a handful of researchers have been working with them for the past ten years. Look at the sheer increase in interest in non-embryonic stem-cell research. Imagine what that many more scientists working on this could discover without having to further impede on the sanctity of a human life.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"Nobody Else Said Anything"
Obama takes on "pre-viable fetuses". How heroic. Of course, this is just another smear based not in fact.
He Who Doth Reviseth History:
I do not understand this trend in the Democratic party to try to say something enough times as if history will actually change. It makes about as much sense as my two and three year olds covering their eyes so that people can't see them.
He Who Doth Reviseth History:
I do not understand this trend in the Democratic party to try to say something enough times as if history will actually change. It makes about as much sense as my two and three year olds covering their eyes so that people can't see them.
Ayers & McVeigh: Separated By Competence
The argument is convincing, near impossible to prove definitively, but convincing.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/did_bill_ayers_write_1.htm
If this is true, half of Buckley's justification that Obama carries himself better and writes well just flew out the window. Then all he is left with is a well dressed good looking man to play the part of President.
Personally, I have always been suspicious of the memoir genre when it comes from a person who hasn't actually accomplished anything more tangible and real than a diploma. The whole "Coming of Age" theme is, well, trite and childish. Subject matter preferences aside, the writing was excellent. But if he did not in fact write it, we might as well substitute America's Next Top Model for our presidential election.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/did_bill_ayers_write_1.htm
If this is true, half of Buckley's justification that Obama carries himself better and writes well just flew out the window. Then all he is left with is a well dressed good looking man to play the part of President.
Personally, I have always been suspicious of the memoir genre when it comes from a person who hasn't actually accomplished anything more tangible and real than a diploma. The whole "Coming of Age" theme is, well, trite and childish. Subject matter preferences aside, the writing was excellent. But if he did not in fact write it, we might as well substitute America's Next Top Model for our presidential election.
Nutella Lobby
The peanut butter lobby must be marginalized. Nutella has a third less fat and one tenth of the sodium of peanut butter. It also has the same calories.
Racism?
Terrible and funny all at the same time. We knew this was going to happen somewhere.
*credit to Ned.
*credit to Ned.
Imperialism? What Imperialism?
Last year, Russia accused the U.S. of imperialism. Obviously, there must be some sort of disconnect between the Russian concept of "imperialism" and the American one.
This and this are not signs of a power that wants to sit down and negotiate.
Even Politico.com stated in August that McCain took a position that sided him squarely with Georgia on the August conflict.
Who got Georgia right the first time around? That one, not That One.
This and this are not signs of a power that wants to sit down and negotiate.
Even Politico.com stated in August that McCain took a position that sided him squarely with Georgia on the August conflict.
Who got Georgia right the first time around? That one, not That One.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Branchflower Report: Paper Worth Less Than Biden's Law Degree
The Branchflower Report
There are times when a judge has made his decision before looking at the evidence. It happens when the finder of fact is an interested party. This is exactly what has happened in the case against Sarah Palin.
Jaundiced eye indeed.
My question is this, at what point did personal interest in one's community coinciding with the benefits associated with protecting that community become an ethical issue? The finder of fact quotes Monegan's testimony extensively, but the one portion of the report that contains words directly from Palin is an e-mail to Monegan under the subsection entitled "Event 7" on pages fifty-seven to fifty-eight [bolding my own].
The portions I bolded suggest to me that she honestly believed [and with good reason] that the continued employment of
Wooten was an actual public safety issue. Furthermore, it demonstrates her justified belief that Monegan and the troopers' union were acting with a callous disregard [or "rogue mentality"] for the safety of the people in order to protect, not only one Wooten, but those troopers who condoned Wooten's indiscretions [i.e., the officer who witnessed the moose kill and the one who let him off for drunk driving].
Furthermore, the report glosses over the "improper motivation" element of this inquiry [pages 50 & 51]. The Alaska Administrative Code defines "improper motivation" as "a motivation not related to the best interests of the state." The list following the definition is not inclusive, it is expansive. The fact remains, that Palin DID have the best interests of the citizens in mind. Her state of mind is well-documented in the one piece of direct evidence as to her words and actions, the e-mail. The fact that she pressed the issue with Bitney and others suggests not that she was trying to abuse her power in her self-interests, but that she was exhausting all avenues to effect the change that was actually in the best interests of the people of Alaska.
There was no reason to demonstrate both personal and financial gain. The analysis should have started and ended at "improper motivation". Isn't it axiomatic that a civil servant personally gains when the needs of the public are served? An indirect personal benefit does not negate public benefit.
Palin had the right to fire department heads without cause. They served at her will. THE END. The fact that there was even an investigation into this matter is a farce.
There are times when a judge has made his decision before looking at the evidence. It happens when the finder of fact is an interested party. This is exactly what has happened in the case against Sarah Palin.
"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."
Jaundiced eye indeed.
My question is this, at what point did personal interest in one's community coinciding with the benefits associated with protecting that community become an ethical issue? The finder of fact quotes Monegan's testimony extensively, but the one portion of the report that contains words directly from Palin is an e-mail to Monegan under the subsection entitled "Event 7" on pages fifty-seven to fifty-eight [bolding my own].
In sharing a few personal examples with you, including the trooper who used to be related to me-the one who illegally killed a cow moose out of season without a tag-he's still bragging about it in my hometown and another officer confessed to witnessing the kill, this trooper was "investigated" for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist... though he's out there arresting people today for this same crime! This is the same trooper who shot is 11-year old stepson with a taser gun, was seen drinking in his patrol car, was pulled over for drunk driving but let off by a coworker & brags about this incident to this day... he threatened to kill his estranged wife's parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage natives in words and tone, he continues to harass and intimidate his ex, -even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened... he threatens to always be able to come out on top because he's 'got the badge", etc. etc. etc.) This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted. It was a joke, the whole year long "investigation" of him - in fact those who passed along the serious information about him to Julia Grimes and Tandesky were threatened with legal action from the trooper's union for speaking out about it. (This is the same trooper who is out there telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization and he'd never work for that b****, Palin.)
Anyway, just another personal example of what I've personally seen out there and had to live with for two years - and this is what people in the Valley are putting up with (those many residents who know of this trooper time-bomb who's supposed to be "protecting" them.)
The portions I bolded suggest to me that she honestly believed [and with good reason] that the continued employment of
Wooten was an actual public safety issue. Furthermore, it demonstrates her justified belief that Monegan and the troopers' union were acting with a callous disregard [or "rogue mentality"] for the safety of the people in order to protect, not only one Wooten, but those troopers who condoned Wooten's indiscretions [i.e., the officer who witnessed the moose kill and the one who let him off for drunk driving].
Furthermore, the report glosses over the "improper motivation" element of this inquiry [pages 50 & 51]. The Alaska Administrative Code defines "improper motivation" as "a motivation not related to the best interests of the state." The list following the definition is not inclusive, it is expansive. The fact remains, that Palin DID have the best interests of the citizens in mind. Her state of mind is well-documented in the one piece of direct evidence as to her words and actions, the e-mail. The fact that she pressed the issue with Bitney and others suggests not that she was trying to abuse her power in her self-interests, but that she was exhausting all avenues to effect the change that was actually in the best interests of the people of Alaska.
There was no reason to demonstrate both personal and financial gain. The analysis should have started and ended at "improper motivation". Isn't it axiomatic that a civil servant personally gains when the needs of the public are served? An indirect personal benefit does not negate public benefit.
Palin had the right to fire department heads without cause. They served at her will. THE END. The fact that there was even an investigation into this matter is a farce.
Obama's Followers Need Prozac
In today's WaPo Op-Ed, Columnist Charles Krauthammer effectively questions Obama's personal and professional associations. Ironically, in his comments there was actually a comment that asked him why he hated America.
The truth be told, Mr. Krauthammer was genteel and generous to Obama in his piece. He was generous in his assessment that Obama is merely cynical and "swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond." The truth is that Obama does think these things about America. He says as much and plays upon adolescent negativity and despair. It is adolescent because no American, except maybe those who lived through the Great Depression, has the capacity to understand true despair and hardship. Yet somehow, we have people running around constantly yelling to the rest of us that the sky is falling.
Bart Simpson once said, "Eh, making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel." Is it no wonder that Obama draws his base from the youngest voters and overgrown Boomers who never grew up? I mean, really. Take some Prozac, people. The market is crazy because people are panicking and liquidating. I would love to take a look at most of these companies' balance sheets. Even Wachovia's assets were severely undervalued out of panic and likely, Citigroup's greed. As my friends' husbands and my own can all attest, we are succeeding in Iraq and the surge worked: there are tangible signs. We have the greatest healthcare system in the world, bar none.
We are most definitely not perfect, all of the above have their problems. I do not deny this, but we are not some deteriorating society. People here are not oppressed--not in the real sense of the term. The oppression that we are sold are usually constructs or exacerbations of a media trying to sell us drama--without a crisis, there is no drama and people don't tune in or buy papers.
So why does Obama and his campaign sell it to us this way? Why would we want a candidate who peddles Doom and Gloom? We are so blessed that we're regarded as spoiled and obnoxious by many foreigners. How can we be both bad guy and protector? We are a strong, industrious, and friendly nation that has a history of commitment to human and individual rights. This is what McCain means when he says, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Mr. Krauthammer, you are much too generous. Obama looks good in a suit, lacks palsy, and stands tall with that gleaming smile, but the premise he sells is the dregs of the pond from which he cometh.
The truth be told, Mr. Krauthammer was genteel and generous to Obama in his piece. He was generous in his assessment that Obama is merely cynical and "swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond." The truth is that Obama does think these things about America. He says as much and plays upon adolescent negativity and despair. It is adolescent because no American, except maybe those who lived through the Great Depression, has the capacity to understand true despair and hardship. Yet somehow, we have people running around constantly yelling to the rest of us that the sky is falling.
Bart Simpson once said, "Eh, making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel." Is it no wonder that Obama draws his base from the youngest voters and overgrown Boomers who never grew up? I mean, really. Take some Prozac, people. The market is crazy because people are panicking and liquidating. I would love to take a look at most of these companies' balance sheets. Even Wachovia's assets were severely undervalued out of panic and likely, Citigroup's greed. As my friends' husbands and my own can all attest, we are succeeding in Iraq and the surge worked: there are tangible signs. We have the greatest healthcare system in the world, bar none.
We are most definitely not perfect, all of the above have their problems. I do not deny this, but we are not some deteriorating society. People here are not oppressed--not in the real sense of the term. The oppression that we are sold are usually constructs or exacerbations of a media trying to sell us drama--without a crisis, there is no drama and people don't tune in or buy papers.
So why does Obama and his campaign sell it to us this way? Why would we want a candidate who peddles Doom and Gloom? We are so blessed that we're regarded as spoiled and obnoxious by many foreigners. How can we be both bad guy and protector? We are a strong, industrious, and friendly nation that has a history of commitment to human and individual rights. This is what McCain means when he says, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Mr. Krauthammer, you are much too generous. Obama looks good in a suit, lacks palsy, and stands tall with that gleaming smile, but the premise he sells is the dregs of the pond from which he cometh.
Good Result, But
Disappointing opinion.
http://steynonline.com/
I was hoping that the judge would say something more along the lines of what I thought when I read this book: the only incitement I noticed was to fornicate.
My Irish Catholic Marine husband has actually turned Mr. Steyn's 2.3 statistic into a come-on line. Funny? Yes. Effective? No.
http://steynonline.com/
I was hoping that the judge would say something more along the lines of what I thought when I read this book: the only incitement I noticed was to fornicate.
My Irish Catholic Marine husband has actually turned Mr. Steyn's 2.3 statistic into a come-on line. Funny? Yes. Effective? No.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Purged
Why do I have this sinking feeling that the unaccounted-for are going to be active duty military? I pray that I am wrong.
Russians Endorse Obama
In the words of the Great John Hughes as delivered by the sexy Judd Nelson, "B-O-O-H-O-O." Russia doesn't like McCain-Palin. Of course they don't. They invaded our allies [Georgia], have their sights set on invading MORE of our allies [Ukraine], and would love America's Second Coming to facilitate through condonation their aggression.
*I'm not alleging that Sarah Palin is some Russian policy expert, but to use the fact that she wasn't pressed about her knowledge of Russian artists is ridiculousness. Remind me again how expertise in art translates into foreign policy? I'm sure Sarah is hyperventilation crying in her closet right now because she won't be named Ambassador of Russian Art in her lifetime.
You say such a position does not exist? Silly me, I'm sure if Obama wins that that will be another area of waste he will be glad to attach to his vast budgetary concerns in an effort to pander to the Pro-Russian vote. Go New Party!
*I'm not alleging that Sarah Palin is some Russian policy expert, but to use the fact that she wasn't pressed about her knowledge of Russian artists is ridiculousness. Remind me again how expertise in art translates into foreign policy? I'm sure Sarah is hyperventilation crying in her closet right now because she won't be named Ambassador of Russian Art in her lifetime.
You say such a position does not exist? Silly me, I'm sure if Obama wins that that will be another area of waste he will be glad to attach to his vast budgetary concerns in an effort to pander to the Pro-Russian vote. Go New Party!
Thank Goodness
Somebody was talking about it. I don't know why I'm bothering with this blog when we have VDH. All hail.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Real Feminist Issue
Wolf culling is not a feminist issue. [Sorry Gloria!]
Firing of political appointees who endorsed one's opponent is not a feminist issue.
The over zealous car seat lobby is.
Spare me the stay at home dads and the whole "Gaybies" rhetoric, the people who are truly affected by these regulations are moms. The car seat phenomenon has gotten beyond ridiculous. It takes my husband fifteen minutes to run to the store to pick up a gallon of milk [that includes getting lost at the store looking for the dairy case]. It takes me an hour just to get the kids [ages two and three] out the door and loaded into the car. I am looking at an extra five minutes per each loading/unloading of two kids in and out of the car. For one trip to a store, that is TWENTY extra minutes [this, of course does not count chasing children, getting them out of strollers, making sure they have all of their "stuff" and have gone to the bathroom or are changed].
On an average day, let's be conservative and say that a mom makes probably about three trips with kids. Three trips times twenty minutes is one hour. ONE WHOLE HOUR OF A MOM'S DAY IS LOST TO LOADING/UNLOADING KIDS ALONE!!!! That comes out to more than fifteen days per year. That is more than two weeks per year lost just to loading kids in and out of a car.
Now, I gladly do this because my kids are worth more to me than those days and I have bought onto the whole car-seat-as-savior thing. This article makes me think differently. There is no doubt in my mind that my little toddlebops should be strapped securely in car seats, but EIGHT years old? That seems excessive given the actual statistics.
Furthermore, the flexibility of mothers everywhere is compromised. The other day, a neighbor told me that she almost called me to see if I could drive her son because she was having car trouble but then thought about the fact that I have two children in car seats and wouldn't be able to accommodate her own child's car seat. So she drove her unsafe car instead... At least the kid was strapped safely in his expensive car seat.
Our mothers had it a lot easier, they would take turns loading an entire neighborhood worth of kids in cars and save on gas and time and money. The average car can only accommodate two car seats. Carpooling has gone the way of all things. We are getting mad about the environment and focusing on conservation, but we have forced parents into NOT carpooling. How in the world does this make sense?
So, thanks, car seat lobby. Because of you, I will have lost 137 days of my life.
Firing of political appointees who endorsed one's opponent is not a feminist issue.
The over zealous car seat lobby is.
Spare me the stay at home dads and the whole "Gaybies" rhetoric, the people who are truly affected by these regulations are moms. The car seat phenomenon has gotten beyond ridiculous. It takes my husband fifteen minutes to run to the store to pick up a gallon of milk [that includes getting lost at the store looking for the dairy case]. It takes me an hour just to get the kids [ages two and three] out the door and loaded into the car. I am looking at an extra five minutes per each loading/unloading of two kids in and out of the car. For one trip to a store, that is TWENTY extra minutes [this, of course does not count chasing children, getting them out of strollers, making sure they have all of their "stuff" and have gone to the bathroom or are changed].
On an average day, let's be conservative and say that a mom makes probably about three trips with kids. Three trips times twenty minutes is one hour. ONE WHOLE HOUR OF A MOM'S DAY IS LOST TO LOADING/UNLOADING KIDS ALONE!!!! That comes out to more than fifteen days per year. That is more than two weeks per year lost just to loading kids in and out of a car.
Now, I gladly do this because my kids are worth more to me than those days and I have bought onto the whole car-seat-as-savior thing. This article makes me think differently. There is no doubt in my mind that my little toddlebops should be strapped securely in car seats, but EIGHT years old? That seems excessive given the actual statistics.
Furthermore, the flexibility of mothers everywhere is compromised. The other day, a neighbor told me that she almost called me to see if I could drive her son because she was having car trouble but then thought about the fact that I have two children in car seats and wouldn't be able to accommodate her own child's car seat. So she drove her unsafe car instead... At least the kid was strapped safely in his expensive car seat.
Our mothers had it a lot easier, they would take turns loading an entire neighborhood worth of kids in cars and save on gas and time and money. The average car can only accommodate two car seats. Carpooling has gone the way of all things. We are getting mad about the environment and focusing on conservation, but we have forced parents into NOT carpooling. How in the world does this make sense?
So, thanks, car seat lobby. Because of you, I will have lost 137 days of my life.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Catholics Are Anti-Capitalist?
St. Francis and the Catholic Church's teachings are anti-capitalist, so, according to this yahoo, we Catholics should be voting for a little anti-capitalism.
Allow me to clarify something:
Anti-capitalism in practice is called communism.
Communist states in practice traditionally exclude freedom of religious expression.
Call me simpleminded, but how is this proposal in the interest of the Catholic Church and, by extension, it's parishioners?
Next time you want to push your political agenda, please do so without using some bogus religious argument.
*A great article on this care of Milena.
Allow me to clarify something:
Anti-capitalism in practice is called communism.
Communist states in practice traditionally exclude freedom of religious expression.
Call me simpleminded, but how is this proposal in the interest of the Catholic Church and, by extension, it's parishioners?
Next time you want to push your political agenda, please do so without using some bogus religious argument.
*A great article on this care of Milena.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Got Caught Stealing
Plagiarism doesn't pay, Joe. The reason why it is not wise to plagiarize in school is because it defeats the purpose of education in the first place. You may walk out of there with a degree, but you don't walk out with an education. Without the whole "learning" aspect of education, the diploma is only as useful as its fanny-wiping cousins.
In last night's V.P. debate, the value of Joe's JD showed. I cannot believe that nobody is talking about it, Joe Biden offered up the most fallacious legal argument ever when discussing the duties of VPOTUS. He said it with so much conviction, though, that maybe his delivery actually made up for the fact that he was all over the place. Or maybe not--I was not convinced.
Last night Senator Biden said the following in response to Gwen Ifill's question regarding his stance on the Cheney's "interpretation" of the Vice Presidency:
1. "Everyone should understand that" high school freshmen taking civics know this is wrong. Article I of the US Constitution delineates the scope and authority of Congress--NOT, as you say, the executive branch. Maybe if you pound on the dais some more, you will magically will it to be true.
The VPOTUS's role vis a vis the legislative branch is delineated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4. While Article II does mention the VPOTUS with respect to the fact that they are considered our "Alternate", there is no delineation of the VPOTUS's role in the executive branch in Article II. Before FDR expanded upon the importance of the VPOTUS by inviting him to White House cabinet meetings, the VPOTUS's only real "power" [and I use that term loosely] was to preside over the Senate to certify vote counts and cast tie-breaking votes.
2. The only aspect of the duties of VPOTUS that the Constitution is explicit about are those of the legislative branch. The executive advisory role is not constitutionally recognized nor read into any aspect of the Constitution. It is a construct of the FDR administration that has carried forth to the present.
3. How exactly is Cheney more dangerous than any other executive cabinet member? He has no authority over our armed forces. He has no influence over Congress.
In short, Biden is pissy about the fact that Cheney's papers were not subject to the White House subpoena because he is considered part of the legislative branch as well. He then points to the delineation of legislative duties to support this. Perhaps he cheated on more than just his LSP paper.
Another little nugget that people failed to take notice of last night that was true to Biden's typical self-contradicting form:
Homosexuals say what?
In last night's V.P. debate, the value of Joe's JD showed. I cannot believe that nobody is talking about it, Joe Biden offered up the most fallacious legal argument ever when discussing the duties of VPOTUS. He said it with so much conviction, though, that maybe his delivery actually made up for the fact that he was all over the place. Or maybe not--I was not convinced.
Last night Senator Biden said the following in response to Gwen Ifill's question regarding his stance on the Cheney's "interpretation" of the Vice Presidency:
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
1. "Everyone should understand that" high school freshmen taking civics know this is wrong. Article I of the US Constitution delineates the scope and authority of Congress--NOT, as you say, the executive branch. Maybe if you pound on the dais some more, you will magically will it to be true.
The VPOTUS's role vis a vis the legislative branch is delineated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4. While Article II does mention the VPOTUS with respect to the fact that they are considered our "Alternate", there is no delineation of the VPOTUS's role in the executive branch in Article II. Before FDR expanded upon the importance of the VPOTUS by inviting him to White House cabinet meetings, the VPOTUS's only real "power" [and I use that term loosely] was to preside over the Senate to certify vote counts and cast tie-breaking votes.
2. The only aspect of the duties of VPOTUS that the Constitution is explicit about are those of the legislative branch. The executive advisory role is not constitutionally recognized nor read into any aspect of the Constitution. It is a construct of the FDR administration that has carried forth to the present.
3. How exactly is Cheney more dangerous than any other executive cabinet member? He has no authority over our armed forces. He has no influence over Congress.
In short, Biden is pissy about the fact that Cheney's papers were not subject to the White House subpoena because he is considered part of the legislative branch as well. He then points to the delineation of legislative duties to support this. Perhaps he cheated on more than just his LSP paper.
Another little nugget that people failed to take notice of last night that was true to Biden's typical self-contradicting form:
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
Homosexuals say what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)