.....I would ask Obama to clarify these statements.
There is nothing so loathsome, so un-American, and so un-democratic than
government policies that balkanize Americans into fractured sub-groups
based on race.
If Obama seriously repudiates these policies of the past I will take seriously
his promises to rise above politics as usual.
Friday, February 29, 2008
As it Relates to Global Trade......
Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric
Updated Wed. Feb. 27 2008 11:45 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
"Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said."
CTV is a reputable Canadian news bureau.
This Stuff is Getting Freaking Ridiculous
Obama, Obama......
Obama of the World.....
Obama, Obama......
Very Obama of Very Obama......
Obama, Obama.....
Tuck me in at night.....
Obama, Obama.....
Mighty legislator.....wonderful friend.....
This type of group-think-mass-adulation-hysteria driven by the consumerist entertainment industry will quickly turn off lots of people.
Is Jessica Alba supposed to represent something profound?
I am not looking for a savior. I already have one. I am looking for a good president.
Talk about setting expectations a little high. Even if he wins he's doomed.
Obama....Obama......
Are the Democrats Serious About Free Trade?
Like many Americans I watched the most recent Democratic debate between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I almost fell asleep while watching the two argue about one another's healthcare plan for the 494th time but my curiosity was again piqued when the topic finally switched away from healthcare to NAFTA and free trade.
I enjoyed watching both senators wiggle around a little bit in their chairs. It seems that they support NAFTA when they are in the South. They'll talk about how great it is for inland port cities like Laredo while trying to win Texas votes but they'll pander to the "I lost my factory job" crowd in the old steel regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Hillary was especially apologetic because it was her husband who signed NAFTA into law. Hillary said that she "quietly and privately" thought NAFTA was wrong back then. Mmmm...How convenient.
After the NAFTA portion of the debate ended I was left scratching my head. Which is it? Does the future president of the United States (assuming Democrat victory which is not a far gone conclusion) have any idea what free trade actually does?
I think that we saw typical Democrat pandering during the debate. A recent Wall Street Journal piece by Kimberly Strassell agrees with me.
Here are some highlights...
"I think Lou Dobbs took the pulse of America and realized he could drive his ratings up by engaging in protectionist rhetoric and pandering. I think there are an increasing number of politicians who are also pandering to the less informed emotional impulses of a lot of U.S. voters," says Cal Dooley, a former Democratic congressman from California who helped lead the party to trade victories in the 1990s....
If Democrats wanted be trusted on national security, they've got to underpin their promises with a commitment to trade. "Once you are president of the United States you have to first and foremost protect the security of the United States, and one of the tools that you have to protecting that security is in building strong relationships that are going to be founded on an economic partnership," he says.
In other words, it's hard to make nicey-nice with the global community when you are stiffing it on trade.
You can find the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424592454501493.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries.
Have Americans lost factory jobs because of NAFTA? Sure. But cotton weavers lost jobs when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin too. Progress happens. People adjust and learn new skills. Should we have held back the industrial revolution because it hurt farm jobs????
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Misrepresenting Statistics
Democrats Are Not Saints
Walker suggests in his previous post that the Republican Party has done more for African Americans than the Democratic Party. At no time did I ever assert anything different. It is debatable whether this record of supporting civil rights holds true after the 1960s, for some would argue that entitlement programs actually hurt minorities instead of help them. Never mind that.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Republican Party was the traditional party of civil rights before the 1960s. That was back when the Democratic Party was the party of the South. Walker asserts that "The Democratic Party certainly panders more with an old south kind of 'we'll take care of you' attitude all the time," but this was NOT true prior to the 1950s. Before then, the Democratic Party was the part of the white South, and it most certainly did not represent African Americans.
Statistics for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Let's look at the statistics regarding passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to see just how split the Democratic Party was on this issue. (By the way, I got these statistics from Wikipedia, so I have no idea whether they're accurate.)
The entire measure was divisive, as we can see from the total passage. For the Senate version, the votes were 73% for and 27% against. In the House, it was 70% for and 30% against. About the same, I would say.
By party, however, things get odd. For the Senate version (in Yes-No format):
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)
I'm not sure where Walker got his figures, but he says,
"89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats."
I'm not sure whether those figures are "overwhelming," as Walker suggests. Nevertheless, things get really strange when we divide the votes by Southern and Northern states, where Southern refers to those states that were once a part of the Confederacy. Northern refers to all other states, no matter where they are.
I don't think the statistics make the Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad, for I'm not pleased that anyone chose to vote against civil rights. And it really upsets me that my chosen party was so divided on this issue. But I think this division needs to be clarified instead of taking Walker's assertions at face value.
In the South, there were ten Republican Representatives, and all of them voted against the Bill. There was one Republican Senator, and he voted against it, too. For the Democrats, it's no better: 93% of Representatives voted against the bill and 95% of Senators voted against it. Here are the statistics:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
In the North, however, it was a different story:
The House:
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate:
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
I'm not going to make much of these statistics except to say that the Democrats voted FOR the Civil Rights Act in the North in similar percentages that they voted AGAINST it in the South. For the Republicans, they were actually more divided in the North than the Democrats, but the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions, except that they were more divided in the North.
The Red State/Blue State Divide
What is really interesting about these statistics, however, is how things switched after this bill. Not only did some representatives leave their party based on this issue, but the very notion of Democrats and Republicans changed. The South became the Republican bastion and the Northeast became the Democratic post. Did this change happen all because of the Civil Rights Act? Absolutely not, but it helped fuel it. Before the 1960s, the South ALWAYS voted Democrat. And then, they began to pull away.
Check out the presidential election maps to see this shift most clearly. In 1956, only seven states went Democrat, and they were all southern states (here defined more broadly). Then, in 1960, more states went Democrat. In 1964, however, it all changes. Now, only six states go Republican, and only one is not a southern state--Arizona.
In 1968, everyone goes Republican except for a handful of southern states who vote for Wallace, an independent running on basically a segregation/states' rights platform, and a few mainly northern states that went Democrat.
With a few exceptions, the Red State/Blue State divide has been constant since 1964. Just coincidence? I doubt it.
Walker suggests in his previous post that the Republican Party has done more for African Americans than the Democratic Party. At no time did I ever assert anything different. It is debatable whether this record of supporting civil rights holds true after the 1960s, for some would argue that entitlement programs actually hurt minorities instead of help them. Never mind that.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Republican Party was the traditional party of civil rights before the 1960s. That was back when the Democratic Party was the party of the South. Walker asserts that "The Democratic Party certainly panders more with an old south kind of 'we'll take care of you' attitude all the time," but this was NOT true prior to the 1950s. Before then, the Democratic Party was the part of the white South, and it most certainly did not represent African Americans.
Statistics for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Let's look at the statistics regarding passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to see just how split the Democratic Party was on this issue. (By the way, I got these statistics from Wikipedia, so I have no idea whether they're accurate.)
The entire measure was divisive, as we can see from the total passage. For the Senate version, the votes were 73% for and 27% against. In the House, it was 70% for and 30% against. About the same, I would say.
By party, however, things get odd. For the Senate version (in Yes-No format):
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)
I'm not sure where Walker got his figures, but he says,
"89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats."
I'm not sure whether those figures are "overwhelming," as Walker suggests. Nevertheless, things get really strange when we divide the votes by Southern and Northern states, where Southern refers to those states that were once a part of the Confederacy. Northern refers to all other states, no matter where they are.
I don't think the statistics make the Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad, for I'm not pleased that anyone chose to vote against civil rights. And it really upsets me that my chosen party was so divided on this issue. But I think this division needs to be clarified instead of taking Walker's assertions at face value.
In the South, there were ten Republican Representatives, and all of them voted against the Bill. There was one Republican Senator, and he voted against it, too. For the Democrats, it's no better: 93% of Representatives voted against the bill and 95% of Senators voted against it. Here are the statistics:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
In the North, however, it was a different story:
The House:
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate:
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
I'm not going to make much of these statistics except to say that the Democrats voted FOR the Civil Rights Act in the North in similar percentages that they voted AGAINST it in the South. For the Republicans, they were actually more divided in the North than the Democrats, but the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions, except that they were more divided in the North.
The Red State/Blue State Divide
What is really interesting about these statistics, however, is how things switched after this bill. Not only did some representatives leave their party based on this issue, but the very notion of Democrats and Republicans changed. The South became the Republican bastion and the Northeast became the Democratic post. Did this change happen all because of the Civil Rights Act? Absolutely not, but it helped fuel it. Before the 1960s, the South ALWAYS voted Democrat. And then, they began to pull away.
Check out the presidential election maps to see this shift most clearly. In 1956, only seven states went Democrat, and they were all southern states (here defined more broadly). Then, in 1960, more states went Democrat. In 1964, however, it all changes. Now, only six states go Republican, and only one is not a southern state--Arizona.
In 1968, everyone goes Republican except for a handful of southern states who vote for Wallace, an independent running on basically a segregation/states' rights platform, and a few mainly northern states that went Democrat.
With a few exceptions, the Red State/Blue State divide has been constant since 1964. Just coincidence? I doubt it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why Aren't More African-Americans Republican?
The Republican party has a much better record in terms of civil rights than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party certainly panders more with an old south kind of "we'll take care of you" attitude all the time, but what has the Democratic Party actually done for the African American?
*It was the Republican Party that were abolitionists during the civil war.
*A republican president freed the slaves.
*Frederick Douglass once said, "The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."*After the civil war the Republican Party passed the first 3 civil rights acts which outlawed slavery and guaranteed equal protection of the law.
*During the 1920s the KKK was lynching blacks and it was Republican presidents Harding and Coolidge that denounced the KKK violence and supported the federal anti-lynch law, which passed in the Republican house before dying in the DEMOCRAT senate.
*In the 1940s Democrat president FDR refused to have pictures taken with blacks. During that time the Republican party was calling for desegregation of the military and the right to vote.
*In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) did pass the Civil Rights Act but only after Republicans had introduced a bill of their own.
*89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats. It just so happens that the President who signed the bill into law was a good man…Lyndon Johnson.
*It was the Republican Party that were abolitionists during the civil war.
*A republican president freed the slaves.
*Frederick Douglass once said, "The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."*After the civil war the Republican Party passed the first 3 civil rights acts which outlawed slavery and guaranteed equal protection of the law.
*During the 1920s the KKK was lynching blacks and it was Republican presidents Harding and Coolidge that denounced the KKK violence and supported the federal anti-lynch law, which passed in the Republican house before dying in the DEMOCRAT senate.
*In the 1940s Democrat president FDR refused to have pictures taken with blacks. During that time the Republican party was calling for desegregation of the military and the right to vote.
*In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) did pass the Civil Rights Act but only after Republicans had introduced a bill of their own.
*89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A FAR greater percentage than Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964…perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the struggle for civil rights was overwhelming supported by Republicans and overwhelming hated by Democrats. It just so happens that the President who signed the bill into law was a good man…Lyndon Johnson.
Why I Love Sperm Thurm
It's only tangentially related to Texas elections, but I was reminded of something by reminiscing about my gay skater days in SC.
I met Strom Thurmond in the lobby of a hotel/dorm at Clemson in 1994. A few of us were there, and the old guy came off the elevator and walked up to us and shook all of our hands. Two of the girls with us fawned all over him, saying how great he was. Me, I had no idea it was Strom Thurmond.
Sure, the Republican party abolished slavery, as Maker's Mark points out. But people like Strom Thurmond actually left the Democratic party in the 1960s because of states' rights. And what did the states have the right to do? Segregation. Talk to some people, and they still think states have the right to do whatever they want. Or even communities. There is no such thing as "tyranny of the majority," they say. Instead, there is only the will of the people.
I couldn't believe it that people kept voting for Strom Thurmond. Even people of other races voted for him. Sure, he eventually changed his views on race, but he never renounced his stance on segregation because that was a states' rights issue, and states should have the right still. People said that he was one of the most powerful senators in the country and so we should keep him in office to do good for our state.
Past voting records matter, though. I can accept when someone actually changes his or her mind based on new information, but there are some issues I can't accept, period. The Thurmonater was guilty of one of those.
My fear of some Republican and Libertarian ideas is that they still hold some of those notions of states' rights. I think the notion of the "free market" may stem from the same ideology.
I met Strom Thurmond in the lobby of a hotel/dorm at Clemson in 1994. A few of us were there, and the old guy came off the elevator and walked up to us and shook all of our hands. Two of the girls with us fawned all over him, saying how great he was. Me, I had no idea it was Strom Thurmond.
Sure, the Republican party abolished slavery, as Maker's Mark points out. But people like Strom Thurmond actually left the Democratic party in the 1960s because of states' rights. And what did the states have the right to do? Segregation. Talk to some people, and they still think states have the right to do whatever they want. Or even communities. There is no such thing as "tyranny of the majority," they say. Instead, there is only the will of the people.
I couldn't believe it that people kept voting for Strom Thurmond. Even people of other races voted for him. Sure, he eventually changed his views on race, but he never renounced his stance on segregation because that was a states' rights issue, and states should have the right still. People said that he was one of the most powerful senators in the country and so we should keep him in office to do good for our state.
Past voting records matter, though. I can accept when someone actually changes his or her mind based on new information, but there are some issues I can't accept, period. The Thurmonater was guilty of one of those.
My fear of some Republican and Libertarian ideas is that they still hold some of those notions of states' rights. I think the notion of the "free market" may stem from the same ideology.
William F. Buckley: 1925 - 2008
From the National Review Online:
"I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died this morning in his study in Stamford, Connecticut. He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas. As you might expect, we’ll have much more to say here and in NR in the coming days and weeks and months. For now: Thank you, Bill. God bless you, now with your dear Pat. Our deepest condolences to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. And our fervent prayer that we continue to do WFB’s life’s work justice."
Bill Buckley was a giant. He will be missed.
18 and Life: Where Edgy Youth Culture and Flamboyance Meet
The mean streets of Columbia, South Carolina....1992......the Strom Thurmond re-election parade had just went by.....18 and Life and his BFF (Best Friend 4-Eva!) Simon had just finished tossing spoiled oranges at the passing motorcade..... this cozy snapshot captured the raw exuberance of the moment.... oh, to be young, gay, and a skater in bustling South Carolina ('The Jewel of the South') during the heyday of 'Thurmond Country'.....
Above them, a refuge within the city, the Copenhagen Gay Center.....a place to read comics, play PlayStation games, and watch vintage Joel Schumacher films....
I wish I knew how to quit you.
Last weekend I was sick with a cold, and last night I had the worst back pain of my life. Some sort of a pinched nerve in my lower back. It seems that being right all the time is bad for my health.
So I will be taking a sabbatical. Since our 3 loyal readers would be become too despondent without my keen political center-left observations, I have asked someone to stand in for me until March 5th, when Barack Obama will have finally banished the Alien queen for good.
My substitute is non other than Dr. Chadwick, who also goes by the nickname "18 and Life". I will keep his full identity a secret, for he too, is employed by the academic disciplines, and we don't want another Jim Beam episode.
Dr. Chadwick cut scholarly teeth on his groundbreaking dissertation: "Ollies, 180s and Sexual Boundaries: Gay Skaters underground in South Carolina." He and his wife are blessed with the absence of children this week, so I have asked him to find time to blog for me when not researching and field-testing his new work, "The Lost Kama Sutra", which I understand is a pop-up book.
So I will see you guys on this blog in about a week. Let me heal and get some real work done. I will read faithfully.
Maker's Mark
So I will be taking a sabbatical. Since our 3 loyal readers would be become too despondent without my keen political center-left observations, I have asked someone to stand in for me until March 5th, when Barack Obama will have finally banished the Alien queen for good.
My substitute is non other than Dr. Chadwick, who also goes by the nickname "18 and Life". I will keep his full identity a secret, for he too, is employed by the academic disciplines, and we don't want another Jim Beam episode.
Dr. Chadwick cut scholarly teeth on his groundbreaking dissertation: "Ollies, 180s and Sexual Boundaries: Gay Skaters underground in South Carolina." He and his wife are blessed with the absence of children this week, so I have asked him to find time to blog for me when not researching and field-testing his new work, "The Lost Kama Sutra", which I understand is a pop-up book.
So I will see you guys on this blog in about a week. Let me heal and get some real work done. I will read faithfully.
Maker's Mark
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
LA Times/Bloomberg: Mccain 44%, Obama 42%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/feb%2021-25%20bloomberg%20la%20times%20poll.pdf
Guys, this far out doesn't mean jack but this is the highwater mark for Senator Obama....the fawning press, the lack of negative ads, the lameness of Senator Clinton as an opponent....
McCain will continue to consolidate the base and get stronger as people start to learn more about Obama's record and lifelong liberalism.
A moderate vs. a liberal?
Moderates win most often than not......
WD
Guys, this far out doesn't mean jack but this is the highwater mark for Senator Obama....the fawning press, the lack of negative ads, the lameness of Senator Clinton as an opponent....
McCain will continue to consolidate the base and get stronger as people start to learn more about Obama's record and lifelong liberalism.
A moderate vs. a liberal?
Moderates win most often than not......
WD
Al Gore got a Nobel Freakin' Peace Prize for this.........is it time to be embarrassed??
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."
Yep, the only sensible thing we can possibly do is to tighten up emissions standards PRONTO!!! We barely have any time!!!! Some one call Leonardo DiCaprio and tell him that ManBearPig is on the loose!! He was just seen buying an expresso at the StarBucks at West Gray in Houston, Texas, i.e., the End of the Universe!!!!
We need more documentaries! More Nobel Peace prizes??!!! More hysteria!!!!!
Bush and Cheney will HANG for never signing the beloved Kyoto Accords!!! They are terrorists and murderers!!!!!
Arrrrrrrgghhhhhhh!!!!!!! MANBEARPIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oso strong vs. 7000 strong.
Oso Famoso and I have been arguing in the comment section over whether the lack of early polling at PV A&M amounts to voter disenfranchisement. He thinks it's no big deal. I believe it is a clear continuation of Waller County's already legendary history of fighting the rights of black students to vote. From The Nation:
After DECADES of fighting for the right to vote in Waller county, you think it would be understandable why it is a really big deal to lose the only early voting site inside the county's only black population center.
Lincoln's been rolling in his grave ever since Nixon adopted the "southern strategy." I wonder when the GOP will ever let the poor man stop and rest upright
"For decades, Waller County has repressed the vote of the local historically black college, Prairie View A&M. In 1979, the Supreme Court stepped in to intercede, upholding A&M students' right to vote where they declare residency. Yet since then, the county has gone so far as to indict A&M students that vote, and in the 2004 case of one attorney general, even threaten such students with jail and $10,000 in fines.
But this election cycle, when the county eliminated the temporary early voting location adjacent to A&M, students rebelled. The county's only other early voting site was over 7 miles away from campus in the town of Hempstead--with no bus route connecting the two. And at a time when youth turnout is at record highs, says Sanders, A&M students were outraged. "This being a historically black university, and a presidential election when we're hearing things that we can relate to--I just [couldn't] believe it," Sanders said."
I bring this debate up again on this blog, because I think it is another important illumination of how far the right has fallen from once lofty principles. The republican party abolished slavery, for heaven's sake! But now the republican candidates won't deign to show up at black or latino sponsored debates, and they just won't do the work to understand where these voters are coming from, or why they might have legitimate grievances.After DECADES of fighting for the right to vote in Waller county, you think it would be understandable why it is a really big deal to lose the only early voting site inside the county's only black population center.
Lincoln's been rolling in his grave ever since Nixon adopted the "southern strategy." I wonder when the GOP will ever let the poor man stop and rest upright
For the proud Fox fans:
Walker, with the help of Thomas Sowell, continues to cherry-pick the New York Times record. Yes, the Times has had lapses in judgment (though in all fairness they weren't the only organizations to report on the Brawley and Duke Lacrosse cases.) I've acknowledged that repeatedly. But where is the acknowledgment of Fox's problems? You honestly think everything their talking heads say is true, or fair?
And what about the constant sleaze? Where is the accountability? I have to make a correction to my earlier post. Jenny reminded me that it wasn't Carmen Electra washing a car, it was Jessica Simpson. My bad. And I apologize to my readers who struggle with porn addiction - unlike Fox News I actually feel a bit bad for perpetuating meaningless, empty sexuality - but I have to post this to make my point: THIS is the video Fox needed to share with the world, because the Dukes of Hazzard movie release is just such an important current event.
I was conflating this with another Fox News Report that Jenny and I were outraged about - a Carmen Electra photo shoot for Maxim magazine. I kid you not. The whole piece was a video of her getting photographed, and then an interview with the Maxim editor, about how awesome it was to shoot her. Thanks Fox! That really takes the sting out of genocide in Darfur!
So give the NY Times credit for at least keeping its work on a much higher ground, even if they screw up sometimes. And here is another reason to give the NY Times credit. Fox News has sad-sack, failed lefties on its payroll, while the NY Times actually employs conservatives with some intellectual heft:
William Kristol David Brooks
There are 10 columnists at the NY Times. 2 of them are liberal idiots, (Dowd and Krugman) the rest are less political, mostly center-left, and 2 of them are really smart, accomplished conservative thinkers. Overall leftward bias? Absolutely. But you could add up the brain cells of every conservative at Fox, and the sum of that brain matter would fill one of those little plastic pails kids take to the beach. These NY Times columnists are brilliant, which shows that the Times is not afraid of hosting a strong debate. Unlike Fox.
It would all be different if conservativism were synonomous with the Wall Street Journal, another fine newspaper. But instead the republican base has its opinions and attitudes shaped on a daily basis by Fox. If I have to be associated with a high-brow newspaper full of original, quality writing, or a cable channel that is sleazy and shallow, with nothing but shrill commentary, I know which way to go.
And what about the constant sleaze? Where is the accountability? I have to make a correction to my earlier post. Jenny reminded me that it wasn't Carmen Electra washing a car, it was Jessica Simpson. My bad. And I apologize to my readers who struggle with porn addiction - unlike Fox News I actually feel a bit bad for perpetuating meaningless, empty sexuality - but I have to post this to make my point: THIS is the video Fox needed to share with the world, because the Dukes of Hazzard movie release is just such an important current event.
I was conflating this with another Fox News Report that Jenny and I were outraged about - a Carmen Electra photo shoot for Maxim magazine. I kid you not. The whole piece was a video of her getting photographed, and then an interview with the Maxim editor, about how awesome it was to shoot her. Thanks Fox! That really takes the sting out of genocide in Darfur!
So give the NY Times credit for at least keeping its work on a much higher ground, even if they screw up sometimes. And here is another reason to give the NY Times credit. Fox News has sad-sack, failed lefties on its payroll, while the NY Times actually employs conservatives with some intellectual heft:
William Kristol David Brooks
There are 10 columnists at the NY Times. 2 of them are liberal idiots, (Dowd and Krugman) the rest are less political, mostly center-left, and 2 of them are really smart, accomplished conservative thinkers. Overall leftward bias? Absolutely. But you could add up the brain cells of every conservative at Fox, and the sum of that brain matter would fill one of those little plastic pails kids take to the beach. These NY Times columnists are brilliant, which shows that the Times is not afraid of hosting a strong debate. Unlike Fox.
It would all be different if conservativism were synonomous with the Wall Street Journal, another fine newspaper. But instead the republican base has its opinions and attitudes shaped on a daily basis by Fox. If I have to be associated with a high-brow newspaper full of original, quality writing, or a cable channel that is sleazy and shallow, with nothing but shrill commentary, I know which way to go.
When you don't see me.....
I just learned that No Depression magazine is ceasing publication this spring. It's true that I haven't read it in years, but the magazine, the music it covered and the message board (anyone remember those) that preceded it were such an important part of my twenties. After I graduated from SMU and split Dallas for Austin, alternative country (whatever that is, as they say at ND) was ascendant, and believe me: spending your twenties in grad school and working, listening to stuff like the Old 97s and Wilco's first album, is a good gig.
RIP No Depression.
"I wish I had a lot of answers, cause that's the way it should be, to all these questions being directed at me. I just can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read."--Wilco, "Box Full of Letters" from AM
PS: Want to hear some of this stuff? Go set up a Pandora account and make a No Depression station. You won't regret it.
RIP No Depression.
"I wish I had a lot of answers, cause that's the way it should be, to all these questions being directed at me. I just can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read."--Wilco, "Box Full of Letters" from AM
PS: Want to hear some of this stuff? Go set up a Pandora account and make a No Depression station. You won't regret it.
Thomas Sowell Article: Bad Times
The front page of the New York Times has increasingly become the home of editorials disguised as "news" stories. Too often it has become the home of hoaxes.
Going back some years, it was the Tawana Brawley hoax that she had been gang-raped by a bunch of white men. Just a couple of years ago, it was the Duke University "rape" hoax that they fell for.
In between there were the various hoaxes of New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, who was kept on and promoted until too many people found out what he had been doing and the paper had to let him go.
Last month the New York Times created its own hoax with a long front page article about how war veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were killing people back in the United States because of the stress they had gone through in combat.
That hoax was shot down two days later by the New York Post, which showed that the murder rate among returning war veterans was only one-fifth the murder rate among civilians in the same age brackets.
Undaunted, the New York Times has come up with its latest front-page sensation, the claim that some anonymous people either suspected an affair between Senator John McCain and a female lobbyist or tried to forestall an affair.
But apparently no one actually claimed that they knew there was an affair.
This did not even rise to the level of "he said, she said." Instead it was anonymous sources reporting their suspicions.
People who share the New York Times' political views are treated as "innocent until proven guilty." People with different views are condemned for "the appearance of impropriety," even if there is no hard evidence that they did anything wrong.
In this latest "news" story about Senator McCain, the standard seems to be that anonymous sources suspected him of "the appearance of impropriety."
Nothing is easier than to have suspicions. In my younger years, I was suspected of having an affair with more than one attractive woman when -- alas -- there was nothing happening.
At the time, however, I felt flattered by the insinuations.
In 1976, when President Ford nominated me to the Federal Trade Commission, someone anonymously told an FBI investigator that I was a Communist.
Not even the people opposed to my nomination believed it and it was not reported in the New York Times.
This was back in the days when the Times still had a reputation for integrity, before the Jayson Blair hoaxes, the gang-rape hoaxes and the general prostitution of the front page to politics masquerading as news.
Over the years, the New York Times has increasingly discredited itself.
Not only have critics repeatedly exposed their tendentious use of their "news" stories, even the Times' own "public editor" or ombudsman has now said that they should not have run the McCain insinuation story.
The declining credibility of the New York Times and of other tendentious media is, in one sense, a healthy thing. There has been too much public gullibility that has been cynically exploited by both the media and politicians.
In another sense, however, it is a sad day for the country as a whole that there are shrinking sources of reliable news and informed and honest commentary.
Hysteria has become the norm for too many once-serious publications, whether it has been hysteria for the purpose of hyping circulation or to advance some political agenda.
The rise of alternative media -- notably talk radio -- has limited how much the mainstream media can get away with.
Dan Rather's fake memo about President Bush's National Guard service might have gone unchallenged, and affected an election, back in the old days when the media consisted largely of like-minded colleagues who would not embarrass one of their own.
Bloggers and talk radio shot that one down. But it is doubtful if we have seen the last of the journalistic hoaxes.
Not in an election year.
The Fight of The Century
Missy says in her coments:
"Coulter and Limbaugh - not a fan of either. Rude & crude.
But Dobson? Trust me, my husband is not a better person than James Dobson."
Well. Then as they say in MTV Celebrity Deathmatch, LETS GET IT ON!
In the right corner, wearing a banana-hammock, weighing way too much, hailing from some random army base in Japan.......Waaaaalker "ManBearPig" Dollahaaaaaan!
In the left corner, wearing a dark suit over his robe of rightousness, hailing from the fertile intellectual ground that is Shreveport, Louisiana, James "Civil War of Values" Dooooobsoooon!
Ok, Walker may not be a godlier person than James Dobson, though I wouldn't be so quick to toss your husband under the truck for someone who is a big-time parachurch Christian celebrity who likes to stay in the limelight. A lot of people would have said Walker is less godly than Ted Haggard too. You just can't ever be sure where people rank on the godli-meter. Because, you know what, only God is in possession of a godli-meter that really works.
James Dobson is remarkably out of touch with the world, and very counter-productive. His gay conversion ministries have not done anything to strengthen hetero marriages or convert homos in meaningful numbers. But they have antagonized non-Christians (and many Christians) and gays to no end. Last time I checked, we are called to be winsome, not antagonistic.
The "my way or the highway" ultimatums he has made to the world and the GOP have not resulted in better, godlier leadership, but a broken-down, scandal-ridden, big-spending party. And now that he won't work with McCain it IS going to be the highway, for both him and the GOP.
Instead of working with the rest of America to solve problems, he creates a militaristic, us-vs-them climate that has damaged the church and the country, while accomplishing precious few of his goals. (1 in 5 pregnancies still end in abortion, gay culture has prospered, hetero marriages are as unstable as ever...etc. etc.) And he does not address poverty much at all, which I would argue the bible commands us to address a lot more than homosexuality, in a ratio of about, oh 1000 to 1.
So is Dobson godlier than Walker? Does he pray more, or study the bible more? I don't know. Probably. But I will say this. He has done more to diminish the glory and mystery of the Church than Walker has. He has represented the love and mercy and rightousness of Christ much less than Walker has.
Winner, after 10 rounds, by biblical knock-out: WALKER DOLLAHAN!
"Coulter and Limbaugh - not a fan of either. Rude & crude.
But Dobson? Trust me, my husband is not a better person than James Dobson."
Well. Then as they say in MTV Celebrity Deathmatch, LETS GET IT ON!
In the right corner, wearing a banana-hammock, weighing way too much, hailing from some random army base in Japan.......Waaaaalker "ManBearPig" Dollahaaaaaan!
In the left corner, wearing a dark suit over his robe of rightousness, hailing from the fertile intellectual ground that is Shreveport, Louisiana, James "Civil War of Values" Dooooobsoooon!
Ok, Walker may not be a godlier person than James Dobson, though I wouldn't be so quick to toss your husband under the truck for someone who is a big-time parachurch Christian celebrity who likes to stay in the limelight. A lot of people would have said Walker is less godly than Ted Haggard too. You just can't ever be sure where people rank on the godli-meter. Because, you know what, only God is in possession of a godli-meter that really works.
James Dobson is remarkably out of touch with the world, and very counter-productive. His gay conversion ministries have not done anything to strengthen hetero marriages or convert homos in meaningful numbers. But they have antagonized non-Christians (and many Christians) and gays to no end. Last time I checked, we are called to be winsome, not antagonistic.
The "my way or the highway" ultimatums he has made to the world and the GOP have not resulted in better, godlier leadership, but a broken-down, scandal-ridden, big-spending party. And now that he won't work with McCain it IS going to be the highway, for both him and the GOP.
Instead of working with the rest of America to solve problems, he creates a militaristic, us-vs-them climate that has damaged the church and the country, while accomplishing precious few of his goals. (1 in 5 pregnancies still end in abortion, gay culture has prospered, hetero marriages are as unstable as ever...etc. etc.) And he does not address poverty much at all, which I would argue the bible commands us to address a lot more than homosexuality, in a ratio of about, oh 1000 to 1.
So is Dobson godlier than Walker? Does he pray more, or study the bible more? I don't know. Probably. But I will say this. He has done more to diminish the glory and mystery of the Church than Walker has. He has represented the love and mercy and rightousness of Christ much less than Walker has.
Winner, after 10 rounds, by biblical knock-out: WALKER DOLLAHAN!
Monday, February 25, 2008
7 Mile (But not Shady)
I think this video is super cool. Waller County is famous for trying, year after year, to not let Prairie View A&M students affect their local elections. So they put the only early voting site 7 miles from campus, even though thousands of students vote at Prairie View. A real attempt at disenfranchisement. In response, the students organized a march to the polling station and shut down the highway. 7 miles! Impressive.
I prefer not to solicit news media that hates people like me.....
Former NYT Editorial Page Editor on GOP:
"These People Are Nuts"
"Gail Collins served six years as editor of the Times editorial page, and had previously served on the editorial board.
Those years of experience no doubt equipped her with the ability to make such deep insights into politics as this, from her recent column, in which she is apparently trying to show less class than her colleague Maureen Dowd. 
'Meanwhile, the Republican far right has fallen into a remarkable snit over John McCain’s march to the nomination. Rush Limbaugh is virtually gnawing his own ankle in rage.
By co-authoring legislation with Democrats, Limbaugh ranted, McCain was working with “threats to the American way of life as we’ve always known it.”
James Dobson says he won’t vote if McCain is the nominee because of infractions ranging from failure to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to “foul and obscene language.”
Ann Coulter claims she’d support Clinton “because she’s more conservative than he is.”
Once again, the reason for everything terrible about American politics for the last 20 years becomes clear. These people are nuts.'"
Nice, and classy. This is a column, an opinion piece, I get that (one very poorly written, in my opinion - these people aren't very good!) but what she is doing is "opening the kimono"a bit showing the world how she and her colleagues really view conservative Republicans.
It's not that the New York Times is liberal. That's fine. What really makes me mad is that they claim to be "the newspaper of record", an unbiased paragon to truth and honesty when in all reality they are inward-gazing, arrogant, elitists in the highest order.
I will not shed a tear on their behalf. The world has moved on and they will shortly be history.
The Old Gray Lady......a shell of what it used to be......
"On Monday, September 10, 2007, the Times ran a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org questioning the integrity of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, entitled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The Times only charged MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, $65,000 for the advertisement that, according to public relations director Abbe Serphos, normally costs around $181,692, or roughly a 64% discount. Serphos declined to explain the discount."
"This place is like ManBearPig central......"
From the National Post:
"Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year."
Johnny "Wishful Thinking" Walker
I am amazed by Walker's rose-colored Ray-bans. In various comments on this blog he has made this claim that Obama and McCain are running "neck and neck". I don't think 4-8 points in every poll is "neck and neck". That's a big gap in the general election. Add to that the fact that Obama is outraising McCain by big margins (and will continue to do so), and that Obama has a huge battle-tested campaign organization. It's fired up! Ready to go!
And Walker's comparison to Dukakis is false. Dukakis lost 12 points to George Bush Sr. because he has as much charisma as a turd. The closer you look at Dukakis, the more you want to look away. Obama is the exact opposite. In side-by-side comparisons with McCain, Obama will look inspirational, and McCain will look like someone's crazy old grandpa. Who just might shoot you.
If Obama can beat Clinton, after being down 30 pts, he can beat McCain when he is up 4. Especially with a dispirited, frustrated republican base.
And Walker's comparison to Dukakis is false. Dukakis lost 12 points to George Bush Sr. because he has as much charisma as a turd. The closer you look at Dukakis, the more you want to look away. Obama is the exact opposite. In side-by-side comparisons with McCain, Obama will look inspirational, and McCain will look like someone's crazy old grandpa. Who just might shoot you.
If Obama can beat Clinton, after being down 30 pts, he can beat McCain when he is up 4. Especially with a dispirited, frustrated republican base.
| RCP Average | 02/07 - 02/20 | - | 43.0 | 47.2 | 9.0 | Obama +4.2 |
| FOX News | 02/19 - 02/20 | 900 RV | 43 | 47 | 10 | Obama +4.0 |
| Hotline/FD | 02/14 - 02/17 | 803 RV | 40 | 48 | 9 | Obama +8.0 |
| Reuters/Zogby | 02/13 - 02/16 | 928 LV | 40 | 47 | 13 | Obama +7.0 |
| USA Today/Gallup | 02/08 - 02/10 | 706 LV | 46 | 50 | 4 | Obama +4.0 |
| AP-Ipsos | 02/07 - 02/10 | 1,029 A | 42 | 48 | 8 | Obama +6.0 |
| Time | 02/01 - 02/04 | 958 LV | 41 | 48 | 6 | Obama +7.0 |
Kicking Fox when its down, part two
What is the big story on Fox News right now? The stupid Somali outfit. Total garbage. CNN and MSNBC are at least running top stories about nukes in Korea and Musharraf stepping down, but Fox thinks that HRC and Obama's campaigns sniping at each other over a 2 year old photo is super big news.
Fox News LOVES to make the trivial seem important (like when Obama didn't put his hand on heart.) Sadly, it's the GOP that is about to become trivial. I wish the average republican could grasp how much the conservative mind is narrowing, shutting down. There are still smart people on the right, but they increasingly surrounded by Fox News zombie-dom.
Fox News LOVES to make the trivial seem important (like when Obama didn't put his hand on heart.) Sadly, it's the GOP that is about to become trivial. I wish the average republican could grasp how much the conservative mind is narrowing, shutting down. There are still smart people on the right, but they increasingly surrounded by Fox News zombie-dom.
I HEART NYTIMES
So Dad, do you subscribe to the New York Times? We do. And I've also watched hours upon hours of Fox News at your house, as well as at the in-laws' house. I've even watched a bit at Walker's house! Because everywhere you go, if a conservative has the TV on, it is switched to Fox News. You wouldn't touch the NY Times with a ten foot pole, so I'm not sure how you can make an objective assessment of its quality.
Jenny and I have even taken to listening to Fox News on the radio, because when it comes to coverage of the democratic race, they are surprisingly even-handed. They dislike Hillary and Obama equally, which provides for a weird sort of neutrality, though we've noticed they are coming after Obama more, now that he is the front-runner.
I take great issue with your claim that NYT has no journalistic standards. I would rephrase it like this - the Times has amazing journalistic standards, which it often violates when it comes to reporting on politics (which is only one of many sections in the paper.) So I agree, their liberal bias shows itself at times, when they are reporting on politics.
But to claim Fox News is either balanced, or does any actual "reporting" is ludicrous. Fox news has made a big industry out of plucking stories off the news wires, and then commenting on them. That is not reporting. They don't do any investigating, or analysis, they just comment, comment, comment, spin, spin, spin.
And please don't try to tell me their talking heads are balanced. We know who their big stars are: O'Reilly, who for all his cranky faux-populism is a deep conservative. Hannity, who is the star of his show (Colmes is a joke, and hardly a champion of the left. He is widely hated by the left for sitting back and meekly letting Hannity rule the roost. There's a reason Hannity's name is first, despite C coming before H.) and Hume, who is probably a little but to the right. There are no liberal stars, just a handful of sad, defeated pawns who are happy to pick up a check from Fox News and be punching bags for the network, so that Fox can call itself "balanced".
And yet, I don't think that is the real crime Fox News has committed. I understand and accept that Fox News is a conservative news organization, purposefully created to counteract "liberal" stations like CNN, with a huge conservative audience. But I am okay with that (though I wish Fox would be more honest about it's bias, and Fox viewers would drop the facade that Fox is somehow impartial.) The New York Times should be more upfront about its liberal bias as well.
What really bothers me is how Fox News has killed off what used to be fairly robust conservative thought. I remember back in the day when Gingrich and his republican revolution buddies made thoughtful, strong arguments and had new ideas about how to solve real problems. Like welfare reform, school choice, and term limits. They hashed those ideas out in small magazines like National Review and the Weekly Standard. There were influential think tanks like the Heritage foundation. You really felt like there was something of an intellectual movement among conservatives.
The day I knew the conservative mind was in a LOT of trouble was about 5 years ago, when Jenny and I were watching Fox News at my parent's house, and the anchor was excitedly telling us to stay tuned to see this creature:
And behold, a "News" piece about Carmen Electra getting wet while at a car wash followed.
I have searched in vain on-line for the original piece we saw, but Jenny can verify my account. But don't be disappointed; you can go to the Fox News "Carmen Electra Celebrity Center" where you can check out their crack reporting on her split with Dave Navarro, etc.
So a recap of what Fox News excels at - commenting on the crimes of the left, celebrity garbage, and last but not least - sensational death and murder! How many time did Fox News report on Ann Holloway? Do a search on the Fox website: 735 items. NY Times website: 35. And the worst thing is that MSNBC and CNN have all been emulating Fox for years to try and catch up in the ratings. Remember all that awesome 24 hour hard news coverage we got from CNN during the first Iraq war? Forget it. It's all opinion now, "breaking news" about bizarre crimes, and celebrities, on all three cable news networks. The only difference is that MSNBC and CNN don't want to appear too conservative, so they try to push their "cranky populist" O'Reilly clones: Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews.
So let's sample some headlines from the Fox News website today
Hello: GERALDO RIVERA?????
I challenge you to go take a look at the NY Times website. Nothing bizarre, nothing grotesque, nothing cheap or trivial. Just headline after headline of reporting, all done in-house, on serious topics, of real national importance or cultural relevance (at least to anyone who might have a vague idea of what culture is.) Amazing arts sections, book reviews, travel and leisure, all of it is interesting and well-written. And most of all, deep, deep reporting by, done by their own journalist (not the AP, like Fox.) travelling all over the world.
In conclusion, I believe that conservatives need to take a long hard look at their chosen mouthpieces and media. It was bad enough when talk radio was the best they had, but since the rise of Fox News, things have really sunk to new lows. And if the New York Times is indeed just a shill for democrats and liberals as the right likes to accuse it of being, then democrats and liberals have a lot to be proud of.
Walker and Dave, I will pay for a subscription to the New York Times for one month for both of you, if you promise to read at least 50 percent of it. If, after doing so, you can look me in the eye and say that Fox News is more substantive, and more balanced, then I guess you win the argument.
Jenny and I have even taken to listening to Fox News on the radio, because when it comes to coverage of the democratic race, they are surprisingly even-handed. They dislike Hillary and Obama equally, which provides for a weird sort of neutrality, though we've noticed they are coming after Obama more, now that he is the front-runner.
I take great issue with your claim that NYT has no journalistic standards. I would rephrase it like this - the Times has amazing journalistic standards, which it often violates when it comes to reporting on politics (which is only one of many sections in the paper.) So I agree, their liberal bias shows itself at times, when they are reporting on politics.
But to claim Fox News is either balanced, or does any actual "reporting" is ludicrous. Fox news has made a big industry out of plucking stories off the news wires, and then commenting on them. That is not reporting. They don't do any investigating, or analysis, they just comment, comment, comment, spin, spin, spin.
And please don't try to tell me their talking heads are balanced. We know who their big stars are: O'Reilly, who for all his cranky faux-populism is a deep conservative. Hannity, who is the star of his show (Colmes is a joke, and hardly a champion of the left. He is widely hated by the left for sitting back and meekly letting Hannity rule the roost. There's a reason Hannity's name is first, despite C coming before H.) and Hume, who is probably a little but to the right. There are no liberal stars, just a handful of sad, defeated pawns who are happy to pick up a check from Fox News and be punching bags for the network, so that Fox can call itself "balanced".
And yet, I don't think that is the real crime Fox News has committed. I understand and accept that Fox News is a conservative news organization, purposefully created to counteract "liberal" stations like CNN, with a huge conservative audience. But I am okay with that (though I wish Fox would be more honest about it's bias, and Fox viewers would drop the facade that Fox is somehow impartial.) The New York Times should be more upfront about its liberal bias as well.
What really bothers me is how Fox News has killed off what used to be fairly robust conservative thought. I remember back in the day when Gingrich and his republican revolution buddies made thoughtful, strong arguments and had new ideas about how to solve real problems. Like welfare reform, school choice, and term limits. They hashed those ideas out in small magazines like National Review and the Weekly Standard. There were influential think tanks like the Heritage foundation. You really felt like there was something of an intellectual movement among conservatives.
The day I knew the conservative mind was in a LOT of trouble was about 5 years ago, when Jenny and I were watching Fox News at my parent's house, and the anchor was excitedly telling us to stay tuned to see this creature:
And behold, a "News" piece about Carmen Electra getting wet while at a car wash followed.
I have searched in vain on-line for the original piece we saw, but Jenny can verify my account. But don't be disappointed; you can go to the Fox News "Carmen Electra Celebrity Center" where you can check out their crack reporting on her split with Dave Navarro, etc.
So a recap of what Fox News excels at - commenting on the crimes of the left, celebrity garbage, and last but not least - sensational death and murder! How many time did Fox News report on Ann Holloway? Do a search on the Fox website: 735 items. NY Times website: 35. And the worst thing is that MSNBC and CNN have all been emulating Fox for years to try and catch up in the ratings. Remember all that awesome 24 hour hard news coverage we got from CNN during the first Iraq war? Forget it. It's all opinion now, "breaking news" about bizarre crimes, and celebrities, on all three cable news networks. The only difference is that MSNBC and CNN don't want to appear too conservative, so they try to push their "cranky populist" O'Reilly clones: Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews.
So let's sample some headlines from the Fox News website today
- Cops: 3 Men, Juvenile Raped Woman at Hawaii Capitol
- Lion Tears Off 10-Year-Old Boy's Arm at Circus
- Gynecologist Accused of Mutilating Hundreds of Women
- Ride-On Lawnmower 'Accidentally' Chops Monk to Pieces
- PHOTOS: Men in Thongs Play in Mud to Ward Off Evil
- Man Chokes to Death After Fairy Cake-Eating Contest
- Midwife Tells Couples to 'Make Out' During Childbirth
Hello: GERALDO RIVERA?????
I challenge you to go take a look at the NY Times website. Nothing bizarre, nothing grotesque, nothing cheap or trivial. Just headline after headline of reporting, all done in-house, on serious topics, of real national importance or cultural relevance (at least to anyone who might have a vague idea of what culture is.) Amazing arts sections, book reviews, travel and leisure, all of it is interesting and well-written. And most of all, deep, deep reporting by, done by their own journalist (not the AP, like Fox.) travelling all over the world.
In conclusion, I believe that conservatives need to take a long hard look at their chosen mouthpieces and media. It was bad enough when talk radio was the best they had, but since the rise of Fox News, things have really sunk to new lows. And if the New York Times is indeed just a shill for democrats and liberals as the right likes to accuse it of being, then democrats and liberals have a lot to be proud of.
Walker and Dave, I will pay for a subscription to the New York Times for one month for both of you, if you promise to read at least 50 percent of it. If, after doing so, you can look me in the eye and say that Fox News is more substantive, and more balanced, then I guess you win the argument.
If Democrats learn one thing from this recent dust up......
....its that they should NEVER wear hats under ANY circumstances........ ;-)
This is despicable.....
Let me just say that if the Clinton campaign is behind this smear campaign they need to be ROUNDLY rebuked by all Americans.
Let's win and lose on the issues not subtle appears to religious and racial bigotry.
Its not unusual for honored guests to be given local ceremonial garb when visiting foreign nations.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
He's Back!
Yep, like the changing of the seasons, everyone's favorite overweening narcissist is back!!!I, of course, am talking about Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidate and anti-corporate zealot who arguably gave Bush the presidency in 2000.
Ol' Man Nader has pledged to run again in November '08 as an independent.
The Democrats are furious this morning, as they should be.
Nader can easily siphon off a point or two from the Democrats and in a tight race that can make all the difference.
Obama doesn't need this......
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Fox vs NYT
Methinks you miss the point about the problem at the Times. It is beyond debate that it is liberal, although I am glad you gritted your teeth and actually made your fingers type out that admission. The issue is that it has no journalistic standards. It is so agenda driven that it fails every journalism school smell test invented by real journalists back in the 50's... and worse yet is not even ashamed enough to try to change. It gets worse every decade. It's editorial page morphed into the news pages years ago.
As for Fox, if you watched, which you don't, you would see that for every conservative pundit they have address an issue their is a liberal one sitting right next to his side. My better half gets irritated listening to the likes of Alan Colmbs, Lanny Davis, Bob Beckle and their ilk...but they get half the dialog time to make the point that Fox is trying to offer both opinions in their effort to some balance. There are literally dozens of these libs on Fox and they get the opportunity to give full throat to your agenda. Yes it tends right but surveys have shown the average cable viewer ( of all political stripes) thinks Fox is more trustworthy than the other cable channels. Not that any of them attain much of a high water mark in reaching professional journalism standards
Care to tell me how many conservatives work for or write for the Times. You can count them on one hand. Do you seriously think they can even pretend to be balanced or offer any opposing views??? Before you call Fox names, suggest you watch it.....you will see many of your favorite libs. This afternoon we were watching the saturday program that reviews news coverage, hot stories, evaluates journalism in print and on tv.....yep half the commentators were r and half d's. One of the libs is Jane Hall...know her? She is a professor of journalism at American University.....stays busy cranking out more lib cub reporters and talking heads. A nice lady but totally unable to wrap her mouth around the words
"liberal bias".
As for Fox, if you watched, which you don't, you would see that for every conservative pundit they have address an issue their is a liberal one sitting right next to his side. My better half gets irritated listening to the likes of Alan Colmbs, Lanny Davis, Bob Beckle and their ilk...but they get half the dialog time to make the point that Fox is trying to offer both opinions in their effort to some balance. There are literally dozens of these libs on Fox and they get the opportunity to give full throat to your agenda. Yes it tends right but surveys have shown the average cable viewer ( of all political stripes) thinks Fox is more trustworthy than the other cable channels. Not that any of them attain much of a high water mark in reaching professional journalism standards
Care to tell me how many conservatives work for or write for the Times. You can count them on one hand. Do you seriously think they can even pretend to be balanced or offer any opposing views??? Before you call Fox names, suggest you watch it.....you will see many of your favorite libs. This afternoon we were watching the saturday program that reviews news coverage, hot stories, evaluates journalism in print and on tv.....yep half the commentators were r and half d's. One of the libs is Jane Hall...know her? She is a professor of journalism at American University.....stays busy cranking out more lib cub reporters and talking heads. A nice lady but totally unable to wrap her mouth around the words
"liberal bias".
This is sooooooooooo tired...............
This is sooooooooooo tired............
Didn't all these yahoos tour the country - coast to coast - back in '04 in the "Vote for Change" tour, endlessly trying to get Kerry elected over Bush, all to no avail?
Now they are all releasing a 30 song double album ranting and raving about the same stuff? Does this kind of thing really have resonance anymore? Didn't like five or six anti-war Hollywood movies fall on their face last year, over and over and over again?
No one, not even the most left-wing, anti-war activist - not even Maker's Mark and H Town Jenny - want to have ponderous, vapid, one note, didactic crapola funneled down their throats, even if they are sympathetic with the politics.
These artists really need to find a new muse and they need to find one fast.
If Obama becomes president one of the things I look forward to is all these whinny, wuss lame-O's like Eddie Vedder and Neil Young (WHO ISN'T EVEN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) can finally shut their collective cake holes and start whining about something else.
The Answer is so damn clear....
The development of compilers has improved consistent hashing, and current trends suggest that the analysis of linked lists will soon emerge. In will now disprove the improvement of hash tables. TONGA, our new methodology for trainable epistemologies, is the solution to all of these grand challenges.
In designing our application, we drew on prior work from a number of distinct areas. A recent unpublished undergraduate dissertation proposed a similar idea for symbiotic information [10]. A novel approach for the visualization of semaphores [25] proposed by Harris et al. fails to address several key issues that TONGA does solve [15]. Thusly, despite substantial work in this area, our solution is clearly the heuristic of choice among analysts [11,3,21].
Our approach builds on existing work in heterogeneous technology and cyberinformatics [5]. Continuing with this rationale, Bose motivated several authenticated approaches [6,25,8], and reported that they have tremendous inability to effect scalable information [4]. Along these same lines, we had our approach in mind before John Hennessy et al. published the recent infamous work on DHCP [12,24,22]. Next, a litany of previous work supports our use of interactive algorithms [4]. Therefore, comparisons to this work are unreasonable. Finally, the application of Z. Zhou is an important choice for collaborative archetypes [13].
TONGA relies on the technical methodology outlined in the recent seminal work by Martinez and Zheng in the field of operating systems. Although steganographers rarely believe the exact opposite, TONGA depends on this property for correct behavior. Further, we consider a system consisting of n interrupts. This seems to hold in most cases. We assume that each component of our methodology learns the deployment of scatter/gather I/O, independent of all other components. Consider the early model by Martin et al.; our methodology is similar, but will actually realize this intent [7].
TONGA relies on the key architecture outlined in the recent well-known work by U. R. Wilson et al. in the field of cryptoanalysis. We consider a framework consisting of n randomized algorithms. TONGA does not require such a confusing location to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. TONGA does not require such a typical development to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. It might seem counterintuitive but is supported by related work in the field. Thus, the model that TONGA uses is solidly grounded in reality. Of course, this is not always the case.
Unified classical information have led to many key advances, including I/O automata and the Turing machine. The notion that systems engineers synchronize with IPv7 is entirely considered practical. after years of significant research into e-business, we verify the improvement of I/O automata, which embodies the intuitive principles of complexity theory. Therefore, lossless algorithms and self-learning models offer a viable alternative to the synthesis of voice-over-IP.
Motivated by these observations, "fuzzy" symmetries and superblocks have been extensively synthesized by statisticians. However, the refinement of the Ethernet might not be the panacea that statisticians expected. The basic tenet of this solution is the study of extreme programming. Nevertheless, B-trees [26,16] might not be the panacea that information theorists expected [26]. Clearly, we allow IPv6 to enable unstable algorithms without the construction of sensor networks.
Motivated by these observations, "fuzzy" symmetries and superblocks have been extensively synthesized by statisticians. However, the refinement of the Ethernet might not be the panacea that statisticians expected. The basic tenet of this solution is the study of extreme programming. Nevertheless, B-trees [26,16] might not be the panacea that information theorists expected [26]. Clearly, we allow IPv6 to enable unstable algorithms without the construction of sensor networks.
I propose an analysis of write-ahead logging (TONGA), which I use to validate that simulated annealing can be made efficient, event-driven, and semantic. Despite the fact that conventional wisdom states that this question is mostly surmounted by the study of Smalltalk, we believe that a different solution is necessary. I emphasize that our framework deploys low-energy information. Certainly, I view e-voting technology as following a cycle of four phases: synthesis, visualization, development, and management. For example, many heuristics develop the understanding of the transistor. Combined with flexible algorithms, it simulates a system for object-oriented languages.
To my knowledge, my work in this position paper marks the first application synthesized specifically for Boolean logic. I view programming languages as following a cycle of four phases: construction, evaluation, visualization, and allowance. Indeed, I/O automata and wide-area networks have a long history of colluding in this manner. Even though previous solutions to this grand challenge are useful, none have taken the efficient method I propose in our research. Indeed, consistent hashing and 802.11b have a long history of cooperating in this manner [22]. Existing multimodal and authenticated frameworks use interrupts to visualize replication.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. I motivate the need for hash tables. I validate the deployment of rasterization. I place my work in context with the related work in this area. Furthermore, to fix this problem, I prove that while 4 bit architectures can be made empathic, empathic, and robust, cache coherence and forward-error correction can connect to solve this question. In the end, I conclude that manbearpig does in fact exist.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. I motivate the need for hash tables. I validate the deployment of rasterization. I place my work in context with the related work in this area. Furthermore, to fix this problem, I prove that while 4 bit architectures can be made empathic, empathic, and robust, cache coherence and forward-error correction can connect to solve this question. In the end, I conclude that manbearpig does in fact exist.
In designing our application, we drew on prior work from a number of distinct areas. A recent unpublished undergraduate dissertation proposed a similar idea for symbiotic information [10]. A novel approach for the visualization of semaphores [25] proposed by Harris et al. fails to address several key issues that TONGA does solve [15]. Thusly, despite substantial work in this area, our solution is clearly the heuristic of choice among analysts [11,3,21].Our approach builds on existing work in heterogeneous technology and cyberinformatics [5]. Continuing with this rationale, Bose motivated several authenticated approaches [6,25,8], and reported that they have tremendous inability to effect scalable information [4]. Along these same lines, we had our approach in mind before John Hennessy et al. published the recent infamous work on DHCP [12,24,22]. Next, a litany of previous work supports our use of interactive algorithms [4]. Therefore, comparisons to this work are unreasonable. Finally, the application of Z. Zhou is an important choice for collaborative archetypes [13].
A major source of our inspiration is early work by M. Anderson et al. [20] on optimal methodologies [18,23,5,3]. A comprehensive survey [9] is available in this space. A litany of prior work supports our use of mobile algorithms [17]. All of these approaches conflict with our assumption that web browsers and the memory bus are theoretical.
Reality aside, we would like to synthesize an architecture for how TONGA might behave in theory. On a similar note, any compelling visualization of replication will clearly require that DHTs can be made read-write, scalable, and read-write; TONGA is no different [19]. Our system does not require such an important allowance to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt [14,13,13]. We consider an algorithm consisting of n linked lists. The question is, will TONGA satisfy all of these assumptions? Exactly so.
Reality aside, we would like to synthesize an architecture for how TONGA might behave in theory. On a similar note, any compelling visualization of replication will clearly require that DHTs can be made read-write, scalable, and read-write; TONGA is no different [19]. Our system does not require such an important allowance to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt [14,13,13]. We consider an algorithm consisting of n linked lists. The question is, will TONGA satisfy all of these assumptions? Exactly so.
TONGA relies on the technical methodology outlined in the recent seminal work by Martinez and Zheng in the field of operating systems. Although steganographers rarely believe the exact opposite, TONGA depends on this property for correct behavior. Further, we consider a system consisting of n interrupts. This seems to hold in most cases. We assume that each component of our methodology learns the deployment of scatter/gather I/O, independent of all other components. Consider the early model by Martin et al.; our methodology is similar, but will actually realize this intent [7].TONGA relies on the key architecture outlined in the recent well-known work by U. R. Wilson et al. in the field of cryptoanalysis. We consider a framework consisting of n randomized algorithms. TONGA does not require such a confusing location to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. TONGA does not require such a typical development to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. It might seem counterintuitive but is supported by related work in the field. Thus, the model that TONGA uses is solidly grounded in reality. Of course, this is not always the case.
Our experiences with TONGA and the refinement of compilers validate that systems and virtual machines are regularly incompatible [1]. Further, our application is not able to successfully explore many hierarchical databases at once. We confirmed that even though active networks and A* search can cooperate to accomplish this intent, the acclaimed highly-available algorithm for the analysis of linked lists by Suzuki is in Co-NP. We see no reason not to use our algorithm for controlling simulated annealing. Most importantly I certainly believe that manbearpig doth exist.
Sufjan Stevens
I have called you children, I have called you son.
What is there to answer if I'm the only one?
Morning comes in Paradise, morning comes in light.
Still I must obey, still I must invite.
If there's anything to say, if there's anything to do,
If there's any other way, I'll do anything for you.
I was dressed embarrassment.
I was dressed in wine.
If you had a part of me, will you take you're time?
Even if I come back, even if I die.
Is there some idea to replace my life?
Like a father to impress;
Like a mother's mourning dress,
If you ever make a mess, I'll do anything for you.
I have called you preacher; I have called you son.
If you have a father or if you haven't one,
I'll do anything for you. I did everything for you.
For the second time in my adult life I am annoyed by a presidential candidates wife.......
"Hope is making a comeback, and let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."
For the first time in her adult life?
For the first time in her adult life?!!
Michelle Obama is 44. She's been an adult since she was 21, or 1985.
Since 1985, I guess the liberation of Kuwait, the Bosnian Campaign, the out-pouring of relief we extended after the tsunami wasn't worthy of pride.....
On a personal level, this is coming from a woman who lives in a nation that has provided her the opportunity to go to Princeton University, to go to Harvard Law, then get a job in a top law firm, and make $342,000-a year job doing community relations for the University of Chicago hospital system.
What a crappy country we live in.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Almost a mil.
Even if Walker and Davegator resign Obama to the deepest darkest pits of left-wing hell, I hope they will look in to their hearts and give him credit for this:
He has made people care about politics again. The number of people, especially young people, who have had a little lightbulb go off in their head, and who have come out and donated, campaigned, voted, watched debates...it's amazing.
ONCE AGAIN: POSTED BY MARK, not that I am in disagreement, but I wouldn't have said it just like this.
Now THIS is all too real.......
I thought we Houstonians might dig this. I love Lewis Black.
PS: Posted by Mark
PS: Posted by Mark
Conciliatory post #449.637 part B
I would like to repeat that I think the Times coverage of the McCain "scandal" was bogus. When I read the article this morning, I really didn't think it implied there WAS an affair, but that it just looked like it. Well, upon further reflection, they really had no business reporting on something that may have just "looked like" an affair. That was hurtful to McCain, his family, and a war hero just deserves better. Pretty bad judgment on the part of the Times.
I have to say, his wife and the lobbyist do look an awful lot alike.....weird. I am not insinuating anything. Really. But they could be sisters.
I have to say, his wife and the lobbyist do look an awful lot alike.....weird. I am not insinuating anything. Really. But they could be sisters.
I believe that children are the future
Do you actually think that complex societal problems are actually solved by government spending?
I believe that people who think in absolutes are not helpful. I believe that people who are not willing to entertain other ideas hurt this country. I believe that no one party has all the answers.
I believe in dialogue. I believe there were times when government spending helped this country (world war 2, the great depression) and there were times when it hurt this country (public housing, welfare programs.) I do not believe ALL public spending programs are bad, or all good, or all the same. I believe complex societal problems are just that, complex, which is why I would much rather have a brilliant man like Barack Obama spending our billions in an attempt to solve them, rather than Bush, who was a C student, a D businessman, and an F president.
I believe that people who think in absolutes are not helpful. I believe that people who are not willing to entertain other ideas hurt this country. I believe that no one party has all the answers.
I believe in dialogue. I believe there were times when government spending helped this country (world war 2, the great depression) and there were times when it hurt this country (public housing, welfare programs.) I do not believe ALL public spending programs are bad, or all good, or all the same. I believe complex societal problems are just that, complex, which is why I would much rather have a brilliant man like Barack Obama spending our billions in an attempt to solve them, rather than Bush, who was a C student, a D businessman, and an F president.
Maker's Mark and Economics.....a Fragile Connection
I hate to say it but Maker's Mark's understanding of macro-economics resembles the image on the left.
So all you got to do is, 1) tax heavily, and 2) spend thoroughly, exploding the federal budget $850B in the process, and as a result a plethora of miraculously wonderful things begin to happen.
The Oprah-tization of America continues unabated.
Why stop there, I ask?
Let's....I don't know, DOUBLE the federal budget over the first Obama term?
I think we should give everyone "free" health care, a "free" college education, a "free" first car, government subsidized spa treatments, mortgage debt relief for all citizens, individual concierge service for every person, "free" gas in the winters and "free" electric service in the summers, $10,000 upon graduating from high school, $30,000 upon graduating from college, $50,000 for every couple getting married.....oh and $50,000 for every couple getting divorced.....
Do you actually think that complex societal problems are actually solved by government spending?
Do you know that since Johnson's War on Poverty started in the mid-1960's the US has spent over nine trillion dollars fighting poverty.....that's a nine followed by nine zeros.....but yet, strangely, poverty persists....it's almost like just money doesn't solve problems.....but that can't be......
There is indeed a cost associated with re-directing assets and resources towards endeavors like this.
Huge costs.
Step right up and win a teddy bear for the pretty lady!
I would like to make the following challenge. Before going any further, you have to promise, as a man or woman of honor, that you will not cheat. Anyone who has posted or commented on this blog and does not play is a big fat weenie.
Ready.........scroll down.......
Ok, in the next 15 seconds, list John McCain's legislative accomplishments on a piece of paper or desktop note, OTHER than McCain-Feingold (which everyone knows about and all republicans hate anyway.) Write down the legislative accomplishments on a piece of paper and describe them in specific terms and detail. Take what you've written, and post it in the comments section, without editing, and WITHOUT doing any kind of research to jog your memory, add specifics, bill names, details etc.
If you are a Hillary supporter, do the same. But it has to be legislative accomplishments. As in, bills passed while in Senate.
I call this the What's Up Kirk Watson challenge. Anyone can play. My results are posted. Do NOT look at other people's comments before writing down and posting your own. That would be cheating too. Obama supporters are exempt from doing this if they have been rehearsing their answers, like, ahem, Jenny and I have after the Kirk pratfall....
Ready.........scroll down.......
Ok, in the next 15 seconds, list John McCain's legislative accomplishments on a piece of paper or desktop note, OTHER than McCain-Feingold (which everyone knows about and all republicans hate anyway.) Write down the legislative accomplishments on a piece of paper and describe them in specific terms and detail. Take what you've written, and post it in the comments section, without editing, and WITHOUT doing any kind of research to jog your memory, add specifics, bill names, details etc.
If you are a Hillary supporter, do the same. But it has to be legislative accomplishments. As in, bills passed while in Senate.
I call this the What's Up Kirk Watson challenge. Anyone can play. My results are posted. Do NOT look at other people's comments before writing down and posting your own. That would be cheating too. Obama supporters are exempt from doing this if they have been rehearsing their answers, like, ahem, Jenny and I have after the Kirk pratfall....
An Obama Presidency
Bush has been terrible on spending, I will give you that. What amazes me to no end is that the very same Democrats who roundly criticize Bush for spending lapses are lining up giddy as kids on Christmas morning for a man who promises to explode the federal budget.
So far, his promises total $850B over his first term.
Do you know how staggering that is?
This is the same cost as TWO War on Terrors.
And do you think that the threat of terrorism is going to evaporate in the blink of an eye once Obama is president?
Do you really think that Obama is even going to remove the US military from Iraq in a substantial way?
No, these costs will remain.
And on top of all this, Obama seems to want to aggressively pursue a protectionist trade policy.
So, we are left with huge spending increases, new tax increases, and a protectionist trade policy....I am fired up regarding the GOP in '08 once these views are high-lighted!!!!!
Hmm, 850 bil of liberal goodness vs. 500 bil of donkey poo
I think you are confused Johnny Walkie, because you just can't see the whole picture. Republicans can waste money, and they can refuse to solve problems, but those are the only two modes they know how to operate in. Unlike Barack, they cannot actually envision a world where you can spend money to solve problems.
So let's grant you the worst case scenario. Let me grant you EVERYTHING. Let's assume
a) Obama will actually get all of those spending plans through congress AT ONE TIME IN THE FIRST YEAR, which your math assumes. It would take most presidents 5 terms to pass all that legislation through congress.
b) Obama will not make up for the increased spending by cutting pork, and stupid wasteful expenditures, like say, the war. Even though Obama has a proven record of relatively few earmarks on bills, lobbying reform and not spending money on bridges to nowhere. Unlike the GOP, which has been spending money like drunken sailors for 8 years.
c) Let us assume none of his proposed spending will benefit the health of the nation and the economy, thereby resulting in less debt, less economic and social insecurity, and more taxes brought in by improved national productivity (remember the Clinton years anyone?)
So we are assuming we will not become more competitive in the world economy, despite his education bills, and we will continue to spend the most on health care than any other nation in the world, despite his health plan. None of his programs will directly create new jobs. We will continue to send a billion dollars a day to terrorist countries to pay for energy, despite his energy independence initiatives. Our citizens will not become more competitive, thanks to college education and job training. Basically none of his investments in this country will pay off AT ALL. It will all backfire and none of it will help us. I grant you everything, because I am all generous and giving!!!! Like Barack.....
Even if all that comes to pass, because liberalism is sooooo naive and government programs are all impossibly pointless and bankrupt by design.....I would STILL rather spend 85o billion on feel-good programs for this country, than THIS:
click here to learn more
Thanks Bush. With our 500 billion, that you took from us (and unlike domestic spending, he didn't have to run it by the rest of the country) you paid for the following: 4000 dead, heroic soldiers, a wrecked country, a destabilized middle east, a less safe America, and a pissed off world that despises us. I'll take Obama's deal any day of the week, even if I grant Walker every single goofy assumption can he can throw at me.
So let's grant you the worst case scenario. Let me grant you EVERYTHING. Let's assume
a) Obama will actually get all of those spending plans through congress AT ONE TIME IN THE FIRST YEAR, which your math assumes. It would take most presidents 5 terms to pass all that legislation through congress.
b) Obama will not make up for the increased spending by cutting pork, and stupid wasteful expenditures, like say, the war. Even though Obama has a proven record of relatively few earmarks on bills, lobbying reform and not spending money on bridges to nowhere. Unlike the GOP, which has been spending money like drunken sailors for 8 years.
c) Let us assume none of his proposed spending will benefit the health of the nation and the economy, thereby resulting in less debt, less economic and social insecurity, and more taxes brought in by improved national productivity (remember the Clinton years anyone?)
So we are assuming we will not become more competitive in the world economy, despite his education bills, and we will continue to spend the most on health care than any other nation in the world, despite his health plan. None of his programs will directly create new jobs. We will continue to send a billion dollars a day to terrorist countries to pay for energy, despite his energy independence initiatives. Our citizens will not become more competitive, thanks to college education and job training. Basically none of his investments in this country will pay off AT ALL. It will all backfire and none of it will help us. I grant you everything, because I am all generous and giving!!!! Like Barack.....
Even if all that comes to pass, because liberalism is sooooo naive and government programs are all impossibly pointless and bankrupt by design.....I would STILL rather spend 85o billion on feel-good programs for this country, than THIS:
click here to learn more
Thanks Bush. With our 500 billion, that you took from us (and unlike domestic spending, he didn't have to run it by the rest of the country) you paid for the following: 4000 dead, heroic soldiers, a wrecked country, a destabilized middle east, a less safe America, and a pissed off world that despises us. I'll take Obama's deal any day of the week, even if I grant Walker every single goofy assumption can he can throw at me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)