Or, "I'll drink your milkshake!"
Be sure to click and read the comments.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
...but I'll know it when I see it
Everet Dirkson, Senator from Illinois, has been attributed to have said "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!" (BTW, when I think "Senator" I think "Ev Dirkson!"). In the Spendapalooza (aka Wastepalooza) going on in Washington, I'm also reminded, in trying to imagine what a million million is, I'm reminded of a quote from Stalin:" A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." I'm afraid we've become dulled to to the scope of this Porkalooza tsunami.
Well, from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, here is a link to a historical spending graphic, all in inflation adjusted dollars (aka constant dollars) (click on the image for a clearer view):
Now, what this graphic does not show is the Fannie and Freddie bailout, TARP, the auto bailout just to name three. Ed got this from a a site Suitably Flip . What also is not shown is all the economic damage from the New Deal which has crippled the American economy for over 75 years. This graphic does not include the $70,000,000,000,000+ unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare. The Porkulus bill only spends about 12-14% on any real "stimulus". That plus most of the "money" won't be spent for years.
Liz Trotta on Fox News Sunday a few weeks back had five great questions to ask, even before this disaster (my answers follow each question):
So, what happens when foreign governments no longer buy our debt?
Well, from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, here is a link to a historical spending graphic, all in inflation adjusted dollars (aka constant dollars) (click on the image for a clearer view):
Now, what this graphic does not show is the Fannie and Freddie bailout, TARP, the auto bailout just to name three. Ed got this from a a site Suitably Flip . What also is not shown is all the economic damage from the New Deal which has crippled the American economy for over 75 years. This graphic does not include the $70,000,000,000,000+ unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare. The Porkulus bill only spends about 12-14% on any real "stimulus". That plus most of the "money" won't be spent for years.
Liz Trotta on Fox News Sunday a few weeks back had five great questions to ask, even before this disaster (my answers follow each question):
- How much money does the Fed have?- None. It has to take it from you in one way, shape or form.
- Where does it come from?- Depends on what Liz Trotta refers to as the Fed: The federal government or the Federal Reserve. The Fed Reserve again prints it. The federal government gets it from only three places: taxes (you pay), borrowing (you pay again with higher interest rates and taxes as those debt instruments have to paid back) or they print it.
- Who decides what to do with the money?- Barney Frank ("Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are solid and sound! No problem at all. Trust me."), Chris Dodd (How's that Countrywide mortgage going for you there Senator?), Charles Rangel (I'm too important to have to pay fines and penalties on those taxes I didn't pay), Tim Geitner (Oh, THOSE taxes! Horrible mistake, Turbo Tax's fault, etc...).
- Who has oversight? Checks/balances?- see answer to question 3.
- How much money does the government have left?- As it didn't start with any and has run up deficts (for us serfs, it called "overdrawn", aka "bounced check syndrome"), it's "created" money.
So, what happens when foreign governments no longer buy our debt?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
An ad that I really like
My friend Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has a pro-life ad that NBC and the Super Bowl rejected.
It makes a very powerful statement.
It raises a lot of thorny questions for the anti-life/limited pro-choice left.
A lot.
And that makes it even more enjoyable.
It makes a very powerful statement.
It raises a lot of thorny questions for the anti-life/limited pro-choice left.
A lot.
And that makes it even more enjoyable.
Another reason the Stribune is bankrupt
From the Stribune editorial cartoonist Sack:
I notice Mr. Sack conveniently did NOT include the President's tirade against Rush Limbaugh, not to mention that he "mentioned" in his all inclusive bi-partisan overture to the Republicans "I won". No reference to Speaker Pelosi's refusal to include the Republicans any opportunity to address or amend the Porkulus package. As Minority Whip Eric Cantor reminded President Obama at a White House get together yesterday that it was not a House bill-as the Republicans were frozen out, it was and is a Democrat bill.
I wonder if Sack is working as a consultant for the Strib these days or is still one of the 23 retained under Chapter 11 employees still on board?
I notice Mr. Sack conveniently did NOT include the President's tirade against Rush Limbaugh, not to mention that he "mentioned" in his all inclusive bi-partisan overture to the Republicans "I won". No reference to Speaker Pelosi's refusal to include the Republicans any opportunity to address or amend the Porkulus package. As Minority Whip Eric Cantor reminded President Obama at a White House get together yesterday that it was not a House bill-as the Republicans were frozen out, it was and is a Democrat bill.
I wonder if Sack is working as a consultant for the Strib these days or is still one of the 23 retained under Chapter 11 employees still on board?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why I love the open, compassionate, diverse left
I've written many times about my involvement with the 8th Air Force Historical Society. Every Wednesday 50-60 of us meet for lunch, usually seated at the same chairs at the same tables.
I usually sit next to a retired Chief Master Sargent (CMSgt). I know he's a fairly strident lefty. I had no idea how strident until today.
I put my stuff on my regular chair, took off my jacket and went to return a book on WWII to a Vietnam vet across the dining hall. As I left I made a comment about Rush Limbaugh and this CMSgt made a comment about "A bullet to his head". I dropped off the book, chatted with the Navy vets and went back to my seat. We had a program that lasted for about 30 minutes. After the program, I turned to the CMSgt and said "Jack (not his name), you said something about Rush Limbaugh before the program. I just want to be clear about what you said." "I said that I don't agree with him." "Oh. What about a bullet to his head?" "Well, I said I wouldn't mind if someone put a bullet in his head. I just don't like what he says." "Oh. What about me? Do want to put a bullet in my head?" "No. Not at all." "Why not? I agree with a lot of what he says. As a matter of fact, I sometimes think he's a bit too soft. So, again, do you want to put a bullet in my head?" "No, no. I don't disagree with you." "But, I agree with Rush. You want a bullet in his head. Do you want to put a bullet in my head too?" Three times I asked him directly. Three times he demurred. I'll let remain unsaid what I thought about doing next to really call him out.
This is from the open, inclusive, bi-partisan, compassionate, we'll never re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, we support open debate, embracing diversity left.
My posterior!
Next week, I'll give "Jack" the link to this post.
I'll report on the reaction from this compassionate, embracing diversity, not closing the debate from other voices CMSgt (ret).
I usually sit next to a retired Chief Master Sargent (CMSgt). I know he's a fairly strident lefty. I had no idea how strident until today.
I put my stuff on my regular chair, took off my jacket and went to return a book on WWII to a Vietnam vet across the dining hall. As I left I made a comment about Rush Limbaugh and this CMSgt made a comment about "A bullet to his head". I dropped off the book, chatted with the Navy vets and went back to my seat. We had a program that lasted for about 30 minutes. After the program, I turned to the CMSgt and said "Jack (not his name), you said something about Rush Limbaugh before the program. I just want to be clear about what you said." "I said that I don't agree with him." "Oh. What about a bullet to his head?" "Well, I said I wouldn't mind if someone put a bullet in his head. I just don't like what he says." "Oh. What about me? Do want to put a bullet in my head?" "No. Not at all." "Why not? I agree with a lot of what he says. As a matter of fact, I sometimes think he's a bit too soft. So, again, do you want to put a bullet in my head?" "No, no. I don't disagree with you." "But, I agree with Rush. You want a bullet in his head. Do you want to put a bullet in my head too?" Three times I asked him directly. Three times he demurred. I'll let remain unsaid what I thought about doing next to really call him out.
This is from the open, inclusive, bi-partisan, compassionate, we'll never re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, we support open debate, embracing diversity left.
My posterior!
Next week, I'll give "Jack" the link to this post.
I'll report on the reaction from this compassionate, embracing diversity, not closing the debate from other voices CMSgt (ret).
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Roses wilt under the heat
Yah know, some champagne goes flat real fast.
A drop of nearly 20%? Who'd a' thunk?
Come on now-those numbers will boing right back up as soon as we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (see below).
A drop of nearly 20%? Who'd a' thunk?
Come on now-those numbers will boing right back up as soon as we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (see below).
Why President Obama represents Hope and Change to me
His stance and expressed desire and his striving for unity and bipartisanship.
In contrast to his campaign rhetoric.
In contrast to his campaign rhetoric.
Friday, January 23, 2009
A concept twice lost
When Little Jimmy Carter came to Washington, he rode in on a wave of "I'm not one of them. I'm a Washington outsider."
How'd that work out for him again?
Today, from The Politico, there is this headline: "Obama to GOP: ' I won'"
The Republicans came to the President to express concerns about the "stimulus" package. President Obama reminded the assembled representatives of the minority party "I won".
What Pres. BHO doesn't realize is the lesson from Jimmy Carter and the ancient Greek tragedies regarding hubris. Whenever there is failure on the part of a character, it is usually traced back to the arrogance on the part of that character.
Presidential candidate Obama walked and talked arrogance from his "vero possumus", his faux presidential seal, his plane being called "O Force One", Greek columns, et al. He starting believing all the fawning press reports regarding him. What he fails to realize is that when he moved that 1.5 miles down Pennsylvania Ave from the Capitol Dome, that he left being "one of them" to being "The President". He fails to realize that he now has to contend with a whole marble dome full of egos. He is now one of three branches of government. He is the lightening rod.
One more thing he doesn't realize is what Princess Diana also failed to realize: the press made her and she thought that she could turn that on and off like a faucet. So it is here in America.
The President's ego is going to collide with Washington reality. It already has (from a Hot Air column):
How'd that work out for him again?
Today, from The Politico, there is this headline: "Obama to GOP: ' I won'"
The Republicans came to the President to express concerns about the "stimulus" package. President Obama reminded the assembled representatives of the minority party "I won".
What Pres. BHO doesn't realize is the lesson from Jimmy Carter and the ancient Greek tragedies regarding hubris. Whenever there is failure on the part of a character, it is usually traced back to the arrogance on the part of that character.
Presidential candidate Obama walked and talked arrogance from his "vero possumus", his faux presidential seal, his plane being called "O Force One", Greek columns, et al. He starting believing all the fawning press reports regarding him. What he fails to realize is that when he moved that 1.5 miles down Pennsylvania Ave from the Capitol Dome, that he left being "one of them" to being "The President". He fails to realize that he now has to contend with a whole marble dome full of egos. He is now one of three branches of government. He is the lightening rod.
One more thing he doesn't realize is what Princess Diana also failed to realize: the press made her and she thought that she could turn that on and off like a faucet. So it is here in America.
The President's ego is going to collide with Washington reality. It already has (from a Hot Air column):
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A question to ponder
Glenn Beck asked a great question regarding the closing of Guantanamo:
"Dear Mr. President-If you're going to close Gitmo and therefore will need to move theradical killers detainees to someplace in the United States, well, then, why close Gitmo if you're just moving pieces around the checkerboard?"
Glenn Beck's read- the only reason is to make some radical anti-Americans feel good-for some unknown reason.
P.S. Another one of those embarrassing questions from asubject citizen: "Uh, Mr. President, how, exactly, will closing Guantanamo make me or my children any safer?"
"Dear Mr. President-If you're going to close Gitmo and therefore will need to move the
Glenn Beck's read- the only reason is to make some radical anti-Americans feel good-for some unknown reason.
P.S. Another one of those embarrassing questions from a
Thermostats click on in hell (part, some number)
There are times when The Daily Show nails it.
Here is one of those times (from Hot Air):
Here is one of those times (from Hot Air):
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
First and Last BHO Coronation/Anointing post
I was going to have a BHO free day here on Savage Republican. My friend Ed Morrissey has pushed me to break that self pledge with a single picture in a single post.
I watched just a under a minute of this retch inducing video and went on to read the comments. I am now committed to never drink any Pepsi products after seeing this video and NEW "Pepsi" logo. But, it was this blog entry and this picture that sent me on my pledge breaking moment:
The BHO logo like CBS eye, the BHO colors, the BHO motto.
When Princess Diana died, there was an editorial regarding that the same week Viktor Frankl also passed away. Dr. Frankl was the author of the second most powerful book I've ever read, "Man's Search for Meaning". That editorial referred to the "media carpet bombing" of coverage on Diana's death.
With BHO, it appears that our once free and independent press is now practicing what I would call a carpet bombing, napalm raking, cluster bombing, intellectual fellatio on BHO ad naseum ad infinitum.
I watched just a under a minute of this retch inducing video and went on to read the comments. I am now committed to never drink any Pepsi products after seeing this video and NEW "Pepsi" logo. But, it was this blog entry and this picture that sent me on my pledge breaking moment:
The BHO logo like CBS eye, the BHO colors, the BHO motto.
When Princess Diana died, there was an editorial regarding that the same week Viktor Frankl also passed away. Dr. Frankl was the author of the second most powerful book I've ever read, "Man's Search for Meaning". That editorial referred to the "media carpet bombing" of coverage on Diana's death.
With BHO, it appears that our once free and independent press is now practicing what I would call a carpet bombing, napalm raking, cluster bombing, intellectual fellatio on BHO ad naseum ad infinitum.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Complaints-
Remember the complaints from the whiney left about how outrageously extravagant the 2004 Bush Inauguration was? No compassion about the poor (same reasoning that Mom's used on us about clean plates and starving children in the world). And the complaints about AIG scheduling a salon weekend after being illegally bailed out?
I'll be scouring the New York Times and Washington Post for their scrutiny about the BHO Coronation expense in an economy in duress (no breath holding on my part).
I'll be scouring the New York Times and Washington Post for their scrutiny about the BHO Coronation expense in an economy in duress (no breath holding on my part).
Minnesota's new motto
By now, I'm sure you've read about the triumph of "bio-diesel" used in the transport of schoolchildren in Bloomington. And a big BTW, when I first met future soon to be former Senator Coleman in 2002, he stated categorically that he did not support drilling in ANWR because he supported "bio-diesel". I then hung the term "BDN" on Mr. Coleman (Bio Diesel Norm).
Yup-another smashing success for alternative energy and another wound for failed petroleum.
However, not a solo winner here in Minnesota...
Thursday evening at the monthly local Republican Exec Comm meeting, one of our local Representatives was able to attend. He sits on the Energy Committee. He had an interesting report on another smashing success of alternative energy. Maybe "smashing" is a unique word choice: seems that at -20F the wind turbines need to be shut down. The composite materials used for the turbine blades becomes so brittle at below zero temps, that there is the risk of, well, "catastrophic failure" if the turbines run. Oh. Well, it gets better. At those temperatures, with the BBW (Big Bad Windmills) NOT putting out any energy, they become net energy users as the lubricants in gearboxes and elsewhere need to be heated to be sure that they don't become thick and there is lubrication failure upon start up. It gets even better: in Minnesota, the peak energy season has moved from summer to winter. When we experience protracted cold here in Minnesota, that indicates a high pressure area over Minnesota. That usually indicates no wind. No wind, no BBW's a turnin' and a churnin'out energy-just when we need it most.
A couple of new state mottos for Minnesota:
"Minnesota-Where Alternative Energy Theory Comes to Freeze to Death"
"Minnesota-Where the Citizens and Alternate Energy Suffer Hypothermia"
Yup-another smashing success for alternative energy and another wound for failed petroleum.
However, not a solo winner here in Minnesota...
Thursday evening at the monthly local Republican Exec Comm meeting, one of our local Representatives was able to attend. He sits on the Energy Committee. He had an interesting report on another smashing success of alternative energy. Maybe "smashing" is a unique word choice: seems that at -20F the wind turbines need to be shut down. The composite materials used for the turbine blades becomes so brittle at below zero temps, that there is the risk of, well, "catastrophic failure" if the turbines run. Oh. Well, it gets better. At those temperatures, with the BBW (Big Bad Windmills) NOT putting out any energy, they become net energy users as the lubricants in gearboxes and elsewhere need to be heated to be sure that they don't become thick and there is lubrication failure upon start up. It gets even better: in Minnesota, the peak energy season has moved from summer to winter. When we experience protracted cold here in Minnesota, that indicates a high pressure area over Minnesota. That usually indicates no wind. No wind, no BBW's a turnin' and a churnin'out energy-just when we need it most.
A couple of new state mottos for Minnesota:
"Minnesota-Where Alternative Energy Theory Comes to Freeze to Death"
"Minnesota-Where the Citizens and Alternate Energy Suffer Hypothermia"
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wisdom from 3rd grade
From Hot Air:
Ice Cream & The Election
Analogy from a teacher
"Who worries about “the cow" when it is all about the “Ice Cream"?"
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.
We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.” She surely could say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn’t know.
The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten.
Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream [coke] and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.
The other forty-eight percent of us know we’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.
Questions class?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Gasping canaries at Fort Sumter
I've written and preached many times on the looming and soon to be unstoppable Social Security and Medicare disaster. The Chair of the Dallas Federal Reserve now estimates the current "infinite horizon discounted value" is $99,000,000,000,000 (yup, you read it right, "trillions"). "Infinite Horizon Discounted Value" (I really like that term! It's such a high brow way of saying "We're screwed!" ) is a term that tells us what we need to put away today, now, this hour, to meet the future debt of Social Security and Medicare. These numbers are not hidden. They're not secret. They're not mysterious or the result of conspiracy. Dallas Fed President Fisher, Dr. Walter E. Williams among many others have been telling us this for years. Williams also tells us that the annual growth of that "infinite horizon discounted value" is $4,650,000,000,000. I've also written that this is a future war between generations. The Baby Boomers first, then their children will start to draw on the system. Now, acknowledging the fact that there is no money in the trust fund, just a bunch of special Treasury Bonds (aka government IOU's), what to do? Well, it seems that that inter-generational is arriving just a bit sooner than I thought.
From Drudge, there is this headline "Pension Losses Pit Old Against Young as States Beg For Relief...". The problem? The growth in government necessitates growth in bureaucrats and government employees. After a time all those government employees retire and continue to suck off the public teat. Now that states are facing huge debts and pension funds have taken a hit, the state pension funds are also in trouble. In trouble to the tune of over $800,000,000,000. These are monies owed. The money invested by all the states in their pension funds, nationwide, was 57% of what they spent in police and fire protection.
Frank Karpinski, Exec. Dir. of the Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island explains one side of the dilemma (raising taxes) quite nicely:"I don’t think anybody wants to do that, likes to do that or would say it would be an easy sell anywhere, especially given the current economic situation”. The other remedy is to reduce benefits. However, that also will be a hard sell according to John Adler of Capital Stewardship Program that invests for the Service Employees International Union (the same union that has turned to the government for help):"I believe that our members will oppose such initiatives in collective bargaining or in state legislatures."
I'm not going to talk about the growth of government employee unions such as AFSCME. But, this article points out exactly what will be happening in just a few short years with a $99,000,000,000,000 "infinite horizon discounted value" debt. The only two future options are to raise taxes or cut benefits. Those two options will pit future benefit contributors against future benefit receivers. The present option is to radically address this problem now. But, you have the Democrats who opposed even a modest proposal from President Bush to allow younger workers to invest a small portion of their monies privately. And the prospects of something decent and workable coming from a Congress that can't even run its own lunchroom or Capitol Visitors Center (that started out at a $71MM project bit came in at over $600MM and years late)? Or from a Nancy Pelosi who now runs the House of Representatives as her personal ideological fiefdom?
What also is telltale is where the states expect relief: the Feds. There are only three places the Feds get the "bailout" money: taxes (you pay), borrowing (you pay with higher interest rates and the hope that people will accept the Treasury Bonds), or just print the money (inflation or hyper inflation) whereby you pay as the purchasing power of the dollars you own evaporate before your eyes.
I'm reminded of the laws of physics and economics. The result of attempting to restrain natural forces is a larger expected result: say you have a pressure cooker and keep the heat on and don't either reduce the heat or bleed off the pressure. Eventually the pressure cooker will catastrophically fail. In other words: it will blow up. Guaranteed. Same with economic laws. If something is probably going to happen, is forecast to happen and nothing intervenes to reduce its probability of occurrence, it will happen.
As I sign off on some of my emails:" Illic est a tempestas in horizon. Instruo pro is." "There is a storm on the horizon. Prepare for it."
From Drudge, there is this headline "Pension Losses Pit Old Against Young as States Beg For Relief...". The problem? The growth in government necessitates growth in bureaucrats and government employees. After a time all those government employees retire and continue to suck off the public teat. Now that states are facing huge debts and pension funds have taken a hit, the state pension funds are also in trouble. In trouble to the tune of over $800,000,000,000. These are monies owed. The money invested by all the states in their pension funds, nationwide, was 57% of what they spent in police and fire protection.
Frank Karpinski, Exec. Dir. of the Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island explains one side of the dilemma (raising taxes) quite nicely:"I don’t think anybody wants to do that, likes to do that or would say it would be an easy sell anywhere, especially given the current economic situation”. The other remedy is to reduce benefits. However, that also will be a hard sell according to John Adler of Capital Stewardship Program that invests for the Service Employees International Union (the same union that has turned to the government for help):"I believe that our members will oppose such initiatives in collective bargaining or in state legislatures."
I'm not going to talk about the growth of government employee unions such as AFSCME. But, this article points out exactly what will be happening in just a few short years with a $99,000,000,000,000 "infinite horizon discounted value" debt. The only two future options are to raise taxes or cut benefits. Those two options will pit future benefit contributors against future benefit receivers. The present option is to radically address this problem now. But, you have the Democrats who opposed even a modest proposal from President Bush to allow younger workers to invest a small portion of their monies privately. And the prospects of something decent and workable coming from a Congress that can't even run its own lunchroom or Capitol Visitors Center (that started out at a $71MM project bit came in at over $600MM and years late)? Or from a Nancy Pelosi who now runs the House of Representatives as her personal ideological fiefdom?
What also is telltale is where the states expect relief: the Feds. There are only three places the Feds get the "bailout" money: taxes (you pay), borrowing (you pay with higher interest rates and the hope that people will accept the Treasury Bonds), or just print the money (inflation or hyper inflation) whereby you pay as the purchasing power of the dollars you own evaporate before your eyes.
I'm reminded of the laws of physics and economics. The result of attempting to restrain natural forces is a larger expected result: say you have a pressure cooker and keep the heat on and don't either reduce the heat or bleed off the pressure. Eventually the pressure cooker will catastrophically fail. In other words: it will blow up. Guaranteed. Same with economic laws. If something is probably going to happen, is forecast to happen and nothing intervenes to reduce its probability of occurrence, it will happen.
As I sign off on some of my emails:" Illic est a tempestas in horizon. Instruo pro is." "There is a storm on the horizon. Prepare for it."
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
But, he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express
Leon Panetta to head the CIA...well, why not. After all, my thoughts were Leon Panetta to the CIA would be like Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court (after all, she did volunteer for Meals on Wheels you know, which, if she lived in New York , would immediately qualify her for Senate and Archbishop of the New York City diocese). The only difference is that Harriet Miers has actual experience for the job for which she was nominated.
The money making quote from the LA Times, other than the headline:"Leon Panetta, a former congressman and Clinton chief of staff, would give Obama a political ally at the helm of the troubled spy agency" The LAT then goes on to, well, basically, excoriate the Panetta selection. Don't get me wrong, the CIA has been in dire need of a house cleaning and fumigation from all of Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's appointments. The CIA has ceased being an intelligence gathering agency that is constructed and charged to supply the President with intelligence and has become a political entity with its own agenda, the administration be damned. as much as I am loathe to say this (thermostats are heard to be clicking on in hell) I agree with the LA Times on this one.
Read the article. The LAT does a good job on the Panetta nomination.
Too bad they didn't exhibit this type of real journalism over the past year or so.
One last thought: notice the problems brewing for Obama in both houses of Congress.
once again, a newby to the Oval Office discovers he's not the only one with an ego in Foggy Bottom. The rules of engagement and adversaries change when you go from under a marble dome to a painted over/ fire rehabbed residence.
The money making quote from the LA Times, other than the headline:"Leon Panetta, a former congressman and Clinton chief of staff, would give Obama a political ally at the helm of the troubled spy agency" The LAT then goes on to, well, basically, excoriate the Panetta selection. Don't get me wrong, the CIA has been in dire need of a house cleaning and fumigation from all of Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's appointments. The CIA has ceased being an intelligence gathering agency that is constructed and charged to supply the President with intelligence and has become a political entity with its own agenda, the administration be damned. as much as I am loathe to say this (thermostats are heard to be clicking on in hell) I agree with the LA Times on this one.
Read the article. The LAT does a good job on the Panetta nomination.
Too bad they didn't exhibit this type of real journalism over the past year or so.
One last thought: notice the problems brewing for Obama in both houses of Congress.
once again, a newby to the Oval Office discovers he's not the only one with an ego in Foggy Bottom. The rules of engagement and adversaries change when you go from under a marble dome to a painted over/ fire rehabbed residence.
Monday, January 05, 2009
The Coleman recount Part, whatever
From a link at Hot Air, there is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal about the consistent inconsistencies that seemingly always favor Franken. The money making quote? "The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here..." Do ya think?!?!? I've written about the Coleman recount disaster here and here.
My friend Ed Morrissey, from Hot Air, was on the Bill Bennett Show this morning talking about the Coleman/Franken recount. After hearing the interview, I wrote to Ed expressing my thoughts:
"Ed-
Heard you on Bill Bennett this morning.
Mentioned on Rush, sought after by all the rest. And I can say “I knew him when he was just a Captain.”
I listened to your comparison of the Chambliss and Martin race with Coleman and Franken. There is/was one huge difference and that’s Dean Barkley. The third party candidate in GA only took in 3.4% of the vote. Dean took in 15.1%. There was no third candidate in the Georgia race for the run off. I’ve yet to see an analysis of the Barkley voters, but heard King and Michael do an analysis in early October that showed Dean bleeding more votes from Franken than Coleman. If you remember Ventura’s run in 1998, for every one vote he took from Coleman he took two from Skip Humphrey. My gut tells me Dean probably did about the same %’s. I believe if Dean had not run, Franken would have won outright. Had there been a Georgia style run off here, I believe Franken would have won by recapturing enough votes from Dean that he would have won.
That being said, I figure those missing 7 MM votes from the 2004 Presidential election figured into Coleman’s totals. If Coleman had been able to capture just 5,000 more votes (just over 1 vote per precinct here in MN), he’d be on the Senate floor this morning rather than meeting with his legal team for coffee. "
Just my thoughts...
My friend Ed Morrissey, from Hot Air, was on the Bill Bennett Show this morning talking about the Coleman/Franken recount. After hearing the interview, I wrote to Ed expressing my thoughts:
"Ed-
Heard you on Bill Bennett this morning.
Mentioned on Rush, sought after by all the rest. And I can say “I knew him when he was just a Captain.”
I listened to your comparison of the Chambliss and Martin race with Coleman and Franken. There is/was one huge difference and that’s Dean Barkley. The third party candidate in GA only took in 3.4% of the vote. Dean took in 15.1%. There was no third candidate in the Georgia race for the run off. I’ve yet to see an analysis of the Barkley voters, but heard King and Michael do an analysis in early October that showed Dean bleeding more votes from Franken than Coleman. If you remember Ventura’s run in 1998, for every one vote he took from Coleman he took two from Skip Humphrey. My gut tells me Dean probably did about the same %’s. I believe if Dean had not run, Franken would have won outright. Had there been a Georgia style run off here, I believe Franken would have won by recapturing enough votes from Dean that he would have won.
That being said, I figure those missing 7 MM votes from the 2004 Presidential election figured into Coleman’s totals. If Coleman had been able to capture just 5,000 more votes (just over 1 vote per precinct here in MN), he’d be on the Senate floor this morning rather than meeting with his legal team for coffee. "
Just my thoughts...
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Hope springs eternal
There is so much that stupefies me in this clip: California, near Berkley, while shopping at Whole Foods, driving a VW van. Granted, the firearm wasn't hers (there are fairly strict gun control laws in California. So, the victim didn't have a firearm but the criminal did- which I'm sure that he obtained legally. I'm still just a bit confused on how gun control laws protect citizens). So, she had to borrow the criminal's firearm.
Notice that the police don't recommend fighting back. That advice is absolutely situational. If you are being taken by the carjackers, you definitely need to fight back. Never, ever be taken in a car. EVER! It appears that she was in the back of the van and the carjacker was in control in the driver's seat. It is not apparent if the side doors were open or closed, if the van was already in motion and therefore she was fighting to get free or to get out or to force the carjacker out. So, I would take the reporter's comments about the police saying don't fight as conditional.
That being said, good on her.
Notice that the police don't recommend fighting back. That advice is absolutely situational. If you are being taken by the carjackers, you definitely need to fight back. Never, ever be taken in a car. EVER! It appears that she was in the back of the van and the carjacker was in control in the driver's seat. It is not apparent if the side doors were open or closed, if the van was already in motion and therefore she was fighting to get free or to get out or to force the carjacker out. So, I would take the reporter's comments about the police saying don't fight as conditional.
That being said, good on her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)