You may recall that columnist Kathleen Parker recently did for Journalism what Arlen Spectre did for politics, which is to say that she sensed the shifting winds of political fortune and - like a leaf - was lofted from the Conservative camp into the Democrat's back yard. So it was as predictable as the sun rising that Parker has embraced the "hypocritical Republican" argument so crucial to Democrats in the National Debate, and most recently inspired her article about S. Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's admission to an affair this past year ("Sanford and sin: He could have spared us the ick").
Parker took it a step further, though, also embracing the "misuse of government funds" and "dereliction of duty" themes that are currently ricocheting through the Liberal Commentariat; the whole point being, of course, to exploit and further perpetuate the double-standard by which Conservative politicians are judged compared to Democrats.
It goes something like this: If Republican politicians express belief in any mainstream values and are then found guilty of not living up to those values, they are guilty of hypocrisy and malfeasance, and must be driven not only from polite society but from office as well. If a Democrat is guilty of not living up to mainstream values, they get a hall pass because they express belief in no values and thus, are guilty of no hypocrisy and by extension, no malfeasance.
For the Mainstream Media and Democrats, it's a three-fer: 1) Commentators get a constant flow of Republican Controversy to write about, 2) Democrat politicians get an unending stream of "issues" they can regularly use to flog Republicans, and 3) through their collaboration, both Commentators and Democrats are immunized from being held to any comparable standards. The political landscape is littered with such Republican casualties; Democrats, not so much.
The "misuse of government funds" charge is hilarious, given that the Democrats just stole $1 Trillion plus of our dollars to give to their friends and patrons in the so-called "stimulus". Sanford's alleged offense involves things like driving his State provided car to the airport, and adding Argentina to a trade mission junket to South America. I would see their Sanford and raise them one Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is of course the multi-millionaire whose abuse of aircraft privileges - insisting that a fleet of government-provided planes be available to her and her minions for any and every trip - is legendary.
The "dereliction of duty" angle is also a bit of a stretch. According to Parker, the fact that Sanford took off without telling his staff where he was going makes him a bad governor because "he failed to make arrangements for his state's uninterrupted governance". The mind boggles at the implications of South Carolina going for even one minute without governance. Apparently governors - like presidents - have to be ready to take that telephone call at 3:00 a.m. It also raises several questions as to exactly what governance Parker thought was unattended in his absence:
- Was it South Carolina's nuclear football? Exactly what was the likelihood of war with Georgia in their border dispute over water rights, and who these days can rely on The Peach State not to strike without warning?
- Was Tiny Tim deprived of the emergency funds needed to get that lifesaving operation, funding that could only be approved by the governor of South Carolina?
- Stimulus funding to the States not only has caveats, it has deadlines, and such was the case for the $4.5 million allocated for the Daughters Of The Old South adopt-a-highway beautification plan. Did the Stimulus funds for this program expire in Sanford's absence?
- There were rumors of Pirates off the coast of Myrtle Beach. If true, were Special Forces deployed, and was Governor Sanford unavailable to give them the kill order?
To proponents of "uninterrupted governance" like Parker, these are no doubt important questions that for the sake of the Republic need to be answered. For the rest of us, it's the opportunity to milk a little much-needed humor out of the dreary regularity with which Democrats - and their Media Pets - exploit Morality as a political weapon, even as they exempt themselves from its strictures.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
LTE: HCAD has a part in it
It was gratifying to see the Chronicle address the issue of high property taxes in the editorial “As home values drop...” on Monday. However, you failed to address one point: the extent to which the Harris County Appraisal District and similar tax assessment agencies across the country are the source of the current problem.
For the past decade, HCAD has assessed huge tax increases on homeowners, oblivious to the fact that it was a major contributor to the over-appraisals that then fueled the real estate bubble. In the past three years, HCAD continued to over-appraise properties, even though the real estate market was plummeting in many areas locally. HCAD’s actions caused unprecedented revenues to flow into city, county and school coffers, inflating the size of government and establishing unrealistic baselines for future appraisals.
When the recession hit, nobody in government gave any serious consideration to cutting budgets, as the private sector was forced to do. Instead, they sought further tax increases. One prime example documented by the Chronicle recently was the debate in Cy-Fair Independent School District over whether to eliminate the 20 percent homestead exemption (“Cy-Fair considers major tax increase; Homestead exemption could disappear; bills could rise 30%,” Page A1, June 10).
I’m distressed that the education establishment is not being held to account and that HCAD is not held to account for its predatory assessment policies. Until government bureaucrats and the agencies they control are forced to play by the same rules as the rest of us, nothing will change. Here’s hoping the Chronicle will continue to shine a spotlight on their activities.
— Pete Smith, Cypress
Man vs. Raccoon, Part II
We continue the saga of the Raccoon that is slipping through our cat door into the garage, eating all the cats' food with nary a protest from our cats - Fraidy and Idgie - and apparently with their passive cooperation. You'll recall that - in honor of his resourcefulness - we named him Rocky.
Last week, in "Man vs. Raccoon", I told of borrowing Sandy's animal trap, baiting it with cat food and placing it outside the cat door, in hopes of trapping the pesky critter. For three straight days, no luck. Last night, I baited the trap again. Idgie scurried outside when the garage door started closing, but Fraidy remained in her bed. We went to bed shortly thereafter.
We got up this morning, and Sharon came in from the garage, excited, and reported that we had trapped an animal. The gleam in her eye suggested that it was perhaps less than we could have hoped, but ironical and funny all the same. I headed outside, and sure enough, we had indeed trapped an animal:
Idgie was none too pleased, as you can see from this picture, and embarrassed to boot; no mean feat for a cat that has no shame. This unsettling turn of events actually took him off his appetite, as there is clearly still food in the cage. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that this happened around 11:05 p.m. last night.
I put the trap out at 11:00 p.m.
I must admit that I relished this moment just a bit, not only because I predicted it would happen, but because he had it coming. Before and since we adopted him, Idgie has poached Fraidy's food daily, usually before eating his own; he eats at several neighbors' houses; he constantly squawks for more and fresher food whenever we venture into the garage; he lives only for food. In other words, Idgie is an incurable food scrounge.
I'm taking bets as to whether he will get trapped in the cage again tonight. Even money says I'm posting another picture of him in the cage, this time tomorrow.
And tempting as it is to draw parallels between the Pavlovian compulsions of a useless house cat's food obsession and Barack Obama's reliance on non sequitors during news conferences, I shall desist.
Last week, in "Man vs. Raccoon", I told of borrowing Sandy's animal trap, baiting it with cat food and placing it outside the cat door, in hopes of trapping the pesky critter. For three straight days, no luck. Last night, I baited the trap again. Idgie scurried outside when the garage door started closing, but Fraidy remained in her bed. We went to bed shortly thereafter.
We got up this morning, and Sharon came in from the garage, excited, and reported that we had trapped an animal. The gleam in her eye suggested that it was perhaps less than we could have hoped, but ironical and funny all the same. I headed outside, and sure enough, we had indeed trapped an animal:
Idgie was none too pleased, as you can see from this picture, and embarrassed to boot; no mean feat for a cat that has no shame. This unsettling turn of events actually took him off his appetite, as there is clearly still food in the cage. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that this happened around 11:05 p.m. last night.
I put the trap out at 11:00 p.m.
I must admit that I relished this moment just a bit, not only because I predicted it would happen, but because he had it coming. Before and since we adopted him, Idgie has poached Fraidy's food daily, usually before eating his own; he eats at several neighbors' houses; he constantly squawks for more and fresher food whenever we venture into the garage; he lives only for food. In other words, Idgie is an incurable food scrounge.
I'm taking bets as to whether he will get trapped in the cage again tonight. Even money says I'm posting another picture of him in the cage, this time tomorrow.
And tempting as it is to draw parallels between the Pavlovian compulsions of a useless house cat's food obsession and Barack Obama's reliance on non sequitors during news conferences, I shall desist.
Democrats Gone Wild - On Taxes
OffHisMeds is happy to report that the Obama Administration recently got caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar when they attempted to enforce an obscure - and certifiably insane - IRS rule that sought to declare as taxable income all personal phone calls or e-mails that employees made on company-owned cell phones and PDAs. You can't make this stuff up, folks; it was reported in an AP article from June 17, 2009, and everybody knows that the AP is Obama's official Bedwarmer, forever hopeful that they will be allowed to stay in the Presidential chamber once their primary duty has been fulfilled, forever moist, forever unfulfilled.
The AP's tumescence notwithstanding, they truthfully reported that, after "sparking an outcry" over attempts to enforce the rule on taxing calls on company-owned cell phones, the Administration heroically reversed course, declared the rule "stupid", and promised they would revoke it.
Here we have the perfect illustration of Democrat hypocrisy: first, they write the stupid rule; then they fail to enforce the stupid rule; then, when scrounging for yet another "revenue" stream to inflict on the American people, they try to resurrect the stupid rule; then when they get spanked, they reverse themselves and of course take credit for getting rid of the stupid rule.
Of course, there's stupid, and then there's Stupid.
On the truly Stupid front, Democrats are trying to deny deductions to drugmakers for the expense of advertising prescription drugs. They promise this tax will net another $37 billion, apparently believing that sales of drugs happen without advertising. Note to Democrats: you denied GM and Chrysler the right to advertise; how's that working out for you? Dems also are moving forward with Carbon Credit taxes, additional sales and utility taxes, taxes on soft drinks, additional taxes on various imports, additional taxes on Internet sales, and additional taxes on the Oil companies if they drill for more oil or gas.
And those are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Democrats are going for the brass ring with some truly big, big, big tax increases, including imposing income taxes on health benefits. You remember those, don't you? Obama declared John McCain an evil capitalist bent on the destruction of the middle class when he suggested them, albeit that everybody would get a tax credit to make up the difference. Obama's plan includes no tax credit. So, that's a minimum of $20,000 of additional taxable income for the average family. 20% of that on 80 million families comes to another $320 billion in taxes every year. Democrats are also letting Bush's tax cuts expire, driving marginal tax rates back up to 38%, and have effectively killed reform on the Inheritance Tax, allowing them to confiscate up to 50% of your wealth from your children forever. That's another $500 billion in taxes every year.
Democrats are also imposing yet more taxes on cigarettes (over three bucks per pack now) and budgeting all of the proceeds as part of their ten year economic forecast, even as they simultaneously declare ciggies a controlled substance subject to numerous new restrictions regulated by the FDA, and all designed to drive down the sale of cigarettes. This continues to be another of OffHisMed's favorite Democrat contradictions. If the FDA is successful, there will be an enormous tax revenue shortfall in the future. However, that's money that the Obama Administration has already spent.
Don't ask them to explain the dichotomy, and don't expect the Media to bring the subject up. When the "revenue shortfall", as they so virtuously refer to it eventually comes to pass, they will then with a heavy heart and the greatest of reluctance force additional taxes so as not to create a "deficit". What a bunch of disingenuous humps.
For all of that, for this veritable orgy of new taxation (from the president who promised not to raise taxes on average folks), I've got to admit, it doesn't seem like the Democrats are on their game. It used to be that Democrats could create a tax as easy as kiss-your-hand, conjuring up righteous-sounding levies that were explained away in a few words, wouldn't cost us much and served the public good to boot. These recently proposed taxes are all retreads: tried before and mostly failed. So, to help them out, OffHisMeds will offer a series of suggestions for additional taxes they can inflict on the public.
Here's the first: FUCT (Footprint Utilization Carbon Tax):
Every American will be allocated a yearly "Carbon Credit" equivalent to the Carbon emissions of the average Belgian. These will be audited by battalions of new government employees, thus fulfilling Obama's promise to "save or create 3.5 million jobs". These auditors will calculate your AGC (Annual Gasoline Consumption), OORV (Ownership Of Recreational Vehicles), SUVOR (Sport Utility Vehicle Ownership Ratio), AGEA (Avoidance of Green Energy Alternatives) and PHUC (Personal Household Utility Consumption).
Based on a mind-numbingly complex formula that can only be completed on NASA's now under-used Supercomputers, FUCT will calculate a tax of $1,500.00 per household; exempted, of course, will be all government employees and other wards of the state.
Of course, so as not to offend their core constituencies, Democrats will not at this time be factoring WANT (Work Avoiding Non Taxpayer), GEHPPA (Government Employee Handicapped Parking Permit Abusers), WALOTS (Wide Ass Load On The Sidewalk), or SCAM (Sam's Club Appetizer Monger) into the FUCT equation.
The AP's tumescence notwithstanding, they truthfully reported that, after "sparking an outcry" over attempts to enforce the rule on taxing calls on company-owned cell phones, the Administration heroically reversed course, declared the rule "stupid", and promised they would revoke it.
Here we have the perfect illustration of Democrat hypocrisy: first, they write the stupid rule; then they fail to enforce the stupid rule; then, when scrounging for yet another "revenue" stream to inflict on the American people, they try to resurrect the stupid rule; then when they get spanked, they reverse themselves and of course take credit for getting rid of the stupid rule.
Of course, there's stupid, and then there's Stupid.
On the truly Stupid front, Democrats are trying to deny deductions to drugmakers for the expense of advertising prescription drugs. They promise this tax will net another $37 billion, apparently believing that sales of drugs happen without advertising. Note to Democrats: you denied GM and Chrysler the right to advertise; how's that working out for you? Dems also are moving forward with Carbon Credit taxes, additional sales and utility taxes, taxes on soft drinks, additional taxes on various imports, additional taxes on Internet sales, and additional taxes on the Oil companies if they drill for more oil or gas.
And those are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Democrats are going for the brass ring with some truly big, big, big tax increases, including imposing income taxes on health benefits. You remember those, don't you? Obama declared John McCain an evil capitalist bent on the destruction of the middle class when he suggested them, albeit that everybody would get a tax credit to make up the difference. Obama's plan includes no tax credit. So, that's a minimum of $20,000 of additional taxable income for the average family. 20% of that on 80 million families comes to another $320 billion in taxes every year. Democrats are also letting Bush's tax cuts expire, driving marginal tax rates back up to 38%, and have effectively killed reform on the Inheritance Tax, allowing them to confiscate up to 50% of your wealth from your children forever. That's another $500 billion in taxes every year.
Democrats are also imposing yet more taxes on cigarettes (over three bucks per pack now) and budgeting all of the proceeds as part of their ten year economic forecast, even as they simultaneously declare ciggies a controlled substance subject to numerous new restrictions regulated by the FDA, and all designed to drive down the sale of cigarettes. This continues to be another of OffHisMed's favorite Democrat contradictions. If the FDA is successful, there will be an enormous tax revenue shortfall in the future. However, that's money that the Obama Administration has already spent.
Don't ask them to explain the dichotomy, and don't expect the Media to bring the subject up. When the "revenue shortfall", as they so virtuously refer to it eventually comes to pass, they will then with a heavy heart and the greatest of reluctance force additional taxes so as not to create a "deficit". What a bunch of disingenuous humps.
For all of that, for this veritable orgy of new taxation (from the president who promised not to raise taxes on average folks), I've got to admit, it doesn't seem like the Democrats are on their game. It used to be that Democrats could create a tax as easy as kiss-your-hand, conjuring up righteous-sounding levies that were explained away in a few words, wouldn't cost us much and served the public good to boot. These recently proposed taxes are all retreads: tried before and mostly failed. So, to help them out, OffHisMeds will offer a series of suggestions for additional taxes they can inflict on the public.
Here's the first: FUCT (Footprint Utilization Carbon Tax):
Every American will be allocated a yearly "Carbon Credit" equivalent to the Carbon emissions of the average Belgian. These will be audited by battalions of new government employees, thus fulfilling Obama's promise to "save or create 3.5 million jobs". These auditors will calculate your AGC (Annual Gasoline Consumption), OORV (Ownership Of Recreational Vehicles), SUVOR (Sport Utility Vehicle Ownership Ratio), AGEA (Avoidance of Green Energy Alternatives) and PHUC (Personal Household Utility Consumption).
Based on a mind-numbingly complex formula that can only be completed on NASA's now under-used Supercomputers, FUCT will calculate a tax of $1,500.00 per household; exempted, of course, will be all government employees and other wards of the state.
Of course, so as not to offend their core constituencies, Democrats will not at this time be factoring WANT (Work Avoiding Non Taxpayer), GEHPPA (Government Employee Handicapped Parking Permit Abusers), WALOTS (Wide Ass Load On The Sidewalk), or SCAM (Sam's Club Appetizer Monger) into the FUCT equation.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's FTC - A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing
There was an innocuous AP story in the paper on June 22nd titled "FTC tries to make blogosphere honest". It details the efforts of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to regulate Bloggers. Per the article, the premise for doing so is that Bloggers routinely advocate for particular products, or allow ads to be posted on their Blogs, and thus, are subject to the scrutiny of government regulators.
You can check it out here at: http://tinyurl.com/n3hlhl.
Given that 99% of all Blogs are conversation, if you're as confused as me why it is that the government - much less the FTC - would need to regulate conversation, read on.
Everybody in the Blogosphere is familiar with ad-posting. The whole idea is that if your Blog is popular - regardless of its content - Google and other search engine companies will pay you a small commission based on the number of hits on your Blog and the number of folks who click on the ads therein. The Blogger does not control the ads that appear on their Blog; rather, it is based on Key Words in the Blog that then are filtered by the Search Engines to direct them to appropriate advertisers. It's always been viewed as a win-win, and never before has anybody attempted to regulate the content of a Blog based on some benighted notion of Consumer Protection.
Until the Obama Administration that is.
The problem is, the Obama Administration isn't interested in regulating commerce. They're interested in regulating speech. The proof of this is the incredibly low threshold the government sets for itself in determining if unscrupulous activity is taking place. The AP article goes on to explain that the FTC will come after Bloggers and the companies who advertise through them for:
a) allowing ads to be posted on a Blog, even the randomly posted advertisements based on keywords;
b) failure of the Blogger to disclose any "compensation" they receive from advertisers.
To say that this is thin justification would be an understatement. It would also be a virtual re-invention of the FTC charter. Never before has the FTC gone after individuals for penny ante economic activity, and the interpretation as to the motives by both Parties would be left to the sole discretion of the FTC. Further, the policy would mean that ANY Blogger who had ads on their website would be subject to enforcement, and that their guilt would be determined at the whim of FTC bureaucrats.
What's interesting here is that there is rarely any contractual arrangement between a Blogger and an Advertiser, much less a relationship of any kind. The vast majority of Bloggers don't even know who the Advertisers are, and it is solely through Google and similar companies that the ads are posted and the revenue paid. It's hard to see how the FTC could establish that the Blogger and Advertiser were thus conspiring to mislead consumers, but that certainly won't stop your typical Minion of Self Righteousness in the Democrat Party.
It is worth noting the number of times in the past decade that the Media have reported on the likes of China and Iran and their attempts to regulate content on the Internet so as to suppress free speech. Obama is now following suit. Will The Media attribute to him similar motives? I doubt it. They've already given him the Fig Leaf of virtuous consumer protection as a cover.
Beyond the obvious Police State mentality that inspired such a policy, it's also worth noting who it is that the Government is going to use to enforce this new policy: Google. The Obama Administration has already started to bring Google under its thumb, establishing the same relationship with its founder that it has with Jeffry Immelt, the CEO of GE, which owns among other things Obama's favorite Media Pet, NBC. The vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory version of these relationships is that the Obama Administration will give these corporations favorable treatment and regulatory precedence over competitors. In other words, they'll pick winners and losers; the winners will be Friends of the Democrat Party.
OffHisMeds is more than willing to sign on to this particular Conspiracy Theory, primarily because he cannot afford not to. Google and all other major Web Search companies already document and store virtually every transaction you conduct and every website you visit over the Internet. It's called "Data Mining". This has been the source of much concern on the part of Privacy advocates, yet the Obama Administration has done nothing to regulate such activity. That's a strange reaction to a government so concerned about the alleged excesses of the Bush Administration in Data Mining to track terrorists. Apparently it's OK, though, if you're Google, and you're only using it to help the FTC snoop on Bloggers.
It's ironic to think that Google can Data Mine the living daylights out of Average Americans so as to restrict speech that might be offensive to the Obama Administration, whereas - thanks to Democrats - the Bush Administration had to jump through every conceivable legal hoop in order to Data Mine Terrorists. If you as a Blogger are coming to the conclusion that you have less rights than a Terrorist in Obama's America, you aren't far off the mark.
And one can only contemplate the gargantuan expansion of the FTC that will be necessary to track, investigate and prosecute this activity, no doubt another happy outcome for the President who promised "to create or save 3.5 million new jobs" with his policies. Problem is, if you understand how Ad Searches work, you'll understand that those busy Apparats are going to have their hands full. Let me give you an example: In a previous blog, I criticized obnoxious gay activist Perez Hilton on the explicit premise that his gayness made him obnoxious; clearly, not exactly a pro-gay opinion. An hour later, Google had posted gay dating service ads on my Blog, based on key words. Will the bicycle seat sniffers at the FTC now look for a conspiracy between me and Perez Hilton to hide some mutually beneficial monetary arrangement?
One Final Note: OffHisMeds is happy to report that - in the past eight months - his total earnings from Internet Advertisements is $5.84. I know this because Google tells me so, and since Google's official policy is to pay nothing to a Blogger until their earnings surpass $100.00, I should be off the hook. So on the one hand, I'm grateful that so few people read my Blog, as that will mean that I will avoid the scrutiny of the FTC for the foreseeable future; on the other hand, I'm not so hopeful where the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is concerned, seeing as how OffHisMeds criticizes the government with some regularity.
And besides, DHS is armed; FTC is not.
At least so far.
You can check it out here at: http://tinyurl.com/n3hlhl.
Given that 99% of all Blogs are conversation, if you're as confused as me why it is that the government - much less the FTC - would need to regulate conversation, read on.
Everybody in the Blogosphere is familiar with ad-posting. The whole idea is that if your Blog is popular - regardless of its content - Google and other search engine companies will pay you a small commission based on the number of hits on your Blog and the number of folks who click on the ads therein. The Blogger does not control the ads that appear on their Blog; rather, it is based on Key Words in the Blog that then are filtered by the Search Engines to direct them to appropriate advertisers. It's always been viewed as a win-win, and never before has anybody attempted to regulate the content of a Blog based on some benighted notion of Consumer Protection.
Until the Obama Administration that is.
The problem is, the Obama Administration isn't interested in regulating commerce. They're interested in regulating speech. The proof of this is the incredibly low threshold the government sets for itself in determining if unscrupulous activity is taking place. The AP article goes on to explain that the FTC will come after Bloggers and the companies who advertise through them for:
a) allowing ads to be posted on a Blog, even the randomly posted advertisements based on keywords;
b) failure of the Blogger to disclose any "compensation" they receive from advertisers.
To say that this is thin justification would be an understatement. It would also be a virtual re-invention of the FTC charter. Never before has the FTC gone after individuals for penny ante economic activity, and the interpretation as to the motives by both Parties would be left to the sole discretion of the FTC. Further, the policy would mean that ANY Blogger who had ads on their website would be subject to enforcement, and that their guilt would be determined at the whim of FTC bureaucrats.
What's interesting here is that there is rarely any contractual arrangement between a Blogger and an Advertiser, much less a relationship of any kind. The vast majority of Bloggers don't even know who the Advertisers are, and it is solely through Google and similar companies that the ads are posted and the revenue paid. It's hard to see how the FTC could establish that the Blogger and Advertiser were thus conspiring to mislead consumers, but that certainly won't stop your typical Minion of Self Righteousness in the Democrat Party.
It is worth noting the number of times in the past decade that the Media have reported on the likes of China and Iran and their attempts to regulate content on the Internet so as to suppress free speech. Obama is now following suit. Will The Media attribute to him similar motives? I doubt it. They've already given him the Fig Leaf of virtuous consumer protection as a cover.
Beyond the obvious Police State mentality that inspired such a policy, it's also worth noting who it is that the Government is going to use to enforce this new policy: Google. The Obama Administration has already started to bring Google under its thumb, establishing the same relationship with its founder that it has with Jeffry Immelt, the CEO of GE, which owns among other things Obama's favorite Media Pet, NBC. The vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory version of these relationships is that the Obama Administration will give these corporations favorable treatment and regulatory precedence over competitors. In other words, they'll pick winners and losers; the winners will be Friends of the Democrat Party.
OffHisMeds is more than willing to sign on to this particular Conspiracy Theory, primarily because he cannot afford not to. Google and all other major Web Search companies already document and store virtually every transaction you conduct and every website you visit over the Internet. It's called "Data Mining". This has been the source of much concern on the part of Privacy advocates, yet the Obama Administration has done nothing to regulate such activity. That's a strange reaction to a government so concerned about the alleged excesses of the Bush Administration in Data Mining to track terrorists. Apparently it's OK, though, if you're Google, and you're only using it to help the FTC snoop on Bloggers.
It's ironic to think that Google can Data Mine the living daylights out of Average Americans so as to restrict speech that might be offensive to the Obama Administration, whereas - thanks to Democrats - the Bush Administration had to jump through every conceivable legal hoop in order to Data Mine Terrorists. If you as a Blogger are coming to the conclusion that you have less rights than a Terrorist in Obama's America, you aren't far off the mark.
And one can only contemplate the gargantuan expansion of the FTC that will be necessary to track, investigate and prosecute this activity, no doubt another happy outcome for the President who promised "to create or save 3.5 million new jobs" with his policies. Problem is, if you understand how Ad Searches work, you'll understand that those busy Apparats are going to have their hands full. Let me give you an example: In a previous blog, I criticized obnoxious gay activist Perez Hilton on the explicit premise that his gayness made him obnoxious; clearly, not exactly a pro-gay opinion. An hour later, Google had posted gay dating service ads on my Blog, based on key words. Will the bicycle seat sniffers at the FTC now look for a conspiracy between me and Perez Hilton to hide some mutually beneficial monetary arrangement?
One Final Note: OffHisMeds is happy to report that - in the past eight months - his total earnings from Internet Advertisements is $5.84. I know this because Google tells me so, and since Google's official policy is to pay nothing to a Blogger until their earnings surpass $100.00, I should be off the hook. So on the one hand, I'm grateful that so few people read my Blog, as that will mean that I will avoid the scrutiny of the FTC for the foreseeable future; on the other hand, I'm not so hopeful where the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is concerned, seeing as how OffHisMeds criticizes the government with some regularity.
And besides, DHS is armed; FTC is not.
At least so far.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Barack's Obeisance Tour, Part III - Iran
As you know, OffHisMeds has been keeping tally of President Obama's more grandiose gestures of Abasement to the Dictators of the world. This is the third installment in this critique, amazing when you think that Barack Obama has been president only four months. But then, he's been a busy Apologizer-In-Chief.
The latest opportunity came when Iran rigged their Presidential elections last week, with the incumbent Terrorist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beating the Terrorist Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. With a vote-counting efficiency that would have amazed even the most cynical Chicago Ward Heeler, Ahmadinejad's minions had all the votes counted before the polls were closed, declaring him the victor by a margin of two to one.
Now, it could be that Obama's voice was initially stilled because he was willing to give the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt on the vote count, inasmuch as he hatched his political career in Chicago, where the margin of victory for Democrats frequently exceeds 90%, and generally includes more voters than could be accounted for by census. OffHisMeds might argue that the only discernable difference between the Chicago Bosses and the Mullahs of the Guardian Council is headgear and marital customs, but OHM does not wish to seem cynical.
When he finally did rouse himself to comment on the rigged elections, President Obama made all the predictable noises, and his comments covered what for him is now familiar ground: "respect for another country's sovereignty..........America interfering is what causes these kinds of problems in the first place..........having an opinion about Democracy inflames the Arab Street, etc., etc". Although we've heard it all before, it still amazes me that Obama can always manage to take the most off-beat topic, and turn it into an opportunity to apologize for America, even when criticizing the sham elections of a brutal Islamic Oligarchy that has murdered American soldiers, imprisoned American citizens and is committed to wiping America off the face of the map.
With the Iranian elections, however, Obama has taken his Apology game to a whole new level. Apparently having tired of apologizing strictly for America, he is now apologizing for Democracy. Granted, good, bad or indifferent, there's not a lot a U.S. President could have said about the Iranian non-elections that would have amounted to a hill of beans. Oh sure, he could have at least tossed the freedom-loving peoples of Iran a bone by expressing disapproval about the Iranian regime killing protestors in the street, but you know Obama, always above the fray, eye on the big prize, gazing heroically out to the horizon.
No sense getting all roiled up about a few casualties at Iranian polling stations.
As the protests mounted in the streets in the following days, Obama made things worse by a) praising Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameni for his "restraint" against the protestors, and b) by using the honorific "Supreme Leader" to describe Khameni. No doubt, Obama wishes that he too could use such "restraint" on protesters back home - starting with those troublesome Tea Partiers - and something tells me that anybody who describes himself as "the one that we've been waiting for", would probably not look askew at being described as the "Supreme Leader". Time will tell.
As was to be expected, his suckup to Khameni was immediately thrown back in his face, as the Grand Ayatollah lashed out against the protestors mere hours after Obama's flattery, and sent his paramilitary into the streets for a serious ass-whooping directly after that. Having thus been humiliated, Obama resorted to what for him was harsh language, calling the actions of the Iranian government "violent and unjust". Well, better late than never, I suppose, but it does call into question what it is that Barack Obama believes in, if anything. He lives in a society that promotes Freedom and Democracy. Freedom and Democracy have provided him his education, jobs and political opportunities. In other words, Freedom and Democracy have been very, very good to Barack Obama.
Seems like the least he could do is rouse himself to say so publicly, and for the benefit of the Iranian people.
Since the Presidential campaign, Obama has made much of his historical illiteracy, using it to defend himself whenever he felt a slight coming on. His favorite expression is to point out that he was only "four years old" or "two years old", etc., at the point in time that somebody associated with him was doing something bad. Recent examples include his excuse that the activities of his friend and domestic Terrorist William Ayres were not his fault because he "was only eight at the time", as well as his recent admonition to former Commie dictator Daniel Ortega not to blame him for supposed human rights violations perpetrated in Central and South America "before he was born".
Well, Obama was seventeen when the Mullahs crushed the nascent democracy then growing in Iran under the Shah, and while he certainly can't be held responsible for that, he can be held responsible for not reading a book, a magazine or a newspaper since then. He can be held accountable for a willful ignorance that is painful to watch, and which manifests itself as capitulation to the forces of darkness. And he should certainly be held accountable when his every utterance and action make it hard to differentiate him from the Mullahs.
Sundry pundits have observed that, while Barack offers no criticism of dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia, and indeed goes out of his way to praise them, he's got plenty of criticism for Democracies like Israel and Columbia. The dichotomy is striking, but it should not be a surprise.
I predict that we're not done with Obama's Apologies, but I will make a prediction: there will be a backlash, and soon. How Obama responds to that will tell us a lot about whose side he's on.
The latest opportunity came when Iran rigged their Presidential elections last week, with the incumbent Terrorist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beating the Terrorist Challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. With a vote-counting efficiency that would have amazed even the most cynical Chicago Ward Heeler, Ahmadinejad's minions had all the votes counted before the polls were closed, declaring him the victor by a margin of two to one.
Now, it could be that Obama's voice was initially stilled because he was willing to give the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt on the vote count, inasmuch as he hatched his political career in Chicago, where the margin of victory for Democrats frequently exceeds 90%, and generally includes more voters than could be accounted for by census. OffHisMeds might argue that the only discernable difference between the Chicago Bosses and the Mullahs of the Guardian Council is headgear and marital customs, but OHM does not wish to seem cynical.
When he finally did rouse himself to comment on the rigged elections, President Obama made all the predictable noises, and his comments covered what for him is now familiar ground: "respect for another country's sovereignty..........America interfering is what causes these kinds of problems in the first place..........having an opinion about Democracy inflames the Arab Street, etc., etc". Although we've heard it all before, it still amazes me that Obama can always manage to take the most off-beat topic, and turn it into an opportunity to apologize for America, even when criticizing the sham elections of a brutal Islamic Oligarchy that has murdered American soldiers, imprisoned American citizens and is committed to wiping America off the face of the map.
With the Iranian elections, however, Obama has taken his Apology game to a whole new level. Apparently having tired of apologizing strictly for America, he is now apologizing for Democracy. Granted, good, bad or indifferent, there's not a lot a U.S. President could have said about the Iranian non-elections that would have amounted to a hill of beans. Oh sure, he could have at least tossed the freedom-loving peoples of Iran a bone by expressing disapproval about the Iranian regime killing protestors in the street, but you know Obama, always above the fray, eye on the big prize, gazing heroically out to the horizon.
No sense getting all roiled up about a few casualties at Iranian polling stations.
As the protests mounted in the streets in the following days, Obama made things worse by a) praising Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameni for his "restraint" against the protestors, and b) by using the honorific "Supreme Leader" to describe Khameni. No doubt, Obama wishes that he too could use such "restraint" on protesters back home - starting with those troublesome Tea Partiers - and something tells me that anybody who describes himself as "the one that we've been waiting for", would probably not look askew at being described as the "Supreme Leader". Time will tell.
As was to be expected, his suckup to Khameni was immediately thrown back in his face, as the Grand Ayatollah lashed out against the protestors mere hours after Obama's flattery, and sent his paramilitary into the streets for a serious ass-whooping directly after that. Having thus been humiliated, Obama resorted to what for him was harsh language, calling the actions of the Iranian government "violent and unjust". Well, better late than never, I suppose, but it does call into question what it is that Barack Obama believes in, if anything. He lives in a society that promotes Freedom and Democracy. Freedom and Democracy have provided him his education, jobs and political opportunities. In other words, Freedom and Democracy have been very, very good to Barack Obama.
Seems like the least he could do is rouse himself to say so publicly, and for the benefit of the Iranian people.
Since the Presidential campaign, Obama has made much of his historical illiteracy, using it to defend himself whenever he felt a slight coming on. His favorite expression is to point out that he was only "four years old" or "two years old", etc., at the point in time that somebody associated with him was doing something bad. Recent examples include his excuse that the activities of his friend and domestic Terrorist William Ayres were not his fault because he "was only eight at the time", as well as his recent admonition to former Commie dictator Daniel Ortega not to blame him for supposed human rights violations perpetrated in Central and South America "before he was born".
Well, Obama was seventeen when the Mullahs crushed the nascent democracy then growing in Iran under the Shah, and while he certainly can't be held responsible for that, he can be held responsible for not reading a book, a magazine or a newspaper since then. He can be held accountable for a willful ignorance that is painful to watch, and which manifests itself as capitulation to the forces of darkness. And he should certainly be held accountable when his every utterance and action make it hard to differentiate him from the Mullahs.
Sundry pundits have observed that, while Barack offers no criticism of dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia, and indeed goes out of his way to praise them, he's got plenty of criticism for Democracies like Israel and Columbia. The dichotomy is striking, but it should not be a surprise.
I predict that we're not done with Obama's Apologies, but I will make a prediction: there will be a backlash, and soon. How Obama responds to that will tell us a lot about whose side he's on.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Man vs. Raccoon
Last month, my wife and I noticed that a few times per week, the cat's food bowls in the garage were empty in the morning, and the water dish was seriously depleted and a bit slimy to boot. This never happened before, so we suspected that another cat or some other critter was coming in late at night for a snack.
About a month ago, Sharon couldn't sleep, so she got up about 3:00 a.m. and went out to the garage to read and smoke a ciggie. Our cats Fraidy and Idgie were in their beds, snoozing. A few minutes later, something came pushing through the cat door, and in enters a very large raccoon. Sharon reports that she jumped up on her chair and started yelling for him to "get out of here". The raccoon ran behind the van and peered back at her as if she was crazy.
Sharon decided to change her strategy, so she stayed on the chair, yelled at him to "get out", and pointed at the cat door. Figuring he was not welcome, the coon ambled over and slipped out, although he looked none too pleased at having his routine interrupted. During this entire exchange, our cats simply dozed in their beds, as if this was the most natural thing in the world.
We named him Rocky.
In the next few weeks the cat's bowls would be empty, so, figuring I had to do something, I called Sandy and Thursday went to borrow his animal trap. Last night, I baited it with a bowl of cat food, and put it near the cat door. My original strategy was to block the cat door with the trap, but I decided not to do that the first time, since Idgie was still outside and would need to get in the garage. Plus, some small portion of my brain - the part that controls inappropriate behavior - thought that it would be funny to see if Idgie would walk into the trap.
This isn't really as bad as it sounds. In the annals of Petdom, Idgie is about as useless as cats get. He is not larger than life, as was Whitey. He is not beautiful like Shatzie, or friendly, like Mongo. He does not protect our home, as Chuba does with such dedication, nor is he perpetually glad to see you, like Murphy. He is not smart, like Fraidy, who can speak several words of English, including "NOW" (when she wants to be fed or petted).
Idgie does two things: he eats, and he and loiters underfoot every time we walk out to the garage. When - not if, but when - I break a hip, Idgie will be the cause.
Anyway, I got up this morning and went out to check the trap. No raccoon or cat in the cage. Inside the garage, however, the cat's food bowls were empty, and the water dish was depleted. Rocky - 1, OffHisMeds - 0. So, to sum up: the raccoon is smart, relatively considerate, beautiful, and is not constantly underfoot. Idgie is, well, Idgie.
At first, the objective was to catch the annoying critter and transport him to some safe haven, preferably in The Heights Area or perhaps Midtown, so as to liven things up a little for Inside-The-Loopers. Now, I'm thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea to catch Idgie, transport him to some safe haven, and keep Rocky Raccoon.
Does that make me a bad person?
I am,
A Conflicted Pet Owner
About a month ago, Sharon couldn't sleep, so she got up about 3:00 a.m. and went out to the garage to read and smoke a ciggie. Our cats Fraidy and Idgie were in their beds, snoozing. A few minutes later, something came pushing through the cat door, and in enters a very large raccoon. Sharon reports that she jumped up on her chair and started yelling for him to "get out of here". The raccoon ran behind the van and peered back at her as if she was crazy.
Sharon decided to change her strategy, so she stayed on the chair, yelled at him to "get out", and pointed at the cat door. Figuring he was not welcome, the coon ambled over and slipped out, although he looked none too pleased at having his routine interrupted. During this entire exchange, our cats simply dozed in their beds, as if this was the most natural thing in the world.
We named him Rocky.
In the next few weeks the cat's bowls would be empty, so, figuring I had to do something, I called Sandy and Thursday went to borrow his animal trap. Last night, I baited it with a bowl of cat food, and put it near the cat door. My original strategy was to block the cat door with the trap, but I decided not to do that the first time, since Idgie was still outside and would need to get in the garage. Plus, some small portion of my brain - the part that controls inappropriate behavior - thought that it would be funny to see if Idgie would walk into the trap.
This isn't really as bad as it sounds. In the annals of Petdom, Idgie is about as useless as cats get. He is not larger than life, as was Whitey. He is not beautiful like Shatzie, or friendly, like Mongo. He does not protect our home, as Chuba does with such dedication, nor is he perpetually glad to see you, like Murphy. He is not smart, like Fraidy, who can speak several words of English, including "NOW" (when she wants to be fed or petted).
Idgie does two things: he eats, and he and loiters underfoot every time we walk out to the garage. When - not if, but when - I break a hip, Idgie will be the cause.
Anyway, I got up this morning and went out to check the trap. No raccoon or cat in the cage. Inside the garage, however, the cat's food bowls were empty, and the water dish was depleted. Rocky - 1, OffHisMeds - 0. So, to sum up: the raccoon is smart, relatively considerate, beautiful, and is not constantly underfoot. Idgie is, well, Idgie.
At first, the objective was to catch the annoying critter and transport him to some safe haven, preferably in The Heights Area or perhaps Midtown, so as to liven things up a little for Inside-The-Loopers. Now, I'm thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea to catch Idgie, transport him to some safe haven, and keep Rocky Raccoon.
Does that make me a bad person?
I am,
A Conflicted Pet Owner
First, Get Rid Of The Truthtellers
It's funny how slow The Media has been to respond to the firing of Gerald Walpin, the government auditor who reported the misuse of AmeriCorp funds by political allies and cronies of President Obama. This story has many compelling aspects, including the character assassination by his superiors and the stinks-to-high-heaven timing, but the most astonishing aspect is this: President Obama got personally involved, and ordered him fired.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html
When have you ever heard of a President getting involved in personnel decisions at such a low level? I recall The Media's eagerness in the past two years to put George W. Bush's fingerprints on the firing of several Attorney's General and declare them "politically motivated", even though there was little evidence of such.
Walpin is several pay grades below Attorney General, and his audit was small potatoes, yet for all that, Obama took a personal interest very early on. Now, as the story progresses, we have compelling evidence that suggests that President Obama is up to his eyeballs not only in the firing of a whistle-blower, but the subsequent demonization and cover-up. Why does The Media have no opinion about this?
Because we live in a police state, that's why. A supplicant Media is the first and key ingredient in the propaganda apparatus necessary for the State to control society. Just ask Obama's friend Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro. Doubt it? There is one major media outlet that is not on board with Obama's "vision": Fox News. One major media outlet is advertising the story of Gerald Walpin: Fox News. Four days ago, President Obama criticized by name a specific media outlet as being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration": Fox News.
Shades of Hugo Chavez.
Never in the history of the Republic has a President singled out a specific newspaper, radio station or television network for criticism. Never has a President singled out a low-level employee for termination and villification. Supreme Leader Obama did both.
I predict that this controversy will be swept under the rug, as have so many before. That's too bad. There's a great story here.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html
When have you ever heard of a President getting involved in personnel decisions at such a low level? I recall The Media's eagerness in the past two years to put George W. Bush's fingerprints on the firing of several Attorney's General and declare them "politically motivated", even though there was little evidence of such.
Walpin is several pay grades below Attorney General, and his audit was small potatoes, yet for all that, Obama took a personal interest very early on. Now, as the story progresses, we have compelling evidence that suggests that President Obama is up to his eyeballs not only in the firing of a whistle-blower, but the subsequent demonization and cover-up. Why does The Media have no opinion about this?
Because we live in a police state, that's why. A supplicant Media is the first and key ingredient in the propaganda apparatus necessary for the State to control society. Just ask Obama's friend Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro. Doubt it? There is one major media outlet that is not on board with Obama's "vision": Fox News. One major media outlet is advertising the story of Gerald Walpin: Fox News. Four days ago, President Obama criticized by name a specific media outlet as being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration": Fox News.
Shades of Hugo Chavez.
Never in the history of the Republic has a President singled out a specific newspaper, radio station or television network for criticism. Never has a President singled out a low-level employee for termination and villification. Supreme Leader Obama did both.
I predict that this controversy will be swept under the rug, as have so many before. That's too bad. There's a great story here.
Monday, June 15, 2009
LTE: Memo to AG
Regarding Froma Harrop’s column “Medical costs can be cut without lowering quality, (Wednesday) Harrop makes the case for further government intervention in national health care by citing the fact that in McAllen, Medicare costs are double that of most other cities, while providing inferior results. She documents the profligate use of high-cost procedures and the avoidance of low-cost prevention by area health professionals to explain the gap.
Her mistake in explaining the phenomenon is that she refuses to call it what it is: Medicare fraud. Rather than addressing this as a policy issue on reimbursement, we should treat it as a law enforcement issue. If Wall Street brokers can be sent to jail for stealing billions, surely corrupt doctors should not be immune.
— Pete Smith, Cypress
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Letters-Judicial-elections-health-care-costs-1729504.php
Her mistake in explaining the phenomenon is that she refuses to call it what it is: Medicare fraud. Rather than addressing this as a policy issue on reimbursement, we should treat it as a law enforcement issue. If Wall Street brokers can be sent to jail for stealing billions, surely corrupt doctors should not be immune.
— Pete Smith, Cypress
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Letters-Judicial-elections-health-care-costs-1729504.php
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Without TelePrompTers
To all my Democrat friends, here's The One's regime in action. Watch, as Obama Spokesmodel trips over tongue; Wonder, as Democrat congressman actually questions competence of another Democrat; Marvel, as you try to divide the missing $9 Trillion by the population of the U.S.
Seems they couldn't afford TelePrompTers for everybody:
There Are No Words To Describe The Following Part II - Home - The Daily Bail - The Bailout News Central Depository. News, Int.
Seems they couldn't afford TelePrompTers for everybody:
There Are No Words To Describe The Following Part II - Home - The Daily Bail - The Bailout News Central Depository. News, Int.
Friday, June 12, 2009
David Letterman, The Accidental Pedophile
This past Monday night, David Letterman saw fit to rip on Sarah Palin and the Palin family during his nightly monologue, amongst other things comparing Governor Palin to a "slutty flight attendant". The occasion of his jokes was Governor Palin being in New York to attend a fundraiser for Autism, during which visit she and her family also attended a Yankees game. So, did Letterman comment on the purpose for her visit, or perhaps give Mrs. Palin some props for supporting a worthy cause?
No. Seeing as how his target was a Conservative woman, Letterman was Letterman, and hurled some truly Bill Maher-like vilification at not just Palin, but her daughters and family as well. The Palin family was featured not only in his "Top Ten", but much of his monologue as well. The truly vile part came when Letterman suggested that baseball player Alex Rodriguez and former Governor Elliot Spitzer sexually assault Palin's 14 year old daughter Willow at the Yankee game in question.
Letterman's defenders insisted that when he made the "joke", he mistakenly thought Palin was attended by her 18 year old daughter Bristol, who had a child out of wedlock last year. You'll recall that pregnancy caused much clucking of the tongues by the Morality Police within the Liberal community who were shocked - shocked - at the supposed hypocrisy of the abstinence-inclined Palin family failing to perfectly live up to their own ideals. It was also the comic nugget that Letterman was attempting to mine on his Monday show.
This is one of OffHisMed's favorite cultural phenomenon to observe: The knee-jerk reaction of Liberals to any perceived deviation from moral perfection on the part of Conservatives, so that they might then rhetorically beat Conservatives about their head and shoulders, high-fiving themselves along the way for what they perceive to be their endless cleverness and perspicacity. It is as predictable as the Sun's rising, and as tiresome as Al Gore's compulsion to say the words "Carbon Footprint" on a daily basis.
It was also the single thing that drove David Letterman to tell the jokes, along with his apparent obsession with Palin's teenage girls.
When Letterman addressed the controversy Wednesday night, he stated that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl". Remember those words for their Clintonesque parsing later. I don't buy that he thought he was referring to the 18 year old daughter as opposed to the 14 year old. Letterman fashions himself an edgy kind of guy, and if his humor isn't pushing the envelope, he isn't happy. It makes sense that Letterman would assume that the promiscuity he sees in the older daughter would be a family trait, based mainly on the fact that Palin herself has borne five children. In Letterman's universe, the other daughters would be thus be fair game as well, since he and every other Liberal "comedian" had already and repeatedly "done" Bristol to death for the past year.
And in making his own defense, how low does Letterman set the bar in absolving himself of charges that he was advocating Pedophilia? In his own words when he defended himself, he suggested it was OK for A Rod or Elliot Spitzer to sexually assault an 18 year old, but not a 14 year old. That would seem to represent the margin of acceptability that Letterman is comfortable with.
Finally, regardless of the age of the Palin daughter he was targeting, in using A Rod and Spitzer as the Stalking Horses for his jokes, Letterman was implying that it was either: a) OK to rape a teenage girl; b) that one of the Palin girls was a prostitute; or c) that it was OK to molest the mother of an infant. Apparently, one or all of these things is OK, as long as the victim is a Palin girl.
Regardless of where you come down on what Letterman's intensions were, it does raise the question: Why is Letterman so threatened by Sarah Palin? I opined some months ago about the motives of Bill Maher who indulged his Misogynistic tendencies: among many nasty jokes he described Palin as a "MILF - Moron I'd like to forget". Nobody laughed at that joke harder than Maher, by the way. I speculated about Maher's Hate Speech, and what drove him to such self-destructive lengths:
http://offhismeds.blogspot.com/2008/11/vagina-envy-and-bill-maher.html
And of course, this is all of a piece in Liberaldom, the most recent example being Perez Hilton's rants against overtly hetero women such as former Miss California, Carrie Prejean.
Bottom line, Letterman's remarks about the Palin family reinforce four things:
1) He's a cheap-shot artist who has lost market share continuously throughout his career. His panicky reaction to these circumstances is to pander to any ever-dwindling audience that he perceives to be his base, and indulging an ever-more politicized style of comedy characterized by personal attacks.
2) He is a misogynist, albeit that he specializes in Conservative women. There is zero likelihood that Letterman would give a Tinker's damn about the Governor of Alaska if the name had been Robert Palin. He might have gigged a Robert Palin a few times, but let there be no doubt: Letterman went for Sarah Palin's jugular because she is a woman.
3) He's got lots of company, including Hilton, Maher, Katie Couric, Tina Fey, Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer, to name but a few.
4) Letterman, like most uber-Liberals, hates himself. Nobody can turn off their brain 100% of the time, and even Letterman must see the dreadful consequences of advancing the Liberal cause with such slavish devotion. As Michael Corleone so famously said of the Mafia: "no matter how hard I try, they keep pulling me back in". Letterman must surely feel the same way about the Entertainment Mafia that has co-opted him. How easy would it be to flame the dreary delusions of Sean Penn, for example? His audience would eat it up, and he knows it. He also knows he can never go there, however liberating it would be.
When Letterman addressed the controversy Wednesday night, he stated that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl", but clearly, he did. He might have added the word "intentionally" to his rebuttal, but he didn't. I think that obfuscation is instructive. If Letterman had used the word "intentionally", he would have had to admit he made a mistake. His failure to so qualify his remarks means he's adamant that he did not make a mistake. I'll take him at his word, but the outcome for him is that he has explained nothing.
To compound the weirdness, remember my earlier mention of Letterman's Clintonesque parsing in his rebuttal? First, recall that after he told the joke he was accused of suggesting that other men have sex with 14 year old teenage girls; his rebuttal, however, was that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl". Why would Letterman feel the need to defend himself - if only rhetorically - about having sex with a 14 year old girl?
If Letterman said either of those things intentionally, he's a Pedophile. If he didn't, he's an Accidental Pedophile. Either way, he's ironically gotten himself on the wrong side of Political Correctness, and it's about damn time.
No. Seeing as how his target was a Conservative woman, Letterman was Letterman, and hurled some truly Bill Maher-like vilification at not just Palin, but her daughters and family as well. The Palin family was featured not only in his "Top Ten", but much of his monologue as well. The truly vile part came when Letterman suggested that baseball player Alex Rodriguez and former Governor Elliot Spitzer sexually assault Palin's 14 year old daughter Willow at the Yankee game in question.
Letterman's defenders insisted that when he made the "joke", he mistakenly thought Palin was attended by her 18 year old daughter Bristol, who had a child out of wedlock last year. You'll recall that pregnancy caused much clucking of the tongues by the Morality Police within the Liberal community who were shocked - shocked - at the supposed hypocrisy of the abstinence-inclined Palin family failing to perfectly live up to their own ideals. It was also the comic nugget that Letterman was attempting to mine on his Monday show.
This is one of OffHisMed's favorite cultural phenomenon to observe: The knee-jerk reaction of Liberals to any perceived deviation from moral perfection on the part of Conservatives, so that they might then rhetorically beat Conservatives about their head and shoulders, high-fiving themselves along the way for what they perceive to be their endless cleverness and perspicacity. It is as predictable as the Sun's rising, and as tiresome as Al Gore's compulsion to say the words "Carbon Footprint" on a daily basis.
It was also the single thing that drove David Letterman to tell the jokes, along with his apparent obsession with Palin's teenage girls.
When Letterman addressed the controversy Wednesday night, he stated that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl". Remember those words for their Clintonesque parsing later. I don't buy that he thought he was referring to the 18 year old daughter as opposed to the 14 year old. Letterman fashions himself an edgy kind of guy, and if his humor isn't pushing the envelope, he isn't happy. It makes sense that Letterman would assume that the promiscuity he sees in the older daughter would be a family trait, based mainly on the fact that Palin herself has borne five children. In Letterman's universe, the other daughters would be thus be fair game as well, since he and every other Liberal "comedian" had already and repeatedly "done" Bristol to death for the past year.
And in making his own defense, how low does Letterman set the bar in absolving himself of charges that he was advocating Pedophilia? In his own words when he defended himself, he suggested it was OK for A Rod or Elliot Spitzer to sexually assault an 18 year old, but not a 14 year old. That would seem to represent the margin of acceptability that Letterman is comfortable with.
Finally, regardless of the age of the Palin daughter he was targeting, in using A Rod and Spitzer as the Stalking Horses for his jokes, Letterman was implying that it was either: a) OK to rape a teenage girl; b) that one of the Palin girls was a prostitute; or c) that it was OK to molest the mother of an infant. Apparently, one or all of these things is OK, as long as the victim is a Palin girl.
Regardless of where you come down on what Letterman's intensions were, it does raise the question: Why is Letterman so threatened by Sarah Palin? I opined some months ago about the motives of Bill Maher who indulged his Misogynistic tendencies: among many nasty jokes he described Palin as a "MILF - Moron I'd like to forget". Nobody laughed at that joke harder than Maher, by the way. I speculated about Maher's Hate Speech, and what drove him to such self-destructive lengths:
http://offhismeds.blogspot.com/2008/11/vagina-envy-and-bill-maher.html
And of course, this is all of a piece in Liberaldom, the most recent example being Perez Hilton's rants against overtly hetero women such as former Miss California, Carrie Prejean.
Bottom line, Letterman's remarks about the Palin family reinforce four things:
1) He's a cheap-shot artist who has lost market share continuously throughout his career. His panicky reaction to these circumstances is to pander to any ever-dwindling audience that he perceives to be his base, and indulging an ever-more politicized style of comedy characterized by personal attacks.
2) He is a misogynist, albeit that he specializes in Conservative women. There is zero likelihood that Letterman would give a Tinker's damn about the Governor of Alaska if the name had been Robert Palin. He might have gigged a Robert Palin a few times, but let there be no doubt: Letterman went for Sarah Palin's jugular because she is a woman.
3) He's got lots of company, including Hilton, Maher, Katie Couric, Tina Fey, Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer, to name but a few.
4) Letterman, like most uber-Liberals, hates himself. Nobody can turn off their brain 100% of the time, and even Letterman must see the dreadful consequences of advancing the Liberal cause with such slavish devotion. As Michael Corleone so famously said of the Mafia: "no matter how hard I try, they keep pulling me back in". Letterman must surely feel the same way about the Entertainment Mafia that has co-opted him. How easy would it be to flame the dreary delusions of Sean Penn, for example? His audience would eat it up, and he knows it. He also knows he can never go there, however liberating it would be.
When Letterman addressed the controversy Wednesday night, he stated that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl", but clearly, he did. He might have added the word "intentionally" to his rebuttal, but he didn't. I think that obfuscation is instructive. If Letterman had used the word "intentionally", he would have had to admit he made a mistake. His failure to so qualify his remarks means he's adamant that he did not make a mistake. I'll take him at his word, but the outcome for him is that he has explained nothing.
To compound the weirdness, remember my earlier mention of Letterman's Clintonesque parsing in his rebuttal? First, recall that after he told the joke he was accused of suggesting that other men have sex with 14 year old teenage girls; his rebuttal, however, was that he would "never make jokes about having sex of any description with a 14 year old girl". Why would Letterman feel the need to defend himself - if only rhetorically - about having sex with a 14 year old girl?
If Letterman said either of those things intentionally, he's a Pedophile. If he didn't, he's an Accidental Pedophile. Either way, he's ironically gotten himself on the wrong side of Political Correctness, and it's about damn time.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Chrysler, Obama And The Not So Supreme Court
I read with amusement the NY Times article "Chrysler gets clearance for bankruptcy". Among several things which caused a bitter chuckle or two was the revelation that the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of three Indiana state employee's pension funds that were to be paid only 29 cents on the dollar for secured debt, while the UAW - an unsecured creditor - would be paid 50 cents on the dollar and end up owning 55% of the stock in Chrysler. The reason given in the article was that "the Supreme Court (only) looks at big-picture issues with long term dimensions".
Truly? Isn't this the same Supreme Court that:
a) Did a "Divorce Court turn when they hosted Anna Nicole Smith - complete with celebrity photo shoot - in her divorce proceedings against the estate of her late husband, J. Howard Marshall?
b) Just recently (and for the umpteenth time) fine tuned which naughty words can be said on television, and which can not?
c) Engrosses itself every time somebody protests a plaque showing the ten commandments on public property?
It's interesting that Property Rights aren't considered to be "big-picture issues with long term dimensions" by the United States Supreme Court, but a Stripper's case against her Sugar Daddy's estate, potty-mouthed celebrities and the hurt feelings of Atheists are.
It's also interesting that the UAW should be handed 55% ownership for settlement of a mere $4.6 billion in debt. To put that in perspective, if the massive taxpayer subsidies that Obama has provided and will almost certainly continue to provide work their magic and sustain Chrysler, it's stock value should increase at least ten fold in the next year. Now, the UAW is sitting on $46 billion when it was originally owed only $9.2 billion.
Other outrages abound:
- With unlimited government support, Chrysler and GM will likely run Ford out of business, and all because they were a responsible corporate citizen, paid their bills and avoided an Obama takeover. Thus does Obama pick winners and losers, as any good Commissar of Industrial Planning would.
- Eight hundred Chrysler auto dealers were put out of business and stuck with billions in inventory for no better reason than that the Obama Administration said "do it". Curiously, their franchises were then given - minus that inconvenient inventory - to other dealers. Follow this particular piece of nastiness closely. It will come out that Democrat big-wigs and their supporters were the beneficiaries.
- Debtholders for Chrysler were the least of the victims in this money grab. Stockholders - that would be you and me and our 401k's - got nothing. Billions in stock equity that evaporated over the past two years, only to magically reappear in the pockets of the UAW and the Democrat Party.
If you follow all the threads of this story, you see nothing less than a frontal assault on Property Rights, the abrogation of Contracts, a seizure of assets so bold that it would have made Hugo Chavez proud, and the outright theft of hundreds of billions from stockholders, debt holders and taxpayers, and all to the explicit benefit of the Democrat Party and their minions.
Who would have thought that Obama and the Democrats could in a mere 90 days make every dictator in Central and South America look like paragons of virtue, much less models of fiscal restraint? Chavez himself has applauded Obama as being "more of a Socialist than I am". He was being kind. Socialism at least has a history of being grounded in the rule of law. Apparently, Obama is not so constrained.
It is even more disturbing that, in mere weeks, he has managed to co-opt the Supreme Court to do his nefarious bidding. Conservatives can look with hope to the 2010 elections, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Democrats have overplayed their hand, but what can be done about the Courts? Every decision they make becomes precedent, but the things they refuse to review become precedent too. Democrats know this, and with every favorable decision or non-decision increase their stranglehold on the Republic. Conservatives better wake up to what's going on here, or there won't be an electoral rebound big enough to make any difference.
The Weasel Words from the High Court justifying their abdication were instructive. In refusing to accept the case, they said: "A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues........Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone." And with that little bit of mumbo jumbo, the Supremes basically said that - while they weren't saying that the seizures were lawful - they simply couldn't be bothered, and let the Democrats steal 2/3rds of the domestic automobile industry for them and their pals.
There's plenty of shame to go around on this fiasco, but at least Democrats are playing to type. The Supreme Court has no such fallback to explain its action, or rather lack thereof.
Truly? Isn't this the same Supreme Court that:
a) Did a "Divorce Court turn when they hosted Anna Nicole Smith - complete with celebrity photo shoot - in her divorce proceedings against the estate of her late husband, J. Howard Marshall?
b) Just recently (and for the umpteenth time) fine tuned which naughty words can be said on television, and which can not?
c) Engrosses itself every time somebody protests a plaque showing the ten commandments on public property?
It's interesting that Property Rights aren't considered to be "big-picture issues with long term dimensions" by the United States Supreme Court, but a Stripper's case against her Sugar Daddy's estate, potty-mouthed celebrities and the hurt feelings of Atheists are.
It's also interesting that the UAW should be handed 55% ownership for settlement of a mere $4.6 billion in debt. To put that in perspective, if the massive taxpayer subsidies that Obama has provided and will almost certainly continue to provide work their magic and sustain Chrysler, it's stock value should increase at least ten fold in the next year. Now, the UAW is sitting on $46 billion when it was originally owed only $9.2 billion.
Other outrages abound:
- With unlimited government support, Chrysler and GM will likely run Ford out of business, and all because they were a responsible corporate citizen, paid their bills and avoided an Obama takeover. Thus does Obama pick winners and losers, as any good Commissar of Industrial Planning would.
- Eight hundred Chrysler auto dealers were put out of business and stuck with billions in inventory for no better reason than that the Obama Administration said "do it". Curiously, their franchises were then given - minus that inconvenient inventory - to other dealers. Follow this particular piece of nastiness closely. It will come out that Democrat big-wigs and their supporters were the beneficiaries.
- Debtholders for Chrysler were the least of the victims in this money grab. Stockholders - that would be you and me and our 401k's - got nothing. Billions in stock equity that evaporated over the past two years, only to magically reappear in the pockets of the UAW and the Democrat Party.
If you follow all the threads of this story, you see nothing less than a frontal assault on Property Rights, the abrogation of Contracts, a seizure of assets so bold that it would have made Hugo Chavez proud, and the outright theft of hundreds of billions from stockholders, debt holders and taxpayers, and all to the explicit benefit of the Democrat Party and their minions.
Who would have thought that Obama and the Democrats could in a mere 90 days make every dictator in Central and South America look like paragons of virtue, much less models of fiscal restraint? Chavez himself has applauded Obama as being "more of a Socialist than I am". He was being kind. Socialism at least has a history of being grounded in the rule of law. Apparently, Obama is not so constrained.
It is even more disturbing that, in mere weeks, he has managed to co-opt the Supreme Court to do his nefarious bidding. Conservatives can look with hope to the 2010 elections, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Democrats have overplayed their hand, but what can be done about the Courts? Every decision they make becomes precedent, but the things they refuse to review become precedent too. Democrats know this, and with every favorable decision or non-decision increase their stranglehold on the Republic. Conservatives better wake up to what's going on here, or there won't be an electoral rebound big enough to make any difference.
The Weasel Words from the High Court justifying their abdication were instructive. In refusing to accept the case, they said: "A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues........Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone." And with that little bit of mumbo jumbo, the Supremes basically said that - while they weren't saying that the seizures were lawful - they simply couldn't be bothered, and let the Democrats steal 2/3rds of the domestic automobile industry for them and their pals.
There's plenty of shame to go around on this fiasco, but at least Democrats are playing to type. The Supreme Court has no such fallback to explain its action, or rather lack thereof.
Monday, June 8, 2009
David Carradine - Poster Child For Liberalism
David Carradine, the actor most known for his roles as Caine, the wandering oriental in the 70s TV series "Kung Fu", and as "Bill" in Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies, was found dead in the closet of his hotel room in Thailand the other day. It was revealed that Carradine was bound with velvet ropes about his neck, wrists and genitalia, a victim of a practice known as auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Andy Dick and Alec Baldwin were reported to have said to friends "there but for the grace of god go I".
No word yet as to any similar introspection by Ron Howard, Anderson Cooper or Harry Reid.
Andy Dick and Alec Baldwin were reported to have said to friends "there but for the grace of god go I".
No word yet as to any similar introspection by Ron Howard, Anderson Cooper or Harry Reid.
Friday, June 5, 2009
King Abdullah's Advice
Before his big speech in Cairo, Barack Obama visited King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and announced to the world that he "would seek out his Majesty's advice" before the speech. The King was ready. His advice: "Surrender".
On a somewhat contemporaneous front, Barack divvied up Chrysler Corporation between Himself, the UAW and the auto manufacturer whose name shared certain similarities with Barack's management style: Fiat.
No word yet as to whether anybody will buy Chrysler's cars, if Obama has burst into flames, or if Henry Ford is spinning in his grave......
On a somewhat contemporaneous front, Barack divvied up Chrysler Corporation between Himself, the UAW and the auto manufacturer whose name shared certain similarities with Barack's management style: Fiat.
No word yet as to whether anybody will buy Chrysler's cars, if Obama has burst into flames, or if Henry Ford is spinning in his grave......
LTE: Oprah is most powerful
Some of your readers might not browse the Chronicle’s Page A2 “Newsmakers” section as regularly as I do, but one item in the Thursday edition should have caught everybody’s eye. The lead article proclaimed that Angelina Jolie was “the world’s most powerful celebrity,” and had “dethroned Oprah Winfrey,” according to Forbes magazine. Now, I don’t know who Forbes consulted for this tidbit, but two things stuck out to call that judgment into question. Angelina made one-tenth as much as Oprah last year, $27 million to Oprah’s $275 million. And Oprah embraced Barack Obama’s candidacy early and arguably got him elected. By whatever measures you use, Oprah is the world’s most powerful celebrity, and until Angelina is grossing into eight figures and electing presidents, I’ll be hard pressed to believe otherwise.
PETE SMITH
Cypress
Cypress
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Barack's Obeisance Tour, Part II - Israel
Fresh off the second leg of his world-wide Obeisance & Apology Tour (the first two being to Europe and S. America), President Barack Obama has ventured to the Middle East to next apologize to all the Nations of Islam. He had, of course, already apologized to them repeatedly in earlier months, but nothing says sincerity like doing it in person. Plus, he owed the Sunnis a big production, having committed the protocol breach in May of first engaging the minority Shia, with particular outreach to those unclean dogs the Persians of Iran, long may their camels be infested with fleas, and so themselves and their families.
Hey, that's not my opinion; that's the prevailing Sunni sentiment, so don't shoot the messenger, particularly when he's being clever.
Commentators have agonized over the fine line that Obama must tread in his outreach to both the Sunnis and the Shiites, since they are as mortal of enemies to each other as Islam itself is to the rest of the world. That is why Obama's strategy cleverly embraces a three-prong strategy: 1) Apologize for America's existence; 2) Make concessions to Islam and its dictators; 3) Throw Israel under the bus.
Barack is well on his way to achieving all three objectives. The Obeisance is well (and hilariously) documented in this blog and other places: http://offhismeds.blogspot.com/2009/04/barack-obeisance.html. As you'll recall, our Prez got the ball rolling when in London he bowed to the dictator of Saudi Arabia in a very subservient manner, getting the Presidential Noggin perilously close to the Royal Jewels in the process. Much of the Middle East cheered, and Democrats proclaimed it a good thing, whilst simultaneously saying that he had not bowed. You be the judge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBKdPQstQAM&feature=PlayList&p=0339684E09946489&index=0&playnext=1
On the concession front, Barack has not only denied that America is a Christian nation, he has suggested that it is very much an Islamic nation. He also told the Saudi king on Monday that he had no intentions of undercutting energy consumption in America to the point that it would effect prices for the Saudis. Astonishingly, The Media had no reaction to this, even though energy conservation - and "ending our reliance on foreign oil" - was the centerpiece his presidential campaign.
I'm not surprised though. On Tuesday, Obama said that taxation of existing health-care benefits was "back on the table", even though he beat John McCain like a rented mule for having proposed the same thing last fall as part of health care reform. Predictably, the Media portrayed his flip-flop as further proof that Obama had "grown" while in office. I assume Obama promising Abdullah he'll get oil back up to $100/barrel is further evidence of this "growth".
As to throwing Israel under the bus, Obama's strategy is right out of Bill Clinton's playbook:
1) Marginalize the democratically elected head of Israel. Obama has pointedly ignored Benjamin Netanyahu, refusing to meet with him during a recent visit to America and criticizing his administration to the world. But that Obama would grant the newly-elected leader of Israel the same "honeymoon" that he has enjoyed. It's ironic that it is once again Netanyahu being portrayed as a Bad Guy by a Democrat president. In the 90's, Clinton pressured Israel to overthrow him, naming Netanyahu as the sole obstacle to lasting peace in the Middle East. We all know how well that worked out.
2) Loudly protest the building of additional settlements by the Israelis on the West Bank, thus portraying Israel as a party of bad faith, whilst simultaneously propping up the legitimacy of their opponents in Palestine. Again, a version of the Clinton strategy - who supported Arafat and the PLO. This go-round, Obama will portray Hamas as a viable political partner with whom Israel should negotiate. This despite the fact that Hamas, like the PLO, is a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
3) Remove Israel from our protection. In this instance, Obama has severely one-upped Bill Clinton, as much as conceding that, if Iran were to successfully launch a nuclear missile at Israel, that the United States would not respond. Keep in mind that it is only necessary to destroy Tel Aviv in order to destroy Israel, something even an historical illiterate like Barack Obama surely understands.
The good news is that, even if America has forgotten the Clinton era, the Israelis have not; and they have politely and not so politely told Obama in any number of ways that he can pound sand.
Meanwhile, even though Obama's personal popularity is high, most of the Middle East still hates the United States, Western Society, Democracy and all we stand for. Which brings us to the Main Event, his speech in Egypt, wherein Obama will once again apologize for America's existence, offer further concessions, and once again throw Israel under the bus, this time in the nation that has been the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, the very well-spring of most anti-Western sentiment, notwithstanding that we give Egypt billions every year.
It's strange how all of the apologies we offer, all of the Extortion money we pay and the innumerable treadmarks we inflict on Israel gets us nothing other than the further radicalization of the Muslim community, more violence against Westerners and an ever-increasing number of Islamist terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al Quaeda and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter tried this approach. Reagan, Bush the Elder and George W. tried it to a lesser degree. They all failed.
That Obama has not learned the lessons of history is clear; and in his speech today, it is not a question of whether he will sell us out, but by how much. Meanwhile, Israelis should update their insurance policies, make up a living will, and sharpen their swords. It looks very much like they're on their own.
Hey, that's not my opinion; that's the prevailing Sunni sentiment, so don't shoot the messenger, particularly when he's being clever.
Commentators have agonized over the fine line that Obama must tread in his outreach to both the Sunnis and the Shiites, since they are as mortal of enemies to each other as Islam itself is to the rest of the world. That is why Obama's strategy cleverly embraces a three-prong strategy: 1) Apologize for America's existence; 2) Make concessions to Islam and its dictators; 3) Throw Israel under the bus.
Barack is well on his way to achieving all three objectives. The Obeisance is well (and hilariously) documented in this blog and other places: http://offhismeds.blogspot.com/2009/04/barack-obeisance.html. As you'll recall, our Prez got the ball rolling when in London he bowed to the dictator of Saudi Arabia in a very subservient manner, getting the Presidential Noggin perilously close to the Royal Jewels in the process. Much of the Middle East cheered, and Democrats proclaimed it a good thing, whilst simultaneously saying that he had not bowed. You be the judge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBKdPQstQAM&feature=PlayList&p=0339684E09946489&index=0&playnext=1
On the concession front, Barack has not only denied that America is a Christian nation, he has suggested that it is very much an Islamic nation. He also told the Saudi king on Monday that he had no intentions of undercutting energy consumption in America to the point that it would effect prices for the Saudis. Astonishingly, The Media had no reaction to this, even though energy conservation - and "ending our reliance on foreign oil" - was the centerpiece his presidential campaign.
I'm not surprised though. On Tuesday, Obama said that taxation of existing health-care benefits was "back on the table", even though he beat John McCain like a rented mule for having proposed the same thing last fall as part of health care reform. Predictably, the Media portrayed his flip-flop as further proof that Obama had "grown" while in office. I assume Obama promising Abdullah he'll get oil back up to $100/barrel is further evidence of this "growth".
As to throwing Israel under the bus, Obama's strategy is right out of Bill Clinton's playbook:
1) Marginalize the democratically elected head of Israel. Obama has pointedly ignored Benjamin Netanyahu, refusing to meet with him during a recent visit to America and criticizing his administration to the world. But that Obama would grant the newly-elected leader of Israel the same "honeymoon" that he has enjoyed. It's ironic that it is once again Netanyahu being portrayed as a Bad Guy by a Democrat president. In the 90's, Clinton pressured Israel to overthrow him, naming Netanyahu as the sole obstacle to lasting peace in the Middle East. We all know how well that worked out.
2) Loudly protest the building of additional settlements by the Israelis on the West Bank, thus portraying Israel as a party of bad faith, whilst simultaneously propping up the legitimacy of their opponents in Palestine. Again, a version of the Clinton strategy - who supported Arafat and the PLO. This go-round, Obama will portray Hamas as a viable political partner with whom Israel should negotiate. This despite the fact that Hamas, like the PLO, is a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
3) Remove Israel from our protection. In this instance, Obama has severely one-upped Bill Clinton, as much as conceding that, if Iran were to successfully launch a nuclear missile at Israel, that the United States would not respond. Keep in mind that it is only necessary to destroy Tel Aviv in order to destroy Israel, something even an historical illiterate like Barack Obama surely understands.
The good news is that, even if America has forgotten the Clinton era, the Israelis have not; and they have politely and not so politely told Obama in any number of ways that he can pound sand.
Meanwhile, even though Obama's personal popularity is high, most of the Middle East still hates the United States, Western Society, Democracy and all we stand for. Which brings us to the Main Event, his speech in Egypt, wherein Obama will once again apologize for America's existence, offer further concessions, and once again throw Israel under the bus, this time in the nation that has been the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, the very well-spring of most anti-Western sentiment, notwithstanding that we give Egypt billions every year.
It's strange how all of the apologies we offer, all of the Extortion money we pay and the innumerable treadmarks we inflict on Israel gets us nothing other than the further radicalization of the Muslim community, more violence against Westerners and an ever-increasing number of Islamist terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al Quaeda and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter tried this approach. Reagan, Bush the Elder and George W. tried it to a lesser degree. They all failed.
That Obama has not learned the lessons of history is clear; and in his speech today, it is not a question of whether he will sell us out, but by how much. Meanwhile, Israelis should update their insurance policies, make up a living will, and sharpen their swords. It looks very much like they're on their own.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Democrats Defame Veterans
OffHisMeds has observed that, among the many frauds that the Democrat Party has perpetrated on America is the notion that our military Veterans are "victims"; and surely the most egregious example is the claim of the Social Welfare crowd that Veterans are a huge and disproportionate percentage of the "Homeless" population, which they attribute to the stress of war. Spewing the term Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as if it was an inevitability for all Veterans, so-called Advocates for Veterans Rights cynically use the perception of a wide-spread problem to promote an entirely different agenda.
The true purpose of the exercise, of course, is two fold: 1) to expand yet again the Welfare State by making Veterans "victims", and 2) to delegitimize the use of American military power to defend our country and promote our interests around the world. Those policies are not without unintended - and embarrassing - consequences. In the second instance, just look at the difficulty in getting Obama to even make a decision to allow our Navy to rescue the Captain of the Maersk from Somali Pirates as the most recent example. He was paralyzed for days as he sought to close all the appropriate legal loopholes necessary to conform to the Democrat Party's insanely skewed perception of the term "Rules Of Engagement".
So, what - you might ask - are the proponents of this "Vets Are Homeless" syndrome basing their claims on? There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that Vets are any more likely to be homeless than the general population as a whole, and a ton of evidence to suggest that Veterans actually comprise less a percentage of the homeless than the General Population. For example, ask these "advocates" to come up with even a partial list of names of these homeless Vets, and they will embarrassedly admit that their numbers are based on "models", and the opinions of the decidedly self-interested folks in the Homeless industry.
Ironically, you need only go to a U.S. Census website to find actual statistics that disprove their theory. That's pretty amazing, seeing as how the U.S. government has been the number one abettor of the "Veterans As Homeless" fiction, but hey, not even the Feds can effectively Game the books 100% of the time. Check this one out:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010733.html
From this website, I learn that:
- 74% of all Veterans vote. That's 20% greater participation than the General Populace.
- 90% of all Veterans have a High School diploma, far higher than the 70% national average.
- 5.9% of all Veterans live below the poverty line, compared to 12.3% for everybody else.
- 14.5% own their own business, over 50% higher than the general populace.
And all of this, despite the fact that over 6 million of our 26 million Veterans were disabled in War.
This conforms, I suspect, with the views of most Americans who see their parents, children, siblings and friends return from War. Sure, they were traumatized, physically and mentally; how could it be otherwise? But they were also remarkably self-sufficient and responsible, a tribute not only to their military training and discipline, but the character that caused them to volunteer for military service and put themselves in Harm's Way in the first place. This is nowhere so evident as in the generational tradition of soldiers who have experienced combat by refusing to talk about it afterwards. That alone speaks volumes to their character, forged as much by their personal qualities as by the traditions inculcated by the military towards stoicism, self-reliance and self-sacrifice.
In other ways, Veterans themselves refute the entire model upon which the Social Welfare crowd depends. For example, Veterans of the current Gulf War overwhelmingly support it, with election polls last year showing that 75% of all troops strongly supported the war. To the distress of The Media, when they interviewed a soldier and asked his or her opinion, 90% of the time they sounding like Patraeus, offering a sophisticated and nuanced defense of our Iraq and Afghanistan incursions. They also overwhelmingly expressed concern about Obama's plans to withdraw from Iraq "before the job was done".
That's not exactly a natural constiuency for the Democrat Party, much less one that would readily become the Accredited Victims that Democrats so rely upon for electoral success.
There is another explanation for this perception of Veteran Homelessness that is perpetuated by these so-called Advocates, and you've seen it on a street corner in your neighborhood: Panhandlers with signs, representing themselves to be Veterans so as to increase their income. It's a very effective scam, but scam it is. For proof, try this exercise: ask a Panhandler what Branch of the military he was in, where he was stationed, his rank and his unit. Most of the time, you'll get stone silence or nonsense in response.
At the end of the day, what these Democrats do is to defame the very soldiers they purport to represent. By making them Victims in the eyes of the world, they turn Veterans into something they wouldn't recognize: helpless souls dependent on a Nanny State. It ought to piss off our Veterans, and I suspect that it does. After all, who is more entitled to an opinion as to the morality of this war, much less its effect on our soldiers: the people who actually fought it, losing limbs, health and brothers-in-arms, or a bunch of meddling Welfare Pimps, intent on creating yet another Victim Group so as to perpetuate their bureaucracy, their incomes, and their miserably inadequate sense of self-worth?
That question doesn't really require an answer.
The true purpose of the exercise, of course, is two fold: 1) to expand yet again the Welfare State by making Veterans "victims", and 2) to delegitimize the use of American military power to defend our country and promote our interests around the world. Those policies are not without unintended - and embarrassing - consequences. In the second instance, just look at the difficulty in getting Obama to even make a decision to allow our Navy to rescue the Captain of the Maersk from Somali Pirates as the most recent example. He was paralyzed for days as he sought to close all the appropriate legal loopholes necessary to conform to the Democrat Party's insanely skewed perception of the term "Rules Of Engagement".
So, what - you might ask - are the proponents of this "Vets Are Homeless" syndrome basing their claims on? There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that Vets are any more likely to be homeless than the general population as a whole, and a ton of evidence to suggest that Veterans actually comprise less a percentage of the homeless than the General Population. For example, ask these "advocates" to come up with even a partial list of names of these homeless Vets, and they will embarrassedly admit that their numbers are based on "models", and the opinions of the decidedly self-interested folks in the Homeless industry.
Ironically, you need only go to a U.S. Census website to find actual statistics that disprove their theory. That's pretty amazing, seeing as how the U.S. government has been the number one abettor of the "Veterans As Homeless" fiction, but hey, not even the Feds can effectively Game the books 100% of the time. Check this one out:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010733.html
From this website, I learn that:
- 74% of all Veterans vote. That's 20% greater participation than the General Populace.
- 90% of all Veterans have a High School diploma, far higher than the 70% national average.
- 5.9% of all Veterans live below the poverty line, compared to 12.3% for everybody else.
- 14.5% own their own business, over 50% higher than the general populace.
And all of this, despite the fact that over 6 million of our 26 million Veterans were disabled in War.
This conforms, I suspect, with the views of most Americans who see their parents, children, siblings and friends return from War. Sure, they were traumatized, physically and mentally; how could it be otherwise? But they were also remarkably self-sufficient and responsible, a tribute not only to their military training and discipline, but the character that caused them to volunteer for military service and put themselves in Harm's Way in the first place. This is nowhere so evident as in the generational tradition of soldiers who have experienced combat by refusing to talk about it afterwards. That alone speaks volumes to their character, forged as much by their personal qualities as by the traditions inculcated by the military towards stoicism, self-reliance and self-sacrifice.
In other ways, Veterans themselves refute the entire model upon which the Social Welfare crowd depends. For example, Veterans of the current Gulf War overwhelmingly support it, with election polls last year showing that 75% of all troops strongly supported the war. To the distress of The Media, when they interviewed a soldier and asked his or her opinion, 90% of the time they sounding like Patraeus, offering a sophisticated and nuanced defense of our Iraq and Afghanistan incursions. They also overwhelmingly expressed concern about Obama's plans to withdraw from Iraq "before the job was done".
That's not exactly a natural constiuency for the Democrat Party, much less one that would readily become the Accredited Victims that Democrats so rely upon for electoral success.
There is another explanation for this perception of Veteran Homelessness that is perpetuated by these so-called Advocates, and you've seen it on a street corner in your neighborhood: Panhandlers with signs, representing themselves to be Veterans so as to increase their income. It's a very effective scam, but scam it is. For proof, try this exercise: ask a Panhandler what Branch of the military he was in, where he was stationed, his rank and his unit. Most of the time, you'll get stone silence or nonsense in response.
At the end of the day, what these Democrats do is to defame the very soldiers they purport to represent. By making them Victims in the eyes of the world, they turn Veterans into something they wouldn't recognize: helpless souls dependent on a Nanny State. It ought to piss off our Veterans, and I suspect that it does. After all, who is more entitled to an opinion as to the morality of this war, much less its effect on our soldiers: the people who actually fought it, losing limbs, health and brothers-in-arms, or a bunch of meddling Welfare Pimps, intent on creating yet another Victim Group so as to perpetuate their bureaucracy, their incomes, and their miserably inadequate sense of self-worth?
That question doesn't really require an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)