Since so-called conservative Republican David Frum is on a one-man Jihad against the only person willing to articulate and explain conservatism, radio talker Rush Limbaugh, I am reversing the field and making a multi-layred Jihad against Mr. Frum.
And, lo and behold I now have company.
Author Bernard Chapin wrote this excellent piece over at Pajamas Media adding another and obvious layer to the Frum kerfuffle.
The fact that Mr. Frum is all too willing to take his Jihad on Rush with an assist or two in the DDBOWMM.
No, it is not enough for Mr. Frum to use his boorish website, New Majority, to bash Mr. Limbaugh.
But, Mr. Frum is yucking it up with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews on Whiffleball, aka Hardball. And wrote the cover story in this past week's Newsweek bashing Mr. Limbaugh.
Here are the last paragraph's of Mr. Chapin's piece. However, please read the whole thing.
That Frum excoriated Limbaugh in the pages of a roach’s den of radicalism tells us much about his loyalties — he doesn’t have any. Like money deposited from the Reichsbank in the 1940s, there’s blood on the gold from which he was paid. His is a betrayal of biblical proportions: David slept with Goliath.
There is no point in being sensitive in regards to this fellow. He’s crossed the Oprahcon. Despite his Harvard education and bloated curriculum vitae, David Frum is not worthy of licking the tobacco from Limbaugh’s famously nicotine-stained fingers. In the foxhole that is contemporary politics, would you rather fight alongside a lion like Rush Limbaugh or a fop like David Frum? I’ll let readers decide for themselves.
Frum’s new organization aims for “the reform and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Apparently, this can only be done by purging known heroes and replacing them with upper-class ninnies who are cherished by bloviating toadies like Chris Matthews.
The new millennium is not an era for milquetoasts. Only a turncoat bashes his own in the camp of the enemy. Traitors should not be mollycoddled.
If we want to build a new majority, Republicans should let David Frum go the way of Scott McClellan.
And, since Mr. Frum does not seem to get the fact that falling into the liberal-left camp in regards to Mr. Limbaugh, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Chapin. Let Mr. Frum go off to the other side. After all, he is using them to peddle a liberal-left talking point.
The fact is that Mr. Frum does not realize how really bad his rant sounds. As I noted in a earlier post, Mr. Frum is taking all of this personally. He really does not expand on the thoughts that he has as to how to get the conservative Republican message out there.
At some point, we have to shun Mr. Frum. Now looks as good a time as any.
I hope to no longer have to write any more of these posts. But, when some one can state the message about Mr. Frum clearly, I will link and comment.
Bernard Chapin is now added to the David Frum, shut the f--- up crowd!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
President Obama Said It!
I think that this quote from President Obama's meeting with the Brazilian President, Lulu da Silva, is revealing:
Then he said he would love a trip to the Amazon. He joked that he suspects the Republican Party would like to see him travel through the Amazon and maybe get lost for while.
Well, some of us believe that President Obama has been lost for quite a while now. And, he does not need to spend American taxpayer money to get even more lost.
Then he said he would love a trip to the Amazon. He joked that he suspects the Republican Party would like to see him travel through the Amazon and maybe get lost for while.
Well, some of us believe that President Obama has been lost for quite a while now. And, he does not need to spend American taxpayer money to get even more lost.
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Lefty Quiz
The liberal-left Center For American Progress has a fun, new 40 question quiz that determines where one falls on the political spectrum.
I took it and, surprise, I came out as "extremely" conservative. My score was a 55 out of 400.
According to those who took the quiz, supposedly the average is 209 out of 400.
That maybe true, but one has to wonder who would take such a quiz.
I actually found the quiz on the American Spectator website.
Go figure.
The post's author, Philip Klein, also was tagged as "extremely" conservative. But, he did not reveal his score.
Take the quiz and have some fun.
HT: Philip Klein @ www.spectator.org
I took it and, surprise, I came out as "extremely" conservative. My score was a 55 out of 400.
According to those who took the quiz, supposedly the average is 209 out of 400.
That maybe true, but one has to wonder who would take such a quiz.
I actually found the quiz on the American Spectator website.
Go figure.
The post's author, Philip Klein, also was tagged as "extremely" conservative. But, he did not reveal his score.
Take the quiz and have some fun.
HT: Philip Klein @ www.spectator.org
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Michael Steele Is Not Wrong On Abortion
In a new kerfuffle, Republican National Committee Chair, Michael Steele, seemed to be saying that women have an individual right to choose or not choose to have an abortion.
Well, it is not quite that. But, it is a bit convoluted and shows that Mr. Steele needs to be firm in his pro-life stand and articulate it in a clear, unequivocal manner.
This interview in GQ magazine is a clear attempt by Mr. Steele to reach out to those who may not read anything actually said by a Republican, let alone a conservative. And that is a good thing.
But, lets single out the controversial comment.
This is what has many tongues on both sides wagging:
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
On the face of it, I admit, it sounds really strange from a man that was very seriously considering entering the Roman Catholic priesthood.
But, here is the full context:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
Really, what Mr. Steele was articulating was standard conservative, Republican thinking on abortion. That Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That the states should make the laws governing abortion, not the federal government with an assist by the supreme court.
In fact, that was Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's point on the abortion issue during the Death March of a 2008 presidential campaign.
In context, Mr. Steele was speaking on the abortion issue the way that a seminarian would. That there is a choice. There is a right choice and a wrong choice. Where Mr. Steele got into trouble was that he seemingly took what can only be a pro-choice position when asked about a woman's "right" to choose. But, I read it as the way a priest, pastor or minister would answer that question.
The fact is that we all have choices that we make. Some bad, some good. I believe that abortion, by and large, is wrong. Are there cases for it? Yes. Does a woman make a choice whether or not to have an abortion? Of course. But, so does an alcoholic who knows that he or she should not take a drink. A drug addict. Any addict. One can choose to steal, to rob. It is a choice.
Where I would point out that Mr. Steele needs to think very, very carefully in talking with the DDBMSOWM is that they have an agenda. They want to embarrass any conservative Republican. And they want to talk about so-called social issues. As they say, read the whole interview. There is scant little about what President Obama has done in the beginning of the rape of the American taxpayer.
I think that Mr. Steele realizes that he is talking to what I would characterize as a "Blue" audience. Lets face it. GQ does not really attract a lot of conservative Republican readers. I think that Mr. Steele was trying to answer in a way to appeal to a more moderate reader of GQ. One who may think that they are a liberal or Democrat, but may listen to someone like a Michael Steele. That is the appeal of Mr. Steele. But, he has to be very careful to realize in the internet age, a lot of people read these interviews. Thus, it seems to look bad on the surface. But, again, I would ask to read it all in context.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News is spot on. The right needs to lay off Mr. Steele. Mr. Hawkins' point is one I agree with. Mr. Steele is new. He is not an old Washington hand. He will make mistakes. But, he is getting the conservative message out there.
A lot of the criticism against Mr. Steele is inside baseball stuff. About staffing at the RNC. How the special election on March 31 in the New York congressional special election is make or break. One special election? Please.
Again, I ask that if you have doubts about Mr. Steele, read the whole interview. Take his abortion comments not as endorsement of being "pro-choice" but articulating that choices are made. Some bad, some good.
And as far as the thrust of what Mr. Steele was saying, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, is spot on. That it should be left to the states to determine abortion law.
On that, Michael Steele is right and it should be how we take the political abortion battle from here on.
David Frum, STFU!
OK, I guess that alleged conservative Republican guru David Frum does not read this blog.
In an earlier posting, I politely suggested that Mr. Frum shut his hole in his one-man Jihad against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
But, alas, Mr. Frum could not stop himself in doing that and continues the Jihad against the "face" of the Republican party and brings shame to himself and all that he claimed to believe over the years.
It was not enough that Mr. Frum spent so much face time on the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media taking his case that a radio talk show host has somehow hijacked the Republican party. No, no, no.
In this past week's Newsweek, Mr. Frum's Rush Jihad is given front page prominence. And Mr. Frum was yucking it up on "Whiffleball" aka "Hardball" with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews.
Yes, these are areas in which to make a case that Rush Limbaugh should not be a leader-not the leader-in the conservative/Republican movement. Mr. Frum takes a real great liberty of comparing Mr. Limbaugh to Jesse Jackson. Mr. Jackson at least ran for president. Mr. Limbaugh has no inclination of entering elected politics. It is a long-winded piece and while I can actually find a bit of agreement with some of Mr. Frum's points, the problem is that he falls into the left-wing trap by making the issue Rush Limbaugh. What it is is something that falls into the
saying principles before personalities. Mr. Frum is letting Mr. Limbaugh's personality affect how he makes his case to expand conservative/Republicans.
Mr. Frum has a new website he calls the New Majority and claims that it is a "Republicanism that works". Now, I link to it and read it often. Unfortunately, it does not articulate a very conservative message at all. It longs for the days of a Richard Nixon style Republican party. One that essentially put in the liberal-left programs during the 1970s. It did not grow the party whatsoever. And will not now.
Also, Mr. Frum's latest book is 'Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again' and it really is a watered-down liberal-left agenda. In the American Spectator is an excellent piece by Daniel J. Flynn that deconstructs a lot of the Frum argument and the one-man Jihad against Mr. Limbaugh.
Again, I ask Mr. Frum that he take his case about how conservatism should "evolve" on the merits. There is no need to attack Rush Limbaugh. Or social conservatives. Or those of us that believe that while some of the issues have changed, conservative ideas have not.
I am now telling Mr. Frum to shut the f--- up. If he can not stop bashing those that are allies, then Mr. Frum has to shut the f--- up and now!
In an earlier posting, I politely suggested that Mr. Frum shut his hole in his one-man Jihad against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
But, alas, Mr. Frum could not stop himself in doing that and continues the Jihad against the "face" of the Republican party and brings shame to himself and all that he claimed to believe over the years.
It was not enough that Mr. Frum spent so much face time on the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media taking his case that a radio talk show host has somehow hijacked the Republican party. No, no, no.
In this past week's Newsweek, Mr. Frum's Rush Jihad is given front page prominence. And Mr. Frum was yucking it up on "Whiffleball" aka "Hardball" with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews.
Yes, these are areas in which to make a case that Rush Limbaugh should not be a leader-not the leader-in the conservative/Republican movement. Mr. Frum takes a real great liberty of comparing Mr. Limbaugh to Jesse Jackson. Mr. Jackson at least ran for president. Mr. Limbaugh has no inclination of entering elected politics. It is a long-winded piece and while I can actually find a bit of agreement with some of Mr. Frum's points, the problem is that he falls into the left-wing trap by making the issue Rush Limbaugh. What it is is something that falls into the
saying principles before personalities. Mr. Frum is letting Mr. Limbaugh's personality affect how he makes his case to expand conservative/Republicans.
Mr. Frum has a new website he calls the New Majority and claims that it is a "Republicanism that works". Now, I link to it and read it often. Unfortunately, it does not articulate a very conservative message at all. It longs for the days of a Richard Nixon style Republican party. One that essentially put in the liberal-left programs during the 1970s. It did not grow the party whatsoever. And will not now.
Also, Mr. Frum's latest book is 'Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again' and it really is a watered-down liberal-left agenda. In the American Spectator is an excellent piece by Daniel J. Flynn that deconstructs a lot of the Frum argument and the one-man Jihad against Mr. Limbaugh.
Again, I ask Mr. Frum that he take his case about how conservatism should "evolve" on the merits. There is no need to attack Rush Limbaugh. Or social conservatives. Or those of us that believe that while some of the issues have changed, conservative ideas have not.
I am now telling Mr. Frum to shut the f--- up. If he can not stop bashing those that are allies, then Mr. Frum has to shut the f--- up and now!
Ross Douthat To Be New Token Conservative At The New York Times
UPDATED:
The announcement of Mr. Douthat's hiring says it all about what constitutes a "conservative" in the world of The New York Times.
According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat will be the new token conservative (David Brooks DOES NOT count!) on The New York Times op-ed page.
Mr. Douthat is young, smart and kind of conservative. Some where between David I Hate Rush Frum and mainstream conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney or Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Mr. Douthat has been a contributor to National Review and usually writes movie reviews for the venerable conservative magazine.
However, like everything else at The New York Times, this comes too little too late. And there is no guarantee that once David Brooks sinks his smarmy, moderate teeth in his neck that he will not end up another, well David Brooks. Or worse, David I Hate Rush Frum!
And if you read the link, the Times is not letting Mr. Douthat dive right in. The Times is starting Mr. Douthat online and let him gradually in the dead tree editions. You know, kind letting the libertards acquire the Douthat taste.
My question is will there BE a dead tree edition of The New York Times for Mr. Douthat to go to eventually?
Well, at least the Times did not ask David I Hate Rush Frum. So, that is a step in the right direction.
The announcement of Mr. Douthat's hiring says it all about what constitutes a "conservative" in the world of The New York Times.
According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat will be the new token conservative (David Brooks DOES NOT count!) on The New York Times op-ed page.
Mr. Douthat is young, smart and kind of conservative. Some where between David I Hate Rush Frum and mainstream conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney or Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Mr. Douthat has been a contributor to National Review and usually writes movie reviews for the venerable conservative magazine.
However, like everything else at The New York Times, this comes too little too late. And there is no guarantee that once David Brooks sinks his smarmy, moderate teeth in his neck that he will not end up another, well David Brooks. Or worse, David I Hate Rush Frum!
And if you read the link, the Times is not letting Mr. Douthat dive right in. The Times is starting Mr. Douthat online and let him gradually in the dead tree editions. You know, kind letting the libertards acquire the Douthat taste.
My question is will there BE a dead tree edition of The New York Times for Mr. Douthat to go to eventually?
Well, at least the Times did not ask David I Hate Rush Frum. So, that is a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Connecticut Dems And The Catholic Church
In a not-so-subtle attempt to try to take the power of the Roman Catholic church to organize as it is sees fit, two Connecticut Democrat state legislators were putting a bill up that would have essentially had the state determine how each parish would organize its governing boards.
Now, it is known to regular readers of this blog that I am not a Christian Roman Catholic. I am a Christian and an Episcopalian. But in this case, I am defiantly with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
At issue is the way that each Roman Catholic diocese is set up and how each individual parish governing board is set up.
Currently, as I understand it, the diocesan bishop and the local parish priest or rector essentially run each parish with little if any input from the laity. I assume that there is some kind of governing board, so to any Roman Catholic readers, let me know.
In the Episcopal church, there is a diocesan bishop and each parish. The governing board is known as a vestry. Ostensibly, the members of the vestry are selected by committee and put up for a vote of parish members at a set time and place, usually an annual meeting of the parish.
So, some Roman Catholics do not like the fact that they give money to the church and do not like how the money is spent. Or on any given issue that a particular parish priest or rector deems it necessary for.
So, a Connecticut church member, Tom Gallagher, went to a state senator by the name of Andrew Macdonald (D-Stamford) to pursue state legislation that would create vestry-like lay boards of seven to 13 members. And that board would oversee the church finances. The kicker is that it would put the local priest or rector and bishop is nothing more than an advisory role.
Besides the fact that this would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, there is an underlying theme that somehow there is not so veiled anti-Roman Catholicism on the part of some state legislators.
As it turns out, Sen. Macdonald and his bill co-sponsor, state Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) are gay. And they were none too happy about the role that many Roman Catholics played in supporting Proposition 8 this past November. Supposedly, the concerned lay person who approached Sen. Macdonald, Mr. Gallagher, is a leader of reform-minded Roman Catholics in Connecticut called Catholics for Better Governance.
Now, I do not really care how the Roman Catholic church chooses to govern itself. It is their right. Just as it is the right for the Episcopal Church or any other religious entity to govern itself as it see fit.
There can not be a role of government in the process. And the fact that two state legislators in Connecticut almost got as far as it did is disturbing.
But, a lot of pressure came to bear and Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Macdonald have shelved the proposed bill-for now.
But, why would two actively gay, Democrat, state legislators try to force a church to change the way that it governs? Unless they thought that it would get lay people, who may be more sympathetic to their issues, or boards they would have created. Thus they may not have been inclined to support such a measure as Proposition 8. Or anti-life legislation.
The only reason this was even known is because of such people as the folks at National Review and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, a practicing Roman Catholic.
Good for them!
This proves that the Democrats are all talk about religious freedom. Until they freely exercise their religious understandings against issues that they are for.
Now, it is known to regular readers of this blog that I am not a Christian Roman Catholic. I am a Christian and an Episcopalian. But in this case, I am defiantly with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
At issue is the way that each Roman Catholic diocese is set up and how each individual parish governing board is set up.
Currently, as I understand it, the diocesan bishop and the local parish priest or rector essentially run each parish with little if any input from the laity. I assume that there is some kind of governing board, so to any Roman Catholic readers, let me know.
In the Episcopal church, there is a diocesan bishop and each parish. The governing board is known as a vestry. Ostensibly, the members of the vestry are selected by committee and put up for a vote of parish members at a set time and place, usually an annual meeting of the parish.
So, some Roman Catholics do not like the fact that they give money to the church and do not like how the money is spent. Or on any given issue that a particular parish priest or rector deems it necessary for.
So, a Connecticut church member, Tom Gallagher, went to a state senator by the name of Andrew Macdonald (D-Stamford) to pursue state legislation that would create vestry-like lay boards of seven to 13 members. And that board would oversee the church finances. The kicker is that it would put the local priest or rector and bishop is nothing more than an advisory role.
Besides the fact that this would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, there is an underlying theme that somehow there is not so veiled anti-Roman Catholicism on the part of some state legislators.
As it turns out, Sen. Macdonald and his bill co-sponsor, state Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) are gay. And they were none too happy about the role that many Roman Catholics played in supporting Proposition 8 this past November. Supposedly, the concerned lay person who approached Sen. Macdonald, Mr. Gallagher, is a leader of reform-minded Roman Catholics in Connecticut called Catholics for Better Governance.
Now, I do not really care how the Roman Catholic church chooses to govern itself. It is their right. Just as it is the right for the Episcopal Church or any other religious entity to govern itself as it see fit.
There can not be a role of government in the process. And the fact that two state legislators in Connecticut almost got as far as it did is disturbing.
But, a lot of pressure came to bear and Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Macdonald have shelved the proposed bill-for now.
But, why would two actively gay, Democrat, state legislators try to force a church to change the way that it governs? Unless they thought that it would get lay people, who may be more sympathetic to their issues, or boards they would have created. Thus they may not have been inclined to support such a measure as Proposition 8. Or anti-life legislation.
The only reason this was even known is because of such people as the folks at National Review and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, a practicing Roman Catholic.
Good for them!
This proves that the Democrats are all talk about religious freedom. Until they freely exercise their religious understandings against issues that they are for.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Great News! The 10 American Newspapers That May Stop Killing Trees By The End Of This Year!
Just so you do not think it is a right-wing it job, the following analysis is from Time magazine. And it is not good for 10 newspapers around the United States.
The list of newspapers is as follows:
1) The Boston Globe
2) Chicago Sun-Times
3) The Plain-Dealer (Cleveland)
4) The Detroit News
5) Fort Worth Star-Telegram
6) The Miami Herald
7) Minneapolis Star-Tribune
8) New York Daily News
9) Philadelphia Daily News
10) San Francisco Chronicle
Now, some of these newspapers will not die entirely. In fact, there is a good possibility that many will become online only newspapers. According to the article, that is exactly what is possible for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as The Boston Globe, The Plain-Dealer, The Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle.
Here is some irony for the San Francisco Chronicle. They will be forced to possibly become an online only newspaper and yet the San Francisco Examiner, a free daily, will go on to survive with both a strong online presence and an actual newspaper that people can pick up for free anywhere in the Bay area. The Hearst corporation did a swap, selling the one time flagship Examiner to a local family and bought the Chronicle from the De Young family. And now, they will be left essentially with nothing. Ironic, isn't it?!
Another interesting aspect is where these newspapers are located. Nine of the 10 newspapers are in large cities in so-called Blue States. Only one, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is in a Red State.
Why is that?
Well, there is a case and to some extent legitimate, that advertising revenue is way down. And now there is a full-fledged economic slowdown which is not helping the situation.
But, there has to be an argument that I have been making and will continue to make.
These newspapers are predictably liberal, by and large. The staff and editors almost by and large have allowed their biases to permeate in the news sections. As well as the sports sections. And the way that they cover the culture, well, there is no doubt where these newspapers stand.
Many think I look at this with glee.
But I do not. It is moronic for these publications to have not gotten on and figured out the digital age. Keeping over paid columnists and not realizing how to charge for the online product is another culprit. Another aspect is that many of these large newspapers are over paying blowhard columnists at the expense of actual reporters. Here is the take from The Other McCain, an actual newspaperman himself:
The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.
By the way, it is in response to The Washington Times hiring Richard Mintier as the editorial page editor. I should note that The Washington Times is not going anywhere anytime soon. Nor apparently is the Boston Herald.
Maybe seeing some newspapers go from the dead tree edition to the online edition is the only way to see if there is room for the newspaper industry to survive in this electronic age. But it also appears that they will have to be taken in dragging and screaming.
The list of newspapers is as follows:
1) The Boston Globe
2) Chicago Sun-Times
3) The Plain-Dealer (Cleveland)
4) The Detroit News
5) Fort Worth Star-Telegram
6) The Miami Herald
7) Minneapolis Star-Tribune
8) New York Daily News
9) Philadelphia Daily News
10) San Francisco Chronicle
Now, some of these newspapers will not die entirely. In fact, there is a good possibility that many will become online only newspapers. According to the article, that is exactly what is possible for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as The Boston Globe, The Plain-Dealer, The Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle.
Here is some irony for the San Francisco Chronicle. They will be forced to possibly become an online only newspaper and yet the San Francisco Examiner, a free daily, will go on to survive with both a strong online presence and an actual newspaper that people can pick up for free anywhere in the Bay area. The Hearst corporation did a swap, selling the one time flagship Examiner to a local family and bought the Chronicle from the De Young family. And now, they will be left essentially with nothing. Ironic, isn't it?!
Another interesting aspect is where these newspapers are located. Nine of the 10 newspapers are in large cities in so-called Blue States. Only one, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is in a Red State.
Why is that?
Well, there is a case and to some extent legitimate, that advertising revenue is way down. And now there is a full-fledged economic slowdown which is not helping the situation.
But, there has to be an argument that I have been making and will continue to make.
These newspapers are predictably liberal, by and large. The staff and editors almost by and large have allowed their biases to permeate in the news sections. As well as the sports sections. And the way that they cover the culture, well, there is no doubt where these newspapers stand.
Many think I look at this with glee.
But I do not. It is moronic for these publications to have not gotten on and figured out the digital age. Keeping over paid columnists and not realizing how to charge for the online product is another culprit. Another aspect is that many of these large newspapers are over paying blowhard columnists at the expense of actual reporters. Here is the take from The Other McCain, an actual newspaperman himself:
The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.
By the way, it is in response to The Washington Times hiring Richard Mintier as the editorial page editor. I should note that The Washington Times is not going anywhere anytime soon. Nor apparently is the Boston Herald.
Maybe seeing some newspapers go from the dead tree edition to the online edition is the only way to see if there is room for the newspaper industry to survive in this electronic age. But it also appears that they will have to be taken in dragging and screaming.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
President Obama "Overwhelmed" And "Exhausted"-Hey YOU Wanted To Be President!
This is one scary story in the London Daily Telegraph and if true should make any Obamiac have some doubts about this guy being up for the job of President of the United States.
The fact that the State Department, in the hands of another rank amateur in Hillary Clinton, can not do better than running down to the White House Gift Shop to get a gift for the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is insulting. So is this tidbit by some two-bit State Department flunky:
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Outstanding! Maybe this flunky was just overwhelmed. Kind of like his big boss. Or maybe said flunky was exhausted. Again, as is the big boss.
The article was damning in citing that President Obama is overwhelmed by the economic "crisis" and is not getting enough rest. In the same article it cited an article in the this past Thursday's New York Times about a "graying" President Obama.
Hey, Mr. President! You campaigned for 19 months for this job. You wanted it so badly that you pretty much did and said anything that was on the teleprompter if you thought it would get you a few more votes. So what now you realize that being the president is a tough job? Hey, about watching as 3,000 Americans are murdered in a single day by blood-thirsty Islamofacist terrorists. Now, that is stress. Having to make equally tough decisions to go to war to defeat these thugs. That is stress. What about the decisions that all the past presidents of the United States have had to make?
Methinks that President Obama is whinning. WHHHHAAAA! WHHHHAAAA! It is not an easy job! WHHHHAAA! WHHHHAAAA!
Please!
Mr. President, you have only been in office two months. Things do not go all that quickly. It is not easy, no matter who the president is, to get any part of an agenda through. There is no instant gratification, especially when dealing with the economy and its current state.
But the fact that those under you, the people who work in the State Department and should know much better how to handle the diplomatic niceties can not handle it shows that maybe it is a reflection of who is in charge.
One has to really wonder how the people of this nation got suckered so easily into believing that this candidate with no serious political experience other than a second-rate state senator from Illinois, would be a different kind of president.
I still believe that it was Bush Fatigue Syndrome.
Most Americans wanted to take a break, so to speak, in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. Most wanted a change. And they did not care who it was as long as there was a D after the last name. And, in that sense I can not blame those Americans. I do not try to insult the voter outright. And I will not here.
I really think that if this is the sign of President Obama, we are in for a long rest of his term.
Provided he does not up and resign over exhaustion and being overwhelmed.
The fact that the State Department, in the hands of another rank amateur in Hillary Clinton, can not do better than running down to the White House Gift Shop to get a gift for the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is insulting. So is this tidbit by some two-bit State Department flunky:
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
Outstanding! Maybe this flunky was just overwhelmed. Kind of like his big boss. Or maybe said flunky was exhausted. Again, as is the big boss.
The article was damning in citing that President Obama is overwhelmed by the economic "crisis" and is not getting enough rest. In the same article it cited an article in the this past Thursday's New York Times about a "graying" President Obama.
Hey, Mr. President! You campaigned for 19 months for this job. You wanted it so badly that you pretty much did and said anything that was on the teleprompter if you thought it would get you a few more votes. So what now you realize that being the president is a tough job? Hey, about watching as 3,000 Americans are murdered in a single day by blood-thirsty Islamofacist terrorists. Now, that is stress. Having to make equally tough decisions to go to war to defeat these thugs. That is stress. What about the decisions that all the past presidents of the United States have had to make?
Methinks that President Obama is whinning. WHHHHAAAA! WHHHHAAAA! It is not an easy job! WHHHHAAA! WHHHHAAAA!
Please!
Mr. President, you have only been in office two months. Things do not go all that quickly. It is not easy, no matter who the president is, to get any part of an agenda through. There is no instant gratification, especially when dealing with the economy and its current state.
But the fact that those under you, the people who work in the State Department and should know much better how to handle the diplomatic niceties can not handle it shows that maybe it is a reflection of who is in charge.
One has to really wonder how the people of this nation got suckered so easily into believing that this candidate with no serious political experience other than a second-rate state senator from Illinois, would be a different kind of president.
I still believe that it was Bush Fatigue Syndrome.
Most Americans wanted to take a break, so to speak, in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. Most wanted a change. And they did not care who it was as long as there was a D after the last name. And, in that sense I can not blame those Americans. I do not try to insult the voter outright. And I will not here.
I really think that if this is the sign of President Obama, we are in for a long rest of his term.
Provided he does not up and resign over exhaustion and being overwhelmed.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Late Night Laugh
I could not resist sharing this one with you!
Yea, it does kind of seem like Steve Urkel is running the United States right now.
Wait! I am sorry to be so insulting to Mr. Urkel! I think that YOU could do a better job. Maybe you should apply to fill one of Tax Cheat Timmy's undersecretary positions!
HT: Michelle Malkin @ www.michellemalkin.com
Charles Krauthammer Hits The Nail On The Head
In today's column, Charles Krauthammer really hits the nail on the head about the three issues that President Obama talks about incessantly-health care, education and energy independence.
That it is it is all a fraud using the current economic crisis to justify nationalizing health care, universal funding for college and so-called "green" energy.
Recently, the lefty troll Right Wing Snarkle played a little cute because he used some of Mr. Krauthammer's thoughts on Preisdent Obama's tax hikes to oppose my thoughts about the tax hike.
Well, take a look at this Snarkie!
Mr. Krauthammer essentially calls President Obama a liar.
What do you think of that, Snarkie?!
And President Obama is using real problems, well I will let Mr. Krauthammer explain:
At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.
OUCH! Especially the slam at the smart-ass MBAs!
You see, the real economic problems are not a result of no nationalized health care. Or lack of access to education. And certainly not a result of the lack of energy independence. Although as far as the energy situation is concerned, if President Obama were not an ideologue he would allow exploratory drilling in ANWR. But, it would rip at an idealogical position that we need clean, "green" energy. At some point, with the right research, we can get there. But it would be good to worry about our energy needs now.
Now, most Americans are at the "Lets give President Obama a chance" stage but consider this.
When President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, according to the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls, President Obama had a favorability rating of 68% to 12% unfavorable. Today, it is 61% approval to 28% unfavorable. More than double the unfavorable rating just from January. And in January about 20% had no opinion. Today that is down to 11%.
What it means that no matter what, people are beginning to pay attention. There is the beginning of a buyer's remorse among some Obama voters. And while President Obama will not lose the support of hardcore Democrats anytime soon, he is losing the independent vote and Republicans are having huge doubts.
So, maybe a little straight talk from the president would help.
He is not fooling everyone.
HT: According To Nikki @ www.nikkirichards.blogspot.com
That it is it is all a fraud using the current economic crisis to justify nationalizing health care, universal funding for college and so-called "green" energy.
Recently, the lefty troll Right Wing Snarkle played a little cute because he used some of Mr. Krauthammer's thoughts on Preisdent Obama's tax hikes to oppose my thoughts about the tax hike.
Well, take a look at this Snarkie!
Mr. Krauthammer essentially calls President Obama a liar.
What do you think of that, Snarkie?!
And President Obama is using real problems, well I will let Mr. Krauthammer explain:
At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.
The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.
OUCH! Especially the slam at the smart-ass MBAs!
You see, the real economic problems are not a result of no nationalized health care. Or lack of access to education. And certainly not a result of the lack of energy independence. Although as far as the energy situation is concerned, if President Obama were not an ideologue he would allow exploratory drilling in ANWR. But, it would rip at an idealogical position that we need clean, "green" energy. At some point, with the right research, we can get there. But it would be good to worry about our energy needs now.
Now, most Americans are at the "Lets give President Obama a chance" stage but consider this.
When President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, according to the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls, President Obama had a favorability rating of 68% to 12% unfavorable. Today, it is 61% approval to 28% unfavorable. More than double the unfavorable rating just from January. And in January about 20% had no opinion. Today that is down to 11%.
What it means that no matter what, people are beginning to pay attention. There is the beginning of a buyer's remorse among some Obama voters. And while President Obama will not lose the support of hardcore Democrats anytime soon, he is losing the independent vote and Republicans are having huge doubts.
So, maybe a little straight talk from the president would help.
He is not fooling everyone.
HT: According To Nikki @ www.nikkirichards.blogspot.com
President Obama Touts 25 New Jobs. . .While Losing 651,000!
Even for President Obama, what he did today in Columbus, Ohio was audacious as he flew in from Washington, D. C. to tout-get this-saving 25, yes, 25 jobs for new local police recruits.Too bad that last month, 651,000 jobs were lost pushing the unemployment rate to 8.1%.
Yes, President Obama really took a helicopter ride from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base, hopped on Air Force One, went to give a speech in which he said that the 25 police recruits jobs were saved as a direct result of the so-called economic "stimulus" bill he signed last month.
The Globaloney Warming crowd has to be upset that he wasted so much fossil fuel to do this photo-op to push for more government spending.
But how could President Obama even dare to tout saving 25 jobs while Americans are bleeding in the private-sector economy? If anything, President Obama should be embarrassed doing what he did today.
It is not just the fact that Americans are losing jobs at a consistent clip. Many of those Americans are part of an investor class that President Obama is also throwing by the wayside by not coming up with a comprehensive plan to get the financial services sector back on track. So, they are losing their jobs and the money that they had invested in retirement, saving for their children and or grandchildren to go to college.
Too bad that his vaunted Treasury Secretary, Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner can't seem to find anyone to help him guide the S. S. Titanic of the economy through the choppy seas of recession. What, you did not know that he has 17 undersecretary posts to fill?! But, better than that. When Tax Cheat Timmy was with the International Monetary Fund in the late 1990s, he was trying to navigate Indonesia out of a financial crisis. Too bad that Tax Cheat Timmy screwed up and could not even figure out the problem correctly. If you do not believe me, as the former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating. He ripped into the Geithner "solution" to the problem-again totally misdiagnosed from the get-go.
One of the aspects of the Death March of a presidential campaign that climaxed on November 4, 2008 was that then Sen. Messiah Barack did not have the kind of judgement to be an effective president.
So far, so good!
PRESIDENT OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE THE JUDGEMENT TO BE AN EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT!
In choosing Tax Cheat Timmy, he is guaranteed to dig a deeper hole that the United States will have an unnecessarily harder time getting out of. There is a great chance that Tax Cheat Timmy, with little or no help in the Treasury Department, will misdiagnose the problem and screw up big time.
But, while Rome burns and people are losing their jobs at a record clip, our president, Barack Obama, can take a plane ride to Ohio to say that he saved 25 whole jobs. WOW! Thank you, Messiah! Can you now wave the wand and bring back a few million more of those jobs?
Hype and the Same, Baby! Hype and the Same.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Memo To Michael Steele: Don't Worry About Rush, Worry About THIS!
This is a sign that the Republican party needs a little bit of tightening and realize that they can not expect to get anywhere when they do not even show up to gatherings of natural allies.
While RNC Chair Michael Steele got caught up in a non-controversy involving Rush Limbaugh, he may have dropped the ball on a huge chance of outreach to a friendly group according to Right Wing News' John Hawkins.
In this, Mr. Hawkins points out that there will be 20, yes 20, Democrat senators at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's 19th Annual Legislative Conference next week in Washington, D. C.
Now, there will only be two Republican congressmen attending the conference. Both from Florida and related. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, both Cuban-Americans will be attending.
I know that most of us conservatives find many of these organizations to be counter to what we believe. Believing in individual liberty and not getting caught up in group think. But, we will not win elections if we do not attend these type of events. Take the message to a group that will at the very least perk up their ears at a message that they want to hear.
This is a Hispanic BUSINESS group. The Democrats are slobbering all over this group and, well Mr. Steele is too busy worrying about what Beltway insiders think of the "dust-up" with Rush Limbaugh.
My thought for Mr. Steele-who I support and will support is this.
You need to get your new team assembled quickly at RNC headquarters in Washington. You need to identify these kind of events. And yes, even go into "enemy" territory. You need to DEMAND that senators and congressmen make themselves available to attend. And, you need to show up. These are the kind of people we want to take the message of conservatism to. Letting the Democrats get a leg up on something like this is not acceptable. Mr. Steele. You need to get this as part of the 50-state strategy.
Mr. Steele, I offer this advice for free. Next time, I may want a stipend!
While RNC Chair Michael Steele got caught up in a non-controversy involving Rush Limbaugh, he may have dropped the ball on a huge chance of outreach to a friendly group according to Right Wing News' John Hawkins.
In this, Mr. Hawkins points out that there will be 20, yes 20, Democrat senators at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's 19th Annual Legislative Conference next week in Washington, D. C.
Now, there will only be two Republican congressmen attending the conference. Both from Florida and related. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, both Cuban-Americans will be attending.
I know that most of us conservatives find many of these organizations to be counter to what we believe. Believing in individual liberty and not getting caught up in group think. But, we will not win elections if we do not attend these type of events. Take the message to a group that will at the very least perk up their ears at a message that they want to hear.
This is a Hispanic BUSINESS group. The Democrats are slobbering all over this group and, well Mr. Steele is too busy worrying about what Beltway insiders think of the "dust-up" with Rush Limbaugh.
My thought for Mr. Steele-who I support and will support is this.
You need to get your new team assembled quickly at RNC headquarters in Washington. You need to identify these kind of events. And yes, even go into "enemy" territory. You need to DEMAND that senators and congressmen make themselves available to attend. And, you need to show up. These are the kind of people we want to take the message of conservatism to. Letting the Democrats get a leg up on something like this is not acceptable. Mr. Steele. You need to get this as part of the 50-state strategy.
Mr. Steele, I offer this advice for free. Next time, I may want a stipend!
It Looks Like Conservatives Will Have To Become Oprahized
Ah, sad but true folks. Sad but true. It looks like those of us on the conservative side are just going to have to get into the Hype and the Same, I mean Hope and Change and get a little more sensitive. Get in touch with our feminine side. Become, I can not believe that I am writing this, more like Oprah.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier has this remarkable post on her site and it is sad, very sad, but true.
Conservatives may have to be, again I can not believe that I write this, compassionate once again.
I somewhat jest.
But, what the good doctor is saying is that conservatives can not stay the same, angry bunch that we have in a way boxed ourselves into. While we have damn good reason to be angry, to the masses we just look wild-eyed. Not all conservatives, but many that can not believe that 53% of the American voting public elected President Obama. I can because most people got a case of Bush Fatigue Syndrome.
I will digress because it is important to distinguish that from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
After a long four years of having to defend many of the former Bush administration initiatives and in some cases having to oppose them outright, many Republicans and conservatives just could not take any more. Many stayed home on election night. A small number even went to the other side and voted for Sen. Messiah Barack. But why? Because he projected, yes it is hokey, that somehow he was something different. Yes, it was and is superficial. But, it worked. And, Sen. Messiah Barack brought along just enough people in the right parts of the United States and voila, we are were we are.
But, back to the good Doc's point.
A fundamental problem is when conservative Republicans do not put the issues in front of the American people in clear, concise, understandable and positive ways. An example is how Sen. John "F--- You" McCain let the tax issue out of his hands. Then candidate Sen. Messiah Barack kept hammering home that he would be cutting taxes for 95% of the American people. It is a patented lie, but he kept it up. And, he seemed to project an image of positiveness.
It took a couple of elections for the Democrats to realize that they needed something different. And, they got that in Barack Obama.
I do not think that it will take that long for the Republicans to get it. There are great, young and positive people out there ready to take up that mantle. And, the left-leaning media will trash them. The Hollyweird crowd will trash them. The academia crowd will trash them.
But, consider this.
Ronald Reagan went up against that in a time where there was nothing but the "Big three" television networks. No Fox News Channel. When there was no internet. No twitter. None of that. And yet in 1980, Mr. Reagan won 44 states. In 1984, add five more and Mr. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states. President Obama won only 27 states. And, who knows if he will even run for reelection and if he would win.
It can be done.
Conservatives and Republicans need to adapt to the Oprah age. Not change principles. But adapt. That is what the good Doc Clouthier is writing. And it is really sad, but true.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier has this remarkable post on her site and it is sad, very sad, but true.
Conservatives may have to be, again I can not believe that I write this, compassionate once again.
I somewhat jest.
But, what the good doctor is saying is that conservatives can not stay the same, angry bunch that we have in a way boxed ourselves into. While we have damn good reason to be angry, to the masses we just look wild-eyed. Not all conservatives, but many that can not believe that 53% of the American voting public elected President Obama. I can because most people got a case of Bush Fatigue Syndrome.
I will digress because it is important to distinguish that from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
After a long four years of having to defend many of the former Bush administration initiatives and in some cases having to oppose them outright, many Republicans and conservatives just could not take any more. Many stayed home on election night. A small number even went to the other side and voted for Sen. Messiah Barack. But why? Because he projected, yes it is hokey, that somehow he was something different. Yes, it was and is superficial. But, it worked. And, Sen. Messiah Barack brought along just enough people in the right parts of the United States and voila, we are were we are.
But, back to the good Doc's point.
A fundamental problem is when conservative Republicans do not put the issues in front of the American people in clear, concise, understandable and positive ways. An example is how Sen. John "F--- You" McCain let the tax issue out of his hands. Then candidate Sen. Messiah Barack kept hammering home that he would be cutting taxes for 95% of the American people. It is a patented lie, but he kept it up. And, he seemed to project an image of positiveness.
It took a couple of elections for the Democrats to realize that they needed something different. And, they got that in Barack Obama.
I do not think that it will take that long for the Republicans to get it. There are great, young and positive people out there ready to take up that mantle. And, the left-leaning media will trash them. The Hollyweird crowd will trash them. The academia crowd will trash them.
But, consider this.
Ronald Reagan went up against that in a time where there was nothing but the "Big three" television networks. No Fox News Channel. When there was no internet. No twitter. None of that. And yet in 1980, Mr. Reagan won 44 states. In 1984, add five more and Mr. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states. President Obama won only 27 states. And, who knows if he will even run for reelection and if he would win.
It can be done.
Conservatives and Republicans need to adapt to the Oprah age. Not change principles. But adapt. That is what the good Doc Clouthier is writing. And it is really sad, but true.
A Take On California's Decline
Victor Davis Hanson provides us with a bird's eye view on the absolute decline in this once great Golden State of California.
And, sadly, it is an all-of-the-above smorgasbord of bipolar tendencies of the California electorate.
These last there paragraphs of Professor Davis' tome hit the nail on the head:
Californians count on the wealth of farming but would prefer their rivers to remain wild rather than tapped. They like tasteful redwood decks but demand someone else fell their trees for the wood. Californians drive imported SUVs but would rather that you drill for oil off your shores rather than they off theirs. They pride themselves on their liberal welfare programs, but drive out with confiscatory taxes the few left to pay for them.
Californians expect cheap imported labor to tend their lawns and clean their houses, but are incensed at sky-high welfare and entitlement costs that accompany illegal immigration. Lock ’em up, they say — but the state is bankrupted by new prisons, constant inmate lawsuits, and unionized employees.
In short, after Californians sue, restrict, mandate, obstruct, and lecture, they also get angry that there is suddenly not enough food, fuel, water, and money to act like the gods that they think they have become.
As they say, read the whole thing.
But, one thing that can be drawn from this analysis is this.
Who ever becomes the next governor will have to decide whether or not he or she wants to take on all that ails the state and make quick enemies or go along and get along. That governor needs to not be taken in by the politics as usual approach and tell the people of this state the truth. That we are spending our way into oblivion. That at some point there will not be enough tax payers to fund the programs that so many here take for granted. That state employees may not get the kind of pay and benefits that they have expected for all these many years. That people who do not want to have offshore drilling need to explain why. That people need real jobs, lower taxes and the ability to grow an economy that will really lift all boats rather than create a dependency class.
One more thing.
It took a while for Californians to realize that the Democrat-dominated legislatures were taxing homeowners and property owners into oblivion. And in 1978, in overwhelming fashion they passed Proposition 13.
I think, even with all that ails us, California may be on that road again.
It is just amazing why the majority of Californians seem to like to learn these lessons the hard way.
And, sadly, it is an all-of-the-above smorgasbord of bipolar tendencies of the California electorate.
These last there paragraphs of Professor Davis' tome hit the nail on the head:
Californians count on the wealth of farming but would prefer their rivers to remain wild rather than tapped. They like tasteful redwood decks but demand someone else fell their trees for the wood. Californians drive imported SUVs but would rather that you drill for oil off your shores rather than they off theirs. They pride themselves on their liberal welfare programs, but drive out with confiscatory taxes the few left to pay for them.
Californians expect cheap imported labor to tend their lawns and clean their houses, but are incensed at sky-high welfare and entitlement costs that accompany illegal immigration. Lock ’em up, they say — but the state is bankrupted by new prisons, constant inmate lawsuits, and unionized employees.
In short, after Californians sue, restrict, mandate, obstruct, and lecture, they also get angry that there is suddenly not enough food, fuel, water, and money to act like the gods that they think they have become.
As they say, read the whole thing.
But, one thing that can be drawn from this analysis is this.
Who ever becomes the next governor will have to decide whether or not he or she wants to take on all that ails the state and make quick enemies or go along and get along. That governor needs to not be taken in by the politics as usual approach and tell the people of this state the truth. That we are spending our way into oblivion. That at some point there will not be enough tax payers to fund the programs that so many here take for granted. That state employees may not get the kind of pay and benefits that they have expected for all these many years. That people who do not want to have offshore drilling need to explain why. That people need real jobs, lower taxes and the ability to grow an economy that will really lift all boats rather than create a dependency class.
One more thing.
It took a while for Californians to realize that the Democrat-dominated legislatures were taxing homeowners and property owners into oblivion. And in 1978, in overwhelming fashion they passed Proposition 13.
I think, even with all that ails us, California may be on that road again.
It is just amazing why the majority of Californians seem to like to learn these lessons the hard way.
When The Presidential Gig Runs Out In 2012, Try Being A Stock Broker Barack
UPDATED:
It appears that yesterday's 150-point gain in the NYSE was a dead-cat bounce. That was all erased and thensome as the NYSE took a 281-point nose dive today. Today, President Obama held a health care "summit" at the White House. It is unknown whether or not he made any stock picks for the assembled group.
In showing a lack of knowledge in the stock market, President Obama audaciously made the following comment yesterday:
Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market." "And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."
Well, maybe he should be as we see in the following chart.
While the stock market did show a marginal rise today, the reality is that is has been in a free-fall since President Obama was elected on November 4, 2008. The close of the market today was 6,785.84. That is still well below the 7,000 level that many thought could be a bottom of this free fall. NOT!
If you though that the "gyration" comment was not bad enough, President Wall Street Obama had some more sage advice:
“Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it.”
Besides the fact that it is price-to-earnings ratio, where in the hell does President Wall Street Obama think anyone has the money to have any perspective on it?! As the above chart shows, since you were elected President Wall Street Obama, the stock market has taken a precipitous dive. It is not a "gyration". It is people's life savings and investments. And for many people, it is a near wipe-out.
The stock market is a relative long-term mechanism for where the overall economy will be anywhere from six months out. The stock market and investors do not like what they are seeing coming out of the Wall Street Obama administration. And the long term trend continues to go down.
The stock market does not like the so-called economic "stimulus" plan just signed into law. It does not like seeing the tax hike, monstrous deficit spending and the lack of direction in finally getting a handle on the financial sector troubles.
One only hopes that the Republicans in congress have rediscovered their resistance to this approach and mean it. Too many Republicans contributed to this problem in the first place.
House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) called out President Wall Street Obama on these insipid comments.
What is needed is for the president to bone up on making comments about the stock market when it is clear that he does not know what he is talking about. Because of his insipid comparison of the dropping stock market to a tracking poll, it caused the stock market to drop further yesterday.
One can suppose that if President Wall Street Obama should run for reelection in 2012 and lose, he can always become a stock analyst on his favorite business network, CNBC.
It appears that yesterday's 150-point gain in the NYSE was a dead-cat bounce. That was all erased and thensome as the NYSE took a 281-point nose dive today. Today, President Obama held a health care "summit" at the White House. It is unknown whether or not he made any stock picks for the assembled group.
In showing a lack of knowledge in the stock market, President Obama audaciously made the following comment yesterday:
Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market." "And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."
Well, maybe he should be as we see in the following chart.
While the stock market did show a marginal rise today, the reality is that is has been in a free-fall since President Obama was elected on November 4, 2008. The close of the market today was 6,785.84. That is still well below the 7,000 level that many thought could be a bottom of this free fall. NOT!
If you though that the "gyration" comment was not bad enough, President Wall Street Obama had some more sage advice:
“Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it.”
Besides the fact that it is price-to-earnings ratio, where in the hell does President Wall Street Obama think anyone has the money to have any perspective on it?! As the above chart shows, since you were elected President Wall Street Obama, the stock market has taken a precipitous dive. It is not a "gyration". It is people's life savings and investments. And for many people, it is a near wipe-out.
The stock market is a relative long-term mechanism for where the overall economy will be anywhere from six months out. The stock market and investors do not like what they are seeing coming out of the Wall Street Obama administration. And the long term trend continues to go down.
The stock market does not like the so-called economic "stimulus" plan just signed into law. It does not like seeing the tax hike, monstrous deficit spending and the lack of direction in finally getting a handle on the financial sector troubles.
One only hopes that the Republicans in congress have rediscovered their resistance to this approach and mean it. Too many Republicans contributed to this problem in the first place.
House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) called out President Wall Street Obama on these insipid comments.
What is needed is for the president to bone up on making comments about the stock market when it is clear that he does not know what he is talking about. Because of his insipid comparison of the dropping stock market to a tracking poll, it caused the stock market to drop further yesterday.
One can suppose that if President Wall Street Obama should run for reelection in 2012 and lose, he can always become a stock analyst on his favorite business network, CNBC.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Manny Buckles And Signs With The Dodgers
The saga is over and the Los Angeles Dodgers and outfielder Manny Ramirez have finally come to terms and Mr. Ramirez will be a Dodger for two seasons.
The irony of this moronic saga is that Mr. Ramirez really thought that he could bleed more money from the Dodger owner, Frank McCourt.
But what really accelerated things is the reality that no team would pay Mr. Ramirez any more than the Dodgers original offer of a two-year, $45,000,000 contract.
Somehow what is tawdry about all of this is that we are in a bad economy in which hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs a fast clip. Many thousands are seeing their 401k's all but wiped out. Others are about to lose their homes. Yet, Mr. Ramirez and his agents, Scott Boras and Mike Fiore were holding out for more. It appears that at the end, Mr. Ramirez wanted to make a deal and stay in Los Angeles.
Saga aside, I am glad that Manny Ramirez will be in Dodger Blue and taking them all the way this year!
This Cat Has Problems
I actually feel sorry for this poor cat. I mean, look at it. He looks so sad and maybe it is because he is deemed the World's Ugliest Cat.
Now, as many of you regular readers know, I am very partial to dogs. But, I have warmed up to cats lately. And, seeing Ugly Bat Boy, I have to say I feel sad for the poor fellow.
Now, Ugly Bat Boy-who should have a horrible complex for getting such a horrible name-is simply a cat with no hair on its head. A baldy. But, if one takes a look at the Chinese Crested Dog over here, Ugly Bat Boy looks beautiful in comparison
. BTW, his name was Sam.
Sad, isn't it?!
What is worse is that there has been on Animal Planet a World's Ugliest Dog competition. No word on an ugly cat one.
Well, I just thought that I would bring this to your attention.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
David Frum Needs To Shut His Hole
It is with sadness to write this about a man that I believe has a great deal of intellect and I believe means well for conservatism and the Republican party.
But, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum went way over the line in his criticism of radio talker Rush Limbaugh and his speech before CPAC this past weekend.
Look, in and of itself, I have no problem with conservatives debating each other over policy and the best way forward.
But, the following paragraph would make the Kos Kids or the Puffington Post crowd proud:
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time
Where to begin?
Firstly, Rush Limbaugh is NOT the leader of the Republican party. If Mr. Frum actually listened to the show, which I need to admit I do not as much as I used to, Rush is mocking those who claim that he speaks for the party. I think that Rush's day job is better pay and a lot less stress.
Referring to focus group voters as "losers", well some are. Sorry Mr. Frum but some people that in these "focus" groups do come off as losers. Mocking the fact that Rush has a private plane, smokes cigars is playing right into the hands of the left that is so into class warfare. Mock the fact that Rush is successful. That's the ticket. But, Mr. Frum really smacks below the belt when he gets personal. Referring to Rush's prescription drug addiction, his weight and marital history, well that is really disgusting.
Mr. Frum could have stopped at the private plane and cigars to make his point. But, to literally kick his a-- the way that he did shows that he really has no idea of what he is talking about.
Is Rush flawed? Is the Pope German?! Of course Rush has flaws. Who of us does not? But, his personal flaws that should not have been any part of an argument that Rush is somehow the head of the Republican party. It shows a lack of the intellectualism that people like Mr. Frum, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, and other conservatives that even went so far to endorse then Democrat candidate Sen. Messiah Barack.
What is most grating is that Mr. Frum is worrying a lot about Rush's style vs. President Obama's style. It is not a contest. One is the president and he is the president of ALL Americans. And he has to have a certain approach that a radio talk show host does not.
As I type this now, Mr. Frum is trying to defend his remarks on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. And he is failing miserably. He just told guest host Jim Geraghty that he has only been listening to Rush intently the last three days.
At the end of the day, let me write this.
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS AN ENTERTAINER!
The difference between someone like Rush and say any given Hollywood blowhard is that he puts his opinions out there day in and day out three hours a day. And, people who do not agree are not only welcomed but encouraged by Rush to call and they verbally duke it out with each other. When has Mr. Frum spent three hours on any radio program actually talking with regular Americans? Listening to other points of view? Trying to change people's minds? Let me know if you can.
At the end of the day, methinks that Mr. Frum wants to make a name for himself. And he thinks that playing right into the left-wing talking points is going to do just that. And yes, he will make a name for himself by being a fifth-columnist for the left-wingers.
I am not writing this to defend Rush. He can do that all on his own.
The reason that I write this is to show that there are some who claim to be conservative that seem to waste time slamming fellow conservatives rather than making the case for conservatism. That is what Rush does five days a week to millions of radio listeners. And, here is where I would disagree with Rush. It does no good to slam other conservatives from his side. There are some disagreements. Let us show those on the other side that we can have a real, intelligent discussion on our disagreements. The left loves to argue on emotion. And that is what Mr. Frum is doing-with one of his own!
My advice to Mr. Frum.
SHUT YOUR HOLE!
Unless you are making the conservative case to the masses and or the opposition, we need to all come together because the real problem is the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his policies. If you think that Rush Limbaugh is the problem, then I am afraid YOU sir are the problem.
But, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum went way over the line in his criticism of radio talker Rush Limbaugh and his speech before CPAC this past weekend.
Look, in and of itself, I have no problem with conservatives debating each other over policy and the best way forward.
But, the following paragraph would make the Kos Kids or the Puffington Post crowd proud:
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time
Where to begin?
Firstly, Rush Limbaugh is NOT the leader of the Republican party. If Mr. Frum actually listened to the show, which I need to admit I do not as much as I used to, Rush is mocking those who claim that he speaks for the party. I think that Rush's day job is better pay and a lot less stress.
Referring to focus group voters as "losers", well some are. Sorry Mr. Frum but some people that in these "focus" groups do come off as losers. Mocking the fact that Rush has a private plane, smokes cigars is playing right into the hands of the left that is so into class warfare. Mock the fact that Rush is successful. That's the ticket. But, Mr. Frum really smacks below the belt when he gets personal. Referring to Rush's prescription drug addiction, his weight and marital history, well that is really disgusting.
Mr. Frum could have stopped at the private plane and cigars to make his point. But, to literally kick his a-- the way that he did shows that he really has no idea of what he is talking about.
Is Rush flawed? Is the Pope German?! Of course Rush has flaws. Who of us does not? But, his personal flaws that should not have been any part of an argument that Rush is somehow the head of the Republican party. It shows a lack of the intellectualism that people like Mr. Frum, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, and other conservatives that even went so far to endorse then Democrat candidate Sen. Messiah Barack.
What is most grating is that Mr. Frum is worrying a lot about Rush's style vs. President Obama's style. It is not a contest. One is the president and he is the president of ALL Americans. And he has to have a certain approach that a radio talk show host does not.
As I type this now, Mr. Frum is trying to defend his remarks on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. And he is failing miserably. He just told guest host Jim Geraghty that he has only been listening to Rush intently the last three days.
At the end of the day, let me write this.
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS AN ENTERTAINER!
The difference between someone like Rush and say any given Hollywood blowhard is that he puts his opinions out there day in and day out three hours a day. And, people who do not agree are not only welcomed but encouraged by Rush to call and they verbally duke it out with each other. When has Mr. Frum spent three hours on any radio program actually talking with regular Americans? Listening to other points of view? Trying to change people's minds? Let me know if you can.
At the end of the day, methinks that Mr. Frum wants to make a name for himself. And he thinks that playing right into the left-wing talking points is going to do just that. And yes, he will make a name for himself by being a fifth-columnist for the left-wingers.
I am not writing this to defend Rush. He can do that all on his own.
The reason that I write this is to show that there are some who claim to be conservative that seem to waste time slamming fellow conservatives rather than making the case for conservatism. That is what Rush does five days a week to millions of radio listeners. And, here is where I would disagree with Rush. It does no good to slam other conservatives from his side. There are some disagreements. Let us show those on the other side that we can have a real, intelligent discussion on our disagreements. The left loves to argue on emotion. And that is what Mr. Frum is doing-with one of his own!
My advice to Mr. Frum.
SHUT YOUR HOLE!
Unless you are making the conservative case to the masses and or the opposition, we need to all come together because the real problem is the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his policies. If you think that Rush Limbaugh is the problem, then I am afraid YOU sir are the problem.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Want A House For $7,500? Do You Want To Move To Detroit?
Ah, Detroit, Michigan.
A once great city that boasted at the beginning of the 1950s 1,800,000 people. A city that became the home of the greatest car manufacturers in the world. Ford, General Motors and Chrysler/Plymouth. It was a growing and vibrant city.
Until about 40 years ago.
It was in 1967 that race riots occurred in the Motor City. The riots lasted five days and left 43 dead, 467 people injured and 2,000 buildings burned and or destroyed.
What followed has been 40 plus years of hell and people fleeing a once great city faster than one can say "Boo!"
This item in the Chicago Tribune is a sign that this once great city is truly on the brink of disaster and that would be a disaster for the whole nation.
The low light of this story is that the median home price in the city of Detroit is $7,500. Not $75,000. That would be bad enough. But $7,500.
How did this come to be?
Part of the problem was that Detroit became overly dependent on the auto industry. And why not? Besides the "Big Three" mentioned above, there were some small companies such as Packard, Hudson and Studebaker. And, Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was the chair of American Motor Company, or AMC. But, eventually the marketplace shoved most of these car makers out of business and or mergers. AMC was eventually merged with Chrysler/Plymouth.
When there were a lot of car makers, there were a lot of jobs. But, when the first one went by the wayside, there was no vision that maybe Detroit should prepare for a time that there would not be a lot of car makers.
By the time the 1967 riots occurred, Detroit was well on its way to becoming an economic and social basket case.
A New Deal Democrat mayor, Jerome Cavanagh, tried the big government approach and coerced the federal government to pump millions of dollars into failed programs such as Head Start and so-called urban renewal. However-SURPRISE!-targeted areas saw poverty increase rather than decrease.
This only accelerated the white flight from Detroit to the suburbs. But, many blacks left as well. Detroit had the highest black home ownership in the United States at the time.
In the subsequent years, more and more people, black and white, fled the city for the suburbs or other areas of Michigan and the United States.
What has been left is a shrinking ownership class and an increasingly government-dependent class. And with the possibility of one or all three of the American car makers left possibly going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the situation is getting increasingly dire.
According to the Chicago Tribune article, one third of Detroit residents live below the poverty line. Fifty percent of children fit into that category. The school system is all but non-existent. The economy of Detroit is now based on rib joints, hot dog stands and liquor stores. Not exactly a large tax base to budget from.
And if that is not enough, there are actually 15 candidates running for the mayor of Detroit. I would think that these candidates would be running from Detroit. But, look at some of the proposals these candidates seek to bring Detroit back from the brink:
More cops on the street.
Make high school graduation mandatory.
Grow your own food.
Bulldoze large stretches of the city and turn them into wind farms.
Procreate like there's no tomorrow.
Now, a couple of these proposals make sense. More police may bring about a feeling of safety in a city that is chronically unsafe. Making high school graduation mandatory is a laudable goal. But again, how can one do that when few want to even teach in a school system such as that of Detroit?
What is missing from all of this is maybe, just maybe, some real incentives for companies to go into Detroit. The kind that are looking for areas to grow. No, they may not be manufacturing companies. But, who says that a car maker such as Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru or maybe BMW, Porsche-Audi, Jaguar would not take a look at locating a plant in Detroit? Or maybe an insurance company? Banking? Any service sector company?
One reason there would be corporate resistance is because the kind of employee base will be not exactly well educated. Hell, not educated at all. Another is the safety factor. Or lack thereof.
A city such as Detroit can not survive on rib joints as its tax base. It needs a lot of help. But, there may not be much in the way of constructive help anytime on the horizon.
Or maybe, maybe people buying homes in Detroit can be a start.
At $7,500, it is a bargain. But if there can be more home ownership and a tax base, it maybe a kick start that Detroit needs.
It sure needs something. But more of the same is not one of them.
HT: Gateway Pundit @ www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
A once great city that boasted at the beginning of the 1950s 1,800,000 people. A city that became the home of the greatest car manufacturers in the world. Ford, General Motors and Chrysler/Plymouth. It was a growing and vibrant city.
Until about 40 years ago.
It was in 1967 that race riots occurred in the Motor City. The riots lasted five days and left 43 dead, 467 people injured and 2,000 buildings burned and or destroyed.
What followed has been 40 plus years of hell and people fleeing a once great city faster than one can say "Boo!"
This item in the Chicago Tribune is a sign that this once great city is truly on the brink of disaster and that would be a disaster for the whole nation.
The low light of this story is that the median home price in the city of Detroit is $7,500. Not $75,000. That would be bad enough. But $7,500.
How did this come to be?
Part of the problem was that Detroit became overly dependent on the auto industry. And why not? Besides the "Big Three" mentioned above, there were some small companies such as Packard, Hudson and Studebaker. And, Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was the chair of American Motor Company, or AMC. But, eventually the marketplace shoved most of these car makers out of business and or mergers. AMC was eventually merged with Chrysler/Plymouth.
When there were a lot of car makers, there were a lot of jobs. But, when the first one went by the wayside, there was no vision that maybe Detroit should prepare for a time that there would not be a lot of car makers.
By the time the 1967 riots occurred, Detroit was well on its way to becoming an economic and social basket case.
A New Deal Democrat mayor, Jerome Cavanagh, tried the big government approach and coerced the federal government to pump millions of dollars into failed programs such as Head Start and so-called urban renewal. However-SURPRISE!-targeted areas saw poverty increase rather than decrease.
This only accelerated the white flight from Detroit to the suburbs. But, many blacks left as well. Detroit had the highest black home ownership in the United States at the time.
In the subsequent years, more and more people, black and white, fled the city for the suburbs or other areas of Michigan and the United States.
What has been left is a shrinking ownership class and an increasingly government-dependent class. And with the possibility of one or all three of the American car makers left possibly going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the situation is getting increasingly dire.
According to the Chicago Tribune article, one third of Detroit residents live below the poverty line. Fifty percent of children fit into that category. The school system is all but non-existent. The economy of Detroit is now based on rib joints, hot dog stands and liquor stores. Not exactly a large tax base to budget from.
And if that is not enough, there are actually 15 candidates running for the mayor of Detroit. I would think that these candidates would be running from Detroit. But, look at some of the proposals these candidates seek to bring Detroit back from the brink:
More cops on the street.
Make high school graduation mandatory.
Grow your own food.
Bulldoze large stretches of the city and turn them into wind farms.
Procreate like there's no tomorrow.
Now, a couple of these proposals make sense. More police may bring about a feeling of safety in a city that is chronically unsafe. Making high school graduation mandatory is a laudable goal. But again, how can one do that when few want to even teach in a school system such as that of Detroit?
What is missing from all of this is maybe, just maybe, some real incentives for companies to go into Detroit. The kind that are looking for areas to grow. No, they may not be manufacturing companies. But, who says that a car maker such as Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru or maybe BMW, Porsche-Audi, Jaguar would not take a look at locating a plant in Detroit? Or maybe an insurance company? Banking? Any service sector company?
One reason there would be corporate resistance is because the kind of employee base will be not exactly well educated. Hell, not educated at all. Another is the safety factor. Or lack thereof.
A city such as Detroit can not survive on rib joints as its tax base. It needs a lot of help. But, there may not be much in the way of constructive help anytime on the horizon.
Or maybe, maybe people buying homes in Detroit can be a start.
At $7,500, it is a bargain. But if there can be more home ownership and a tax base, it maybe a kick start that Detroit needs.
It sure needs something. But more of the same is not one of them.
HT: Gateway Pundit @ www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
Saturday, February 28, 2009
PAUL HARVEY, R. I. P.
It is sad news to hear that Paul Harvey, of the the greatest American radio broadcasters of all time, has gone to the glory at the age of 90.
Mr. Harvey was a newsman, but an honest one because he did not hide his biases.
Mr. Harvey loved America. He did not hide that fact. And he did dispense with the news But one always knew where he stood on the news of the day.
Eventually Mr. Harvey began the wildly popular radio segment, "The Rest Of The Story" in which a chronological order of a person's life was talked about and that person's identity was revealed in the end. Some where really unbelievable.
Did you know that it was Mr. Harvey that coined the term "Reaganomics"? It was.
In an age of seemingly aloof and out of touch media, Mr. Harvey seemed to represent the so-called "Silent Majority" long before there was the advent of conservative talk radio. I remember beginning to listen to Mr. Harvey in high school in the late 1970s. It was his common sense that gave me a new insight to the world than the drab, dreary liberalism of the day. It was positive and uplifting and made me realize that we who are Americans are a great and worthy people.
Paul Harvey, you will be missed.
GOOD DAY!
Friday, February 27, 2009
Its War Against Success In America
Economist Larry Kudlow smacks down the commander-in-chief in the War Against Success In America, President Barack Obama in this epic post.
In reading this, I realize where that extra $13 bucks a week my dear leader is "giving" to me will go.
To pay higher electric bills. Not to mention higher sales tax, vehicle tax and income taxes here in the not-so Golden State.
By President Obama going after the productive people that make the economy run, he is augmenting the comment that he made earlier this year about the government being the only group that can bring us out of the economic slide. Of course, it is an economic slide in part because of Team Obama continuing to stoke fear and loathing among most Americans.
Mr. Kudlow is confident that the economy will recover, but nowhere near the four percent growth that Team Obama envisions in the budget's out years.
Lets note what has occurred in about one month since President Obama took the oath of office.
Congress passed a $789,000,000,000 so-called economic "stimulus" plan and President Obama signed it into law.
Now a $410,000,000,000 "omnibus" spending bill is winding its way through congress.
And just yesterday, Team Obama announced a $3,500,000,000,000 federal budget.
Since my pocket calculator does not go into the trillions, adding just the three items above on paper, the grand total so far is $4,699,000,000,000.
And, President Obama has to find some money somewhere besides using the same currency printers that the Zimbabwe government does.
So, make the so-called "wealthy" eeevvvviiiillll and take their money and pay for this government grab.
It is sad but true, but President Obama is the commander-in-chief in a war that he relishes.
The War Against Success In America.
In reading this, I realize where that extra $13 bucks a week my dear leader is "giving" to me will go.
To pay higher electric bills. Not to mention higher sales tax, vehicle tax and income taxes here in the not-so Golden State.
By President Obama going after the productive people that make the economy run, he is augmenting the comment that he made earlier this year about the government being the only group that can bring us out of the economic slide. Of course, it is an economic slide in part because of Team Obama continuing to stoke fear and loathing among most Americans.
Mr. Kudlow is confident that the economy will recover, but nowhere near the four percent growth that Team Obama envisions in the budget's out years.
Lets note what has occurred in about one month since President Obama took the oath of office.
Congress passed a $789,000,000,000 so-called economic "stimulus" plan and President Obama signed it into law.
Now a $410,000,000,000 "omnibus" spending bill is winding its way through congress.
And just yesterday, Team Obama announced a $3,500,000,000,000 federal budget.
Since my pocket calculator does not go into the trillions, adding just the three items above on paper, the grand total so far is $4,699,000,000,000.
And, President Obama has to find some money somewhere besides using the same currency printers that the Zimbabwe government does.
So, make the so-called "wealthy" eeevvvviiiillll and take their money and pay for this government grab.
It is sad but true, but President Obama is the commander-in-chief in a war that he relishes.
The War Against Success In America.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Taxes And President Obama-Do Not Say That You Were Not Warned
Well, well, well!!!
President Obama today spoke to the nation and gave an outline of the budget that he will be proposing to congress sometime in April.
And it is a doozy.
And, it is chock-full of. . .TAX INCREASES!
I noted in an earlier post that one way President Obama is going to raise taxes is by letting the tax cuts that former President Bush 43 instituted in 2001 expire. That is called a tax increase on the cheap.
But, look at some of the tax increases that President Obama and the Democrats are going to force on the American people:
On people making more than $250,000:
1) $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
2) $179 billion - eliminate itemized deduction
3) $118 billion - capital gains tax hike
Total: $636 billion/10 years
And the following chart shows the breakdown by department of a $3,000,000,000,000 federal budget.
Note that the budget breakdown shows that the overwhelming amount of money the federal budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other non-defense spending. Sixty-percent goes to the above programs.
And, it will be the most productive people paying to increase the size and scope of the federal government.
Again, you were warned. You Hope and Change voters believed that you were going to get that middle class tax cut. You know, for the "95%" of "the middle class". Too bad that it will only be a whopping $13 a week. But, remember, you will be getting that whopping $13 a week because President Obama is just going to tax the "rich".
Hype and the Same, baby! Hype and the Same!
President Obama today spoke to the nation and gave an outline of the budget that he will be proposing to congress sometime in April.
And it is a doozy.
And, it is chock-full of. . .TAX INCREASES!
I noted in an earlier post that one way President Obama is going to raise taxes is by letting the tax cuts that former President Bush 43 instituted in 2001 expire. That is called a tax increase on the cheap.
But, look at some of the tax increases that President Obama and the Democrats are going to force on the American people:
On people making more than $250,000:
1) $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
2) $179 billion - eliminate itemized deduction
3) $118 billion - capital gains tax hike
Total: $636 billion/10 years
Now, I know that a lot of people are going to say that people making $250,000 should pay a lot more in taxes. But, lets keep in mind that $250,000 could be combined income. In other words, a husband and wife, both professionals, work. One makes $175,000 a year. The other makes $150,000 a year. That makes $325,000 a year combined income. People that make that kind of money tend to be higher educated and also the type that may take some of that income and start a small business. Will they do that when their taxes are raised? When they can not use itemized tax deductions? (As an aside, a good reason to look at a flat tax).
What this does is create class envy and warfare.
To stipulate, the combined income of Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I comes no where near $250,000 a year.
But some day, we may. And under President Obama's tax hike scheme, we will pay a lot more. where is the incentive to get out of the middle class to upper middle class?
It is not there under President Obama.
What he will do is take the money from the "rich" and pay for the most massive increase in federal government control of the economy since to so-called New Deal.
Lets call this the Raw Deal.And the following chart shows the breakdown by department of a $3,000,000,000,000 federal budget.
Note that the budget breakdown shows that the overwhelming amount of money the federal budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other non-defense spending. Sixty-percent goes to the above programs.
And, it will be the most productive people paying to increase the size and scope of the federal government.
Again, you were warned. You Hope and Change voters believed that you were going to get that middle class tax cut. You know, for the "95%" of "the middle class". Too bad that it will only be a whopping $13 a week. But, remember, you will be getting that whopping $13 a week because President Obama is just going to tax the "rich".
Hype and the Same, baby! Hype and the Same!
Terrific News! The Rocky Mountain News Folds!
Some more good news on the Dinosaur media front as a really big newspaper bites the dust as of tomorrow when the Rocky Mountain News publishes its final edition.
Now, Denver is like so many other cities in the United States. A one newspaper town. And that is more than likely hanging on a thread.
The Denver Post is the "winner" in this newspaper war.
In 2001, the News and Post essentially merged in what is called a working agreement. It had been how some newspapers stayed afloat. Anyway, both newspapers had their own editorial staff, but merged operations such as advertising and production.
But, those agreements basically end the war and the newspaper that begs to be part of it, in this case the News, is living on borrowed time. And now, no time.
Why do I celebrate these events?
I really do not celebrate as much as am amazed at the arrogance of those who have run these once great publications. The editors and the writers that seem to shun many who like if not love newspapers. Those with a clear agenda. We know who they are. And yet, they still want to blame such things as the economy rather than the fact that many advertisers are looking at such places as the internet to spend their precious dollars. That many potential readers are put off by getting propaganda rather than news or sports.
There are rumors out there that Rupert Murdoch is looking to buy the Los Angeles Times.
I hope that he does.
Mr. Murdoch would transform that newspaper and make it one that people want to read. That is why the New York Post is a must read newspaper. The cross-town rival tabloid Daily News is sinking to the same fate as the Rocky Mountain News.
Maybe I will get that last edition tomorrow to add to my collection.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ash Wednesday And The Beginning Of Lent
Today, for those of us who are Christians, is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of lent.
It is the day in the Christian church year that we are reminded of our humanity and mortality. In the Episcopal church service, when one goes to the pastor to have the ashes imposed on his or her forehead, the pastor utters these words:
Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Before that, the pastor will say this prayer.
Almighty God, You have create us out of the dust of the earth: Grant that these ashes may be to us a sigh of our mortality and penitence, that we may remember that it is only by your gracious gift that we are given everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen
It is one of the mysteries of the Christian faith yet a poignant reminder that we need to remember at all times what we are: mere mortals.
For the next 40 days, Christians are asked to sacrifice and or recommit themselves to serve God. Many will give up something that they really love, like chocolate, as a spiritual discipline. Others will commit themselves to reading the Holy Bible with renewed commitment. Some will do both.
For me, I have decided that I will not eat meat on Friday. And fast completely on Good Friday. Also, I will commit to reading the spiritual devotional, Day By Day, put out by the Forward Movement of the Episcopal Church.
Many think of Lent as a bad thing. All about giving up.
I think of Lent as a time for renewal and giving more to God.
What do you think of Lent? What will you do to keep a good Lent? And, if you have never thought about what Lent means, would you think more about it and commit yourselves to get closer to God?
Remember that we are dust, and to dust we shall return.
Happy Days Are Here Again! And Another THREE Newspapers On The Bankrupcy Bandwagon!
UPDATED & BUMPED:I forgot to mention this about some newspapers in Connecticut:
Meanwhile in New York, Journal Register Co., publisher of the New Haven (Connecticut) Register and other newspapers, won approval to continue paying basic operating costs, including employee salaries and benefits and newspaper delivery contracts. Lawyers representing lenders made no objections.
HT: Jammie Wearing Fool @ www.jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com
Wow!
Usually, this is a Friday feature here on Right View From The Left Coast.
But, only yesterday and today, three more newspapers are either filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection or being prepped to be sold and or closed down.
The latest is the San Francisco Chronicle, the flagship Hearst newspaper.
To be fair, the Chronicle did not declare Chapter 11. No, they basically said that they will do more cuts and eventually put the newspaper on the block for sale. If no buyer is found, it could very well join its sister newspaper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer into the ash bin of newspaper history.
Two other newspapers did file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News, owned by the same parent company, went the Chapter 11 route.
Here is the way that the newspaper landscape could look in one year's time.
The west coast's largest cities could be newspaper less.
The Los Angeles Times' parent company, Tribune, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Because the Times was purchased by the Tribune company, it may end up being sold as part of the restructuring. Or, you guessed it. Closed.
The San Francisco Chronicle faces worse as there is no Chapter 11 in their future. Either stop the bleeding or be sold or closed.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is in the same boat as the Chronicle.
Again, to beat the dead horse, these newspapers have all capitulated as unbiased providers of news and information. They all have become lefty rags and many readers have left in droves.
The internet excuse is just that. An excuse.
People do like to actually read a newspaper. Sure, many young people do not, but they never have. Eventually, many people grew into reading newspapers. I am in the rare category of liking both the actual paper and the immediacy of the internet.
When newspapers lose credibility with many readers, they seek alternatives. And, many never go back.
It is not just in news and or editorial content.
It is the way many newspapers cover sports. Or the arts and entertainment. There in larger newspapers seems to be an agenda. Not information that one can use. An agenda.
And it appears that many, if not most, of these newspapers are simply going to go down in their lefty ship rather than change what they are doing and how it is losing readers and advertisers.
Yes indeed, happy days are here again!
I wonder if there will be a fire sale of all those Obama election extras when these newspapers do go under?!
The Biggest Lie Of President Obama's Speech Last Night
Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.
President Barack Obama before a joint session of congress
on February 24, 2009
Read that again and again between now and election day, 2010.
Because if you believe that, then you have to believe that President Obama, in trying to nationalize health care, institute cap and trade, regulate the banking industry, and spend our way to prosperity on the backs of the so-called "wealthy" is not increasing the size of the federal government before our very eyes.
It is insulting to every American, those that did and those of us that did not vote for President Obama, that he dared to utter those nine words with a straight face.
This shows the charade that President Obama is trying to pull off. Making you believe that all the government intervention in the economy, in health care, in the environment, is somehow not bigger government.
The worst part. I think that President Obama really believes that. He really believes that he is not advocating big government.
Again, keep those nine words in mind from now until November 2, 2010. That is when the American people will be able to judge if that was a bunch of hooey or the truth. We shall see.
President Barack Obama before a joint session of congress
on February 24, 2009
Read that again and again between now and election day, 2010.
Because if you believe that, then you have to believe that President Obama, in trying to nationalize health care, institute cap and trade, regulate the banking industry, and spend our way to prosperity on the backs of the so-called "wealthy" is not increasing the size of the federal government before our very eyes.
It is insulting to every American, those that did and those of us that did not vote for President Obama, that he dared to utter those nine words with a straight face.
This shows the charade that President Obama is trying to pull off. Making you believe that all the government intervention in the economy, in health care, in the environment, is somehow not bigger government.
The worst part. I think that President Obama really believes that. He really believes that he is not advocating big government.
Again, keep those nine words in mind from now until November 2, 2010. That is when the American people will be able to judge if that was a bunch of hooey or the truth. We shall see.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Speech, The Reaction
Confession up front.
I did not watch President Obama's speech to a joint session of congress. Nor did I watch the Republican response from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
That said, here is a transcript of the president's specch.
And the response from the Louisiana governor.
For once, I offer no commentary on either performance.
So, I thought I would link to some people on the right side of the blogosphere and their reactions.
http://spectator.org/blog
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
http://weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
http://www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/
Enjoy the links, and let me know what you thought of both the president and governor tonight.
I did not watch President Obama's speech to a joint session of congress. Nor did I watch the Republican response from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
That said, here is a transcript of the president's specch.
And the response from the Louisiana governor.
For once, I offer no commentary on either performance.
So, I thought I would link to some people on the right side of the blogosphere and their reactions.
http://spectator.org/blog
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
http://weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
http://www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/
Enjoy the links, and let me know what you thought of both the president and governor tonight.
Taxing Dope, Another Left-Wing Brainstorm
I suppose now that Gov. Benedict Arnold believes that tax-hikes are the cure-all for all that ails California, he might want to take note of this brainstorm from one of his Democrat friends in the state assembly.
Why treat marijuana like alcohol and of course, tax it royally.
This brainstorm is courtesy of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) who thinks that this is some cutting-edge issue along the lines of same-sex marriage, medical marijuana. Too bad he does not throw Prop 13 in there as the beginning of the tax-cutting movement that propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House is 1980.
But, a real great point made by The Other McCain is that it is better to keep marijuana illegal because once the government gets it grimy paws on it, they will treat it like any other "sin" tax. And we all know how well that has worked out.
There is no evidence that this back door legalization of marijuana would do anything to curtail crime and illegal activity. But, advocates do not want to be bothered by facts. These advocates are looking at marijuana as another revenue stream.
Lets get real.
The Democrats that all but run California and the enabler-in-chief, Gov. Benedict Arnold, proved that they do not have the stomach to make substantial cuts in government in the not-so Golden State. If that were to happen, we would not hear such rubbish such as legalizing marijuana. And, it would not end there.
In fact, the state is like the drug abuser, looking for the next fix.
For that reason alone, it is best to keep marijuana illegal.
Too bad such brain surgeons as Assemblyman Ammiano are not thinking of ways to cut the size and regulatory nature of government.
Why treat marijuana like alcohol and of course, tax it royally.
This brainstorm is courtesy of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) who thinks that this is some cutting-edge issue along the lines of same-sex marriage, medical marijuana. Too bad he does not throw Prop 13 in there as the beginning of the tax-cutting movement that propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House is 1980.
But, a real great point made by The Other McCain is that it is better to keep marijuana illegal because once the government gets it grimy paws on it, they will treat it like any other "sin" tax. And we all know how well that has worked out.
There is no evidence that this back door legalization of marijuana would do anything to curtail crime and illegal activity. But, advocates do not want to be bothered by facts. These advocates are looking at marijuana as another revenue stream.
Lets get real.
The Democrats that all but run California and the enabler-in-chief, Gov. Benedict Arnold, proved that they do not have the stomach to make substantial cuts in government in the not-so Golden State. If that were to happen, we would not hear such rubbish such as legalizing marijuana. And, it would not end there.
In fact, the state is like the drug abuser, looking for the next fix.
For that reason alone, it is best to keep marijuana illegal.
Too bad such brain surgeons as Assemblyman Ammiano are not thinking of ways to cut the size and regulatory nature of government.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sen. Bunning's Other Diagnoses
Kentucky Republican senator, Jim Bunning, may have been hit by a base hit one too many times when he was a major league pitcher.
That is all I can explain for such a thoughtless comment about supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle with pancreatic cancer.
But, go further into the story.
Where Sen. Bunning takes out a lot of fury on National Republican Senate Committee chair, Sen John Cornyn for apparently willing to spend precious funds defending Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Oylmpia Snowe and their senate seats.
If this is true, then Sen. Cornyn has some splainin to do.
The last thing that Sen. Cornyn needs is a controversy to irritate the conservative base. Sen. Cornyn needs to have that base energized going into 2010 and the mid term elections. Also, it sets up a bad precedent of picking candidates before they are vetted by the voters. Under the leadership of Karl Rove, that happened more than once and one of the beneficiaries of that was none other than Sen. Specter in his reelection bid in 2004.
While Sen. Bunning deserves an ejection for his heartless comment on Justice Ginsburg, he deserves to have the charges against Sen. Cornyn answered. And so do all Republicans.
That is all I can explain for such a thoughtless comment about supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle with pancreatic cancer.
But, go further into the story.
Where Sen. Bunning takes out a lot of fury on National Republican Senate Committee chair, Sen John Cornyn for apparently willing to spend precious funds defending Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Oylmpia Snowe and their senate seats.
If this is true, then Sen. Cornyn has some splainin to do.
The last thing that Sen. Cornyn needs is a controversy to irritate the conservative base. Sen. Cornyn needs to have that base energized going into 2010 and the mid term elections. Also, it sets up a bad precedent of picking candidates before they are vetted by the voters. Under the leadership of Karl Rove, that happened more than once and one of the beneficiaries of that was none other than Sen. Specter in his reelection bid in 2004.
While Sen. Bunning deserves an ejection for his heartless comment on Justice Ginsburg, he deserves to have the charges against Sen. Cornyn answered. And so do all Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)