Headlines scream “Obama Date Night Draws GOP Fire” and “GOP Crying Foul Over Obamas Romantic Trip”.
Question: Why is the GOP making a stink over the Obamas flying to New York for a romantic evening?
Answer: Because the press won’t do it!
Barack and Michelle Obama jetted to New York City for a date night to dine at a fancy restaurant, “a seminal Greenmarket haven”, and take in a Broadway play about black struggles in the early 1900’s.
I understand that the President of the United States does not take a vow of poverty. Presidents, like most successful politicians, are usually fairly wealthy, including this one who made millions by being credited as author of not one but two ghostwritten “autobiographies”.
I also understand that the president is entitled to a personal life with his wife and family, particularly one like Obama with a young family. I could not care less what kind of mustard the president asks for on his hamburger during what are becoming his semi-regular lunch excursions to burger stands in DC. Frankly, I find it exceedingly more desirable that this president goes out for a nibble than the previous Democrat president who opened his own weenie stand in the oval office and invited aides to take one.
What I don’t understand is how the Washington press core hammered George Walker Bush on every personal trip he made, regardless of the destination, yet when Barack Hussein Obama, the president of cap and trade and mandatory energy conservation, boards a private jet to New York City to take his wife to dinner the silence from the same bastions of truth and fairness is deafening.
I am not saying that Barack and Michelle Obama don’t deserve a night on the town. It’s got to be nice to have a dinner without his live-in mother-in-law sitting there. But at a time when other wealthy men, like the CEO’s of the automakers, are publicly flogged for taking their private planes to Washington DC it seems more than a bit disingenuous when the President and his First Lady do the same thing on the taxpayers dime for a nice dinner and a Broadway play.
I get it that the CEO’s can fly coach without having to make the same special security arrangements that are necessary for the president. But the security and personnel needed for this type of romantic adventure for the Obamas only furthers the point. When the president travels it is no small or inexpensive affair.
While the president’s private jet did not buzz the office buildings in downtown Manhattan for a photo-op, I am certain it caused a carbon footprint at least equal to the carbon footprint left by Al Gore’s private jet when he last visited Washington to discuss the dangers of our carbon footprints.
The bottom line is you simply can’t have it both ways. Either you’re for wealthy people doing the things that wealthy people do, like flying their private jets to quant and romantic getaways, or you are for wealth redistribution and imposed energy conservation.
The other key issue is that wealthy people fly to these locations on their own money; the president takes his wife out to dinner and a show on ours. Am I to believe that there was no way for this president/husband to keep his promise to his wife for a night on the town by tying it into a presidentially related trip to New York?
But my biggest question remains, why is the White House press corps not asking these questions? With all the outrage at what CEO’s and brokers on Wall Street are paid, why is this Obama trip viewed as a husband being considerate to his wife? Don’t the Wall Street CEO’s and brokers have spouses that they have made promises to as well? If the CEO’s tried to expense a date night like this against their companies expense accounts they could be charged with tax fraud.
I’m waiting for Helen Thomas to ask these questions.
I’ll probably be waiting a while.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Activismania
Welcome to the age of the activist.
Having a community activist as president has opened the door to activism from every sector of the economy directed at every possible target both legitimate and otherwise. The president and his troubling alliance with the activist group ACORN is a perfect example of which I speak.
ACORN is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They are supposedly concerned with a passel of issues such as fair housing, workplace reform, fair pay and predatory lending. They have however recently focused much of their attention on voter registration, some legitimate and some far from it. But because most of their “mistakes” in signing up the dead to vote are staunch Democrat voters they are now in line to gain a lion’s share of the $1 billion the president has set aside to conduct a new national census. My guess is if they get paid by the name this county will have a census population of about 216 billion by the time the counting is done, and most of them will be living in poor urban areas.
Like I said, it’s good to be an activist with an activist president.
In a recent story from the Wall Street Journal they discussed what they called an “Activist Financier” named Bruce Marks. Mr. Marks is supposedly a “campaigner on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure”.
As where in the past folks looking to negotiate with a bank on behalf of someone who is not paying their mortgage may have attempted a diplomatic and reasonable approach, Mr. Marks will have none of that. He spends most of his time screaming insults into a phone, making threats and then slamming down the receiver. “I’m tired of borrowers being screwed!” he yelled into the phone. “You’re incompetent!” and then he hangs up after threatening to get the banks CEO involved.
Mr. Marks owns the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. His NACA has been able to intimidate the four largest mortgage lending banks into an agreement to work with his counselors to arrange lower payments for struggling homeowners. He does it by posting pictures of bankers on the internet emblazoned with the caption “Predator”, releasing their home addresses and phone numbers along with pictures of their houses and filing their yards with furniture as if they were being evicted. He has also gone so far as to leak banker’s private divorce settlement papers to the press. There appears to be absolutely nothing Mr. Marks won’t do to the benefit of the poor homeowner, oh yes, and his own for profit company as well. You see along with everything else Mr. Marks is a mortgage broker as well with 40 full time brokerage employees.
Marks maintains that banks the are problem and that if they check a person’s credit worthiness and find it suitable there should be no need for a down payment. He also suggests that banks should limit payments to what homeowners can afford.
All this sounds very valiant on behalf of Mr. Marks and his for profit organization but the reality is, like so many of the false claims of activists, it just isn’t true.
At recent rally held by Mr. Marks at which his counselors attracted some 10,000 people to an arena for mortgage renegotiations a representative of NACA told the crowd “What happened is not your fault. The mortgage crisis is the result of abuses and exploitation by Wall Street”. Wow, that sounds like it could have come right out of the White House.
But if the recent rash of government forced mortgage adjustments and the renegotiations through strong-arm tactics by the likes of Mr. Marks have shown us anything it is that most of the people who are in default on their Fannie Mae inspired subprime mortgages should have never been given any kind of mortgage in the first place. In most cases these “struggling homeowners” are incapable or unwilling to keep their mortgage current regardless of the terms.
It is always in the best interest of the bank to keep the mortgage holder in their home rather than foreclose. But as banks struggle to find new more accommodating terms for these loans, 75% of the modified subprime loans currently are, or will be in default again within the next 12 months. But as was the case in the original feeding frenzy to sign up unqualified buyers, mortgage brokers like Mr. Marks get paid up front. Maybe that’s why Mr. Marks is such a strong advocate.
The astounding failure rate of these renegotiated mortgages was reported by Fitch Ratings which analyzed mortgages bundled into securities between 2005 and 2007. This ominous report once again proves the folly of the Democrats attempt to install welfare into the home mortgage market.
Does Wall Street carry any responsibility? Sure. But the biggest failure of Wall Street was not in their desire for profit but in their misguided faith in congress to do the right thing. No oversight, political hacks in positions of authority, blatantly false bookkeeping to garner both favor and undeserved bonuses in the millions of dollars and a Democrat controlled banking commission that allowed it all to happen.
As for Mr. Marks, he’ll just keep screaming at bankers all the way to the bank.
Like I said, it’s good to be an activist when there is a community activist in the White House.
Having a community activist as president has opened the door to activism from every sector of the economy directed at every possible target both legitimate and otherwise. The president and his troubling alliance with the activist group ACORN is a perfect example of which I speak.
ACORN is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They are supposedly concerned with a passel of issues such as fair housing, workplace reform, fair pay and predatory lending. They have however recently focused much of their attention on voter registration, some legitimate and some far from it. But because most of their “mistakes” in signing up the dead to vote are staunch Democrat voters they are now in line to gain a lion’s share of the $1 billion the president has set aside to conduct a new national census. My guess is if they get paid by the name this county will have a census population of about 216 billion by the time the counting is done, and most of them will be living in poor urban areas.
Like I said, it’s good to be an activist with an activist president.
In a recent story from the Wall Street Journal they discussed what they called an “Activist Financier” named Bruce Marks. Mr. Marks is supposedly a “campaigner on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure”.
As where in the past folks looking to negotiate with a bank on behalf of someone who is not paying their mortgage may have attempted a diplomatic and reasonable approach, Mr. Marks will have none of that. He spends most of his time screaming insults into a phone, making threats and then slamming down the receiver. “I’m tired of borrowers being screwed!” he yelled into the phone. “You’re incompetent!” and then he hangs up after threatening to get the banks CEO involved.
Mr. Marks owns the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. His NACA has been able to intimidate the four largest mortgage lending banks into an agreement to work with his counselors to arrange lower payments for struggling homeowners. He does it by posting pictures of bankers on the internet emblazoned with the caption “Predator”, releasing their home addresses and phone numbers along with pictures of their houses and filing their yards with furniture as if they were being evicted. He has also gone so far as to leak banker’s private divorce settlement papers to the press. There appears to be absolutely nothing Mr. Marks won’t do to the benefit of the poor homeowner, oh yes, and his own for profit company as well. You see along with everything else Mr. Marks is a mortgage broker as well with 40 full time brokerage employees.
Marks maintains that banks the are problem and that if they check a person’s credit worthiness and find it suitable there should be no need for a down payment. He also suggests that banks should limit payments to what homeowners can afford.
All this sounds very valiant on behalf of Mr. Marks and his for profit organization but the reality is, like so many of the false claims of activists, it just isn’t true.
At recent rally held by Mr. Marks at which his counselors attracted some 10,000 people to an arena for mortgage renegotiations a representative of NACA told the crowd “What happened is not your fault. The mortgage crisis is the result of abuses and exploitation by Wall Street”. Wow, that sounds like it could have come right out of the White House.
But if the recent rash of government forced mortgage adjustments and the renegotiations through strong-arm tactics by the likes of Mr. Marks have shown us anything it is that most of the people who are in default on their Fannie Mae inspired subprime mortgages should have never been given any kind of mortgage in the first place. In most cases these “struggling homeowners” are incapable or unwilling to keep their mortgage current regardless of the terms.
It is always in the best interest of the bank to keep the mortgage holder in their home rather than foreclose. But as banks struggle to find new more accommodating terms for these loans, 75% of the modified subprime loans currently are, or will be in default again within the next 12 months. But as was the case in the original feeding frenzy to sign up unqualified buyers, mortgage brokers like Mr. Marks get paid up front. Maybe that’s why Mr. Marks is such a strong advocate.
The astounding failure rate of these renegotiated mortgages was reported by Fitch Ratings which analyzed mortgages bundled into securities between 2005 and 2007. This ominous report once again proves the folly of the Democrats attempt to install welfare into the home mortgage market.
Does Wall Street carry any responsibility? Sure. But the biggest failure of Wall Street was not in their desire for profit but in their misguided faith in congress to do the right thing. No oversight, political hacks in positions of authority, blatantly false bookkeeping to garner both favor and undeserved bonuses in the millions of dollars and a Democrat controlled banking commission that allowed it all to happen.
As for Mr. Marks, he’ll just keep screaming at bankers all the way to the bank.
Like I said, it’s good to be an activist when there is a community activist in the White House.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Faith v. Relaity Part 3
Picking up where we left off in the battle of the speeches:
Obama went during his speech to denigrate all efforts made by the Bush administration to rein in terrorists after 9-11. He said “After 9-11 we knew that we had entered a new era, that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law…… unfortunately faced with an uncertain threat our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, and too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” He went on to say that the Bush administration had used techniques that were illegal, having “failed to rely on our legal traditions and time tested institutions”.
All pretty impressive sounding stuff, huh? The problem is that it is once again completely and utterly untrue and meaningless.
The assertion that Bush lied is getting pretty old. He lied about this and he lied about that. The problem is that if anybody had actual proof that he lied wouldn’t that have come out by now. I’m talking proof, not innuendo to cover their own asses. The entire congress was kept abreast every step of the way on the war in Iraq, the taking of prisoners and the opening of Guantanamo Bay. It was by congressional approval not presidential edict that these actions were carried out. Even the level and harshness of techniques in the interrogation of prisoners was made abundantly clear to congressional leaders.
And while there may have been fear of another attack, fear did not dictate actions. Results dictated action. Results that this president is now trying desperately to hide from the American public.
Waterboarding has become the newest tool of the Democrats in their attempts to keep the public focused on the evils of Bush. Memos describing the technique in graphic detail were released to the eager press for publication. But strangely enough the results of those interrogations have remained secret.
As Dick Cheney explained in his speech across town “You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheik Muhammed- the mastermind of 9-11.” Cheney also said “By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed as well that there was much agonizing over the decision. Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the pubic was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has the right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.”
Back on the other side of DC the words of Obama were still ringing in the halls when he said “I released the memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them.” He went on to say “I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments…….”
After damning the Bush administration and presidentially banning the use of extreme, but legal, harsh interrogation tactics wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the people, and the best way to prove your position beyond any doubt, to release the results garnered from the harsh techniques employed on the three most dangerous terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay? After all this hoopla that this is an open administration and that the tactics used were unconstitutional, a claim which has no basis, and unnecessary, another claim without merit, and unsuccessful, I would think that the perfect example to prove this point is to release the memos of what we found out.
The only possible reason for these results to be withheld is that they completely obliterate the president’s unfounded premise.
In an almost comical closing the president, who had just spent the last 20 minutes pejoratively sniping at the Bush administration said “I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to point fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than a re-litigation of the last eight years. Already we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.” But then only two paragraphs down in his text he deepened his sanctimony by saying “I can stand here today as President of the United States and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture………..Make no mistake; if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past eight years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.”
What a truly cheap shot. The truth is that Barack Hussein Obama is a man of great and unshakable faith. Unfortunately that faith is in Barack Hussein Obama. A man with no experience in dealing with the level of terror and evil that is lurking, planning, waiting for an opportunity to strike again. He is a man who is convinced that if we get attacked again it’s because we had it coming. He is a man who would intentionally mislead the American public to further his completely unrealistic approach to national security. If that is not true, then let him release the memos.
I prefer to end with the closing of statements of Dick Cheney who said “For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you, they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those that asked them questions and got answers, they did the right thing, they made the country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them…………I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements for granted.”
I know I won’t.
Obama went during his speech to denigrate all efforts made by the Bush administration to rein in terrorists after 9-11. He said “After 9-11 we knew that we had entered a new era, that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law…… unfortunately faced with an uncertain threat our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, and too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” He went on to say that the Bush administration had used techniques that were illegal, having “failed to rely on our legal traditions and time tested institutions”.
All pretty impressive sounding stuff, huh? The problem is that it is once again completely and utterly untrue and meaningless.
The assertion that Bush lied is getting pretty old. He lied about this and he lied about that. The problem is that if anybody had actual proof that he lied wouldn’t that have come out by now. I’m talking proof, not innuendo to cover their own asses. The entire congress was kept abreast every step of the way on the war in Iraq, the taking of prisoners and the opening of Guantanamo Bay. It was by congressional approval not presidential edict that these actions were carried out. Even the level and harshness of techniques in the interrogation of prisoners was made abundantly clear to congressional leaders.
And while there may have been fear of another attack, fear did not dictate actions. Results dictated action. Results that this president is now trying desperately to hide from the American public.
Waterboarding has become the newest tool of the Democrats in their attempts to keep the public focused on the evils of Bush. Memos describing the technique in graphic detail were released to the eager press for publication. But strangely enough the results of those interrogations have remained secret.
As Dick Cheney explained in his speech across town “You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheik Muhammed- the mastermind of 9-11.” Cheney also said “By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed as well that there was much agonizing over the decision. Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the pubic was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has the right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.”
Back on the other side of DC the words of Obama were still ringing in the halls when he said “I released the memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them.” He went on to say “I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments…….”
After damning the Bush administration and presidentially banning the use of extreme, but legal, harsh interrogation tactics wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the people, and the best way to prove your position beyond any doubt, to release the results garnered from the harsh techniques employed on the three most dangerous terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay? After all this hoopla that this is an open administration and that the tactics used were unconstitutional, a claim which has no basis, and unnecessary, another claim without merit, and unsuccessful, I would think that the perfect example to prove this point is to release the memos of what we found out.
The only possible reason for these results to be withheld is that they completely obliterate the president’s unfounded premise.
In an almost comical closing the president, who had just spent the last 20 minutes pejoratively sniping at the Bush administration said “I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to point fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than a re-litigation of the last eight years. Already we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.” But then only two paragraphs down in his text he deepened his sanctimony by saying “I can stand here today as President of the United States and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture………..Make no mistake; if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past eight years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.”
What a truly cheap shot. The truth is that Barack Hussein Obama is a man of great and unshakable faith. Unfortunately that faith is in Barack Hussein Obama. A man with no experience in dealing with the level of terror and evil that is lurking, planning, waiting for an opportunity to strike again. He is a man who is convinced that if we get attacked again it’s because we had it coming. He is a man who would intentionally mislead the American public to further his completely unrealistic approach to national security. If that is not true, then let him release the memos.
I prefer to end with the closing of statements of Dick Cheney who said “For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you, they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those that asked them questions and got answers, they did the right thing, they made the country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them…………I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements for granted.”
I know I won’t.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Faith v. Reality Part 2
If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring
Every heart would have a new song to sing
And we’d sing of the joy every morning would bring
If I ruled the world, every man would be as free as a bird
Every voice would be a voice to be heard
Take my word, we would treasure each day that occurred
My world would be a beautiful place
Where we would weave such wonderful dreams
My world would have a smile on its face
Like the man in the moon has when the moon beams
If I ruled the world, every man would say the world was his friend
There’d be happiness that no man could end
No my friend, not if I ruled the world
Every head would be held up high
There’d be sunshine in everyone’s sky
If the day ever dawned when I ruled the world.
While this may sound very much like a Barack Obama campaign speech, it is of course the lyrics to the popular song “If I Ruled the World” by Leslie Bricusse and Cyril Ornadel from the play Pickwick. The euphoric message is both heartwarming and encouraging. It inspires faith in brighter days to come and in the one who will make it all happen. The problem in real life comes when the campaign is over and the guy who made the promises really does rule the world. At that point folks tend to expect a little more than a new set of promises. Such is the case of the battling speeches given by Barack Obama and Dick Cheney.
Cheney’s speech was direct and fact laden. Obama’s speech, as always, was lyrical in its choice of words and dramatic in its presentation against the backdrop of the U.S. Constitution, but when it was over created more questions than it answered. Cheney gave the speech of a man who has succeeded in his mission and has no further political ambitions to cloud his connotation. Obama gave the speech of a consummate campaigner not a president. The two speeches emphasized the stark contrasts in mindsets between someone who has spent a lifetime in service to the protection of the United States and a liberal community activist who believes wishing will make it so. It detailed the harsh realities of someone who has fought against those whose sole mission in life is to kill Americans and bring down the Great Satan United States and someone who is a political obfuscation, who contemplates the image on each piece of the puzzle independently without seeing how they all fit together.
I don’t know if the Obama administration had an advanced copy of Cheney’s text but they rushed the president to the podium days earlier than originally planned to try to mollify the impact of Cheney’s comments. It was obvious that the Obama administration had heard the calls from the liberal left to step away from what is now being called the “Bush/Obama” policy on national security.
Obama opened his comments with the same whiney lament that he has used repeatedly over the past several months. “There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear” he said, almost as if he was surprised by the degree of responsibility the office of president holds and trying to hide the fact that he is in way over his head and just looking to take a breath. “It’s like drinking from a fire hose” Karl Rove counseled prior to Obama taking office. But I doubt BHO would ever actually listen to Karl Rove.
“We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all the elements of our power to defeat it” Obama said, sounding as if he was in tune with the real threat against us. He then went on to say “Already we have taken steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan” proving once again that no topic is too important to politicize and intentionally misrepresent.
In his speech Dick Cheney said “Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as real as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America…and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.” Cheney went on to describe the numerous attacks carried out against Americans and American interests all over the globe and culminating in the attack on 9/11. He explained that this was not just one incident and one well defined and contained enemy. “9/11 caused everyone to take a serious look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated” said Cheney. He went on to caution the foolishness of tunnel vision and directing attention to a single point and dealing with it like a law enforcement case “with everything handled after the fact….crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.”
Obama went on to say that he has launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within the next 4 years, has increased protections at our borders, is increasing preparedness for future attacks(and then downplayed that by including preparedness for natural disasters as well) and is building new partnerships around the world to defeat al Qaeda. “We have renewed American diplomacy so that we can once again have strength and standing and truly lead the world”. What he did not explain were any of the actual measures taken or plans proposed or any tangible results. He also failed to explain how diplomacy will strengthen or improve our national security. In his blatant criticism of the Bush administration for including Iraq as a threat rather than focusing solely on Afghanistan he conveniently forgot that every intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq was working on developing weapons of mass destruction and that they were in fact dealing with extreme terrorist factions, if not directly involved in 9/11, certainly capable of carrying out their own similarly deadly attacks.
Obama went on to call attention to his surroundings by saying “ I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – are not simply words written onto aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents……”
I agree with the president’s ebullient description of our founding charters, but I must add that none of these hallowed documents is a suicide pact. They are indeed the foundation of liberty and justice for all who seek it but they are not and were never meant to be a pacifistic protection for those who would destroy their significance.
And by the way, the life of every American standing in that hall, and for that matter anywhere in the world, was made possible not only by those documents but by the brave men and women who gave their all to defend it. We are not free because some people developed a set of ideals and signed a piece of paper, we are free because some of America’s finest chose sacrifice and service to their country defending it.
Throughout our history Americans have proven their mettle. The question is, what is this president prepared to do.
More tomorrow.
Every heart would have a new song to sing
And we’d sing of the joy every morning would bring
If I ruled the world, every man would be as free as a bird
Every voice would be a voice to be heard
Take my word, we would treasure each day that occurred
My world would be a beautiful place
Where we would weave such wonderful dreams
My world would have a smile on its face
Like the man in the moon has when the moon beams
If I ruled the world, every man would say the world was his friend
There’d be happiness that no man could end
No my friend, not if I ruled the world
Every head would be held up high
There’d be sunshine in everyone’s sky
If the day ever dawned when I ruled the world.
While this may sound very much like a Barack Obama campaign speech, it is of course the lyrics to the popular song “If I Ruled the World” by Leslie Bricusse and Cyril Ornadel from the play Pickwick. The euphoric message is both heartwarming and encouraging. It inspires faith in brighter days to come and in the one who will make it all happen. The problem in real life comes when the campaign is over and the guy who made the promises really does rule the world. At that point folks tend to expect a little more than a new set of promises. Such is the case of the battling speeches given by Barack Obama and Dick Cheney.
Cheney’s speech was direct and fact laden. Obama’s speech, as always, was lyrical in its choice of words and dramatic in its presentation against the backdrop of the U.S. Constitution, but when it was over created more questions than it answered. Cheney gave the speech of a man who has succeeded in his mission and has no further political ambitions to cloud his connotation. Obama gave the speech of a consummate campaigner not a president. The two speeches emphasized the stark contrasts in mindsets between someone who has spent a lifetime in service to the protection of the United States and a liberal community activist who believes wishing will make it so. It detailed the harsh realities of someone who has fought against those whose sole mission in life is to kill Americans and bring down the Great Satan United States and someone who is a political obfuscation, who contemplates the image on each piece of the puzzle independently without seeing how they all fit together.
I don’t know if the Obama administration had an advanced copy of Cheney’s text but they rushed the president to the podium days earlier than originally planned to try to mollify the impact of Cheney’s comments. It was obvious that the Obama administration had heard the calls from the liberal left to step away from what is now being called the “Bush/Obama” policy on national security.
Obama opened his comments with the same whiney lament that he has used repeatedly over the past several months. “There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear” he said, almost as if he was surprised by the degree of responsibility the office of president holds and trying to hide the fact that he is in way over his head and just looking to take a breath. “It’s like drinking from a fire hose” Karl Rove counseled prior to Obama taking office. But I doubt BHO would ever actually listen to Karl Rove.
“We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all the elements of our power to defeat it” Obama said, sounding as if he was in tune with the real threat against us. He then went on to say “Already we have taken steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan” proving once again that no topic is too important to politicize and intentionally misrepresent.
In his speech Dick Cheney said “Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as real as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America…and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.” Cheney went on to describe the numerous attacks carried out against Americans and American interests all over the globe and culminating in the attack on 9/11. He explained that this was not just one incident and one well defined and contained enemy. “9/11 caused everyone to take a serious look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated” said Cheney. He went on to caution the foolishness of tunnel vision and directing attention to a single point and dealing with it like a law enforcement case “with everything handled after the fact….crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.”
Obama went on to say that he has launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within the next 4 years, has increased protections at our borders, is increasing preparedness for future attacks(and then downplayed that by including preparedness for natural disasters as well) and is building new partnerships around the world to defeat al Qaeda. “We have renewed American diplomacy so that we can once again have strength and standing and truly lead the world”. What he did not explain were any of the actual measures taken or plans proposed or any tangible results. He also failed to explain how diplomacy will strengthen or improve our national security. In his blatant criticism of the Bush administration for including Iraq as a threat rather than focusing solely on Afghanistan he conveniently forgot that every intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq was working on developing weapons of mass destruction and that they were in fact dealing with extreme terrorist factions, if not directly involved in 9/11, certainly capable of carrying out their own similarly deadly attacks.
Obama went on to call attention to his surroundings by saying “ I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – are not simply words written onto aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents……”
I agree with the president’s ebullient description of our founding charters, but I must add that none of these hallowed documents is a suicide pact. They are indeed the foundation of liberty and justice for all who seek it but they are not and were never meant to be a pacifistic protection for those who would destroy their significance.
And by the way, the life of every American standing in that hall, and for that matter anywhere in the world, was made possible not only by those documents but by the brave men and women who gave their all to defend it. We are not free because some people developed a set of ideals and signed a piece of paper, we are free because some of America’s finest chose sacrifice and service to their country defending it.
Throughout our history Americans have proven their mettle. The question is, what is this president prepared to do.
More tomorrow.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Faith v. Reality Part 1
Faith is a quality independent of that in which we believe.
In other words, in order to have faith in something we must first possess the ability to have faith. Some people claim to have great faith and some people claim to have none. The reality is we all have faith, we’re born with it. The question is where we place it.
I personally think it takes a lot more faith to believe in the non-scientific theory that some way, somehow, a particular combination of elements came together in just the right quantities and at just the right time and temperature to create life. The theory claims that this life form then “evolved” into every living thing that has ever inhabited the planet. It’s never been proven or duplicated and by the way Darwin never even came close to hypothesizing it. But yet people, who have never even opened Darwin’s book “The Origins of Life”, hang his name on it as if that makes it undeniable proof and proceed to call it science.
In this case they take the results, that fact that we exist, and devise a theory to match those results. They tell people like me who chose to believe in God’s creation that our faith is out of touch with scientific reality. But in fact reality doesn’t match their theory, a fact even Darwin admitted in his study of flowers. Reality doesn’t allow me to believe that the DNA and life force of everything that has ever lived evolved somehow from a single nondescript living cell. If you’re looking for scientific proof, it’s just not there.
The flip side to altering the theory to match the results is when you have faith in something or someone regardless of the results. It is equally misguided and often the result of simply wanting something to be correct so badly that we are willing to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately in the real world wishing and wanting don’t make it so.
Such is the case we currently face in Washington, when the President of Hope and Change is willing to abandon all that has been proven effective for a misguided faith in systems and policies that have been proven ineffective. While this president claims to be a seeker of common ground his actions are anything but conciliatory. To the contrary, what he is claiming as truth is anything but and what he is claiming as a solution is dangerously close to the policies that allowed foreign terrorists to train and carry out the most lethal attack within the United States in our history.
There were two distinctively different speeches last week in Washington DC, one by President Barack Obama at the National Archives Museum and one by immediate past Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute. Cheney’s speech had been scheduled for several months. Obama’s speech was moved up several days in an attempt to eclipse the former VP. Obama’s speech ended literally minutes before Cheney’s began and his attempt to get out in front of Cheney’s comments was a complete and utter failure.
Cheney spoke facts. Obama, as always, spoke in terms of hopes and dreams. Even congressional Democrats, who have been yearning for definitive direction from this White House, could only feign enthusiasm for yet another Obama speech that was long on criticism of his predecessor but completely devoid of any firm plans or policies of his own. Obama had hoped that his controlled public image and strong rebukes of Bush era policies would sway House and Senate Democrats to support his closing of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center without having a plan of his own as to what to do with the dangerous terrorists housed there. Much like his attempt to quash Cheney he was completely unsuccessful with his own party lawmakers as well.
I plan to detail some of the stark contrasts in these two speeches using their own words and comparing them to actual facts. I invite you to read again tomorrow for what should be a lesson for us all on faith.
By the way, Darwin never used the term “evolution” either.
In other words, in order to have faith in something we must first possess the ability to have faith. Some people claim to have great faith and some people claim to have none. The reality is we all have faith, we’re born with it. The question is where we place it.
I personally think it takes a lot more faith to believe in the non-scientific theory that some way, somehow, a particular combination of elements came together in just the right quantities and at just the right time and temperature to create life. The theory claims that this life form then “evolved” into every living thing that has ever inhabited the planet. It’s never been proven or duplicated and by the way Darwin never even came close to hypothesizing it. But yet people, who have never even opened Darwin’s book “The Origins of Life”, hang his name on it as if that makes it undeniable proof and proceed to call it science.
In this case they take the results, that fact that we exist, and devise a theory to match those results. They tell people like me who chose to believe in God’s creation that our faith is out of touch with scientific reality. But in fact reality doesn’t match their theory, a fact even Darwin admitted in his study of flowers. Reality doesn’t allow me to believe that the DNA and life force of everything that has ever lived evolved somehow from a single nondescript living cell. If you’re looking for scientific proof, it’s just not there.
The flip side to altering the theory to match the results is when you have faith in something or someone regardless of the results. It is equally misguided and often the result of simply wanting something to be correct so badly that we are willing to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately in the real world wishing and wanting don’t make it so.
Such is the case we currently face in Washington, when the President of Hope and Change is willing to abandon all that has been proven effective for a misguided faith in systems and policies that have been proven ineffective. While this president claims to be a seeker of common ground his actions are anything but conciliatory. To the contrary, what he is claiming as truth is anything but and what he is claiming as a solution is dangerously close to the policies that allowed foreign terrorists to train and carry out the most lethal attack within the United States in our history.
There were two distinctively different speeches last week in Washington DC, one by President Barack Obama at the National Archives Museum and one by immediate past Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute. Cheney’s speech had been scheduled for several months. Obama’s speech was moved up several days in an attempt to eclipse the former VP. Obama’s speech ended literally minutes before Cheney’s began and his attempt to get out in front of Cheney’s comments was a complete and utter failure.
Cheney spoke facts. Obama, as always, spoke in terms of hopes and dreams. Even congressional Democrats, who have been yearning for definitive direction from this White House, could only feign enthusiasm for yet another Obama speech that was long on criticism of his predecessor but completely devoid of any firm plans or policies of his own. Obama had hoped that his controlled public image and strong rebukes of Bush era policies would sway House and Senate Democrats to support his closing of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center without having a plan of his own as to what to do with the dangerous terrorists housed there. Much like his attempt to quash Cheney he was completely unsuccessful with his own party lawmakers as well.
I plan to detail some of the stark contrasts in these two speeches using their own words and comparing them to actual facts. I invite you to read again tomorrow for what should be a lesson for us all on faith.
By the way, Darwin never used the term “evolution” either.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
In Memoriam
Welcome to the annual Memorial Day Dance.
In deference to Don Felder, Glenn Frey & Don Henley; “Some dance to remember, some dance to forget”.
What began some 140 years ago in 1868 as Decoration Day when women decorated the graves of their loved ones lost on the battlefields of the Civil War, has now evolved into Memorial Day where almost everyone gets a day off work to barbeque, drink beer and maybe watch a ballgame.
The reality is that the families and loved ones of those who died in service to our country and in defense of our freedom don’t need a special day to remember. For them every day is a memorial day. Every day is a day of mourning and missing, a day of why me and what ifs. A day of pride in their hero’s service and bitter grief in their loss. The families, friends and those who served with the heroes that paid the ultimate price have 365 memorial days each year.
Memorial Day is for those that have been fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of these men and women’s sacrifice without personally feeling the extent of their loss. For years Decoration Day was celebrated on May 30th, but that was too inconvenient. So in 1967 Congress changed the official name of the holiday to Memorial Day and in 1968 they moved its observance to the last Monday in May to create a three day weekend. It was in the climate of the Vietnam War that the observance of Memorial Day along with Veterans Day took on the same muted national significance of Washington’s Birthday.
Oh sure, there are plenty of parades where Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts march along with high school marching bands, old war veterans and politicians of every level of importance waving to the onlookers from the back of convertible cars. There will be a moment of silence held at most of the sporting events and some special observances at local churches. But the significance of exactly what we are supposed to remember and the magnitude of the loss associated with it is, for the most part, lost to the feigned pageantry.
We no longer hold the sacrifice of those who died in service to America with deep and abiding national reverence because we no longer view our freedom as anything other than a birthright. Most believe we are free today simply by our willpower alone and forget the years of war and struggle and sacrifice that allowed us to gain our freedom in the first place and safeguarded it from all foes both foreign and domestic to this day. The liberal wing of our political system has successfully made the history of our country’s freedom a moot point outside of a classroom.
The best example of this is the recent history of the democratic freedom our brave military secured in Iraq. After only two years liberals were calling Iraq a lost cause, a quagmire, already lost, unwinnable and a mistake made possible only by the mendacity of a president looking to line the pockets of his oil company buddies. How quickly they forget the inveterate sacrifices made against military and dictatorial mad men throughout our history, and that the benefits we enjoy today are a direct result of those sacrifices.
Every freedom we enjoy was paid for by the blood of America’s sons and daughters. The neat and peaceful rows of military headstones hide the chaos and carnage that brought them to their final resting place. But their bravery and selflessness should never be underestimated or most unforgivably forgotten altogether. As liberals redefine the rights of those who would gladly add thousands more headstones to these pristine rows I ask, what would you be willing to do to save American lives?
I plan to write more about that topic later this week, but for now I will simply quote the man whose wife Mary suggested the idea of Memorial Day as a day of national remembrance, Commander in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, General John A. Logan, who on May 30th 1870 said "This Memorial Day, on which we decorate their graves with the tokens of love and affection, is no idle ceremony with us, to pass away an hour; but it brings back to our minds in all their vividness the fearful conflicts of that terrible war in which they fell as victims.... Let us, then, all unite in the solemn feelings of the hour, and tender with our flowers the warmest sympathies of our souls! Let us revive our patriotism and love of country by this act, and strengthen our loyalty by the example of the noble dead around us...."
Take time to remember.
In deference to Don Felder, Glenn Frey & Don Henley; “Some dance to remember, some dance to forget”.
What began some 140 years ago in 1868 as Decoration Day when women decorated the graves of their loved ones lost on the battlefields of the Civil War, has now evolved into Memorial Day where almost everyone gets a day off work to barbeque, drink beer and maybe watch a ballgame.
The reality is that the families and loved ones of those who died in service to our country and in defense of our freedom don’t need a special day to remember. For them every day is a memorial day. Every day is a day of mourning and missing, a day of why me and what ifs. A day of pride in their hero’s service and bitter grief in their loss. The families, friends and those who served with the heroes that paid the ultimate price have 365 memorial days each year.
Memorial Day is for those that have been fortunate enough to enjoy the fruits of these men and women’s sacrifice without personally feeling the extent of their loss. For years Decoration Day was celebrated on May 30th, but that was too inconvenient. So in 1967 Congress changed the official name of the holiday to Memorial Day and in 1968 they moved its observance to the last Monday in May to create a three day weekend. It was in the climate of the Vietnam War that the observance of Memorial Day along with Veterans Day took on the same muted national significance of Washington’s Birthday.
Oh sure, there are plenty of parades where Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts march along with high school marching bands, old war veterans and politicians of every level of importance waving to the onlookers from the back of convertible cars. There will be a moment of silence held at most of the sporting events and some special observances at local churches. But the significance of exactly what we are supposed to remember and the magnitude of the loss associated with it is, for the most part, lost to the feigned pageantry.
We no longer hold the sacrifice of those who died in service to America with deep and abiding national reverence because we no longer view our freedom as anything other than a birthright. Most believe we are free today simply by our willpower alone and forget the years of war and struggle and sacrifice that allowed us to gain our freedom in the first place and safeguarded it from all foes both foreign and domestic to this day. The liberal wing of our political system has successfully made the history of our country’s freedom a moot point outside of a classroom.
The best example of this is the recent history of the democratic freedom our brave military secured in Iraq. After only two years liberals were calling Iraq a lost cause, a quagmire, already lost, unwinnable and a mistake made possible only by the mendacity of a president looking to line the pockets of his oil company buddies. How quickly they forget the inveterate sacrifices made against military and dictatorial mad men throughout our history, and that the benefits we enjoy today are a direct result of those sacrifices.
Every freedom we enjoy was paid for by the blood of America’s sons and daughters. The neat and peaceful rows of military headstones hide the chaos and carnage that brought them to their final resting place. But their bravery and selflessness should never be underestimated or most unforgivably forgotten altogether. As liberals redefine the rights of those who would gladly add thousands more headstones to these pristine rows I ask, what would you be willing to do to save American lives?
I plan to write more about that topic later this week, but for now I will simply quote the man whose wife Mary suggested the idea of Memorial Day as a day of national remembrance, Commander in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, General John A. Logan, who on May 30th 1870 said "This Memorial Day, on which we decorate their graves with the tokens of love and affection, is no idle ceremony with us, to pass away an hour; but it brings back to our minds in all their vividness the fearful conflicts of that terrible war in which they fell as victims.... Let us, then, all unite in the solemn feelings of the hour, and tender with our flowers the warmest sympathies of our souls! Let us revive our patriotism and love of country by this act, and strengthen our loyalty by the example of the noble dead around us...."
Take time to remember.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
I Don't Know What To Think
With everything that is going on I just don’t know what to think. And apparently I’m not alone.
The recent rash of comments, counter-comments, corrections and restatements coming out of Washington DC is enough to make the Capital fax machine cry uncle. Democrats are confusing even each other and if the Republicans were smart they would just get out of their way.
The Governator from the great state of Caaleefornnia was in Washington DC in an effort to escape Sacramento long enough to allow the feather tar to cool after losing big in his push to bilk taxpayers out of another $36 billion to balance his state’s bloated budget. His excuse was that he was there to witness the signing of Obama’s new federal mpg standards set for auto manufacturers.
Upon leaving DC the press asked Arnold why he thought the automakers rolled over so quickly and accepted these higher mpg mandates. Governor S responded that because the auto companies needed federal bailout money they would do whatever Big Bo and his administration asked. The White House immediately responded by denying the Gov’s claim and saying that the billons in federal bailout money had nothing to do with the automakers glee at having to completely reinvent their model lines and give majority shares of their companies away to the unions that keep them globally uncompetitive.
While Schwarzenegger is technically a Republican the very Democrat EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson basically said the same thing as the Gov at her news conference only to restate and clarify later that she in no way said what she in fact said.
In the Senate Harry “Mr. Peepers” Reid said that he could see no way, under any conditions, that it would be acceptable to house or confine Guantanamo detainees within the United States. No one, no way, at no time! It was only later, after I am sure a tongue lashing from the White House, that an aide to the Senate Majority Leader released a clarification that perhaps Senator Reid had misspoke or at the very least did not make himself clear.
Actually he was crystal clear for a change.
In the House of Representatives some of Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s faithful flock are beginning to show signs of confusion as she continues to change what she thinks happened 40 times over the last 7 years. Even some of her most ardent supporters are now calling for her to back off and regroup. When you’re in a hole the first rule is to quit digging.
Senate Democrats at the hearing today with Treasury Secretary Tim 1040 Geithner repeatedly alleged that the government now owned most of the banks that took TARP funds so why couldn’t the government dictate to them how to pay back their bad debt. Timmy 1040 looked with amazement at the inquisitors and repeated try to explain that the last thing this administration wants is to be seen as having nationalized the banks. Even if they actually have.
This is the problem with having complete control; people will actually begin to have expectations of you. Along with great power comes great responsibility. President Obama ran on the promise of CHANGE. Unfortunately nobody knows what that means to this day. Even Obama.
After campaigning on a promise to close Gitmo and cease the military tribunals of the prisoners the president is still unable to develop a better plan for housing the terrorists and has reinstated the tribunals he spent 2 years damning.
I just don’t know what to think.
I guess when you promise change that can change too.
The recent rash of comments, counter-comments, corrections and restatements coming out of Washington DC is enough to make the Capital fax machine cry uncle. Democrats are confusing even each other and if the Republicans were smart they would just get out of their way.
The Governator from the great state of Caaleefornnia was in Washington DC in an effort to escape Sacramento long enough to allow the feather tar to cool after losing big in his push to bilk taxpayers out of another $36 billion to balance his state’s bloated budget. His excuse was that he was there to witness the signing of Obama’s new federal mpg standards set for auto manufacturers.
Upon leaving DC the press asked Arnold why he thought the automakers rolled over so quickly and accepted these higher mpg mandates. Governor S responded that because the auto companies needed federal bailout money they would do whatever Big Bo and his administration asked. The White House immediately responded by denying the Gov’s claim and saying that the billons in federal bailout money had nothing to do with the automakers glee at having to completely reinvent their model lines and give majority shares of their companies away to the unions that keep them globally uncompetitive.
While Schwarzenegger is technically a Republican the very Democrat EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson basically said the same thing as the Gov at her news conference only to restate and clarify later that she in no way said what she in fact said.
In the Senate Harry “Mr. Peepers” Reid said that he could see no way, under any conditions, that it would be acceptable to house or confine Guantanamo detainees within the United States. No one, no way, at no time! It was only later, after I am sure a tongue lashing from the White House, that an aide to the Senate Majority Leader released a clarification that perhaps Senator Reid had misspoke or at the very least did not make himself clear.
Actually he was crystal clear for a change.
In the House of Representatives some of Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s faithful flock are beginning to show signs of confusion as she continues to change what she thinks happened 40 times over the last 7 years. Even some of her most ardent supporters are now calling for her to back off and regroup. When you’re in a hole the first rule is to quit digging.
Senate Democrats at the hearing today with Treasury Secretary Tim 1040 Geithner repeatedly alleged that the government now owned most of the banks that took TARP funds so why couldn’t the government dictate to them how to pay back their bad debt. Timmy 1040 looked with amazement at the inquisitors and repeated try to explain that the last thing this administration wants is to be seen as having nationalized the banks. Even if they actually have.
This is the problem with having complete control; people will actually begin to have expectations of you. Along with great power comes great responsibility. President Obama ran on the promise of CHANGE. Unfortunately nobody knows what that means to this day. Even Obama.
After campaigning on a promise to close Gitmo and cease the military tribunals of the prisoners the president is still unable to develop a better plan for housing the terrorists and has reinstated the tribunals he spent 2 years damning.
I just don’t know what to think.
I guess when you promise change that can change too.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Three "Doomsday Card" Monty
Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Answer: The tax increase.
Okay, so I’ll admit it isn’t funny. And when I say it isn’t funny I mean it isn’t funny. It’s actually pretty scary.
We currently have a shortage of available jobs and a shortage of available credit. We have a shortage of homebuyers and a shortage of car buyers. We have a shortage of disposable consumer income and a shortage of sustainable consumer confidence. The only thing we have an abundance of is dire predictions of doom if the nation’s taxpayers don’t pony up additional funds to pay for additional spending.
But just where is all this additional money supposed to come from and what impact will it have on the economy?
In California the state is about to vote on Proposition 1A which will increase the state’s taxpayer funded coffers by an additional $16 billion. In Illinois the newly appointed Governor Quinn is proposing a state income tax increase of 50% to help offset the projected budget deficit of $12 billion. Reports of Quinn’s ominous projections state he is playing the “doomsday” card as part of his fiscal forecast. The governor even joked about legislators having to house dangerous criminals if the tax hike fails because there will not be enough revenue to keep them locked up.
In just about every state of the union state and local legislators are playing the same game of three “doomsday card” monty and parsing their words carefully so as to ease the stark reality of their intent.
In Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) said of Governors Quinn's 50% tax hike "He's right that we're going to have to make very significant cuts if we don't find new sources of revenue.” Read carefully the use of the term “new sources of revenue’. What Currie is actually saying without saying it is that the legislature will be going to the same well they have always gone to in order to draw an increase in spending cash, the taxpayers. There is nothing even remotely new about that source.
In California, San Francisco Representative and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is urging voters to pass the unprecedented tax and spend Proposition 1A with the slogan “Proposition 1A is right on time”. This is right out of the Obama “Change we can believe in” and “We are the ones we have been waiting for” playbook. They sound heady and inspiring but it means nothing.
I’ll let you in on a little secret; the reality of tax hikes is that they cost the taxpayer’s money. An additional $16 billion in California and an additional $12 billion in Illinois means $28 billion of spending cash no longer available to spend by the taxpayers. It becomes a vicious circle with no answers and no end, thus the earlier chicken and egg reference. The less taxpayers have to spend the less they buy. The less they buy the fewer people needed to produce or sell the products they would have bought. The fewer people needed the bigger the layoffs at the producers and the sellers. The bigger the layoffs the more government services needed to meet the needs of those laid off. The more government services needed the greater the need for a tax increase and it starts all over again.
The economy is in a precarious position. It is strong enough to recover if it is left to its own devices. But if government continues to diminish disposable and non-disposable income from the average taxpayer through increased taxes this recession has the ability to grow into a full blown depression.
To be sure, Democrats will be lining up at the podium to pass blame on the previous Bush administration. Very little will be discussed about the frivolity of the trillions of dollars in non-stimulating stimulus money already spent. The only exception will be to announce that we need to spend more and tax more if we hope to survive. This same mantra will then pass down to the state level and the whole thing gets repeated again.
The number one rule of economics is that you simply can’t spend your way out of debt. The number one rule of politics is that Democrats will keep on trying.
Answer: The tax increase.
Okay, so I’ll admit it isn’t funny. And when I say it isn’t funny I mean it isn’t funny. It’s actually pretty scary.
We currently have a shortage of available jobs and a shortage of available credit. We have a shortage of homebuyers and a shortage of car buyers. We have a shortage of disposable consumer income and a shortage of sustainable consumer confidence. The only thing we have an abundance of is dire predictions of doom if the nation’s taxpayers don’t pony up additional funds to pay for additional spending.
But just where is all this additional money supposed to come from and what impact will it have on the economy?
In California the state is about to vote on Proposition 1A which will increase the state’s taxpayer funded coffers by an additional $16 billion. In Illinois the newly appointed Governor Quinn is proposing a state income tax increase of 50% to help offset the projected budget deficit of $12 billion. Reports of Quinn’s ominous projections state he is playing the “doomsday” card as part of his fiscal forecast. The governor even joked about legislators having to house dangerous criminals if the tax hike fails because there will not be enough revenue to keep them locked up.
In just about every state of the union state and local legislators are playing the same game of three “doomsday card” monty and parsing their words carefully so as to ease the stark reality of their intent.
In Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) said of Governors Quinn's 50% tax hike "He's right that we're going to have to make very significant cuts if we don't find new sources of revenue.” Read carefully the use of the term “new sources of revenue’. What Currie is actually saying without saying it is that the legislature will be going to the same well they have always gone to in order to draw an increase in spending cash, the taxpayers. There is nothing even remotely new about that source.
In California, San Francisco Representative and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is urging voters to pass the unprecedented tax and spend Proposition 1A with the slogan “Proposition 1A is right on time”. This is right out of the Obama “Change we can believe in” and “We are the ones we have been waiting for” playbook. They sound heady and inspiring but it means nothing.
I’ll let you in on a little secret; the reality of tax hikes is that they cost the taxpayer’s money. An additional $16 billion in California and an additional $12 billion in Illinois means $28 billion of spending cash no longer available to spend by the taxpayers. It becomes a vicious circle with no answers and no end, thus the earlier chicken and egg reference. The less taxpayers have to spend the less they buy. The less they buy the fewer people needed to produce or sell the products they would have bought. The fewer people needed the bigger the layoffs at the producers and the sellers. The bigger the layoffs the more government services needed to meet the needs of those laid off. The more government services needed the greater the need for a tax increase and it starts all over again.
The economy is in a precarious position. It is strong enough to recover if it is left to its own devices. But if government continues to diminish disposable and non-disposable income from the average taxpayer through increased taxes this recession has the ability to grow into a full blown depression.
To be sure, Democrats will be lining up at the podium to pass blame on the previous Bush administration. Very little will be discussed about the frivolity of the trillions of dollars in non-stimulating stimulus money already spent. The only exception will be to announce that we need to spend more and tax more if we hope to survive. This same mantra will then pass down to the state level and the whole thing gets repeated again.
The number one rule of economics is that you simply can’t spend your way out of debt. The number one rule of politics is that Democrats will keep on trying.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Undoing of Nancy Pelosi
Okay. For the sake of argument let’s say she is not lying. But then she would have to be incompetent.
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that she was NOT told that the practice of harsh interrogation tactics, including the use of waterboarding, had actually taken place at the CIA briefing she personally attended in 2002. She insists that she was told of the practice but only that it was a possible technique not that it had indeed been used.
She goes on to say that she was only informed that the practice had taken place when she was briefed by an aide who attended a briefing in her stead in 2003. How very odd that Madame Speaker only admits to knowing of the practice when someone within her own private circle of advisors relayed the information. How very odd that Madame Speaker admits to knowing only when denying it at that point would mean opening up the possibility of a close aide being questioned about what they reported to her.
I find the inconsistencies in the several different versions of the stories Pelosi’s has told to be damning on their own. But what I find most curious is not what was done but what wasn’t done. And I find it equally curious that nobody so far is questioning it.
If Speaker Pelosi was only informed in 2002, as she alleges, that waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation were only possibilities, why would she seemingly avoid the next briefing and send an aide instead? If in fact these techniques were discussed as being possibilities in 2002 and if these techniques were viewed at that time as illegal, as Democrats are now claiming, wouldn’t one of the most powerful people in the House of Representatives make it a point to attend this briefing in person? If the CIA had briefed the Speaker in 2002 of the possibility of carrying out illegal activity wouldn’t that Speaker have objected strenuously and made sure at the next briefing that no such action had taken place? Madame Speaker did none of those things. She conveniently stayed away in what certainly appears to be an attempt to keep her hands clean. And if she felt she needed to stay away it was because she already knew what was being discussed.
In an effort to smooth some ruffled feathers at the CIA Pelosi is now claiming that it was not the CIA but the Bush administration that misled her. How that is possible as it was the CIA holding the briefings is beyond me. And why is it that only Speaker Pelosi feels she was personally misled? Why are there not a gaggle of Democrats claiming the same subterfuge? Could it be that after a total of forty briefings by the CIA to members of Congress, only Nancy Pelosi can claim bad information with a straight face? Or could it be that the other Democrats are not quite as foolhardy to believe they can convince Americans 6 years after the fact that they were clueless?
The latest Democrat misdirection play is to begin a publicity campaign calling for the disbarment of 12 key Bush administration attorneys. But once again what is not being discussed is the key to the issue.
Why now? Why six years after Speaker Pelosi admits she became aware of the harsh techniques? Why now when all of these attorneys are no longer in a position to do any more supposed harm? Even if I believe that Speaker Pelosi only found out in 2003 that supposed illegal activity was in fact taking place I would have to find it unconscionable that she and the rest of the Democrats allowed this practice to continue unchallenged and only now after the Bush administration is no longer in charge do they choose to begin disbarment proceedings.
It is becoming apparent that the Democrats led by their Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are spinning out of control on this issue. The harder they try to deflect attention to the evil Bush administration the deeper they are digging the hole they are mired in.
If Republicans can step away from the stupid slick slogan campaign they seem to be stuck in and begin to actually appeal to the voters common sense by asking these questions this blatant attempt to mislead the public could seriously, and perhaps permanently, damage Nancy Pelosi’s future in politics.
And THAT is change I can believe in.
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that she was NOT told that the practice of harsh interrogation tactics, including the use of waterboarding, had actually taken place at the CIA briefing she personally attended in 2002. She insists that she was told of the practice but only that it was a possible technique not that it had indeed been used.
She goes on to say that she was only informed that the practice had taken place when she was briefed by an aide who attended a briefing in her stead in 2003. How very odd that Madame Speaker only admits to knowing of the practice when someone within her own private circle of advisors relayed the information. How very odd that Madame Speaker admits to knowing only when denying it at that point would mean opening up the possibility of a close aide being questioned about what they reported to her.
I find the inconsistencies in the several different versions of the stories Pelosi’s has told to be damning on their own. But what I find most curious is not what was done but what wasn’t done. And I find it equally curious that nobody so far is questioning it.
If Speaker Pelosi was only informed in 2002, as she alleges, that waterboarding and other forms of harsh interrogation were only possibilities, why would she seemingly avoid the next briefing and send an aide instead? If in fact these techniques were discussed as being possibilities in 2002 and if these techniques were viewed at that time as illegal, as Democrats are now claiming, wouldn’t one of the most powerful people in the House of Representatives make it a point to attend this briefing in person? If the CIA had briefed the Speaker in 2002 of the possibility of carrying out illegal activity wouldn’t that Speaker have objected strenuously and made sure at the next briefing that no such action had taken place? Madame Speaker did none of those things. She conveniently stayed away in what certainly appears to be an attempt to keep her hands clean. And if she felt she needed to stay away it was because she already knew what was being discussed.
In an effort to smooth some ruffled feathers at the CIA Pelosi is now claiming that it was not the CIA but the Bush administration that misled her. How that is possible as it was the CIA holding the briefings is beyond me. And why is it that only Speaker Pelosi feels she was personally misled? Why are there not a gaggle of Democrats claiming the same subterfuge? Could it be that after a total of forty briefings by the CIA to members of Congress, only Nancy Pelosi can claim bad information with a straight face? Or could it be that the other Democrats are not quite as foolhardy to believe they can convince Americans 6 years after the fact that they were clueless?
The latest Democrat misdirection play is to begin a publicity campaign calling for the disbarment of 12 key Bush administration attorneys. But once again what is not being discussed is the key to the issue.
Why now? Why six years after Speaker Pelosi admits she became aware of the harsh techniques? Why now when all of these attorneys are no longer in a position to do any more supposed harm? Even if I believe that Speaker Pelosi only found out in 2003 that supposed illegal activity was in fact taking place I would have to find it unconscionable that she and the rest of the Democrats allowed this practice to continue unchallenged and only now after the Bush administration is no longer in charge do they choose to begin disbarment proceedings.
It is becoming apparent that the Democrats led by their Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are spinning out of control on this issue. The harder they try to deflect attention to the evil Bush administration the deeper they are digging the hole they are mired in.
If Republicans can step away from the stupid slick slogan campaign they seem to be stuck in and begin to actually appeal to the voters common sense by asking these questions this blatant attempt to mislead the public could seriously, and perhaps permanently, damage Nancy Pelosi’s future in politics.
And THAT is change I can believe in.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Audacity Of Obamian Sincerity
According to our president we need greater understanding. Exactly what part of dead is it that we don’t understand?
In another classic political obfuscation President Obama called for greater understanding on both sides of the abortion issue. Unfortunately while that sounds like a worthy goal the debate between life and death has very little common ground on which to begin conciliation.
Initially the president sounded as if he understood that the oil and water of this issue can and will never be homogenized. He said "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. At some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” At least for a brief moment it sounded as if he was saying that life is life and death is death. We can debate the details but the core issue can never be rectified by compromise. He then added “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."
As always the presidents words were almost lyrical to the ear so as to hide their true meaning. As he went on he recalled an instance from 2004 just after he won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. He said he received a letter from a doctor that objected to the verbiage used on his web site that warned voters that “right-wing ideologues” wanted to take away a women’s right to choose.
"The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person," he said. "But that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable." Obama said that because of that letter, while he did not change his position on the issue, he did change the language on his web site. And therein lays the problem.
The President of the United States, speaking to the graduating class of Notre Dame stated his belief that somehow by changing the language in which he described his misguided view, without changing the view itself, was the key to successful understanding and tolerance. What a valuable lesson he put on full display for these young academics.
Right there in that single description this president is stating unequivocally that his words do not match his ideals or sentiments but instead are used mask them. To quote George Orwell (as I have been known to do often) “For a creative writer possession of the truth is far less important than emotional sincerity”. Or to put it another way as French diplomat and playwright Jean Giraudoux said “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made”.
To reduce the debate between those that support the right to life of unborn babies and those willing to accept their death by a hideous procedure akin to something dreamed up by Dr. Josef Mengele, as being something that can be solved by choosing ones words carefully is more than insulting. It’s downright terrifying.
This president is not only an ardent supporter of abortion, he is a proven supporter of late term abortion in which a baby is delivered feet first up to the head at which point a device is inserted into the base of the skull and the brains scrambled. He also voted repeatedly to pass legislation making it legal for doctors to abandon a living baby if it was delivered during an abortion and allow that baby to struggle unattended until it dies.
I am sorry Mr. President, but no amount of well chosen words can ever make this acceptable to me.
When it comes to well chosen words I prefer those of the 17th century French author François de la Rochefoucauld when he said “Sincerity is an openness of heart; we find it in very few people; what we usually see is only an artful dissimulation to win the confidence of others.”
I guess that’s the new definition of “CHANGE”
In another classic political obfuscation President Obama called for greater understanding on both sides of the abortion issue. Unfortunately while that sounds like a worthy goal the debate between life and death has very little common ground on which to begin conciliation.
Initially the president sounded as if he understood that the oil and water of this issue can and will never be homogenized. He said "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. At some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” At least for a brief moment it sounded as if he was saying that life is life and death is death. We can debate the details but the core issue can never be rectified by compromise. He then added “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."
As always the presidents words were almost lyrical to the ear so as to hide their true meaning. As he went on he recalled an instance from 2004 just after he won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. He said he received a letter from a doctor that objected to the verbiage used on his web site that warned voters that “right-wing ideologues” wanted to take away a women’s right to choose.
"The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person," he said. "But that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable." Obama said that because of that letter, while he did not change his position on the issue, he did change the language on his web site. And therein lays the problem.
The President of the United States, speaking to the graduating class of Notre Dame stated his belief that somehow by changing the language in which he described his misguided view, without changing the view itself, was the key to successful understanding and tolerance. What a valuable lesson he put on full display for these young academics.
Right there in that single description this president is stating unequivocally that his words do not match his ideals or sentiments but instead are used mask them. To quote George Orwell (as I have been known to do often) “For a creative writer possession of the truth is far less important than emotional sincerity”. Or to put it another way as French diplomat and playwright Jean Giraudoux said “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made”.
To reduce the debate between those that support the right to life of unborn babies and those willing to accept their death by a hideous procedure akin to something dreamed up by Dr. Josef Mengele, as being something that can be solved by choosing ones words carefully is more than insulting. It’s downright terrifying.
This president is not only an ardent supporter of abortion, he is a proven supporter of late term abortion in which a baby is delivered feet first up to the head at which point a device is inserted into the base of the skull and the brains scrambled. He also voted repeatedly to pass legislation making it legal for doctors to abandon a living baby if it was delivered during an abortion and allow that baby to struggle unattended until it dies.
I am sorry Mr. President, but no amount of well chosen words can ever make this acceptable to me.
When it comes to well chosen words I prefer those of the 17th century French author François de la Rochefoucauld when he said “Sincerity is an openness of heart; we find it in very few people; what we usually see is only an artful dissimulation to win the confidence of others.”
I guess that’s the new definition of “CHANGE”
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Socialist Salvation
Your lips say no no but your eyes say……………………….Well, actually your lips say no no and yes yes at the same time.
Less than one month ago President Barack Obama stood behind the podium at a prime time televised White House press conference and bemoaned the work load of his 100 day old presidential stint like a beleaguered laborer given yet another task by the boss. “I don’t want to run auto companies and I don’t want to run banks” he said. “I’ve got two wars I’ve got to run already. I’ve got more than enough to do.”
The president was referring to the impending Fiat/Chrysler partnership which eventually turned into a bankruptcy and the presidentially mandated removal of General Motors CEO Ken Wagoner and a GM business reorganization, which will eventually turn into a bankruptcy as well. Both auto companies received a considerable taxpayer funded bailout to help keep them in operation prior to their inevitable filings. He was also referring to the banks that received billions in taxpayer dollars through the TARP program to help insure their continued solvency.
But now, only a few weeks later, the Obama administration is not only remaining intimately involved in the workings of companies that took taxpayer dollars, they are looking at imposing their distorted view of “best practices” into the inner workings of financial companies that received no federal TARP money.
The intent in this latest chapter of “Obama Knows Best” is clear. Take control of private industry and socialistically dictate profitability. The implications of this level of nationalization is stunning.
It is particularly troubling in light of the recent revelation that several of the banks that took TARP money did so because they had no choice. Minutes from an October 2008 meeting with then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson revealed that 9 banks were instructed that they would be taking TARP money whether they wanted it or not. The justification given by Paulson for this approach was that any confirmation of weakness in the banks that actually needed the money to survive could lead to a complete collapse in faith for the entire banking system leaving even those healthier banks vulnerable. The upside to this revelation is that at least some of the banks were savvy enough to foretell the consequences of this handout.
The demands on financial institutions that took TARP funds are easy to politically justify. Congress has gone to great lengths to portray these major banks and their CEO’s and directors as uncaring, greedy risk takers that were all too willing to use taxpayer dollars to buy fancy new office furniture and pay for lavish bonuses and entertainment. The obedient media has been gleefully willing to join in this sensationalized and fallacious character assassination.
The purpose of this portrayal is simple. It allows the beltway bozos to insist that the banks are incapable of being responsible and therefore congress must act to protect the American public from their rampant greed. It is as if bank directors, whose very livelihood depends on sound financial decisions, are unable or unwilling to identify and enact “best practices” in running their businesses.
To compound the potential for the disaster Representative Barney Frank as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is proceeding with his attempt at legislation that would strengthen the governments control over compensation at financial institutions based solely on what the government feels is appropriate at the time.
Frank’s consistent and proven financial mismanagement skills and the resulting collapse of world-wide credit markets has reached legendary status. As a controlling interest in the political debacle that put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a financial death spiral that destroyed American property values and placed the entire world’s financial system in serious peril. His continuing and unwavering political gamesmanship prevented the necessary oversight that could have abated the eventual ruinous implosion. With his indefensible record of financial ineptness Frank would have a hard time getting a job as a bank teller at most of the financial institutions he is now looking to impose control over.
Putting this Democrat Congress in charge of making business decisions for banks is like taking the captain of the Titanic and making him the pilot of your plane.
Less than one month ago President Barack Obama stood behind the podium at a prime time televised White House press conference and bemoaned the work load of his 100 day old presidential stint like a beleaguered laborer given yet another task by the boss. “I don’t want to run auto companies and I don’t want to run banks” he said. “I’ve got two wars I’ve got to run already. I’ve got more than enough to do.”
The president was referring to the impending Fiat/Chrysler partnership which eventually turned into a bankruptcy and the presidentially mandated removal of General Motors CEO Ken Wagoner and a GM business reorganization, which will eventually turn into a bankruptcy as well. Both auto companies received a considerable taxpayer funded bailout to help keep them in operation prior to their inevitable filings. He was also referring to the banks that received billions in taxpayer dollars through the TARP program to help insure their continued solvency.
But now, only a few weeks later, the Obama administration is not only remaining intimately involved in the workings of companies that took taxpayer dollars, they are looking at imposing their distorted view of “best practices” into the inner workings of financial companies that received no federal TARP money.
The intent in this latest chapter of “Obama Knows Best” is clear. Take control of private industry and socialistically dictate profitability. The implications of this level of nationalization is stunning.
It is particularly troubling in light of the recent revelation that several of the banks that took TARP money did so because they had no choice. Minutes from an October 2008 meeting with then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson revealed that 9 banks were instructed that they would be taking TARP money whether they wanted it or not. The justification given by Paulson for this approach was that any confirmation of weakness in the banks that actually needed the money to survive could lead to a complete collapse in faith for the entire banking system leaving even those healthier banks vulnerable. The upside to this revelation is that at least some of the banks were savvy enough to foretell the consequences of this handout.
The demands on financial institutions that took TARP funds are easy to politically justify. Congress has gone to great lengths to portray these major banks and their CEO’s and directors as uncaring, greedy risk takers that were all too willing to use taxpayer dollars to buy fancy new office furniture and pay for lavish bonuses and entertainment. The obedient media has been gleefully willing to join in this sensationalized and fallacious character assassination.
The purpose of this portrayal is simple. It allows the beltway bozos to insist that the banks are incapable of being responsible and therefore congress must act to protect the American public from their rampant greed. It is as if bank directors, whose very livelihood depends on sound financial decisions, are unable or unwilling to identify and enact “best practices” in running their businesses.
To compound the potential for the disaster Representative Barney Frank as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is proceeding with his attempt at legislation that would strengthen the governments control over compensation at financial institutions based solely on what the government feels is appropriate at the time.
Frank’s consistent and proven financial mismanagement skills and the resulting collapse of world-wide credit markets has reached legendary status. As a controlling interest in the political debacle that put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a financial death spiral that destroyed American property values and placed the entire world’s financial system in serious peril. His continuing and unwavering political gamesmanship prevented the necessary oversight that could have abated the eventual ruinous implosion. With his indefensible record of financial ineptness Frank would have a hard time getting a job as a bank teller at most of the financial institutions he is now looking to impose control over.
Putting this Democrat Congress in charge of making business decisions for banks is like taking the captain of the Titanic and making him the pilot of your plane.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Whole Truth With Holes
Democrats are now actually calling for a truth commission. They may want to be careful.
In a move of Orwellian proportions Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is calling for a truth commission to investigate Bush administration officials for their use of harsh interrogation techniques. The reality is that Democrats don’t want the truth. They want to rewrite history.
The Democrats are now like a dog with a very old bone. They have been chewing it for so long they have no idea what to do with their mouth if they were to put it down. The bone has been chewed, buried, dug up, rechewed, reburied, dug up again and now is being displayed as if it were for the first time.
The sanctimony is so thick it could be cut with a knife.
Nobody in the Bush administration is denying the use of harsh interrogation methods. The real key is that nobody in either party made any attempt to stop these methods while they were being used. As more and more information is making its way to the light of day it has become apparent that several of the top Democratic leaders were well aware of what was happening, to whom it was happening, and what was being accomplished by allowing it to happen. They not only did nothing to stop it, but memos now show they were in full and complete support of it.
Senator John McCain, who himself knows more than a little about real torture, has suggested the Obama administration release details of what information was gleaned from the use of these extreme measures. The Obama administration has declined. It has been suggested that real information was obtained regarding real threats of imminent attacks and thanks to the information these attacks were thwarted.
It is almost as if the Democrats now want us to believe that the 7 years of safety and security we enjoyed after 9-11 was some kind of magical fluke. The reality is that we know what we know today about the terrorist networks still operating within the borders of this country thanks in large part to harsh interrogation of the terrorists we captured and subjected to, what we now consider, too harsh of treatment.
My question to Senator Whitehouse and his holier-than-thou colleagues is, if you had the opportunity to prevent 9-11 from ever happening what measures would you have been willing to take?
The so called “truth commission” being suggested would have a very limited scope in its investigation. They would only be able to look at Bush administration officials that gave the legal opinions that these techniques, including waterboarding, was within the legal rights of the American interrogators to apply.
But if you really want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, why not expand that authority to include who knew what when on both sides of the aisle. There is plenty of video tape documenting the Democrat leadership’s contentions that much like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, they knew nothing. What would happen if the truth commission was forced to actually report the truth about those statements?
Liberal veterans from just about every intelligence agency are now being trotted out to renounce the measures taken and deny the results gathered from them. I think we can probably expect a veritable plethora of books written by these so called experts hitting the store shelves just in time for your holiday gift list.
Senator Whitehouse and his bone chewing revisionist cohorts claim they want the truth. But when it comes to the whole truth, well let’s just say that Jack Nicholson already delivered the next line to Tom Cruise better than I can write it.
In a move of Orwellian proportions Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is calling for a truth commission to investigate Bush administration officials for their use of harsh interrogation techniques. The reality is that Democrats don’t want the truth. They want to rewrite history.
The Democrats are now like a dog with a very old bone. They have been chewing it for so long they have no idea what to do with their mouth if they were to put it down. The bone has been chewed, buried, dug up, rechewed, reburied, dug up again and now is being displayed as if it were for the first time.
The sanctimony is so thick it could be cut with a knife.
Nobody in the Bush administration is denying the use of harsh interrogation methods. The real key is that nobody in either party made any attempt to stop these methods while they were being used. As more and more information is making its way to the light of day it has become apparent that several of the top Democratic leaders were well aware of what was happening, to whom it was happening, and what was being accomplished by allowing it to happen. They not only did nothing to stop it, but memos now show they were in full and complete support of it.
Senator John McCain, who himself knows more than a little about real torture, has suggested the Obama administration release details of what information was gleaned from the use of these extreme measures. The Obama administration has declined. It has been suggested that real information was obtained regarding real threats of imminent attacks and thanks to the information these attacks were thwarted.
It is almost as if the Democrats now want us to believe that the 7 years of safety and security we enjoyed after 9-11 was some kind of magical fluke. The reality is that we know what we know today about the terrorist networks still operating within the borders of this country thanks in large part to harsh interrogation of the terrorists we captured and subjected to, what we now consider, too harsh of treatment.
My question to Senator Whitehouse and his holier-than-thou colleagues is, if you had the opportunity to prevent 9-11 from ever happening what measures would you have been willing to take?
The so called “truth commission” being suggested would have a very limited scope in its investigation. They would only be able to look at Bush administration officials that gave the legal opinions that these techniques, including waterboarding, was within the legal rights of the American interrogators to apply.
But if you really want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, why not expand that authority to include who knew what when on both sides of the aisle. There is plenty of video tape documenting the Democrat leadership’s contentions that much like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, they knew nothing. What would happen if the truth commission was forced to actually report the truth about those statements?
Liberal veterans from just about every intelligence agency are now being trotted out to renounce the measures taken and deny the results gathered from them. I think we can probably expect a veritable plethora of books written by these so called experts hitting the store shelves just in time for your holiday gift list.
Senator Whitehouse and his bone chewing revisionist cohorts claim they want the truth. But when it comes to the whole truth, well let’s just say that Jack Nicholson already delivered the next line to Tom Cruise better than I can write it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Buckle Up Boychicks
Just a quick note to all Jewish liberals; buckle up! You might actually get some of that “Change” you voted for.
With the recent announcement by Justice David Souter that he will be shedding his judicial robes, Barack Obama now has the chance to fulfill his campaign promise to install a true liberal onto the bench. Even though Souter, having been appointed by President George H. W. Bush, sided mostly with the liberal wing of the court, the new justice handpicked by Obama will likely be nothing short of a full-fledged, dyed in the wool, living constitution liberal.
While Congress will have the final approval of Obama’s pick there is for all intents a filibuster proof majority for the Democrats pretty much assuring a smooth and positive outcome.
You may ask, “What does this have to do with Jewish liberals?” Allow me to explain.
Currently in Chicago the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals is about to take the unusual action of seating the entire 15 judge panel on an “en banc” review of a lawsuit brought by a Jewish mother and her adult children. An “en banc” review is a rare occurrence and usually signifies the justice’s anticipation of a landmark decision.
The lawsuit was brought by Lynne Bloch and her adult children Helen and Nathan Bloch against the condominium complex in which they all reside. It centers on a small religious icon Jews place on their doorways called a mezuzah. This small icon is a scroll inscribed with specific Hebrew verses from the Torah housed in a decorative container and nailed to the entry of many Jewish homes. Some of the more observant Jews place them on the entry to every room in their house. The mezuzah is placed on the doorpost to fulfill a biblical commandment from the book of Deuteronomy.
The condo complex where the Bloch’s live viewed them as being against their association’s board of director’s 2004 decision to have nothing affixed to the doors of a condo unit or to the common hallway walls. The Bloch family filed suit claiming a denial of their religious freedom and the condo association countersued. The mezuzah on the Bloch’s doorway was removed and replaced several times and the legal wrangling went back and forth until the condo association relented and rewrote their bylaws to allow the display of “sincerely held beliefs”. The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois both passed legislation to protect religious expression. It was at that point that the Bloch’s lawsuit was dismissed prior to trial. The Blochs filed an appeal in federal court which is what brings us to the “en banc” hearing.
This suit has the obvious potential to set far-reaching legal precedent. Does the constitution guarantee freedom OF religious expression or freedom FROM religious expression? The original three judge panel at the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals was divided on that question. I think it’s safe to assume that no matter how this turns out at the appeals level it is likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court by either the Blochs or an opposing atheist group.
The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues in the past. But that was the old Supreme Court using the old U.S. Constitution. If Obama is successful in seating a true liberal minded justice he could be on his way to reshaping some of the vitally important, long-established protections we have enjoyed.
The Obama vetting process will no doubt be focused on finding a liberal judge that views the constitution as a living, changing document. Someone who believes it is the role of the court to actually legislate rather than interpret the law. My question is; if the framers of the constitution meant it to be a changing document why do we have amendments? If it was meant to change with the whims of whatever is politically expedient at the time why even have a provision that allows an amendment?
By a wide margin Obama carried the Jewish vote in the last election. A Supreme Court ruling on something as simple as the ability to display a mezuzah may bring about the Change he promised but one they never anticipated.
With the recent announcement by Justice David Souter that he will be shedding his judicial robes, Barack Obama now has the chance to fulfill his campaign promise to install a true liberal onto the bench. Even though Souter, having been appointed by President George H. W. Bush, sided mostly with the liberal wing of the court, the new justice handpicked by Obama will likely be nothing short of a full-fledged, dyed in the wool, living constitution liberal.
While Congress will have the final approval of Obama’s pick there is for all intents a filibuster proof majority for the Democrats pretty much assuring a smooth and positive outcome.
You may ask, “What does this have to do with Jewish liberals?” Allow me to explain.
Currently in Chicago the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals is about to take the unusual action of seating the entire 15 judge panel on an “en banc” review of a lawsuit brought by a Jewish mother and her adult children. An “en banc” review is a rare occurrence and usually signifies the justice’s anticipation of a landmark decision.
The lawsuit was brought by Lynne Bloch and her adult children Helen and Nathan Bloch against the condominium complex in which they all reside. It centers on a small religious icon Jews place on their doorways called a mezuzah. This small icon is a scroll inscribed with specific Hebrew verses from the Torah housed in a decorative container and nailed to the entry of many Jewish homes. Some of the more observant Jews place them on the entry to every room in their house. The mezuzah is placed on the doorpost to fulfill a biblical commandment from the book of Deuteronomy.
The condo complex where the Bloch’s live viewed them as being against their association’s board of director’s 2004 decision to have nothing affixed to the doors of a condo unit or to the common hallway walls. The Bloch family filed suit claiming a denial of their religious freedom and the condo association countersued. The mezuzah on the Bloch’s doorway was removed and replaced several times and the legal wrangling went back and forth until the condo association relented and rewrote their bylaws to allow the display of “sincerely held beliefs”. The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois both passed legislation to protect religious expression. It was at that point that the Bloch’s lawsuit was dismissed prior to trial. The Blochs filed an appeal in federal court which is what brings us to the “en banc” hearing.
This suit has the obvious potential to set far-reaching legal precedent. Does the constitution guarantee freedom OF religious expression or freedom FROM religious expression? The original three judge panel at the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals was divided on that question. I think it’s safe to assume that no matter how this turns out at the appeals level it is likely to be pushed up to the Supreme Court by either the Blochs or an opposing atheist group.
The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues in the past. But that was the old Supreme Court using the old U.S. Constitution. If Obama is successful in seating a true liberal minded justice he could be on his way to reshaping some of the vitally important, long-established protections we have enjoyed.
The Obama vetting process will no doubt be focused on finding a liberal judge that views the constitution as a living, changing document. Someone who believes it is the role of the court to actually legislate rather than interpret the law. My question is; if the framers of the constitution meant it to be a changing document why do we have amendments? If it was meant to change with the whims of whatever is politically expedient at the time why even have a provision that allows an amendment?
By a wide margin Obama carried the Jewish vote in the last election. A Supreme Court ruling on something as simple as the ability to display a mezuzah may bring about the Change he promised but one they never anticipated.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Comedic Tragedy
The Chicago Tribune ran the banner tag “'Saturday Night Live' delivers 'joyfully vulgar' Mother's Day song”. They’re kidding, right?
In the piece accompanying the tag, Tribune media writer Steve Johnson opens his column with the line “It's not a traditional Mother’s Day gift, but you can't say Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg weren't trying to come up with something special in honor of Sunday's holiday.” Mr. Johnson goes on to explain that Timberlake and Samberg were also trying to outdo their previous lyric masterpiece “Dick in a Box” which apparently became some sort of cult classic in the viral video category. The operative word being viral.
I have not watched SNL in years for the simple reason that it is no longer funny. At least not to me. Perhaps I have become an old curmudgeon bemoaning the fact that kids now-a-days will never understand the true comedic genius of the original “Not Ready For Primetime Players” John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Jane Curtain, Chevy Chase, Loraine Newman and Garrett Morris. I still remember watching the very first SNL hosted by George Carlin. It was in the early 1970’s and comedy was being reshaped from the old sit-com format to a new more experimental and cutting edge variety. The National Lampoon, Firesign Theater, The Conception Corporation and Second City were all pushing the envelope of acceptability with both the censors and the audience, much the same as the new Monty Python troupe had done on the BBC in the late 1960’s. But even if the language was crude or vulgar the premise of each bit was funny enough to justify it.
Let’s be clear, I am not a prude and pretty far from a shrinking violet. I have a very wicked and some might say demented sense of humor that truly enjoys a good dirty joke, even if I’m the butt of it. I have no problem with coarse language and have been known to pepper a sentence with as many vulgarities as nouns, verbs or adjectives. But as one of my all time comedic heroes Johnny Carson once said of the new and burgeoning performance art comedy “If it’s not funny, it’s not comedy”.
A song being sung by two guys to each other repeatedly suggesting that they should “f**k each other’s mother” is not funny. It’s shocking. It’s vulgar. It definitely pushes the boundaries. But it is not funny. And for the Chicago Tribune’s media critic to suggest, even in jest, that this is some sort of acceptable comedic parody to honor Mother’s Day is also not funny.
The online editors of the Tribune would obviously disagree having prominently displayed a hyperlink to watch the video for two days. It seems to me that we have, as the Conception Corporation once put it in a bit about the future of illegal drug use, lost all sense of proportion.
The problem is not that SNL presented the video or that NBC aired it. The problem is that people like Steve Johnson think it is acceptable and worse yet think it is comedy. In a recent interview veteran movie icon Clint Eastwood said he felt that the rampant enforcement of political correctness had really put a damper on comedy. The use of racial or ethnic stereotypes is now almost punishable by a stint in the federal pen and viewed as a hate crime. So I guess what SNL is saying is that a high production value video replete with big name stars and guest stars that focuses on “f**king each other’s mothers” is acceptable but a joke about a dumb Polish bowler, a drunk Mexican lawnmower, a black tap-dancing watermelon eater or, God forbid, a Muslim of any kind is in poor taste.
It’s been a long and arduous journey to move the American sense of humor from where it was in the 60’s to where it is today. We have broken a lot of barriers and completely abandoned a lot of previously held values. But if this is where we are to end up, it was all for naught.
Comedy is still is supposed to be funny. I know funny. This ain’t it.
In the piece accompanying the tag, Tribune media writer Steve Johnson opens his column with the line “It's not a traditional Mother’s Day gift, but you can't say Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg weren't trying to come up with something special in honor of Sunday's holiday.” Mr. Johnson goes on to explain that Timberlake and Samberg were also trying to outdo their previous lyric masterpiece “Dick in a Box” which apparently became some sort of cult classic in the viral video category. The operative word being viral.
I have not watched SNL in years for the simple reason that it is no longer funny. At least not to me. Perhaps I have become an old curmudgeon bemoaning the fact that kids now-a-days will never understand the true comedic genius of the original “Not Ready For Primetime Players” John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, Jane Curtain, Chevy Chase, Loraine Newman and Garrett Morris. I still remember watching the very first SNL hosted by George Carlin. It was in the early 1970’s and comedy was being reshaped from the old sit-com format to a new more experimental and cutting edge variety. The National Lampoon, Firesign Theater, The Conception Corporation and Second City were all pushing the envelope of acceptability with both the censors and the audience, much the same as the new Monty Python troupe had done on the BBC in the late 1960’s. But even if the language was crude or vulgar the premise of each bit was funny enough to justify it.
Let’s be clear, I am not a prude and pretty far from a shrinking violet. I have a very wicked and some might say demented sense of humor that truly enjoys a good dirty joke, even if I’m the butt of it. I have no problem with coarse language and have been known to pepper a sentence with as many vulgarities as nouns, verbs or adjectives. But as one of my all time comedic heroes Johnny Carson once said of the new and burgeoning performance art comedy “If it’s not funny, it’s not comedy”.
A song being sung by two guys to each other repeatedly suggesting that they should “f**k each other’s mother” is not funny. It’s shocking. It’s vulgar. It definitely pushes the boundaries. But it is not funny. And for the Chicago Tribune’s media critic to suggest, even in jest, that this is some sort of acceptable comedic parody to honor Mother’s Day is also not funny.
The online editors of the Tribune would obviously disagree having prominently displayed a hyperlink to watch the video for two days. It seems to me that we have, as the Conception Corporation once put it in a bit about the future of illegal drug use, lost all sense of proportion.
The problem is not that SNL presented the video or that NBC aired it. The problem is that people like Steve Johnson think it is acceptable and worse yet think it is comedy. In a recent interview veteran movie icon Clint Eastwood said he felt that the rampant enforcement of political correctness had really put a damper on comedy. The use of racial or ethnic stereotypes is now almost punishable by a stint in the federal pen and viewed as a hate crime. So I guess what SNL is saying is that a high production value video replete with big name stars and guest stars that focuses on “f**king each other’s mothers” is acceptable but a joke about a dumb Polish bowler, a drunk Mexican lawnmower, a black tap-dancing watermelon eater or, God forbid, a Muslim of any kind is in poor taste.
It’s been a long and arduous journey to move the American sense of humor from where it was in the 60’s to where it is today. We have broken a lot of barriers and completely abandoned a lot of previously held values. But if this is where we are to end up, it was all for naught.
Comedy is still is supposed to be funny. I know funny. This ain’t it.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Pink Bats In The Belfry
Instead of Who’s on first, What’s on second and I Don’t Know’s on third base the new routine should be Who came up with this idea, What the hell were they thinking and I Don’t Know how much more of this I can take.
As I flipped through the channels on the TV tonight I come across the ESPN Sunday night baseball game broadcast. The Boston Red Sox were facing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in venerable Fenway Park. There in that storied ball field complete with the Big Green Monster looming in left field the players took their positions with each wearing a pink ribbon on their uniform to signify breast cancer awareness.
As I have mentioned before; the pink ribbon symbol has gone from meaningful to mirthful. It now adorns every conceivable article from tampons to tatter tots, bowling balls to baby food, license plates to licorice sticks and nightgowns to NASCAR. The symbol itself is supposed to increase breast cancer awareness but quite frankly at this point anyone who is not aware of breast cancer would have to live under a rock. It has become overused, overexposed and completely over the top.
Still, had the small pink symbol sewn onto each player’s jersey been the only identifying agent of the campaign I would have simply shook my head and let it go. But that was not the case.
No, Major League Baseball had to go big with their pink ribbon promotion. As I watched with both cynical amusement and disappointed disbelief each batter walked up to the plate to take his cuts at a 90 mile per hour fast ball or a slow sinking slider with a bright pink bat. Furthermore most of the players were wearing bright pink sweat bands on their wrists. Instead of a major league baseball game it looked much more like a comedic parody of an episode of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”.
Abner Doubleday had to be spinning like a lathe.
Doubleday is alleged to have created the game of baseball sometime around 1836 in Cooperstown, New York. He also was the patent holding creator of the cable car system still used in San Francisco. But beyond his great creations the fabled godfather of the national pastime was himself a lifelong military man and retired as a general having served in the union forces of the civil war. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1842 and retired from his military career over thirty years later in 1873. As the United States Marine Corps prepares to kick off its inaugural week of Marine Week celebrations do you think Major League Baseball would tie into Doubleday’s military career and honor our Marine veterans with some public display? Nope. Instead we get pink bats and wrist bands.
It is not that breast cancer awareness is not an important cause. Breast cancer is a rapacious killer of far too many women. But bright pink baseball bats are not the answer.
According to statistics there will be more incidences of prostate cancer than breast cancer this year. The guys out there playing tonight on the field of bad dreams are far more likely to personally encounter that form of cancer than breast cancer. But the marketing arm for prostate cancer or colon cancer or lung cancer is not a market savvy as the pink ribbon brigade.
No, pink bats and wrist bands did not make me any more aware of breast cancer. They just made me turn off the ballgame.
As I flipped through the channels on the TV tonight I come across the ESPN Sunday night baseball game broadcast. The Boston Red Sox were facing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in venerable Fenway Park. There in that storied ball field complete with the Big Green Monster looming in left field the players took their positions with each wearing a pink ribbon on their uniform to signify breast cancer awareness.
As I have mentioned before; the pink ribbon symbol has gone from meaningful to mirthful. It now adorns every conceivable article from tampons to tatter tots, bowling balls to baby food, license plates to licorice sticks and nightgowns to NASCAR. The symbol itself is supposed to increase breast cancer awareness but quite frankly at this point anyone who is not aware of breast cancer would have to live under a rock. It has become overused, overexposed and completely over the top.
Still, had the small pink symbol sewn onto each player’s jersey been the only identifying agent of the campaign I would have simply shook my head and let it go. But that was not the case.
No, Major League Baseball had to go big with their pink ribbon promotion. As I watched with both cynical amusement and disappointed disbelief each batter walked up to the plate to take his cuts at a 90 mile per hour fast ball or a slow sinking slider with a bright pink bat. Furthermore most of the players were wearing bright pink sweat bands on their wrists. Instead of a major league baseball game it looked much more like a comedic parody of an episode of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”.
Abner Doubleday had to be spinning like a lathe.
Doubleday is alleged to have created the game of baseball sometime around 1836 in Cooperstown, New York. He also was the patent holding creator of the cable car system still used in San Francisco. But beyond his great creations the fabled godfather of the national pastime was himself a lifelong military man and retired as a general having served in the union forces of the civil war. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1842 and retired from his military career over thirty years later in 1873. As the United States Marine Corps prepares to kick off its inaugural week of Marine Week celebrations do you think Major League Baseball would tie into Doubleday’s military career and honor our Marine veterans with some public display? Nope. Instead we get pink bats and wrist bands.
It is not that breast cancer awareness is not an important cause. Breast cancer is a rapacious killer of far too many women. But bright pink baseball bats are not the answer.
According to statistics there will be more incidences of prostate cancer than breast cancer this year. The guys out there playing tonight on the field of bad dreams are far more likely to personally encounter that form of cancer than breast cancer. But the marketing arm for prostate cancer or colon cancer or lung cancer is not a market savvy as the pink ribbon brigade.
No, pink bats and wrist bands did not make me any more aware of breast cancer. They just made me turn off the ballgame.
Increasing Interest Is Risky Business
I am an unashamed free market capitalist, which is why I’m in such a quandary over the credit card issue.
I believe capitalism is the most powerful and perfect system on planet earth. Politicians may want your vote to attain a position of authority in a democracy, but voting with your wallet in a capitalist society means the very life and death of a company and its product. In democratic terms it would mean that if you lose an election you die instead of making millions as a paid lobbyist or speech giver.
Companies are governed to prevent monopolistic market dominance but in some cases, like Microsoft, even a monopoly works just fine and to the benefit of both the company and the consumer. Perhaps some of the more Apple inclined users will disagree. But for those of us that want to actually use our computers for business purposes other than web design a Microsoft based PC is the only answer. Just consider for a minute the advances made in only a few short years thanks to the accomplishments of a company like Microsoft and you will see the power of capitalism.
Advancements in almost every area of human endeavor were in large part made possible by a capitalistic mentality. In most of those cases government interference would only serve to hinder the breakthroughs rather than protect consumers and delay or completely eradicate the remarkable advancements that we enjoy on a daily basis.
The recent government intervention in the form of bailouts being passed out by Congress like free heroin will only serve to make companies more dependent rather than more efficient. Bailing out a bad business model does nothing to improve the business. It only allows it to continue to make bad decisions. Capitalism is as perfect as the laws of nature. Only the strong survive.
That’s why I have such a hard time denying the necessity for government intervention into the credit card market.
Credit card companies have for far too long made risky business decisions in order to entice un-creditworthy consumers to use their cards. I get 5 or 6 new offers every week, but I pay my bills. Folks I know that have no means of support get an equal number of preapproved card applications every week. Young people, college students, even illegal aliens are prime target markets for these credit pushers.
If the card companies had to absorb the default costs of their folly I would see no reason for government intervention. But that is proving not to be the case. These card companies are now changing the rules of the game for many of their creditworthy consumers by summarily increasing interest rates, in some cases 200 or 300%. I have not had any of the cards I use increase, but I have family members that have suddenly found their interest rates double or even more. No late payments, no excessive spending, no change in income, just a notice in the mail that effective immediately the interest rate on the balance being carried is double.
Even loan sharks play fairer than that, although the late payment penalty is significantly more uncomfortable.
Credit card companies have become so outrageous in their business practices that even a diehard capitalist like me has to say “STOP”.
You have to work pretty hard at being insufferable to make government intervention look positive. But the credit card companies have done just that.
I believe capitalism is the most powerful and perfect system on planet earth. Politicians may want your vote to attain a position of authority in a democracy, but voting with your wallet in a capitalist society means the very life and death of a company and its product. In democratic terms it would mean that if you lose an election you die instead of making millions as a paid lobbyist or speech giver.
Companies are governed to prevent monopolistic market dominance but in some cases, like Microsoft, even a monopoly works just fine and to the benefit of both the company and the consumer. Perhaps some of the more Apple inclined users will disagree. But for those of us that want to actually use our computers for business purposes other than web design a Microsoft based PC is the only answer. Just consider for a minute the advances made in only a few short years thanks to the accomplishments of a company like Microsoft and you will see the power of capitalism.
Advancements in almost every area of human endeavor were in large part made possible by a capitalistic mentality. In most of those cases government interference would only serve to hinder the breakthroughs rather than protect consumers and delay or completely eradicate the remarkable advancements that we enjoy on a daily basis.
The recent government intervention in the form of bailouts being passed out by Congress like free heroin will only serve to make companies more dependent rather than more efficient. Bailing out a bad business model does nothing to improve the business. It only allows it to continue to make bad decisions. Capitalism is as perfect as the laws of nature. Only the strong survive.
That’s why I have such a hard time denying the necessity for government intervention into the credit card market.
Credit card companies have for far too long made risky business decisions in order to entice un-creditworthy consumers to use their cards. I get 5 or 6 new offers every week, but I pay my bills. Folks I know that have no means of support get an equal number of preapproved card applications every week. Young people, college students, even illegal aliens are prime target markets for these credit pushers.
If the card companies had to absorb the default costs of their folly I would see no reason for government intervention. But that is proving not to be the case. These card companies are now changing the rules of the game for many of their creditworthy consumers by summarily increasing interest rates, in some cases 200 or 300%. I have not had any of the cards I use increase, but I have family members that have suddenly found their interest rates double or even more. No late payments, no excessive spending, no change in income, just a notice in the mail that effective immediately the interest rate on the balance being carried is double.
Even loan sharks play fairer than that, although the late payment penalty is significantly more uncomfortable.
Credit card companies have become so outrageous in their business practices that even a diehard capitalist like me has to say “STOP”.
You have to work pretty hard at being insufferable to make government intervention look positive. But the credit card companies have done just that.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wishin' And A Hopin'
If only wishing and talking could make it so, the Obama administration would have it in the bag.
It was just at the two day mark of becoming Commander and Chief that Barack Hussein Obama made a very public signing of an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention center. Liberals around the world were teary eyed that this scourge upon the poor innocents housed there would finally be closed. No longer would we need worry that the mere existence of this facility would be used as an example of American imperialism by Taliban and al Qaeda recruiters. Justice would be served and we could begin to make nice nice with those that wanted to kill us. Not because there was actually a plan in place as to what to do with the very dangerous terrorists housed there, but rather just because saying it will make it so.
Unfortunately for those that live in that kind of fantasyland, the sun has risen and set another 100 times and we are no closer to having a workable plan to close the facility and transfer the detainees then we were the day the chief executive very publicly penned his name on the proclamation.
Rather than a plan of who will be released and what we will do with the others all we are hearing are the same old accusations of the Bush administration and the disastrous results of released detainees returning to the battlefield in high ranking positions. Like past detainee Abdullah Gulam Rasoul who now serves as an operational commander in Afghanistan for the Taliban and Ali al-Shihri who since his release has returned to be al Qaeda’s number two man in Yemen.
The threat is real and these two released detainees alone could someday account for countless American fatalities. And therein lays the rub.
Democrats understand that while the talk of Hope and Change got them into a position of complete power, a few more lapses in judgment like the two above mentioned terrorists could bring ruinous results that will be directly pinned to their decisions.
Obama continued his tantivy dash of temerity with his requested $50 million budget to close Guantanamo without a clue as to where or how the money would be spent. Even the liberal side of the aisle balked and refused his request until there was at least some idea of where we were going to send and house the remaining 241 murderous zealots currently incarcerated there.
Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain have suggested a four point plan which addresses only the tip of this onerous iceberg, which they shared with the American public in an OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal. While incomplete in its scope it at least would be a basis for bringing discussions to the floor where each Senator and Representative could make public their own conclusions.
Unfortunately for all concerned, especially the American public, most Democrats are far more concerned with keeping the public attention focused on the evils of George Bush. Equally unfortunate is that they can expect absolutely no constructive direction from a Commander and Chief who is in perpetual campaign mode.
Many in this country have taken the last 7 ½ years of security for granted. It’s as if domestic security and safety have somehow been magically bestowed upon us because we said it should be.
How quickly we forget the horror and pain. How quickly we forget the fear and anger. How quickly we forget the prophetic quote of author George Santayana in his book “Reason in Common Sense” when he wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
It was just at the two day mark of becoming Commander and Chief that Barack Hussein Obama made a very public signing of an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention center. Liberals around the world were teary eyed that this scourge upon the poor innocents housed there would finally be closed. No longer would we need worry that the mere existence of this facility would be used as an example of American imperialism by Taliban and al Qaeda recruiters. Justice would be served and we could begin to make nice nice with those that wanted to kill us. Not because there was actually a plan in place as to what to do with the very dangerous terrorists housed there, but rather just because saying it will make it so.
Unfortunately for those that live in that kind of fantasyland, the sun has risen and set another 100 times and we are no closer to having a workable plan to close the facility and transfer the detainees then we were the day the chief executive very publicly penned his name on the proclamation.
Rather than a plan of who will be released and what we will do with the others all we are hearing are the same old accusations of the Bush administration and the disastrous results of released detainees returning to the battlefield in high ranking positions. Like past detainee Abdullah Gulam Rasoul who now serves as an operational commander in Afghanistan for the Taliban and Ali al-Shihri who since his release has returned to be al Qaeda’s number two man in Yemen.
The threat is real and these two released detainees alone could someday account for countless American fatalities. And therein lays the rub.
Democrats understand that while the talk of Hope and Change got them into a position of complete power, a few more lapses in judgment like the two above mentioned terrorists could bring ruinous results that will be directly pinned to their decisions.
Obama continued his tantivy dash of temerity with his requested $50 million budget to close Guantanamo without a clue as to where or how the money would be spent. Even the liberal side of the aisle balked and refused his request until there was at least some idea of where we were going to send and house the remaining 241 murderous zealots currently incarcerated there.
Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain have suggested a four point plan which addresses only the tip of this onerous iceberg, which they shared with the American public in an OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal. While incomplete in its scope it at least would be a basis for bringing discussions to the floor where each Senator and Representative could make public their own conclusions.
Unfortunately for all concerned, especially the American public, most Democrats are far more concerned with keeping the public attention focused on the evils of George Bush. Equally unfortunate is that they can expect absolutely no constructive direction from a Commander and Chief who is in perpetual campaign mode.
Many in this country have taken the last 7 ½ years of security for granted. It’s as if domestic security and safety have somehow been magically bestowed upon us because we said it should be.
How quickly we forget the horror and pain. How quickly we forget the fear and anger. How quickly we forget the prophetic quote of author George Santayana in his book “Reason in Common Sense” when he wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is My Kinda Guy
Well a big “YIPPIE YIO KIYAH” to Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apraio!
It seems Sheriff Joe has run afoul of the only camera and publicity hound more voracious than the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Apparently the good reverend, who last I knew was a resident of New York, feels the need to stick his nose and Jheri Curls into the sheriffing business of Maricopa County Arizona.
Sharpton and his pals at ACORN and the NAACP have their public service undies in a bundle over how the sheriff and his department are addressing the illegal immigration situation in their county. Sheriff Joe and his men are making regular sweeps through the county in an effort to round up illegal aliens and deport them back to Mexico. Sharpton and his crew see this as a perfect opportunity to garner some much needed attention and are charging the sheriff and his deputies with racial profiling, police brutality and human rights violations. In a recent news conference Sharpton threatened to bring the wrath of Al onto Maricopa County this June with a bevy of public protests attended by hundreds of bused in protesters if the sheriff does not resign immediately. Sharpton was joined in his circus display by ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, leaders from the NAACP and other well-known civil rights leaders. Jesse Jackson was not present as he was probably home kicking himself for not thinking of this stunt first.
Sheriff Joe made public the letter he wrote to Sharpton in response to his allegations. In the letter the sheriff suggested Sharpton come and meet with him directly so he could lay out for him the facts that to date Sharpton hasn’t bothered to pay attention to. The letter made clear that Sheriff Joe wasn’t about to step down nor was he likely to stop his roundups. The Sheriff cited the state laws regarding illegal immigration and noted that as long as these laws are on the books it was his job to enforce them. “You can parachute into town, stomp your feet up and down and hold more news conferences against me, this is a hallmark of our democracy too, but you will not stop nor slow me down for one second from doing what is right.” At his press conference Sheriff Joe said of the good reverend “He must be living in a fantasy land, but Arizona can use some extra tourist money, so come on down.”
Obviously Sheriff Joe realizes that if Sharpton and ACORN bring 200 protesters CNN will probably send 200 correspondents to cover it.
But all those interested in heading to Arizona in June to protest against the sheriff and his men may want to take a glance at the news coming out of that part of the world. You see a young Mexican chap named Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman recently held his own little conference in Sonoita, Mexico. His was not to notify the press of an upcoming publicity stunt. Rather his was to inform his henchmen that they needed to step up the use of deadly force in protecting their drug shipments into Arizona.
Guzman who controls one of the largest drug cartel armies in Mexico has become even more brazen since the alleged “crackdown” by Mexican authorities. Perhaps it is partly because the President of the United States and his Secretary of State have blamed America for the rampant increase in drugs being smuggled across our southern border. Regardless of the reason old El Chapo isn’t going to let other drug smugglers or the Border Patrol or Sheriff Joe and his deputies disturb this cash cow without spilling some blood. Guzman has made it clear that the old method of ditching the drugs and running for cover will no longer be tolerated. It’s shoot em up time in Arizona. The homicide rate in the border towns on the Mexico side have risen 100 times what they were just 5 years ago. Maybe that may have Sheriff Joe and his men a little on edge when it comes to illegal aliens.
Oh sure, the sheriff could just sit back and say “Well hell, I guess we had it coming” like the message coming out of Washington DC. But the 4 million people of Maricopa County have entrusted Sheriff Joe Apraio for the last 20 years and elected him to be their sheriff to serve and protect. And Sheriff Joe isn’t about to let them down.
So Big Al Sharpton, bring ACORN, bring the NAACP, bring your paid protest professionals and take that trip to Maricopa County. Just bring some spending money to help the economy and try not to get caught up in the deadly crossfire of those whose rights you are so pretentiously trying to defend.
And if you find yourself in a situation with some of El Chapo’s band of baleful banditos you can give Sheriff Joe a call. I’m guessing he’ll be there to save you.
It seems Sheriff Joe has run afoul of the only camera and publicity hound more voracious than the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Apparently the good reverend, who last I knew was a resident of New York, feels the need to stick his nose and Jheri Curls into the sheriffing business of Maricopa County Arizona.
Sharpton and his pals at ACORN and the NAACP have their public service undies in a bundle over how the sheriff and his department are addressing the illegal immigration situation in their county. Sheriff Joe and his men are making regular sweeps through the county in an effort to round up illegal aliens and deport them back to Mexico. Sharpton and his crew see this as a perfect opportunity to garner some much needed attention and are charging the sheriff and his deputies with racial profiling, police brutality and human rights violations. In a recent news conference Sharpton threatened to bring the wrath of Al onto Maricopa County this June with a bevy of public protests attended by hundreds of bused in protesters if the sheriff does not resign immediately. Sharpton was joined in his circus display by ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, leaders from the NAACP and other well-known civil rights leaders. Jesse Jackson was not present as he was probably home kicking himself for not thinking of this stunt first.
Sheriff Joe made public the letter he wrote to Sharpton in response to his allegations. In the letter the sheriff suggested Sharpton come and meet with him directly so he could lay out for him the facts that to date Sharpton hasn’t bothered to pay attention to. The letter made clear that Sheriff Joe wasn’t about to step down nor was he likely to stop his roundups. The Sheriff cited the state laws regarding illegal immigration and noted that as long as these laws are on the books it was his job to enforce them. “You can parachute into town, stomp your feet up and down and hold more news conferences against me, this is a hallmark of our democracy too, but you will not stop nor slow me down for one second from doing what is right.” At his press conference Sheriff Joe said of the good reverend “He must be living in a fantasy land, but Arizona can use some extra tourist money, so come on down.”
Obviously Sheriff Joe realizes that if Sharpton and ACORN bring 200 protesters CNN will probably send 200 correspondents to cover it.
But all those interested in heading to Arizona in June to protest against the sheriff and his men may want to take a glance at the news coming out of that part of the world. You see a young Mexican chap named Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman recently held his own little conference in Sonoita, Mexico. His was not to notify the press of an upcoming publicity stunt. Rather his was to inform his henchmen that they needed to step up the use of deadly force in protecting their drug shipments into Arizona.
Guzman who controls one of the largest drug cartel armies in Mexico has become even more brazen since the alleged “crackdown” by Mexican authorities. Perhaps it is partly because the President of the United States and his Secretary of State have blamed America for the rampant increase in drugs being smuggled across our southern border. Regardless of the reason old El Chapo isn’t going to let other drug smugglers or the Border Patrol or Sheriff Joe and his deputies disturb this cash cow without spilling some blood. Guzman has made it clear that the old method of ditching the drugs and running for cover will no longer be tolerated. It’s shoot em up time in Arizona. The homicide rate in the border towns on the Mexico side have risen 100 times what they were just 5 years ago. Maybe that may have Sheriff Joe and his men a little on edge when it comes to illegal aliens.
Oh sure, the sheriff could just sit back and say “Well hell, I guess we had it coming” like the message coming out of Washington DC. But the 4 million people of Maricopa County have entrusted Sheriff Joe Apraio for the last 20 years and elected him to be their sheriff to serve and protect. And Sheriff Joe isn’t about to let them down.
So Big Al Sharpton, bring ACORN, bring the NAACP, bring your paid protest professionals and take that trip to Maricopa County. Just bring some spending money to help the economy and try not to get caught up in the deadly crossfire of those whose rights you are so pretentiously trying to defend.
And if you find yourself in a situation with some of El Chapo’s band of baleful banditos you can give Sheriff Joe a call. I’m guessing he’ll be there to save you.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Gore-ing Us All
A word of caution to Republican legislators; the man who invented the internet is not a man to be trifled with!
Al Gore brought his global warming dog and pony show to Capitol Hill last week as the key speaker before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The purpose of his visit was to discuss new cap-and-trade legislation. A topic near and ear the ex-VP’s heart and wallet.
Gore left Washington DC in 2001 with a net worth of around $2 million. In only 8 years he has been able to increase his personal worth to an estimated $100 million. To say the least, global warming has been berry berry good to Mr. Gore.
The reason for his intense interest in getting cap-and-trade legislation passed is that he got in on the ground floor of creating this whole scam. The essence of cap-and-trade is that polluting industries will be given limits on the amount they can pollute the atmosphere. If they go beyond those limits (caps) they will be forced to buy carbon offsets. These carbon offsets will be the new currency of industry. Companies that reduce their emissions will end up with extra carbon offsets to trade to companies that need them. It’s like a monopoly game where Big Al and his business partners are the bankers. As such Mr. Gore stands to make money on every trade of his newly created currency. Even Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs understands the potential for uncapped profits in this shell game and has invested as part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a board where these carbon offsets will be traded like stocks and bonds.
During the question and answer period of Big Al goes to Washington Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn noted that Mr. Gore had joined the venture capital group Kleiner-Perkins. She also noted that K-P had invested a billion dollars in 40 companies that stood to benefit greatly from the new cap-and-trade legislation. Ms. Blackburn asked “Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?” Mr. Gore was not amused.
His demeanor immediately changed and in his most indignant, condescending tone replied “You know congresswoman, anybody who thinks I would do this for the money doesn’t know me very well. Why would you ask me a question like that?” Ms. Blackburn replied that it was in fact a legitimate question that she had been asked by her constituents. Mr. Gore continued his non-answer by saying “I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Is there something wrong with that? Are you telling me that you are against American business?” The false bravado and feigned look of martyrdom on his face had all the markings of “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski”.
The answer of course is clear. Mr. Gore and his business partners stand to personally make a literal boatload of money from this eco-game of three card monty. Gore later claimed that all the money he has personally made, “every penny of it” was directed by him back into a nonprofit organization. How noble. How inspiring. How much of this blatant BS does he expect us to believe?
The fact is that the very un-altruistic Mr. Gore has personally invested over $35 million, not in nonprofits but in the very for profit Capricorn Investment Group. This group invests in the makers of environmentally friendly products, each of which would likely benefit greatly from new cap-and-trade legislation and the continuation of the “go green or die” hokum being perpetrated on the American psyche.
You may ask “Hey Big Frick! What do I care if Al Gore makes a lot of money by helping save the planet?” To which I would respond “How wrong you are my bright little star.”
You see cap-and-trade does nothing to save the planet. It allows industry to continue to pollute at the same level they always have. It’s just now they must pay for it through the carbon offsets. And where do you think the money will come from to pay for the carbon offsets? Why from the consumers of the products those industries manufacture of course.
If this whole smoke and mirrors cap-and-trade system was above board Mr. Gore would have no problem admitting where his newfound wealth had come from and why he and his business partners are working so tirelessly to get this new legislation passed.
Big Al “Mr. Roboto” Gore has learned a most important lesson from his past boss Bill Clinton. The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made.
Al Gore brought his global warming dog and pony show to Capitol Hill last week as the key speaker before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The purpose of his visit was to discuss new cap-and-trade legislation. A topic near and ear the ex-VP’s heart and wallet.
Gore left Washington DC in 2001 with a net worth of around $2 million. In only 8 years he has been able to increase his personal worth to an estimated $100 million. To say the least, global warming has been berry berry good to Mr. Gore.
The reason for his intense interest in getting cap-and-trade legislation passed is that he got in on the ground floor of creating this whole scam. The essence of cap-and-trade is that polluting industries will be given limits on the amount they can pollute the atmosphere. If they go beyond those limits (caps) they will be forced to buy carbon offsets. These carbon offsets will be the new currency of industry. Companies that reduce their emissions will end up with extra carbon offsets to trade to companies that need them. It’s like a monopoly game where Big Al and his business partners are the bankers. As such Mr. Gore stands to make money on every trade of his newly created currency. Even Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs understands the potential for uncapped profits in this shell game and has invested as part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a board where these carbon offsets will be traded like stocks and bonds.
During the question and answer period of Big Al goes to Washington Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn noted that Mr. Gore had joined the venture capital group Kleiner-Perkins. She also noted that K-P had invested a billion dollars in 40 companies that stood to benefit greatly from the new cap-and-trade legislation. Ms. Blackburn asked “Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?” Mr. Gore was not amused.
His demeanor immediately changed and in his most indignant, condescending tone replied “You know congresswoman, anybody who thinks I would do this for the money doesn’t know me very well. Why would you ask me a question like that?” Ms. Blackburn replied that it was in fact a legitimate question that she had been asked by her constituents. Mr. Gore continued his non-answer by saying “I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Is there something wrong with that? Are you telling me that you are against American business?” The false bravado and feigned look of martyrdom on his face had all the markings of “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski”.
The answer of course is clear. Mr. Gore and his business partners stand to personally make a literal boatload of money from this eco-game of three card monty. Gore later claimed that all the money he has personally made, “every penny of it” was directed by him back into a nonprofit organization. How noble. How inspiring. How much of this blatant BS does he expect us to believe?
The fact is that the very un-altruistic Mr. Gore has personally invested over $35 million, not in nonprofits but in the very for profit Capricorn Investment Group. This group invests in the makers of environmentally friendly products, each of which would likely benefit greatly from new cap-and-trade legislation and the continuation of the “go green or die” hokum being perpetrated on the American psyche.
You may ask “Hey Big Frick! What do I care if Al Gore makes a lot of money by helping save the planet?” To which I would respond “How wrong you are my bright little star.”
You see cap-and-trade does nothing to save the planet. It allows industry to continue to pollute at the same level they always have. It’s just now they must pay for it through the carbon offsets. And where do you think the money will come from to pay for the carbon offsets? Why from the consumers of the products those industries manufacture of course.
If this whole smoke and mirrors cap-and-trade system was above board Mr. Gore would have no problem admitting where his newfound wealth had come from and why he and his business partners are working so tirelessly to get this new legislation passed.
Big Al “Mr. Roboto” Gore has learned a most important lesson from his past boss Bill Clinton. The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Sad Case Of California Incompetence
California has some of the world’s most magnificent scenery, great weather, a plethora of outdoor sports and activities and without question a healthy overabundance of inane, self-absorbed, unrealistic, supercilious, licentious, perfidious, onerous, intransigent, feckless demagogues serving in state and local government.
Case in point is the sad and oppressive situation facing Daniel Bader, a Newport Beach homeowner.
Mr. Bader has lived in Newport Beach for 18 years and owns and occupies a 1227 square foot cottage which includes a 480 square foot “mother-in-law” unit located over the single car garage. Mr. Bader rents this unit out to tenants who share the same mailbox and address with Mr. Bader along with the washing machine and dryer located in the garage. There is no storage or reserved parking for the unit and utilities are shared evenly between Mr. Bader and the tenant. It is just a room with limited amenities that rents for around $1900 per month in the inflated California rental market.
When the unit became available in 2006 Mr. Bader posted an ad on Craigslist describing the apartment with the caveat that it would be “suitable for 1 or 2 professional adults”. It was that descriptively accurate and seemingly innocuous caveat that propelled Mr. Bader into the category of lawless discriminatory desperado and began a nightmare of such immense proportions that only an inept governmental agency could be responsible for it.
It turns out that a bureaucrat with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County spotted Mr. Bader’s ad and thought it was worthy of investing some time and taxpayer dollars to see if Mr. Bader was discriminatory in his renting practices. Keying in on the “1 or 2 professional adults” portion of the ad the FHCOC had testers call Mr. Bader to see if he would rent to them with a 2 year old child. They also sent out some decoys presenting themselves as husband and wife and inquired in person about renting to them with a small child. In every instance Mr. Bader responded by saying that if they could be comfortable in the 450 square foot room with an exit door adjacent to the alley, he had no problem with it. I can only imagine the disappointment of the vigilante council employees when Mr. Bader didn’t take the bait. The council then went so far as to contact the past two tenants of Mr. Bader to inquire as to his worthiness as a landlord. To their continued frustration Mr. Bader’s character was held flawless.
Not to be deterred the FHCOC was joined by the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and filed formal action against Mr. Bader for discrimination. Their justification for the action was that the description of “suitable for 1 or 2 professional adults” “COULD be construed as indicating a preference toward people without children”. The fact that the room is 450 sq.ft. and might not be suitable for the Brady Bunch never entered into the equation. Mr. Bader, who has an MBA in International Business, was now doomed to spend the next two and a half years fighting with state bureaucrats who have a PhD in stupid.
Mr. Bader and his attorney asked the state’s legal council to provide them with legal precedence or case law that backed up the state’s action. The state could provide none. They further requested on what grounds the state determined the action was deemed necessary because someone somewhere “COULD” have misinterpreted the language. Again none was provided. When the state was queried by the local media their response was as ambiguous as their actions. The State DFEH and the Fair Housing Council Corporation both contended that the phrase is in violation of anti-discriminatory advertising laws: "regardless of the intent of the advertiser and/or past and current rental practices” which basically means that Mr. Bader is in violation whether he is in violation or not.
The state did however offer Mr. Bader the opportunity to avoid litigation if he agreed to pay the FHCOC $4000.00 in out of pocket expenses and punitive damages although no accounting for the expenses or precedent for the punitive damages could be provided. Mr. Bader would also be required to attend 5 years of continuing landlord education conducted by the FHCOC and agree to pay the $250 per class fee. Mr. Bader, who was fortunately not anywhere near as stupid as the folks he was forced to deal with, decided to not take that deal.
The FHCOC and the DFEH sent Mr. Bader’s case to the state legal department for suit. Mr. Bader was forced to hire an attorney to defend him and attend several pretrial hearings. When it all came down to game time however the FHCOC and the DFEH dropped the suit with no further action to be taken. Mr. Bader sued the state to recoup the $44,000 in legal fees he had paid to defend himself from this frivolous lawsuit, but once again to no avail. The courts denied his request.
This is a perfect example of bad government run by thoughtless incompetents. It sure doesn’t make me want to visit or invest in anything California.
I invite you to read the whole scenario of this criminal miscarriage of California justice at:
http://stategonecrazy.com
Case in point is the sad and oppressive situation facing Daniel Bader, a Newport Beach homeowner.
Mr. Bader has lived in Newport Beach for 18 years and owns and occupies a 1227 square foot cottage which includes a 480 square foot “mother-in-law” unit located over the single car garage. Mr. Bader rents this unit out to tenants who share the same mailbox and address with Mr. Bader along with the washing machine and dryer located in the garage. There is no storage or reserved parking for the unit and utilities are shared evenly between Mr. Bader and the tenant. It is just a room with limited amenities that rents for around $1900 per month in the inflated California rental market.
When the unit became available in 2006 Mr. Bader posted an ad on Craigslist describing the apartment with the caveat that it would be “suitable for 1 or 2 professional adults”. It was that descriptively accurate and seemingly innocuous caveat that propelled Mr. Bader into the category of lawless discriminatory desperado and began a nightmare of such immense proportions that only an inept governmental agency could be responsible for it.
It turns out that a bureaucrat with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County spotted Mr. Bader’s ad and thought it was worthy of investing some time and taxpayer dollars to see if Mr. Bader was discriminatory in his renting practices. Keying in on the “1 or 2 professional adults” portion of the ad the FHCOC had testers call Mr. Bader to see if he would rent to them with a 2 year old child. They also sent out some decoys presenting themselves as husband and wife and inquired in person about renting to them with a small child. In every instance Mr. Bader responded by saying that if they could be comfortable in the 450 square foot room with an exit door adjacent to the alley, he had no problem with it. I can only imagine the disappointment of the vigilante council employees when Mr. Bader didn’t take the bait. The council then went so far as to contact the past two tenants of Mr. Bader to inquire as to his worthiness as a landlord. To their continued frustration Mr. Bader’s character was held flawless.
Not to be deterred the FHCOC was joined by the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and filed formal action against Mr. Bader for discrimination. Their justification for the action was that the description of “suitable for 1 or 2 professional adults” “COULD be construed as indicating a preference toward people without children”. The fact that the room is 450 sq.ft. and might not be suitable for the Brady Bunch never entered into the equation. Mr. Bader, who has an MBA in International Business, was now doomed to spend the next two and a half years fighting with state bureaucrats who have a PhD in stupid.
Mr. Bader and his attorney asked the state’s legal council to provide them with legal precedence or case law that backed up the state’s action. The state could provide none. They further requested on what grounds the state determined the action was deemed necessary because someone somewhere “COULD” have misinterpreted the language. Again none was provided. When the state was queried by the local media their response was as ambiguous as their actions. The State DFEH and the Fair Housing Council Corporation both contended that the phrase is in violation of anti-discriminatory advertising laws: "regardless of the intent of the advertiser and/or past and current rental practices” which basically means that Mr. Bader is in violation whether he is in violation or not.
The state did however offer Mr. Bader the opportunity to avoid litigation if he agreed to pay the FHCOC $4000.00 in out of pocket expenses and punitive damages although no accounting for the expenses or precedent for the punitive damages could be provided. Mr. Bader would also be required to attend 5 years of continuing landlord education conducted by the FHCOC and agree to pay the $250 per class fee. Mr. Bader, who was fortunately not anywhere near as stupid as the folks he was forced to deal with, decided to not take that deal.
The FHCOC and the DFEH sent Mr. Bader’s case to the state legal department for suit. Mr. Bader was forced to hire an attorney to defend him and attend several pretrial hearings. When it all came down to game time however the FHCOC and the DFEH dropped the suit with no further action to be taken. Mr. Bader sued the state to recoup the $44,000 in legal fees he had paid to defend himself from this frivolous lawsuit, but once again to no avail. The courts denied his request.
This is a perfect example of bad government run by thoughtless incompetents. It sure doesn’t make me want to visit or invest in anything California.
I invite you to read the whole scenario of this criminal miscarriage of California justice at:
http://stategonecrazy.com
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Pandemic Epidemic
I’m getting pretty sick of this swine flu.
It’s not that I don’t believe this new strain of flu bug has the ability to make a lot of people sick. It’s just that we have shown once again we are about to lose our ever loving minds over something that is, at best, a minor blip on the importance scale.
President Obama is being lauded as on top of this problem having announced a set aside of $1.5 billion to fight this flu pandemic. One question that was not asked that seems like it might be kind of important to me is, on what?
In one breath we are being told that millions of doses of anti-flu vaccines have been sent across the country. In the next breath we are told that this is a new strain of flu and that there is no vaccine in place to combat it. We are also told that the creation of a flu specific vaccine for this strain is very challenging and time consuming. So if we don’t have the right medicine to fight this new type of flu what type of flu vaccine are we blanketing the country with? Perhaps we are sending last year’s bird flu pandemic vaccine. There should be plenty of that left on the shelves seeing as that pandemic was as big a dud as the last 5 or 6 pandemics that were forecasted to wipe out half of the population. I wonder if the CDC is able to get a discount for buying last year’s model.
The fact is that, while tragic, so far we have only one confirmed death of a 2 year old child from this new strain of swine flu. To put this into a bit clearer perspective we normally have about 5 children per year die from drowning in the toilet. We have 226 confirmed cases of this flu in this country of 306 million, and that is only because we are looking for it. If we had 5000 deaths from this new strain of flu it would not even make a statistical blip in the averages.
On average there are over 20,000 deaths in this country every year from the flu and twice as many as that from pneumonia. As was the case of the single swine flu death, they are mostly children ages 1 to 4, those over 65 and those whose health is already compromised. One statistic that is not tracked is how many of those people would have likely died from some other disease had they not caught the flu.
The CDC is claiming that the spread of this strain is no different than the spread of a normal winter flu. If the CDC had actually bothered to do the math they would have seen that this flu pandemic is actually spreading far slower than the normal winter flu. The CDC is also advising that if there is a confirmed case of the H1N1 flu strain in a schoolchild, that school should shut down for 2 weeks. Currently there are 476 schools closed due to this warning. How 476 schools can close with only 226 total confirmed cases shows we may be overreacting more than a little bit.
The president is advising Americans to wash their hands, which is pretty much the same advice I got from my grandmother. Only the president isn’t going to yell at me in Czech if I don’t do it. I can only assume that part of the $1.5 billion being spent on the pandemic will go toward hand washing public service announcements produced in every language short of Martian, proper hand washing classes conducted round the clock by ACORN volunteers, an artist’s rendering of George Washington washing and possibly even a good old fashioned Uncle Sam poster saying “I Want You…To Wash Your Hands.”
The vice-president on the other washed hand is advising us to avoid any other living thing, stay indoors, put our head between our legs and kiss our ass goodbye.
Perhaps he might want to consider washing his foot as well as long as he is going to keep putting it in his mouth.
It’s not that I don’t believe this new strain of flu bug has the ability to make a lot of people sick. It’s just that we have shown once again we are about to lose our ever loving minds over something that is, at best, a minor blip on the importance scale.
President Obama is being lauded as on top of this problem having announced a set aside of $1.5 billion to fight this flu pandemic. One question that was not asked that seems like it might be kind of important to me is, on what?
In one breath we are being told that millions of doses of anti-flu vaccines have been sent across the country. In the next breath we are told that this is a new strain of flu and that there is no vaccine in place to combat it. We are also told that the creation of a flu specific vaccine for this strain is very challenging and time consuming. So if we don’t have the right medicine to fight this new type of flu what type of flu vaccine are we blanketing the country with? Perhaps we are sending last year’s bird flu pandemic vaccine. There should be plenty of that left on the shelves seeing as that pandemic was as big a dud as the last 5 or 6 pandemics that were forecasted to wipe out half of the population. I wonder if the CDC is able to get a discount for buying last year’s model.
The fact is that, while tragic, so far we have only one confirmed death of a 2 year old child from this new strain of swine flu. To put this into a bit clearer perspective we normally have about 5 children per year die from drowning in the toilet. We have 226 confirmed cases of this flu in this country of 306 million, and that is only because we are looking for it. If we had 5000 deaths from this new strain of flu it would not even make a statistical blip in the averages.
On average there are over 20,000 deaths in this country every year from the flu and twice as many as that from pneumonia. As was the case of the single swine flu death, they are mostly children ages 1 to 4, those over 65 and those whose health is already compromised. One statistic that is not tracked is how many of those people would have likely died from some other disease had they not caught the flu.
The CDC is claiming that the spread of this strain is no different than the spread of a normal winter flu. If the CDC had actually bothered to do the math they would have seen that this flu pandemic is actually spreading far slower than the normal winter flu. The CDC is also advising that if there is a confirmed case of the H1N1 flu strain in a schoolchild, that school should shut down for 2 weeks. Currently there are 476 schools closed due to this warning. How 476 schools can close with only 226 total confirmed cases shows we may be overreacting more than a little bit.
The president is advising Americans to wash their hands, which is pretty much the same advice I got from my grandmother. Only the president isn’t going to yell at me in Czech if I don’t do it. I can only assume that part of the $1.5 billion being spent on the pandemic will go toward hand washing public service announcements produced in every language short of Martian, proper hand washing classes conducted round the clock by ACORN volunteers, an artist’s rendering of George Washington washing and possibly even a good old fashioned Uncle Sam poster saying “I Want You…To Wash Your Hands.”
The vice-president on the other washed hand is advising us to avoid any other living thing, stay indoors, put our head between our legs and kiss our ass goodbye.
Perhaps he might want to consider washing his foot as well as long as he is going to keep putting it in his mouth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
