Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
Friday, January 27, 2012
Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
Bye Bye, Western Civilization
I’ve mentioned the decline of the liberal arts in our universities on these pages in the past. Lately, I have noticed that articles from The American Scholar to The New Republic to the blogosphere have been focusing on the same subject. Each year, more universities dump entirely the lower division undergraduate requirement of the core study most often called “Western Civilization.”Stanford dumped it years ago. UC Berkeley makes it one part of many in the history department. The Ivies, and now most mid-level public and private universities are following suit. Hanging their hats on multiculturalism and the “melting pot” of today’s America, the schools have followed the course set by radical leftists, sociologists, race-baiters and one-worlders. In doing so, the universities have made it nearly impossible for students to comprehend or embrace the concept of American exceptionalism. Barack Obama, the leader of America and the West, is a product of that type of ignorance.
Back in 1987, Rev. Jesse Jackson led protestors at Stanford University demanding the end of “ethnocentric” Western Civilization instruction to be replaced with that god of the divisive left—diversity. No accommodation or modification was going to be allowed. Jackson led the chants of “hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go.” The Stanford administration complied without complaint. That’s the same administration which had earlier dropped the appellation for the school’s sports teams, the Stanford Indians, and changed it to the meaningless Stanford Cardinal (it refers to the color, not the bird).
It seems that proudly naming your teams after the iconic Native Americans is mysteriously racist and insensitive. That same year, Esquire Magazine ran a cover with a picture of the aged Indian who had served as the school’s emblem sitting in the stands at Stanford Field. He was the only one in the stands, wearing full warrior headdress, with a barely visible tear falling from one eye. In the article, he asked “what did I do wrong?” He didn’t realize he had done nothing wrong, it was those oppressive white administrators who were exploiting him who were doing wrong.
The National Association of Scholars recently released a formal paper entitled The Vanishing West: 1964 to 2010.” The paper lays out the rapid disappearance of the Western Civilization curriculum from nearly every major higher education institution. And the scholars aren’t happy about it. The Black Power movement of the 60s had obtained its own Black Studies curriculum (starting with San Francisco State University), and it quickly became time for every other racial and ethnic movement to have its own department. Suddenly, the study of obscure tribes in Africa or Asia became as important as the study of the Greek scholars, or the writers of the Renaissance, or the Humanists, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or (particularly) America’s Enlightenment Founders.
What pieces of the Western Civilization core curriculum remained were taken over by flower children and former members of the Weather Underground, resulting in a rump Western Civ discipline which became “grim and gloomy” as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Lynne Cheney of the National Endowment for the Humanities has a long record of damning the whole misplaced emphasis on everything except the successes (and failures) of Western culture. Said Cheney in 1994: “Imagine an outline for teaching American history [within today’s academic parameters] in which George Washington makes only a fleeting appearance and is never described as our first President. Or in which the founding of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are considered noteworthy events, but the first gathering of the US Congress is not.”
The problem is that you don’t have to imagine it anymore. Take a look at the current nonsense that has replaced Western Civilization in higher learning. Most of the courses replace traditional Western Civ courses previously required at major universities and old-fashioned liberal arts colleges. The operative word is “replace” rather than “augment.” I won’t even try to list the silliness. Just grab the catalog from your favorite university and check out the wealth of non-Western Civilization courses being offered in place of traditional studies of Greece, Rome, Great Britain, France, and of course, the United States. The Civil War must now compete with the Cultural Phenomenon of Lady Gaga, the Zen of Keanu Reeves, and urban/hip hop culture, and the Civil War is losing.
No wonder ignorant “Occupiers” think that the Constitution is an obsolete document written by old white men impeding social progress. Without a basic understanding of the workings of Western culture and its evolution into modernity, they can’t possibly comprehend the exquisite balancing act done by the Founding Fathers in creating a unique form of government with checks and balances, a voice for the people, and the protection of ordered liberty.
Without that study of the Western development of democratic institutions, self-government, art, science and universal education, the “Occupiers” can’t possibly understand the reasons behind the American Revolution. Most of them claim to understand, but in fact just get everything wrong. Instead of a Revolution for freedom and self-government, they judge the appropriate reason to oppose the powers-that-be in terms of what Abbie Hoffman called “revolution for the hell of it.”
[+] Read More...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Comment Glitch
By the way, there is a glitch with the comments. When we get above 200 comments, you either have to click on the title to the article or post a comment to see anything beyond 200. Don't click on the word "comments."
[+] Read More...
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Jackasses in Jacksonville
Once more unto the breach dear sockpuppets! And don't forget the chips. Tonight, CNN, 8 PM EST.
And tonight's pre-debate question: what question would you ask each candidate if you were the moderator?
By the way, there is a glitch with the comments. When we get above 200 comments, you either have to click on the title to the article or post a comment to see anything beyond 200.
[+] Read More...
And tonight's pre-debate question: what question would you ask each candidate if you were the moderator?
By the way, there is a glitch with the comments. When we get above 200 comments, you either have to click on the title to the article or post a comment to see anything beyond 200.
[+] Read More...
Should All Nominees Be Supported?
This exception arises when (1) the nominee’s views are well outside the range of common interests which hold the party together, and (2) there is a legitimate belief that supporting this nominee will harm the long term goals of the party.
On the first point, Reagan famously said that he could support anyone with whom he agreed on 80% of the issues. Reagan was making the point that it is foolish and counterproductive to require 100% agreement with a nominee before you can support them. Indeed, 100% agreement is probably impossible. Hence, this is the reason moderates should support conservatives and conservatives should support moderates and libertarians should support social conservatives and vice versa.
But Reagan’s point also contains the implicit understanding that at some point (possibly below 80% using Reagan’s formula) there is no obligation to support the nominee. Why would this be? For that, we need to look at the question of harm.
Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to ensure their products remain consistent. They want to make sure you find the exact same amount in each cereal box, that every batch of Mac and Cheese tastes the same, that every sock has the same number of stitches, and that every Acura uses only Acura parts. Why? Because having a consistent level of quality affects how people perceive their brands. People want to know exactly what they are getting when they make a purchase and branding achieves that -- whereas failing to maintain that consistency damages the brand because people will no longer know what to expect from their purchase.
Whether we like the idea or not, a political party is nothing more than a company, and its product or brand is an ideological range. Choosing a nominee from outside that range blurs the identity of the party and damages its brand.
How? For one thing, this will alienate supporters. Supporters expect nominees to be within the ideological range. When they aren’t, the party has violated the contract under which it claims a right to the individual’s support. It is the equivalent of McDonalds selling you a Big Mac container but including a ham sandwich rather than a burger. This is a violation of trust.
Moreover, this confuses voters. When a person represents a party or ideology, their views become associated with that party or ideology and their successes/failures taint the ideology. In other words, the nominee redefines how the public views conservatism or liberalism, and their meanings change. Hence, conservatism and Republicanism came to be associated with Nixon’s views in 1968, Reagan’s views in 1980, and Bush Jr.’s views in 2000 -- I exclude Bush Sr. because he claimed to be a moderate. Liberalism, by comparison, came to be associated with FDR, LBJ, Carter, and now Obama. Clinton called himself a moderate.
Prior to LBJ, the majority political view of the nation was FDR-liberalism. This could have continued indefinitely, except LBJ disgraced liberalism. His errors in Vietnam and his monstrous Great Society wiped out the Democratic party in the South and set the stage for a conservative resurgence. Jimmy Carter finished liberalism off by proving that Democrats are reckless spenders, incompetent managers of the economy, and militarily inept and cowardly. This set the stage for Reagan.
Reagan’s success revived conservatism while also redefining it back to its roots -- away from the big-government conservatism of the Nixon years. By the time Reagan left office, conservatism had become the natural ideology of the country and 60% of the public believed it.
This could have lasted for generations, except along came George Bush Jr. He wrapped himself in the conservative label and set about running a big government, civil-liberties-crushing, crony-capitalism, foreign-adventuring administration which so thoroughly discredited conservatism that in 2008, the voters were more radically liberal and more willing to accept liberalism than they had been at any time since LBJ. The ONLY THING THAT SAVED CONSERVATISM was the election of Barack Obama. If Obama hadn’t proven to be such a disaster, conservatism would be dead today. But Obama was a disaster and he caused a massive backlash which took the form of the Tea Party.
The lesson here is simple.
Ideologies get defined by their leaders and they get punished for the sins of their leaders. If a nominee calls himself conservative but acts like a liberal, the public doesn’t blame liberalism for his crimes and failures, it blames conservatism even if that person never once acted like a true conservative. Thus, Bush and Nixon, neither of whom could be called conservatives, discredited conservatism. LBJ/Carter/Obama, each of who were progressives and not liberals, discredited liberalism. And in each case, the only thing to save conservatism/liberalism was pure luck that someone worse came along to discredit the other side. If Moderate Joe Democrat had come along after George Bush Jr., we could well be looking at an America that views liberalism as the natural order of things and sees conservatism as meaning reckless spending, bad economic management, and cronyism.
Moreover, the nominee need not even be as disastrous as a Bush/Obama to harm the ideology. The goal of politics is to effect long term change in the country. That is simply not possible when the person representing your ideology holds views that are inconsistent with the ideology. This muddies the ideological waters and confuses the differences between the parties. In other words, when the Republicans and the Democrats both push the same solutions to the same issues, voters will come to believe there is no difference, and they will either stop voting or they will pick the party that promises them the most loot -- advantage Democrats.
This is what happens when you pick someone who is far outside the acceptable ideological range for the party or who happens to be insane. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Newt or Santorum or Romney or Paul are so far outside the bounds that you should not support them, but ask yourself: “how bad would it be for the party, for my beliefs, and for the country if conservatism came to be defined in the way ____ sees it?”
Winning elections is important, but you don’t want to sacrifice the future to win a single election.
By the way, there's an interesting poll out which shows that 33% of Republicans want a new candidate to jump into the race. This is down from 68% only two months ago. I think the field is set.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Scott's Links January 2012
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
Lost In The Shuffle Of Saving The Middle Class
Barack Obama has delivered his State of the Union address (aka, "free campaign speech") in which he laid out (sort of) his plans to save the middle class and restore the economy. At the same time, he made it clear that we must not act hastily on creating jobs if it would mean damaging the environment.Another lame excuse for protecting his enviroweenie base, and at the cost of stalling the Keystone XL Pipeline. I'll leave it to others (here, if you choose) to vet the State of the Union baloney. I want to concentrate on one facet of that baloney. Job creation. Obama cites General Motors (aka Government Motors) as an example of his success. Well, billions of taxpayers dollars bailed GM out while the government destroyed the shares of genuine investors and turned over major company ownership to the unions which largely created the problem in the first place.
Obama spoke of "creating jobs for the future" while sidestepping the 20,000 jobs which would have been created almost instantly without the need for government assistance or government interference. Lack of control and minimal interference with success is not part of the Obama plan. So even after being given the opportunity to approve the Keystone XL pipeline after having rejected it earlier, Obama stopped the project in its tracks, again. For once, he actually did something ahead of schedule. Somehow his agenda gets priority treatment while the people's business can wait.
Obama says "tear down those regulations which block the creation of new businesses" after having used the EPA's regulations and the State Department's ignorance to block the XL Pipeline. He brags about all the energy sources that he has opened up, but somehow doesn't see blocking a "shovel-ready" project as a direct contravention of those words. Pie-in-the-sky future energy developments, subsidized by the government, are somehow preferable to tried and true and fully-vetted projects like Keystone XL.
Obama has done some insider Democrat calculus and decided that he needs the enviroweenies to save his presidency, and that the union jobs lost by squelching the Keystone Pipeline will not deter the unions from coming home to Daddy in November. Obama says the Pipeline hasn't been studied sufficiently so maybe it could, possibly, go forward at some future date. No "let's get it done right away" for the Pipeline. That is added to the fact that the Pipeline got more in-depth study over a period of years than Solyndra got "right away."
Unlike Solyndra, the Pipeline stands on its own. The people behind the Keystone project complied with every demand of local, state and federal regulators, and accommodated the concerns of local environmentalists, changing the route from that originally planned.
Obama spoke of all sorts of energy schemes, even including oil and avoiding support for Middle East tyrannies. But when it came to this one "shovel-ready" job, originating in a friendly nation on our own borders, no dice. The enviroweenies got what they wanted and the State Department deeply offended a firm ally. And unlike Solyndra, no investment of American taxpayer funds is required for the Pipeline, and both the materials and technology are already proven and in place. All that was left to do was a simple approval.
Obama has once again promised many things he either can't deliver or has no intention of delivering. He can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but, well, you know the rest (Obama is not the only one who can quote Lincoln). There is simply no honest and realistic way to explain away his killing of jobs on or related to the Keystone XL Pipeline. And in keeping with that, Obama made no mention of the Pipeline whatsoever, dodging the issue while rambling on about energy and job creation. In the Republican response offered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, he referred to the lost jobs produced by Obama's thumbs-down on the project.
Finally, there is more than just the ecoweenie vote to consider. Green energy is big business, even if it can't come close to employing the same number of workers or providing an equivalent amount of energy as a Keystone XL type of operation. Millions, perhaps billions, are being earmarked for green projects that are part of Obama's crony socialism program. In return for government largess and favoritism, the heads of these futuristic schemes are thrilled to pour big bucks into the Obama coffers.
They even get special deals which appear to violate federal law. The founder and CEO of Solyndra was granted a contract which included subordinating the taxpayers' interest in the corporation to his own in the event of bankruptcy. In reasonable and ethical times, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Yet this administration seems to be very efficient at picking and funding the losers.
Note: Yesterday (Tuesday), Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill to force the approval of the Keystone Pipeline. It is called the Keystone for a Secure Tomorrow Act (K-FAST). I don't have sufficient information yet to be able to make any further comment on the proposal.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
T-Rav's Sockpuppets v. Obama's STFUSOTU
The only thing worse that another debate (like the one tomorrow night) is a SOTU. Good God! Why? The union is in a lousy state. Obama is the problem. The solution is obvious. Why do we need to waste two hours listening to our incompetent president try to explain his failure? Well, here goes: 
And while we're waiting lets predict some of what Obama might say tonight and what he should say instead.
I'll start. . . He'll say: "It's all Bush's fault!" He should say: "Whoops."
[+] Read More...
And while we're waiting lets predict some of what Obama might say tonight and what he should say instead.
I'll start. . . He'll say: "It's all Bush's fault!" He should say: "Whoops."
[+] Read More...
Manatee Madness Debate Wrap Up
● Winner: Brian Williams. Williams manipulated the candidates like a chess master last night. He got them fighting each other. He tossed mud and they re-tossed it. He had them buying into leftist assumptions all night and pledging fealty to leftist ideals. He also did his best to prolong the horserace and thereby help Obama by making Romney and Gingrich look bad while making Santorum and Paul look good.
● Loser: Newt. Here’s why Newt should have lost. Newt lied through his teeth and proved repeatedly that he’s a slimeball. Here are some samples:
● Romney very accurately went through Newt’s baggage. Newt attacked him for telling “at least four lies.” What were these supposed lies? Newt sidestepped: “I’m not going to waste time going through them.” That’s because they weren’t lies and Newt knew it. But in making this kind of defense, Newt dodged his entire record and called Romney a liar, even though Newt was actually the one lying. This is a schoolyard bully tactic.But conservatives are proving they aren’t smart enough to distinguish between substance and the Big Shiny, so that’s not why Newt lost. Newt lost last night because he didn’t deliver the Big Shiny. His attacks on the media fell flat, the audience didn’t whoop, he landed no blows, and he never looked commanding. And without the Big Shiny, he’s just an ass.
● Newt was sent packing by the House Republicans in disgrace. Last night, Newt actually tried to claim HE asked the Republicans to vote to censure him because he was becoming “a distraction to the cause.” How noble. Of course, this is a stunning lie and Ron Paul called him on it later. Newt also claimed he wasn’t fined, despite the $300,000 fine that’s on the record. Apparently, Newt is betting you’re too stupid to look it up.
● Newt claimed in prior debates that he created Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics. Anyone with a brain knows this is a lie, and last time, Romney countered that Newt is only mentioned once in Reagan’s Diary. Nevertheless, Newt repeated the claim last night and added a suggestion that he created Barry Goldwater too. This is Megalomania.
● Newt tries to pilfer supporters by talking about how much he agrees with certain candidates without ever actually saying how he agrees with them. Last night it was Santorum’s turn. He also pandered again to the Ron Paul people on the Fed and on gold by claiming views Newt has never held.
● Slimeball Newt keeps making smears while claiming he has no intention of smearing his target. For example, he said he wouldn't make an issue of the tax rate Romney paid. . . right before smearing Romney for not paying enough in taxes because he’s rich. This is the politics of envy and anti-capitalism.
● Newt lied big time and smeared Romney about lobbying. Freddie Mac’s lobbying office paid Newt $25,000 a month to act as a consultant, which apparently involved visiting Congressmen on its behalf. That’s called “lobbying.” Yet, Newt used a false technicality to claim he was never a lobbyist: he claims he was a “consultant” and not a “lobbyist.” Except lobbyists always call themselves consultants, and what really matters in determining whether someone is a lobbyist is what they do, not what their job titles are. Newt was a lobbyist and he knows it and he’s lying to hide it.
He also tried to turn a million dollar lobbying income into $30,000 by claiming he only got a small portion of the amount he was paid because the rest went to a business, which is wholly owned by. . . Newt.
Then he doubled down on gall by accusing Romney of being a lobbyist because Romney also worked as a consultant. Only, “consultant” is a generic title for anyone who performs special tasks under contract rather than as an employee. No evidence has been produced suggesting Romney ever lobbied or worked in the lobbying industry. Newt’s suggestion to the contrary is a lie.
He then also tried to claim that all of Bain Capital’s income was actually Romney’s income, even though the claim is ridiculous.
● Newt said he opposes the DREAM Act, but he again promptly said he supports its parts. Then he mis-described the act to make it sound palatable: Newt argued that it provides a path to citizenship for those who serve in the military. But that’s already the law. The DREAM Act gives citizenship for college attendance and uses taxpayer funds to pay for the tuition.
● Perfect Attendance: Romney. Romney gave a great defense of capitalism, refused to apologize for being successful, gave a great defense of English only (it’s the key to success to “speak the language of America” and teaching students in foreign languages leaves them unprepared for school -- when they changed the law in Massachusetts to require English immersion their schools shot up the charts), and he landed a few solid blows on Gingrich. But I don’t think conservatives were listening. They’re too busy proving the media’s meme about conservatives having crushes on whoever is hot at the moment.
● Winner: Santorum. Santorum is a noxious socialist and a liar. But Brian Williams helped package him as a “genuine conservative” by repeatedly touting his conservatism as a fact, by never asking him about controversial issues, by posing the questions as softballs, and by never following up on the answers no matter how ridiculous. For example, he didn’t even follow up when Santorum said there was good capitalism and “destructive capitalism.” He also let Santorum get away with implying he was opposed to illegal immigration because “they broke the law when they came here and every day when they work illegally” even though Santorum has actually worked to make it impossible to stop illegals from working.
● Winner: Paul. As with Santorum, Williams did his best to hide Paul’s crazy. He tossed out softballs and avoided anything truly controversial.
All in all, last night felt like a wash. There was no decisive win, no decisive moment, and I doubt any candidate helped themselves much. The one guy who was probably most hurt was Newt who failed to deliver the Big Shiny, but we’ll have to see how that affects his supporters. At this point, Florida will come down to a few factors: (1) Will more moderates or more conservatives turn out on the 31st? Florida always seems to shift toward the center from what the polls predict. (2) Will enough people who know Newt come out and explain why they aren’t supporting him. (3) Can Newt get a Big Shiny in Thursday’s debate and will people remember it when they vote? Apparently, 1/3 of Florida has already voted. And (4) who will Democrats vote for to cause the most problems?
Finally, let me ask this. The complaint about Romney is that he flipped from moderate to conservative. That’s a legitimate complaint. But how does it make sense for conservatives to prefer candidates who not only held the same moderate views Romney did, but have never made the flip to conservatism?
Don't Forget: There's a new Politics of Trek today at the film site.
[+] Read More...
Monday, January 23, 2012
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Floriduh!
It's time for the first Sunshine State Debate of the week and that's somehow fitting, given the proximity of Disney World and the fact that we would be better off turning the country over to toons. Tell us which Disney characters remind you of each of the candidates and why.
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
DOJ Discovers The Constitution
The United States Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder considers the Constitution to be an infinitely malleable document, subject to the whim of temporary majorities, Congress and the Chief Executive. But as of last week, it found one constitutional provision it considers cast in concrete. That would be the Fifth Amendment.US Attorney Patrick J. Cunningham, deeply-involved in the Fast and Furious scandal, is invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee is looking into who is responsible for the gun-running operation which has ended up with thousands of weapons in the hands of Mexican criminal cartels and which has resulted in an unimaginable number of deaths in Mexico and that of a Border Agent inside America's borders.
Sooner or later, high-ranking members of criminal organizations such as the Mafia and the Department of Justice learn that lying only trips them up, while silence protected by the Constitution only makes them look guilty but can’t be used as proof of guilt. That certainly fits Cunningham, who is the chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s Field Office in Arizona. When you get caught flouting the law and end-running the Constitution, become a devotee of that selfsame Constitution.
Then, when your arse is showing as you get caught with your pants down, hire a savvy lawyer to blame the victims and the system. Use the Al Gore defense when El Rotundo was caught taking money from the cash box of Buddhist nuns: “I didn’t do it, and I’ll never do it again.” Cunningham’s lawyer says: “Department of Justice officials have reported to the Committee that my client relayed inaccurate information to the Department upon which it relied in preparing its initial response to Congress [on Operation Fast and Furious]. If, as you claim, Department officials have blamed my client, they have blamed him unfairly.” Deny the claim, then call the informants liars.
The lawyer even uses classic mob jargon. “The Department of Justice in Washington is making him the fall guy, claiming he failed to accurately provide the Oversight Committee with information on the execution of Fast and Furious.” Cunningham doesn’t even have the honor to fall on his sword and take the heat for the actions of his Capo, Eric Holder. So he attacks the Justice Department before it has even accused him of anything. Right now, the only ones pointing the finger of blame at him are Congressional investigators, some Committee members, and a lineup of witnesses. But not the Department itself.
Now Cunningham may find himself directly in line with that pointed finger from DOJ. He is soon going to find out how much honor Holder, Obama and the whole Democratic machine have. You won’t take a small hit for us? Then we will utterly destroy you, your family, and your reputation. You have fouled up our gun-grabbing, gun-running plan, and you will pay the price for trying to dirty our skirts!
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa says “The assertion of the Fifth Amendment by a senior Justice official is a significant indictment of the Department’s integrity in Operation Fast and Furious. The former head of the ATF has previously told the committee that the Justice Department is managing its response to Operation Fast and Furious in a manner designed to protect its political appointees. This is the first time anyone has asserted their Fifth Amendment right in this investigation and heightens concerns that the Justice Department’s motivation for refusing to hand over subpoenaed materials is a desire to shield responsible officials from criminal charges and other embarrassment.”
As tough as that statement is, it’s probably mild compared to what Cunningham has been threatened with by those same DOJ political appointees (including Holder himself) if he caves in somewhere along the line and refuses to take the fall for the unethical and vicious behavior of the out-of-control Justice Department.
At first, the Obama administration, with Holder as its front-man, claimed they were completely unaware of the “gunwalking” plot and had no knowledge of any of its details. Over the months since, huge piles of evidence and testimony have piled up that show those original statements to be outright lies. In order to protect their political skins, it became necessary to find someone in the Justice Department who could be blamed for keeping Holder and Obama in the dark about Fast and Furious. It’s a lame tactic, but it could become the focus on one individual that takes the spotlight off Holder and Obama long enough to get through the next election cycle. It looks like the designated sacrifice is Cunningham.
The “rogue agents” and “rogue Justice Department field office heads” theory simply reeks of unethical and perhaps criminal manipulation of facts and what Bill Clinton called the politics of personal destruction. Holder and Obama are pedaling like mad to distance themselves from this deadly scandal. Poor Cunningham is going to have to make a choice somewhere along the line. Face the possibility of serious legal sanctions against him and ‘fess up now, or wait, and risk the possibility of that plus the wrath of the Holder Justice Department. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, etc.
[+] Read More...
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Harvard Professor Plays Populist
While we've all been concentrating on the South Carolina primary results, another interesting battle is being joined way up north. It's the entrance of Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren into the Massachusetts Democratic Senate primary, planning to run as the "common man" against incumbent Republican Scott Brown, who also ran as the candidate of the common man.Warren wishes to regain the Democratic "Kennedy" Senate seat they lost two years ago when Republican Brown managed to re-dub it "the people's seat." Early indications are that this will turn out to be the battle of the populists. With Brown, there's unlikely to be anything new. He will likely tour the state in his pickup truck, wearing his simple outdoor jacket and telling his stories of being just plain folks.
For Warren, this is going to be a foray into fantasy. Turning the Henry Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard into an average Josephine is not going to be easy. However, Warren has already chosen her starting point. Since America is being run by the 1% super-rich, she has staked out her field of play as one of the 99% of oppressed powerless Americans. Early on, Warren grabbed every possible opportunity to support the Occupy Wall Street movement, and has continued to support the movement as it has metastasized nationwide.
Professor Warren is a self-styled "Okie." Well, she was born in Oklahoma City, so it's not entirely a lie. In one broadcast she said "I'm going for the hick vote here. I just want you to know. Maybe we could start wearing stickers that say 'Hicks for Elizabeth.' Could we do that?" There's a fine line between identifying with a group and mocking it, but Elizabeth Warren is counting on Massachusetts to see it as the former rather than the latter.
There also seems to be in Massachusetts a willingness to ignore a possible carpetbagger issue even though Warren has spent most of her life elsewhere. After Oklahoma, she has lived and taught in New Jersey, Texas and Pennsylvania. And then there's that little detail that until 1995, she was a registered Republican (of the RINO wing, of course).
One has to wonder if she will soon start campaigning in a pickup truck older than Brown's, being sure to carry at least one bail of hay in the truck bed. Warren lives in a $1.7 million dollar home, and tends to speak with the sounds of the Harvard Yard. It's a little early to see if she'll start broadening her "I"s to "ahs" and saying y'all, a la Hillary Clinton, but if she does she's likely to sound equally ridiculous. It's also hard to figure whom she is trying to identify with since Massachusetts has few farms left, and even fewer blue-collar factories. The biggest majority of the Bay State's "industry" is comprised of biotechnology, finance, insurance, and other clearly white-collar pursuits. Oh, and I almost forgot, academia.
Well, there's populism and then there's populism. Warren has chosen to identify with the blue collar worker and the rural farmer in a state that suffers from a paucity of both. That runs counter to the unfolding Obama plan to include suburban white collar workers, teachers, artists, lawyers, social workers, and psychologists in his definition of the 99% who comprise "the people." Maybe they're both counting on the voters to be mesmerized by their self-contradictory academia-babble and ignore their palpable elitism.
The "hick" candidate is a longtime academic theorizer and left wing Democratic operative. Interestingly, her legal career is also mostly academic, but her specialty is bankruptcy. She has long advocated for an agency which would tell businesses how to conduct their affairs, and was ultimately a major player in passage of the Dodd-Frank bill. After the Democratic sweep in 2008, she was appointed by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid to the five member Congressional Oversight Panel to implement the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
Warren was thought to be in line for the appointment as head of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau created by Dodd-Frank, but was considered by the President's inner circle as a better choice for a state office. Obama selected Richard Cordray instead, and sent Warren back to Massachusetts and Harvard. Warren will not run against the Obama administration's policies, but has instead chosen a different populist path for her personal campaign. It will be interesting to see which version of populism works, if either.
[+] Read More...
The Great (film) Debates vol. 22
Where are my flying cars!! Science fiction may be visionary, but sometimes it’s annoyingly wrong too.What do you think was the silliest guess about the future made in a science fiction film?
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
Saturday, January 21, 2012
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Votatorium Presents: Primarily South Carolina
Today is the big day in South Carolina. They're finally opening the new WalMart! Oh, and they're having a primary election. It's Romney v. Newt for the Palmetto state, winner take (proportionally) all!
Fox has already started their coverage. CNN starts at 7:00 PM EST. Join us!
In the meantime, riddle me this: if you could make any other country into a state, which country would it be and what would you call the state?
[+] Read More...
In the meantime, riddle me this: if you could make any other country into a state, which country would it be and what would you call the state?
[+] Read More...
Weekend Newsdrop
The Bane of Bain Capital: Obama and his cohorts (with the help of Rick Santorum), have made this huge deal about how awful it is that Mitt (Milton) Romney worked for Bain Capital. I won't bore with what Bain Capital is because you know. Well, guess what? As bad as Obama and his cohorts want us to believe Romney is the great scourge of 99%'ers everywhere, they've done gone and hired themselves a former Bain guy of their very own! Well to be more accurate they have promoted one. The White House proudly, yet quietly, announced this week that Jeffrey Zeints former Deputy of the Office of Management and Budget has been promoted to Director following the promotion of the former Director as Chief of Staff. Obama included the following statement with the announcement:
“I’m pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues,”
They were careful to stress that Zients has “twenty years as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur", however they failed to mention that he worked quite extensively with Bain Capital as far back as 1988. Romney worked at Bain from 1977-1984 and from 1991-1992, so their paths must have crossed. One would think by all the brouhaha, that Romney worked there right before his campaign started and right after he shaved off his large, waxed handlebar mustache that he used to twirl while throwing little old ladies out on the streets! But then again, Zientz probably worked for Bain Capital in the those years where they were the good guys.
GM Volt Update: I reported last week that GM and the National Highway Transportation Safety Adminsitration (NHTSA) had come to an understanding that GM had to fix the exploding batteries in the GM Volt. They both agreed with a plan and then let everyone know there was a problem. Well, because of this unprecedented cooperation between industry and government, the NHTSA has decided that no further action is needed and they have closed the investigation on this matter. According to Sec't of Transportation Ray LaHood, there nothing to see here, move along.
Fortunately, Congress thinks otherwise. Rep. Darrell Issa (R/CA) Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says "Not so fast". He has called all the parties to appear before his committee on Wednesday to explain who knew what when. GM CEO Dan Ackerson and NHTSA Administrator David Strickland are scheduled to explain why they knew about the fires in June of 2011, but failed to announce it to the taxpayer/stockholders until November 2011. Oh, and why the Obama Administration may have known in September.
Well, that's two. Do you know of any others? We need to keep the pressure on. [+] Read More...
Open Thread -- Vox Populi
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.Alexander Hamilton
[+] Read More...
Friday, January 20, 2012
Film Friday: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
I see where The Adjustment Bureau looked like a brilliant concept. Random chance brings a man and woman together. They fall in love. But God’s plan for the world requires they be apart. Angels separate them, but the man fights against God’s plan to be with his true love. That’s an incredible amount of fascinating conflict. Sadly, Bureau mishandles every aspect of this and muddles all the conflict, which makes it feel as tired and indifferent as the last few weeks of a canceled television show.Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
California Doesn't Need Dead Voters
While Eric Holder is blocking voter ID requirements in South Carolina, Rahm Emmanuel is registering dead people in Chicago, and ACORN's successors are registering people randomly selected from the phone book or the Baseball Hall of Fame, California Democrats are guaranteeing their success the old-fashioned way. Redistricting.While Holder in the DOJ is protecting “minority and poor” voters in South Carolina from the onerous burden of having to obtain a [free] state photo ID, he is perfectly fine with photo ID being required to get on an airplane, to buy cigarettes and booze, some OTC medications and to obtain a “get your food free” electronic debit card. Meanwhile, the Chicago mayor is working furiously to protect the additional right to vote guaranteed in the Constitution to the deceased. In St. Louis, Indianapolis and other places, persons with the same name as famous sports figures and cartoon characters must be protected from the racists who want them to prove who they are before voting. It makes me wonder if in Chicago dead sports figures or Mickey Mouse get two votes.
California, being the most creative of all the states in guaranteeing Democratic victories, has avoided such common methods of adding extra votes. In fact, given their current plan, they don’t even need to add phony votes. And why, you ask? Because the state has been so carefully gerrymandered that it makes strong Democratic majorities almost inevitable.
That’s nothing new, you say. Well, I mentioned that California is übercreative. Unlike other states where the majority political machine draws electoral districts, Democratic Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and the entire Democratic Party are the beneficiaries of a “people’s initiative” which took the power to redistrict away from the legislature and placed it in the hands of a “non-partisan” commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents.
The result is a redistricting map for Congressional and state elections which favors Democrats even more than the previous Democratic legislature’s gerrymander. The public was sold on the non-partisan nature of the commission, and Republicans cooperated because all indications were that they would pick up a few seats in the conservative Central Valley if the lines were drawn fairly. The road to electoral disaster is paved with good intentions.
Unknown to the public, various left wing and Democratic (redundancy?) organizations were preparing well in advance to skew the results of the commission hearings. ProPublica is the whistleblower that is now bringing the matter to the public’s attention and participating in a new initiative drive to abolish the commission and put redistricting into the hands of the courts. You might think that this is just sour grapes from the Republicans. But ResPublica is a non-profit investigative journalism group formed by liberal Democrats, even getting funding from George Soros surrogates. The only person in the watchdog journalism group who is not a Democrat or Independent is former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Steiger. They obviously took their duty to be more important than their funding.
The commission held hearings throughout the state, not realizing that facts and opinions thought to be from “average citizens” were actually heavily-infiltrated by Democratic operatives. Each witness was, for obvious reasons, supposed to be a member of the local community where each successive hearing was held. ProPublica found a secret memo outlining the results of an earlier meeting of prominent California Democrats mapping out a strategy for misinforming the commission.
Part of the plan was to get Democratic and leftist allies to show up to testify in swing and weakly-Republican districts, purporting to be local citizens. The enabling legislation which pretended to put the voter initiative into operation fairly was written by the Democrat-controlled legislature. Oddly (?) it contained no requirements that those testifying before the commission prove that they were residents of the locale in which the hearing was being held. I wonder how that happened. Maybe they should have required valid state-issued photo ID.
The most egregious of the scams uncovered by ProPublica was a female witness who claimed to be a lifelong member of the Asian community in the San Gabriel Valley. In fact, ProPublica investigated and found that she is a paid Democratic lobbyist who spent most of her life in rural Idaho and at the time of the hearings lived (and still lives) in Sacramento.
As you can see, California is exceptionally creative. Why register dead people, convicted felons, names drawn from the telephone book, and sports figures when you can obtain electoral victories by meddling with an independent commission and producing what appears to be a nonpartisan, fairly-drawn electoral map? The result of the commission’s redistricting, even if drawn in good faith, was weighted far more heavily toward preserving or creating Democratic districts and breaking up Republican-leaning districts, all with a cover of non-partisanship and fairness. And it was based largely on false input from the “public.”
[+] Read More...
Thursday, January 19, 2012
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: A Gaggle Of Idiots
And then there were four: the Teletubbies got Rick Perry! Oh my! Anyway, North Carolina is first in flight, which makes South Carolina first in complaining about airport noise. . . and tonight we're going to hear a LOT of noise. Get ready for another Republican Smackdown!
While we wait for the debate on CNN at 8:00 PM, tell us your state's motto (or make one up if you don't know yours) and tell us how you would improve it or with what you would replace it!
[+] Read More...
While we wait for the debate on CNN at 8:00 PM, tell us your state's motto (or make one up if you don't know yours) and tell us how you would improve it or with what you would replace it!
[+] Read More...
Smoke Gets In Your Eyes
The Occupy DC mob hadn't even gotten the official notice that His Royal Oneness would be making his re-coronation speech at the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina stadium when one of the occupiers lobbed a smoke bomb over the White House fence. If the Tea Party had thrown a shaken-up can of Coke over that same fence, we would have been facing a full-fledged national emergency. Martial law, perhaps.Had the mainstream media covered the "event," they would have had to admit that the "tens of thousands" of demonstrators were actually more like the low hundreds. So the few outlets that actually reported the incident at all simply shrugged their editorial shoulders and minimized the danger. Any 99%er who would toss a smoke bomb at the White House must be an aberration, we know they're peaceful, and the bomb was harmless, after all.
The day began with the Occupiers forming up at the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in contravention of their permit. The incident was an offshoot of the Occupy Congress demonstration planned for the day. That demonstration was supposed to have been comprised of at least 10,000 protestors, but there weren't even close to that many people. So maybe the smoke bomb was originally intended for the halls of Congress. Who knows? The police made no arrests nor is there any apparent investigation into who actually tossed the bomb. And the Obamas weren't at home anyway.
The crowd at the White House was easy to disperse--not a lot of demonstrators and plenty of police and Secret Service to move them down the street. The threat was minor, though if the bomb had gone off in the hands of a law enforcement officer trying to pick it up, there could have been some serious injury. But here's what occurs to me. No arrests. What if it had been one wild Tea Partier who had gone off the rails and tossed the smoke bomb? There would have been hundreds of arrests. First, the bomb-thrower. Then, the Tea Partiers who climbed over the fence to clean up after the bomb-thrower.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"A Night To Remember" -- The Titanic In Film Since 1953
By Tennessee JedFew, if any, events in modern times have captured public imagination as has the Titanic disaster. That assertion is bolstered by the fact four feature length films, not to mention two made for television movies, have chronicled its demise. Numerous other productions, some dating as far back as 1912, feature either Titanic or a thinly veiled substitute.
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
The All-Rat News Roundup
It’s time to get you caught up on the news. Today’s roundup has a special theme: rats. They’re everywhere and now they have rights.● King Rat: Lord Obama has decided he will formally accept the Democratic nomination at the 74,000 seat Bank of America stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina. A couple thoughts:
1. It’s stunning hubris for an incumbent president to accept the nomination of his party at a 74,000 seat stadium when he is unopposed.● Rat Relocators: Washington, D.C., which leads the country in homicides, corruption and abject stupidity, has passed the idiotic law to end all idiotic laws: the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010. This thing is so crazy you couldn’t make it up. It provides that exterminators may no longer kill rats and other vermin. Instead, they must be captured. . . in families. . . and then relocated to Virginia or Maryland. A few questions:
2. Given Obama’s recent inability to even fill pool halls when he speaks, should we wonder how many people will show up to this shindig?
3. How ironic that Obama picks a stadium named after a TARP bank!
4. Do you think the rich will descend from their stadium luxury boxes to mix with the peons?
5. This will be hurricane season, let’s hope God gets his smite on.
1. Do they have to do DNA tests to determine if they’re all from the same family? And how do they know they caught them all?● Rat Hunter: In 2008, Romney was lampooned when he said he hunts “small varmints” when people demanded to know if he hunts. Apparently, you must hunt BIG GAME to show you support the Second Amendment. This time around, Romney got confused between moose (meese?) hunting and elk hunting. So naturally, idiots like David Asselrod jumped on this by joking that Romney was “on the horns of a dilemma.” (fyi, they’re called antlers David. . . if you’re going to poke fun at someone, don’t be a bigger idiot).
2. What, no counseling?
3. Can they incarcerate their captives until they have the whole family or do they need to get them all at once?
The issue of hunting came up in the debate as well. And this raises a question which has been bother me: when did the Second Amendment become about hunting? The Second Amendment isn’t there to protect hunting. It has NOTHING to do with that. The Second Amendment is a right to be armed to defend yourself against an overbearing government or whatever else may come your way, i.e. criminals, meese, foreign invaders, E.T. To require a candidate to prove they’ve killed some animal just to demonstrate their fealty to the Second Amendment is as ridiculous as requiring them to curse in public to show they support the First Amendment.
● Dirty Rats: Why are Republicans demanding that Romney release his taxes? What are they expecting to find? “Oh look, he took the ‘sponsor a pedophile’ deduction!” All this can do is harm the nominee by playing into class warfare arguments where rich journalists decry the amount of money Republicans make while ignoring the much richer Democrats. But more importantly, in America, it’s nobody’s business what you make. And Republicans need to stop playing this game.
● Sinking Ship Rats: Today is the day of the SOPA boycott when many websites (e.g. the Wikipedia) will shut themselves down to protest SOPA and PIPA. The bills are starting to fail. Not only will neither bill apparently be brought to a vote, but as the rats in Congress and the Senate have come to realize just how angry the public is at this, they’ve started to flee the sinking ship. Scott Brown and a group of Senate Republicans are the latest to declare their opposition. Even one of PIPA’s sponsors, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md), now opposes the bill. Apparently, Obama objecting the bill has scared the Democrats and reality has woken up many of the Republicans.
No doubt Republicans Lamar Smith and Marsha Blackburn are confused how the country could suddenly be so overrun with communists. Perhaps they should call for an exterminator relocator?
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length
. . . and the debates keep coming. Last night was the first of two debates this week from South Carolina. It was an interesting night and it will be interesting to see if this changes the race. Romney continues to roll and Perry helped himself a lot. Newt did well, sort of. The rest, not so much. Let’s discuss.● Loser: Juan Williams. Juan was the biggest loser because he proved he’s a race baiter extraordinaire. All he talked about was racism: cutting taxes is racist, being white is racist, not offering money to poor blacks is racist, telling blacks they need jobs is racist, the word “poor” is code word for “black” and is racist, repeating Obama’s words is racist, and criticizing Obama is racist. Juan even suggested that Romney betrayed his own race (he’s part Mexican) because he’s opposed to illegal immigration and won’t pander to Hispanics on that issue. Juan needs therapy.
● Winner: Mitt Romney. Romney won the debate, hands down. Not only did he handle the other’s attacks on him well, but he continues to come across as increasingly more conservative (and thoughtfully conservative). For example:
When they attacked his Bain Capital record, Romney pointed out that Bain bought over 100 different businesses and turned most of them around (22 ended up in bankruptcy). The steel mill he shut down in South Carolina only closed after seven years of Bain trying to turn it around, it failed because of Chinese dumping of steel, and Bain later managed to open a newer mill in Indiana. This, he pointed out, gave him solid knowledge of how the economy really works and of the threat posed by China. He also mentioned that Bain’s companies created more than 120,000 jobs.
He then mentioned that his success as Bain led to him being asked to rescue the Olympics, which he did. And during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, the state had a 4.7% unemployment rate, a balanced budget, they reduced taxes nineteen times, and filled a “rainy day” fund with $2 billion. In effect, he went from success to success to success and proved he could succeed in the real economy, succeed at fixing bureaucratic messes, and succeed in running a state dominated by Democrats. That’s a solid sales pitch which easily defused the attacks on Bain.
In addition to defending his record, Romney continues to take solid conservative positions on taxes, regulations, deficits, foreign policy, military strength and even social issues. Moreover, he keeps making excellent conservative promises in each debate. This time he promised to (1) halt ALL “Obama era regulations,” effectively reversing Obama’s term, (2) push for voluntary self-directed retirement accounts, and (3) get rid of all campaign finance laws. It was another strong night for him.
● Winner: Rick Perry. Apparently, Rick Perry has a retarded twin named Goober Perry. For some strange reason, they let Goober handle the debates up to this point. Last night, Rick stepped in and the difference was remarkable. It’s not that Rick said anything substantive, he didn’t, but for once he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Indeed, he made it clear that he favors lower taxes and less regulation. He attacked the regulatory abuses of the EPA, Obama’s Labor Board’s attacks on Boeing, and the Justice Department’s interference in state voting issues. He attacked something he called Obama’s war against organized religion. He said Obama’s claim that the border with Mexico is secure is ludicrous and that traffic only slowed because this is the worst economy in 40 years. He defended the soldiers who urinated on the Taliban corpses by contrasting this with the Taliban killing and desecrating Americans. And most interestingly, he made the point that it’s not the government’s responsibility to fix housing and said (roughly): “the best way to get the economy going is not to think about how much we can push the government into the economy, but instead to think of ways to get it out of the economy.”
If this Rick Perry had showed up early on, he would be cruising to an easy win. But he didn’t. So now the question is, does this help Perry or not? Can he steal back voters who have fled to megalomaniac Gingrich or socialist Rick Santorum? It’s not clear, but Rick probably bought his campaign more life after the debacles of Iowa and New Hampshire.
● Sort of Loser: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a frustrating candidate and last night really displayed why. He is capable of excellence in debating, especially at flipping sucker punches back onto hapless fools like Juan Williams and really taking them down. BUT there’s never any substance to his answers. Instead, he just makes a lot of noise attacking the questioner, mentions Ronald Reagan a dozen times, and then leaves an impression that he would do something different than Obama or the questioner. . . but he never actually tells you what he would do. Example:
Q. “Newt, should the government sell strawberry ice cream?”Newt’s performance reeks of bread and circuses, but the clown act serves him well with a public that long ago lost the ability to spot substance. He was quite entertaining last night, but as you’ll see below, he lost because of Perry’s surge.
A. “I find it insulting that you would ask such a blatantly biased question at a time when few Americans can afford ice cream of any type, and I certainly am not like Obama who doesn’t even realize that strawberry ice cream exists.”
Q. “But should the government sell it?”
A. “Look, I worked with Ronald Reagan and I’m not like Obama.”
● Loser: Ricky Santorum. Ricky again exposed himself as a socialist and a liar. He spent the night denying his own votes and pretending he actually led the charge against the things he voted for. In one particularly galling moment, he tried to deny his vote to force states to let felons vote by (1) attacking Romney for being a governor of a state that lets felons vote (something Romney did not support or sign into law), (2) somehow wrapping himself in the Tenth Amendment and declaring this a state issue, and (3) suggesting it was racist not to let felons vote. In effect, he denied his own vote, accused Romney of doing what only Rick himself had done, accused Romney of not being a conservative because he lived in a state which did what Rick tried to force upon every state, and then flipped it around and accused Romney (and conservatism) of racism for not doing what Rick now denies that he himself did. . . by hey, it’s a state issue. This happened all night on issue after issue and I’ve come to believe Rick is a pathological liar with no sense of shame.
Rick was also rude, as usual, and debates like an angry child. He also has a habit of flip-flopping in the middle of answers. And even beyond that, Rick’s a socialist. He does not trust you to invest in your own retirement, he wants the government to do it for you. He wants to micromanage the economy and stated very clearly that he believes certain companies should be given tax breaks and others not depending on which competitive forces he thinks are at play. But don’t worry, he assured us, he is all for capitalism once he and the government have fixed the economy.
Worse yet, Rick will latch onto any liberal attack and run with it. Last night, he played the race card twice, first when he attacked Romney for wanting to keep felons from voting, which Rick suggested was racist against blacks, and when he played along with Juan Williams’ equation that “poor equals black” and thus not giving money to the poor equals racism. Rick also suggested very strongly that he supports affirmative action.
There is some speculation that Rick is playing for the VP slot, but only a fool would pick the toxic Santorum as a running mate, especially with Allen West saying yesterday that he’s open to being on the ticket.
● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul is insane and last night was just too much. Once again he suggested our problems in the Middle East were because we started it by bombing these countries. Then he played the race card by suggesting that the war on drugs is racist and that our criminal justice system is racist. So not only is Paul’s foreign and military policy suicidal, and his economic policy little more than extreme platitudes, but now he’s playing right into liberal smears on conservatism.
ConclusionLast night helped Romney once again. Not only did he continue to seem presidential, but the anybody-but-Romney camp will remain split and in disarray. With Paul draining away 15% of the vote and Romney earning a consistent 40%, the only hope of the anybody-but-Romney forces is for one of the other three to emerge as the ABR champion. But Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are all horrid candidates, which is preventing any of them from becoming the natural challenger to Romney. Moreover, with Perry showing actual competence last night, he will likely steal back lost supporters from Santorum and Gingrich and thereby stop either of them from pulling ahead.
And in truth, I must say Romney really is earning the nomination. With each passing debate he becomes a better debater and sounds more conservative. He has slowly but surely raised my comfort level with him.
Thoughts? (fyi, there’s another debate Thursday night. . . ugh.)
[+] Read More...
Have We Apologized Enough Yet?
The more I think about the Obama administration’s magical mystery apology tour, the harder it is for me to let go and behave rationally. OK, a small group of young warriors are alleged to have urinated on some dead Taliban. Big deal. Slap ‘em on the wrist and let’s get on with the real world. But for God’s (and America’s) sake, stop the apologies for everything America does that doesn’t comport with “world opinion.”Even AA tells its members to make amends unless to do so would harm oneself or others. Since the first day of the Obama administration, they have been apologizing for America’s every misstep, including the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The apologies for the actions of the Marines peeing on dead lowlifes has turned into a pathetic Greek chorus. As Christians in Egypt are being murdered en masse, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reserves her "dismay" for dead Taliban and her angry criticism for our own Marines.
To add insult to injury, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta practically fell over his own feet rushing to the phone to call the vile Taliban-friendly Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for the Marines’ barbaric behavior. You can see from the accompanying picture how the Taliban treat prisoners, dead or alive. I don’t know about Panetta, but I’d rather be peed on dead than hanged alive. Panetta told Karzai that the Marines’ actions were “deplorable.” That to a leader of a nation that treats civilians as if they were armed combatants, tortures and brutalizes opponents, and hangs prisoners of war from public overhangs without even the pretense of legal process.
Karzai’s reply said that the Marines’ behavior was “inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms.” I can understand how the leader of such a peace-loving people would think that. The Afghans and the Taliban rarely torture and murder prisoners before first having attended to the important business of stoning adulteresses to death, neutering homosexuals, and beheading apostates. The Taliban themselves were even clearer in their call for an American apology: “These were the inhuman acts of wild American soldiers in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.” They ought to know inhuman acts when they see them.
This pattern of apology is not something new with the Obama administration. It’s just that they’ve elevated apologizing for their country to high art. George Bush admonished us not to make judgments about the religion of peace: “Islam’s teachings are good and peaceful and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” Yes, George, and those who have never read the Koran should keep their big mouths shut. His Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, called Islam the religion of love and peace.
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary said that Islam’s “deepest yearning of all is to live in peace.” His Secretary of State, Madeline Albright said that “Islam is a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” And the inequality of all those who deserve a violent death for not embracing it.
The alleged and real incidents for which America must apologize are too many to list in a short article. But one thing is sure. The administrations and the mainstream media have treated each incident as earth-shattering events requiring massive apologies to the jihadists (a word now not to be used in polite company). There are no minor infractions or simple mistakes in judgment. Only great disruption of the peace of the world and shocks administered to the conscience of man. Abu-Ghraib and the sophomoric hi jinx of youngsters who should have known better was raised to the level of Auschwitz. APOLOGY. Military personnel at Guantanamo performed the impossible task of flushing a Koran down a toilet. APOLOGY. The innocent prisoners at Guantanamo were being abused and tortured. APOLOGY.
Two themes, both wrong, have emerged from these hysterical mea culpas. One is that we must apologize because the reason Islamists hate us is that we’re so mean to them. The other is that by prostrating ourselves before these primitives we can achieve peace. At the cost of American honor, American strength, and reality. Worst of all, the Islamists don’t even pretend to think that the apologies are in good faith. They merely laugh at our weakness and servility, and plot their next real atrocity. To date, all our apologies aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit, and have accomplished the exact opposite of their seeming purpose (you know—the thing that the road to Hell is paved with).
For all the apologies, all the hand-wringing and soul-searching of the clueless do-gooders, there have been over 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks or attempts just since 9-11. Obama himself has apologized, on foreign soil, for America's arrogance and racist history. Obama, Clinton, Panetta and all the other usual suspects think the only thing wrong with their apologies is that they’re not numerous enough, self-flagellating enough, or quick enough. To them I have only one thing to say: ”P#@s on you."
End of rant.
[+] Read More...
Monday, January 16, 2012
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Sassafracas
And then there were five. . . Apparently, Jon Huntsman's "ticket to ride" didn't get him all the way to South Carolina. And while he and his campaign were begging for bus fare in Newark, they got robbed of the will to continue. So he's packing up his bags and heading back to China, leaving the rest of us to struggle on without his smugness. You will be missed Jon. . . by someone.
While we wait for the debate to begin, riddle me this: what movie character would you most/least want to see as President?
[+] Read More...
While we wait for the debate to begin, riddle me this: what movie character would you most/least want to see as President?
[+] Read More...
Obama Offers Republicans Key To The Future!
By now you may have heard that Obama is proposing to “eliminate,” “shrink” or “trim” some agencies. Well, no. In reality, this is just an attempt to look like someone who is concerned about making the government smaller. Nevertheless, the Republicans have a key opportunity here and they should seize it. Here’s the dealio:● The What: Obama proposes to consolidate agencies that focus on trade and commerce. Basically, Obama wants to merge the Department of Commerce’s core business-related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency.
However, what he’s really proposing is that Congress give him broad power to reshape the federal government. This power was initially granted to FDR during the Great Depression and was something every President had until the Democrats let it expire in 1984 to stop Reagan from using it. That is what Obama is asking Congress to give him, with the idea being he will use it to perform the consolidation mentioned above.
● The Why: Obama’s stated reason for doing this is that consolidation saves money:
“No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it okay in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”It’s too bad Obama doesn’t really believe that. In any event, to give you a sense of how laughable his proposal is, by Obama’s own count, this would result in the elimination of only 1,000 jobs along with a supposed savings of only $3 billion over the next decade. That works out to $300 million per year, or 0.008% of the federal budget, about 8 cents out of every thousand dollars spent. Aim high my Kenyan Overlord! Of course, this comes at a time when his A-holiness is asking for an increase in the debt ceiling of $1.2 trillion and an additional $447 billion jobs bill.
His real reason for doing this, of course, is political. He knows the public is outraged at the government binge on his watch and he needs to show he can actually cut the government. But at the same time, he has to do it without offending any of the leaches who live off the government, i.e. his supporters. By shuffling the chairs around at Club Fed, he can tell the gullible part of the public that he’s so conservative he did something Reagan couldn’t -- he cut an agency. But at the same time, his backers can laugh at the rest of us because nothing will actually change.
Of course, giving him broad power to reshape the federal government could allow him to do more, but that seems unlikely because he can’t ADD to the government using the reorganization power. Thus, I wouldn’t expect him to do much.
● The Why Not: Believe it or not, some people are upset about this. Specifically, Big Business is concerned that their favorite vending machines would be moved to more responsible agencies. They are particularly concerned about the loss of prestige/influence of having their favorite programs jammed into other agencies rather than remaining standing alone as separate agencies. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed this concern, as have their spokesmen Max Baucus (D-Mont) and Dave Camp (R-Mich), who claim this will hamper the government’s ability “to aggressively open new markets to American-made goods and services and create US jobs.”
Yeah, sure.
● The Reason We Should Do This: The Republicans absolutely should support this proposal and give Obama broad powers to reshape the federal government and to trim/eliminate programs. Here’s why:
1. Obama won’t be President in 2013. A Republican will. And the Democrats will never give this power to a Republican. But they will give it to Obama. Thus, the Republicans should pass this now, while they can, so President GenericRepublican can use it to slash the federal government in 2013.This is one of those bill that could be a game changer in the future if the Republicans have the vision to see it.
For those concerned that Obama might misuse this power, consider this. First, Obama can’t “grow” the government using this power, he can only shrink it. Secondly, by the time it passes, there will only be maybe eight months left in his administration. That’s not enough time to do anything in Fed-land. That means whatever he does can be undone by President GenericRepublican before it ever takes effect.
2. Republicans claim to be reformers, but that claim sounds hollow if they won’t create the tools that will allow reform.
3. This is the sort of thing Republicans can do to show moderates that they aren’t just opposed to Obama. Being seen as positive reformers could be worth 1-2% in the general election and could mean a couple critical seats.
4. The Republicans need to show they are willing to make changes which upset corporate welfare types. If they keep protecting everything Big Business wants, even when the only complaint is a loss of prestige, then the Republicans might as well quit pretending they represent anyone who isn’t incorporated.
5. Finally, the Republicans should pass this with some additional reforms attached. In other words, they should call Obama’s bluff. Give him what he wants, but cut deeper: eliminate programs, consolidate administrative staff, and genuinely wipe out redundancies. If Obama wants to pretend to be a real reformer, then offer him real cuts and put him on the spot with his own people. Challenge him to put up or shut up.
Update: For those who recall the SOPA issue from last week, Obama has signaled that he’s opposed to this Stalinist bill. Amazingly, Obama is on the right side for once. Naturally, the usual suspects are now freaking out, including Hollywood, the Record Companies, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Also, Lamar Smith is beside himself at the public’s outrage and can’t understand how the country is suddenly full of dirty communists. Up yours, Lamar!* * *
P.S. There’s a debate tonight, so join us and tell us how much you miss Jon Huntsman!
[+] Read More...
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Score One For The Christians
I figured that Sunday was a good day to celebrate one small but significant victory for Christianity (and all religions) in the ongoing government war against faith. And maybe the victory wasn't so small. In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of religious institutions to determine whether a minister's services should be terminated without being trumped by employment discrimination law.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had used the Americans with Disabilities Act to require Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church to re-hire a former church school teacher. When originally filed with the lower court (during the Bush administration), the court held that it had no jurisdiction over such religious matters, and dismissed the case. The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court decision was reversed, and the EEOC demanded the employee be re-hired. The church appealed to the Supreme Court. The Holder Department of Justice enthusiastically pursued the interests of the EEOC.
I'll keep the facts as simple as possible. The employee, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a "called" church school teacher. Most Christian denominations have the same or a similar designation for teachers who have completed training in church doctrine and have agreed to teach according to those principles. They are distinguished from "lay" teachers who are free to teach their subjects but are not required to insert church doctrine into the class curriculum. A very long line of court cases below the Supreme Court level, in nearly every federal appellate district, has included "called" teachers under the "ministerial exception" exempting religious trainers from general employment law.
Perich had developed a debilitating case of narcolepsy. Her doctors advised the school that she would be ready to come back to work after therapy and medications some time in late 2005. The school advised Perich that she should go on disability leave for the 2004-2005 school year, they would pay her medical insurance premiums, and when she was well enough to return for the 2005-2006 school year, she would have her job back.
But Perich decided on her own that she was well enough to return for the 2004-2005 term, and showed up for work. The school refused to replace the lay teacher who had taken over her duties on the grounds that Perich had not been properly medically released and that she could not at that time perform her proper "called" (religious) teacher's duties.
Perich then filed a complaint with the EEOC, after threatening the school with a lawsuit. The school responded by terminating her "ministry" because the church determined that her threats and the EEOC complaint were inconsistent with church doctrine and policy. They further noted that if she had been a lay teacher, they might still have refused to allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year, but would not necessarily have felt it their religious duty to terminate her services for the following school year.
Many fair-minded people might think that the EEOC and Perich should have won. After all, that's what the ADA was designed to protect against, and the termination does seem a bit unfair and perhaps even retaliatory. But that's not the issue, and the Supreme Court got it exactly right. The question that had to be answered was "does the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion override statutory labor and discrimination law?" The high court answered "yes." And it did so unanimously.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the case originally, recognizing that this was one small employment issue at one small Michigan church which contained huge implications for religious freedom nationwide. It was a David vs. Goliath battle between one congregation and the secular federal bureaucracy. And David won. The principle established is that if a religious institution makes a decision based on a religious belief that it has the right to control its own ministry, then civil anti-discrimination law cannot interfere unless there is an even stronger fundamental constitutional right which clearly conflicts with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found no such conflicting right.
Had Perich been a janitor or a lay teacher, the result would likely have gone the other way. But God love the Supremes. They found that even if the termination violated secular statutes, the religious element outweighed the civil interest. And so said they all.
Douglas Laycock, a law professor, argued the case for the church and the Becket Fund. He summed up the Supreme Court decision this way: "This is a huge win for religious liberty. The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders." This is a landmark decision that the average layman may not be aware of in the future, and its announcement was made right in the middle of the returns from the New Hampshire primary, thereby producing zero mainstream media coverage.
This may all sound a little obscure, with no implications for future litigation. But is it really? The Supreme Court may very well have fired a shot across the secularist bow with this decision which will be reflected later in a much more public and contentious issue working its way to the high court. If the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage is a valid exercise in government power and that state or federal government cannot forbid it, this present decision would go a long way toward allaying the fears of those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (myself included).
Despite promises to the contrary, the states supporting gay marriage will be very likely to attempt to impose anti-discrimination statutes on religious organizations which preach against gay marriage and/or refuse to perform them. Even if they don't, the ACLU will surely find some gay couple that wishes to challenge the churches on gay marriage using existing anti-discrimination law. This case holds that religious institutions have a near-absolute right to determine their own doctrine and how it is to be implemented.
So when Pastor John preaches that homosexuality is a sin, Father James condemns sexual relationships outside traditional one man-one woman marriage, and Rabbi Joe refuses to perform a gay marriage, they cannot be persecuted a la Canada. No labor or anti-discrimination statute can force a conservative religious institution to ignore its own doctrines or force it to hire clerics who oppose the church's religious beliefs. They are now also free to fire any holder of the pulpit who has some sort of secular epiphany and decides he or she is in favor of gay marriage after all.
That's how the legal mind works. And it's how a small employment case in Michigan could conceivably affect a hotly-contested national issue despite the case's seeming dissimilarities with that national issue. This case will undoubtedly be cited as precedent the very first time some state or federal authority attempts to punish a church or synagogue for violating anti-discrimination law by refusing to perform or condone gay marriage. And any lawyer worth his salt will point out that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, including the concurring opinions of four very liberal Justices.
[+] Read More...
The Great (film) Debates vol. 21
Worst. . . sequel. . . ever. . .?
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Lost in Translation
The first example is from an article posted on a Polish news website about purported statements made by Rick Santorum during his campaign in New Hampshire. I would not have known about the Polish article if a Polish friend had not pointed it out. So here’s how it went:
[Scene: Lunch room in typical American white-collar workplace. Polish friend runs in and plops down in front of me]
Me: Hello, Polish friend, what’s up?
Polish friend: So, who is this Santorum guy?
Me: He is running for the Republican Presidential nomination. Umm, why do you ask? [hoping to direct PF to Commentarama for a more in-depth discussion without breaking any politically correct workplace rules]
PF: I just heard from a friend of mine in Poland who said that it was reported by a Norwegian journalist that Rick Santorum said in New Hampshire that the greatest threats to the world right now are Iran, Islamic terrorists, and Poland!
Me: Poland?? Are you sure he said Poland? I can’t imagine anyone would think that Poland was a threat to anyone? I will do some research and get back to you.
End scene.
I went back to my desk to do a quick search. I figured that if Santorum had actual said that Poland was one of the greatest threats to the world that someone in the US press corps would pick it up and exploit it. (Yes, Huffington Post, I mean you!). Instead, I found nothing. I went back to my PF and asked her to show me the article. It was a 5-line article from a Polish language website which she kindly translated for me. Since I have no reason to doubt my friend's translation, I was surprised that a sitting Senator could make such a stupid blunder. But then I remembered that the then-Senator Obama stated during his 2008 campaign that there were at least 57 US states, so it could be true. But I still could not find any evidence in English.
Well, it took about 24 hours, but, to my surprise, I finally found an article on the New York Times blog reporting on Santorum's statement. Not a translation of the original statement as reported by the Norwegian journalist, but a clarification from Santorum. When asked by an unknown reporter if he really said that Poland was a threat, Santorum stated:
“I said the Obama administration stuck it to Poland by not putting a missile defense system there...I listed a bunch of countries that the Obama administration has messed up.
So, it was nothing against Poland?” the reporter asked.
Oh, I love Poland,” Mr. Santorum assured him. “Are you kidding me? It’s one of my favorite countries in the world.”
As my friend and I discussed, it is possible that someone heard "threat" and "Poland" in the same sentence and jumped to a mistranslated conclusion. Who knows, but it is safe to say that between my friend and I, we just save the world from of an international "whisper-down-the lane" game that went from English to Norwegian to Polish to possible war!
Now, I said there were two examples. The second was an article titled “GM to call back 8,000 Chevy Volts” published last week. You remember the Chevy Volt. It’s the General Motors electric car touted by the Obama Administration as the green solution to the American auto industry’s financial problems.
It was reported that The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration informed GM that, following extensive crash tests, they discovered that up to three weeks after a crash, the batteries in the Volt would catch fire. The following is a short performance art piece of how I perceive this conversation went:
[Scene: Telephone rings. Someone picks up receiver]
NHTSA: Hello, GM? Yeah, umm...did you know that up to three weeks after a crash, the Volt battery tends to catch on fire and explode?
GM: Umm, well, ummm...errr...yes, we did. Oops, did we forget to tell everyone that the Volt’s batteries needed to be drained after a crash? Sorry, my bad.
NHTSA: Not a problem. Just fix it and all will be forgotten...er forgiven.
GM: Do we need to issue a recall?
NHTSA: Heavens NO! Let's just say that you are "calling them back" and leave it at that. No reason to needlessly embarrass ourselves and you-know-who. You are going to voluntarily fix it anyway, right?
GM: Oh, yeah, riiiight.
End scene.
So GM issued a "call back" of their vehicle and as the article stresses, “GM’s move is considered a step below a recall, which would have been]issued by a car company and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration". It further reports that GM agreed to voluntarily fix the problem voluntarily. This is unlike, say, when Toyota was publicly pilloried and whose management was dragged before Congress to explain after their 2010 Prius "recall" which they had already agreed to voluntarily fix voluntarily too.
So in conclusion, to my Polish friends - beware of Norwegian reporters. From the bottom of my heart, both Santorum and I think that you are not a threat and, hopefully, you will never be a threat to the good people of Earth.
And to the taxpayers-slash-shareholders of the United States of America - beware the Obama Administration and a sympathetic press corps who will continue to mislead us about any of this Administration’s investments gone sour. They are mounting up, aren't they?
Addendum: I hereby revise my statement about the Polish after my "friend" made disparaging remarks about people over 40 being "that old?". They may be a real threat after all. [+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)