CNN released a poll today… Yes, yes. I know, it’s CNN. A poll that can’t be trusted. A poll so liberally biased that it should be discarded, ignored, and thrown out into the garbage like documents from ACORN. Which makes this poll even more interesting, because even a poll from CNN shows that ObamaCare is not popular, and it is going to lead to electoral disaster for the Democrats. This poll shows that:
Republicans have pulled to within one point of Democrats on the Generic Ballot. Keeping in mind that Democrats usually lead Republicans even when Republicans traditionally do well at the polls.
60% of the American People oppose ObamaCare. That’s sixty percent. In a CNN Poll. In a CNN poll of adults. Not likely voters, not even registered voters, but adults.
The writing is on the wall. If the Democrats pass ObamaCare, that bill will be their ticket to electoral defeat in 2010 and 2012.
The structure of college football’s method of determining a national champion is a hotly debated topic in the sports world every year. For the sake of disclosure, I support the Bowl system and have no problem with the concept of some uncertainty over the championship game or even a split national championship. Under the current system, every game is crucial because a single loss almost certainly destroys any hope of a national championship. Couple those stakes with the unique rivalries the game provides and you have one of the most exciting sports imaginable.
Many others (probably most) disagree with my position and have reasonable reasons for doing so. Under the current system, there is a great deal of uncertainty or even subjectivity in determining who plays for a championship and even who wins it. The fact that AP writers have the power to award half of the national championship should give anyone pause. There is also a lot to be said about the argument that nothing would top a national championship game between two powerhouses that survived a tournament.
As valid as each opinion is, that isn’t the point. College football’s playoff system is for college football, its member institutions, and fans to determine. Fans have shown that they are willing to pay and watch college football under the current system. The colleges and universities have determined that the current product is best for both their students and their bottom line. Right or wrong, those are their decisions to make.
The folly of people like Barney Frank determining how football should be played is obvious. Even more troubling is the fact that there are fewer and fewer activities that Americans can enjoy without elected officials of some kind, in the case a republican Congressman, trying to stick their noses where they don’t belong. Whatever the motivation, politicians need to leave football alone.
Ace of Spades has the most succinct and thorough explanation yet of how ClimateGate proves that the methodology and data that has been used to support the theory of global warming is a complete farce. The warmers are still trying to say that the email scandal at CRU is only one dataset in a theory that has been independently verified. The problem with that line of reasoning, as Ace points out, is that all data used in the climate change models comes from one source, the Global Historic Climate Center at NOAA. The computations used to model climate change, were then only made by two other sources, the now infamous CRU, and the discredited Godard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, run by the hack Robert Hansen. So since the source data is limited to three tightly connected institutions, and one of them, CRU has now been completely discredited, it should make the whole theory suspect. Yet the warmers are not even willing to take another look and make sure the data lines up. This is not the hallmark of true science, it is the hallmark of a cult.
Ace gets into much more detail, but the graph below illustrates why the data needs to be reexamined. The scientists ministers of warming at CRU took the source data, and then adjusted it. Granted, some adjustments are necessary due to legitimate changing conditions in the locations of the instruments that took the measurements. But the CRU warmers typically did not adjust temperatures down enough when they needed to be adjusted down, and adjusted up far too much when an adjustment increase was called for.
This graph shows a location in Australia with it’s temperature chart over time. The blue line is the raw temperature, showing an average 0.7 degree decline in temperature over the course of the century. With the adjustments, the scientists at CRU turned that somehow into a 1.2 degree increase in temperature at that location. The CRU data is filled with that type of adjustments, for which there is no reasonable scientific basis. Ace has a whole lot more information and detail, but suffice to say, a major monkey wrench has been thrown into the theory of Global Climate Change, enough to call it into question. Yet the warmers persist and say that theory is sound, despite the overwhelming evidence of the data manipulation used to support the theory. I guess that warmers can now be equated with Birthers, Truthers, Trigg-Birthers (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) and Flat Earthers, as those who deny the scientific evidence right in front of them, and cling to a theory that is dying a quick and painful death.
Planned Parenthood tries to position itself as a woman’s health clinic that happens to perform abortions, rather than an abortion center. They talk about the importance of a woman’s “choice” and abortion being one option in that choice. Yet, their clinic actively promotes abortion to those it counsels, and even uses Orwellian tactics in its counseling to try to steer women towards abortion.
In this video, taken at Planned Parenthood in Appleton, WI, a counselor is asked about her baby’s heart beat. The counselor condescendingly corrects the patient who refers to her unborn baby’s heartbeat, referring to it as “heart tones.” The doctor consistently refuses to call the fetus a baby, and says it is not a baby until after 7 months. He also tries to scare the women into having the abortion, citing the fact that “people die having babies.” When she asks if people die having abortions, he simply responds, “Yes, but it’s never happened to me, and I’ve been doing them for 40 years.”
The truth is, the whole abortion movement is Orwellian in its face. They refer to it as an issue of “choice” when in fact, the only choice that is important to them is abortion. They refer to the baby as a “placenta” and “fetus”, which, although correct scientific terms, are used to make the mother not think about the fact that she is carrying a baby. (Case in point: the doc says it is a fetus but does not become a baby until month 7 or so. Yet, by definition, a fetus is “a developing human from usually two months after conception until birth.” So at 7 months “or so”, it’s a baby, but still a fetus? The dividing line is so gray as to make it impossible to impose any standards.
This video aside, the philosophical question of abortion simply comes down to two questions. First, what about a human gives that human the basic rights that we all claim to cherish (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.). Second, when does that essential human characteristic that has these rights enter into the life of a developing human? While we can argue about exactly what it is that gives a human basic rights (I say a soul, but the point can be debated), I think it’s safe to say that most of us think that humans do have basic rights that cannot be removed.
So the only question that remains is, when? What event actually occurs that suddenly changes a fetus into a human, and conveys rights upon that fetus? Some say it is viability. To that, I argue that viability is a constantly moving target as science advances, and that by that argument, a 9-month baby born with some defect that did not allow them to live would not have human rights. So I ask you. What change occurs in a fetus that suddenly makes it a human child? If that question can’t be answered, shouldn’t we err on the side of human life and human dignity?
This is one of my more explicit posts… you’ve been warned!!!
I was recently tipped off about a story that has to be read to be believed. Apparently “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings had once advocated some controversial recommendations for updating existing curricula across the nation: let’s try to teach our students as early as pre-school about the joys of “fisting!”
Just so you know, Jennings is also the founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, pronounced “glissen“). I would have thought that GLSEN would just stick with tolerance and understanding one’s feelings at young ages as a focus, rather than the subtleties of certain unhealthy pornographic acts before they’re able to go through the night regularly without an accident.
But that’s just me.
That this guy Jennings even has a job in the Obama Nation is not surprising, but adds another layer to this Administration’s disturbing tapestry of odd characters in a position to influence policy.
On the other hand (no pun intended) I’m not sure how “safe” my child’s school would be if we taught them the joys of “fisting” in Kindergarten. What happens if a kid tries it a recess with a friend (I’d hate to have to write that one up to the principal… Yes, Mr. Principal, (gulp) I caught them red-handed!)? How about teaching the joys of ending up in diapers by age 35? “What can we do to make Depends undergarments cool to today’s pre-teens interested in fisting” should not be a conversation taking place in any elementary or secondary school. Jennings has no business having an influential government job and Congress should refuse to appropriate his salary.
H/T: Gateway Pundit who’s had tons of coverage on this issue.
It’s a tough time to be a Notre Dame fan. Nine Days ago, Notre Dame fired Charlie Weis, our third consecutive unsuccessful head coach. Since then, Irish fans have been desperate for any news of a head coach who can lead Notre Dame back to where it belongs and have had to rely on nothing but speculation and internet rumors as the search progresses. First, Oklahoma Head Coach Bob Stoops was going to coach the Irish. Then attention turned to Cincinnati Head Coach Brian Kelly. Then there were the Jim Harbaugh rumors. Yesterday and today, it really looked like Kelly was the man. In the last few hours, the focus has been on Kelly and Connecticut Head Coach Randy Edsall. Edsall? Is that German for Willingham?
The decision is still probably a day or two away, but I hope its Kelly. The most successful head coaching hires in college football tend to be those with prior head coaching success at less prominent institutions and why not? The coaches are by definition successful, but also hungry to prove themselves at the highest level. Kelly would certainly fit the bill. The last time the Irish followed this model, we got Lou Holtz. Speaking of Holtz, we Irish fans need some ND inspiration while we’re in limbo. Well, here’s a clip of inspirational speeches from the great Lou Holtz for all you Irish fans out there.
A classic definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again, expecting different results. Obama is insanity defined. His much-touted stimulus (a.k.a. Porkulus) package purported to spend money on roads and bridges, give some tax breaks to small businesses (although they were tax breaks designed to produce a liberal policy objective, not to stimulate business), and provide incentives for environmental compliance. Since Obama apparently doesn’t know how to write his own legislation, he left it up to Congress which ended up producing the $787 billion pork-laden monstrosity that has done such a good job.
Now that the stimulus has proven to be an abject failure, and Democrats are worried that presiding over the worst economy in 30 years will be bad for their job security, want a new jobs package. What does Obama propose? Essentially, more of the same. A program to spend more money on roads and bridges, give tax credits to small businesses, and tax incentives to people to make their home more energy-efficient. Yet history has shown time and time again that spending programs such as this do little to stimulate long-term growth in the economy. In an era when our budget deficits are at record highs, introducing more spending that will have no positive effect on the economy is the last thing we should be doing.
The grand compromise touted by Harry Reid that purports to resolve the issue between liberal and moderate Democrats over the Public Option is a farce, and does not have the 60 votes necessary to end debate, reports the Weekly Standard. The compromise, which changes the public option to a pool of not-for-profit plans administered by the same organization that administers the congressional health care plans, but includes a public option trigger if targets are not met, is unacceptable to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is also concerned with the provision of the compromise that expands Medicare to those 55 or older. Couple this with statements by Sen. Olympia Snowe in recent days, and it appears that ObamaCare is not as inevitable as Reid and Obama would have us believe.
The White House has an age-old tradition of throwing a Christmas Party er, Holiday Gathering, er, mid-December get-together for the press corps, diplomatic officials, and others. At this get-together, it is traditional for the President and First Lady to host a receiving line, where all the guests are greeted, and have the opportunity to have a picture taken with the first couple. It has been a tradition for decades, honored by Presidents of both parties. No more. The lord and lady Obama cannot be bothered with meeting the plebes, and the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did not inform them of what a breach of protocol this would be. This is upsetting to the chief constituency of the Obama administration, the state-run media. Yet another example of the utter disregard for American traditions by this administration.
The Obama Administration once again proved itself to be a thuggish enterprise. Now that the EPA has declared our breath to be a pollutant, the Obama Administration has threatened to issue harmful CO2 regulations if Congress does not pass a scheme of its own. According to Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s EPA Administrator:
“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.“
It’s one thing for an Administration to try to bypass Congress to implement its proposals it believes would benefit the nation. Although constitutionally dubious, few people fault leaders for trying to do the right thing. It is quite another thing for an Administration to threaten to harm the American economy if it doesn’t get its way.
The Republican strategy on this front should be to call the Administration’s bluff. It will be much easier for the next Administration to simply roll back whatever regulations Obama shoves down our throats than to get sixty votes to repeal a statutory scheme in the 113th Congress’ Senate.
Since the start of the Tea Party movement, talk of a Conservative third party has peculated on Twitter, around the blogosphere, and even making it into news punditry, advocated by such media heavyweights as Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Lou Dobbs. While the idea of a ideological Conservative party seems like a good one intuitively, as the GOP seems lost in a barren wasteland of ideas and bereft of any strong principles necessary to mount another Conservative revolution, the truth is that a Tea Party as a third-party entity would be a disaster for both Conservatives and the Republicans, and would guarantee that the liberal socialist overlords that currently occupy the seats of power in Washington continue their reign for years to come. This simple, obvious truth was backed up with some hard data in a recent Rasmussen poll.
In the poll, Rasmussen used the generic congressional ballot question to try to gauge support for the parties. In a two-way matchup between Republicans and Democrats, the Republicans led by four points, 43%-39%. In terms of the generic congressional ballot, this is unheard of. Even in good Republican years, the Republicans usually trail in this question. However, when a third party is added to the mix (Democrat, Republican, or Tea Party candidate), the Democrats take the lead with 36% of the vote, while the Republicans only garner 18% to the Tea Party’s 23%.
These numbers show two things. First, the Republican brand is shot. People will vote Republican because it is the better alternative to Democrats, not because they happen to like Republicans. The GOP needs to repair its image by being a strong, forceful voice for Conservatism in the Senate and House of Representatives. As of now, they seem weak-kneed, do not have too many substantive policy distinctions, and are not fighting against the Democrat policies in a way that many of us would like them to. Second, the Democrats benefit from a third party. True, the sum of both the GOP and theoretical Tea Party votes is greater than the Democrat vote, but in electoral politics, only plurality wins, and the Democrats would have the plurality.
The Tea Party does have a role to play in electoral politics. I see it as similar to the role the Conservative party plays in New York state politics. The Tea Party should lobby Republicans and support Conservative GOP candidates who share their vision. On rare occasions, where there is no viable Republican candidate, or the Republican candidate is so sufficiently offensive, (a la Dede Scozzofava) they should field their own candidate. A wholesale third party push, however, would be electoral suicide for anyone who believes in limited government and Conservative values, and would ensure a generation of liberalism and the wholesale expansion of government.
Fiscal Year 2009 saw unprecedented spending and unprecedented deficits as a result of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and Obama’s Stimulus bill. That, along with a bloated Democrat budget, brought the total deficit for FY-2009 to $1.4 trillion (that’s one trillion, four hundred billion dollars). Divide that up by twelve months, and the average monthly deficit last year was $117 billion.
So far in FY-2010, that number shows signs of being blown out of the water. Thanks to the massive spending by Obama and the Democrat congress, the government ran a $172 billion deficit because of increased spending and decreased revenues due to the economic downturn. The CBO estimates that the deficit in November will be approximately $132 billion (this figure may be adjusted higher due to the fact that the CBO was low in its October predictions as well). This brings the two-month total deficit to $292 billion, bringing us on pace to hit a $1.75 trillion deficit this year. No wonder the U.S. Government’s AAA bond rating is in danger of being downgraded.
In 2007, the Supreme Court allowed the regulation greenhouse gases, including CO2, by the EPA. Seeing Cap-and-Trade about to die from neglect in the Senate and in an attempt to promote international goodwill towards the Copenhagen crew, Obama’s EPA has decided to make-good on the Supreme Court’s ill-fated decision. FYI — Justice Kennedy was the swing vote on that 5-4 decision.
I think this act by the EPA could potentially be a back-door way to get Cap-and-Trade. CO2 is a by-product of our car engines, the coal industry (which accounts for 49% of our nation’s electricity, by the way), multiple other industries, as well as a natural by-product of mammal’s respiratory systems. With some tinkering from Congress this precedent can easily be used to regulate gas and electricity much like a Cap-and-Trade set-up without Congress taking the full heat. The jury’s still out on regulating who gets to breathe, but wait, the Dems are debating health care reform, too! Hmm…
I just want to know: how many of our Liberal friends at the EPA will take advantage of this new realm of regulation and cut their breathing to save the planet? This dictate ostensibly makes it bad to breathe. I can’t wait until next November.
Harry Reid lashed out at Republican opponents of Obamacare on the Senate floor today, comparing them to politicians who supported the Democrats’ policy on slavery during the nineteenth century. It was curious that Reid focused his diatribe at the Republican opposition since the Democrat caucus has sixty members, the exact number of votes needed to pass the bill. Maybe Reid’s aptitude in mathematics is on par with his knowledge of history. In any event, it’s clear that the Senate Majority Leader is getting desperate and cranky.
Reid cares deeply about the government controlling health care. So much so that he’s jeopardizing his own re-election to get the bill passed. It will be one thing if Reid goes down to defeat like Tom Daschle before him if he can pass the health care overhaul. What Reid will not tolerate is the thought of losing his Senate seat for nothing. With such a prospect growing more likely by the day, Reid is getting desperate and playing the card Democrats always play when desperate, the race card.
There’s no word yet on what Reid’s Democrat colleague and former Klansmen Robert Byrd thinks of today’s temper tantrum.
The President of the United States officially has the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys. In practice, the President usually accepts the recommendation of the most senior Senator from his party when making the appointment. That’s why Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) found himself in hot water this weekend after admitting that he recommended his concubine for the position of U.S. attorney for Montana. The woman in question, Melodee Hanes, ultimately declined the opportunity to serve as U.S. Attorney because a better position came along in the Department of Justice, a position Baucus argues was awarded “based solely on her merit.” Baucus did not elaborate.
There is no word yet on whether Senate Democrats will provide the same level of scrutiny they are giving Senator John Ensign (R-NV) who also had marital problems with a staffer. My guess is no. Democrats rarely seem to have a problem with adultery in the context of abuse of power. What troubles them is the hypocrisy of those who see adultery as the immoral act it is and then fail to meet their standards. See, it’s easy to do no wrong. Just don’t have any standards to begin with.
Scanning through the Internet this morning I bumped into this Forbes article regarding the “Coming Ice Age” hysteria of the 1970s, relating it to today’s global warming hysteria. The author, Gary Sutton, brings up a point I’ve been saying for a while — scientists live on funding, while politicians live on panic. It’s the perfect marriage of science and state: scientists claim a crisis to continue to get funding from politicians who want to be seen as tackling that crisis. Sutton goes as far as to refer to today’s politicians as modern day “witch doctors,” drumming up scary portends to keep the masses frightened and acquiescent.
We know that the ancient Romans grew wine grapes near Scotland; something that can’t be done today because it’s too cold. We know that Greenland was named as such because it was once green and friendly with no reported ice drifts until the 1300s. Sutton makes a solid point that if there were no industrial engines during the Medieval Warm Period, then it must have been some other “engine” at work raising worldwide temperatures. Logical, but (as we know) logic doesn’t always generate government funding.
We also know that scientists in the 1970s were all about Global Cooling and the dangers it posed to our crops, our cities, our species. The media picked up on the cooling news and some tried to make a panic out of it to sell newspapers and seem hip by embracing cutting-edge science. If it weren’t for the Fall of Saigon and the Oil Crisis dominating the news then maybe the hysteria would have matched today’s dizzying heights. Sutton also points out that the armadillo was the 1970s version of the polar bear — an animal who noticeably changed its migration patterns because of weather. We have short memories.
At the end of the day, I have a feeling that the armadillos will find a way to make it and so will the polar bears.
Well, the forecast wintry mix totaling “a dusting to an inch” is already near three inches deep in my part of Central Jersey, so I couldn’t resist a global warming/Climategate post! Especially when in the face of all the uncertainty behind much of the climate science underlying the upcoming Copenhagen initiatives, President Obama is going to go full-throttle at the global warming summit next week — scandal be damned! The Administration is in full push-back mode and look more like “deniers” than any of the skeptics they regularly mock.
To me this further demonstrates how Obama and his people are “true-believers.” I’ve had many conversations with Conservatives and Moderates about what Obama would do if the Republicans took back a house of Congress next year. Would Obama triangulate the way Clinton did to get reelected? Would he moderate by 2012?
One cannot trust his speeches for an indication: he campaigned as more of a Conservative than McCain did, but has acted more Liberal than McGovern might have! One could look at his actions on two important issues: health care and climate change. The public doesn’t want his party’s health care reform nor can we remotely afford it, but he’s pushing it anyway. There are major unanswered questions surrounding the anthropomorphic climate change issue, but he’ll push it anyway. I don’t think he’s like Bill Clinton, a man who wanted everyone to like him so he triangulated in order to be reelected in 1996. Obama’s acting more like that true-believer-type who thinks they’re right. Cap-and-trade would be a complete mess in this country. He knows this:
…but pushing his view of the “greater good” to “save the planet” is more important than the interests of the people he was elected to represent. That’s how Jimmy Carter didn’t get his second term, but it’s also how Jimmy Carter left an awful mess in his wake.
Mason Dixon, the gold standard of polling at the state level, has come out with a new poll on next year’s Nevada Senate race that is going make Harry Reid declare “this race is won.” With his favorability rating under 40 percent, the poll shows Reid losing his Senate seat to both of his potential Republican challengers, one of them by double digits. Unless Reid can change a lot of minds in the next year, he will be the second consecutive Senate Democrat leader to be voted out of the Senate itself.
It’s polls like this that cause me to root for the red-state Democrat every time the Democrats elect a new party leader. On the one hand, the Democrats will always demand that their leader spearhead the most liberal of initiatives such as supporting the confirmation of activist judges to the Supreme Court, higher taxes, and a government takeover of the greatest health care system in the world. On the other hand, red-state Democrats must always take care to trick their constituents into believing that they’re centrists. Reid successfully performed this dance for years before becoming leader, albeit by the skin of his teeth in two of his races. Now that he leads his party, Reid’s task is more difficult than ever.
It isn’t as funny as Statler and Waldorf by themselves, but it also isn’t as creepy as Queen. The following video, which I shamelessly lifted from Southern Man, combines Muppet fun with one of my favorite song lines ever. Happy Friday!
President Obama opened a “Jobs Summit” in Washington today in a feeble attempt to salvage what’s left of the failure of his largest legislative initiative to date — the Recovery Act which has miraculously held unemployment at robust 10.2% (at least until November’s figures come out)!
Obama is basically asking for help — he obviously never knew what he was doing, as the Stimulus was merely a Democrat/interest-group payoff: a $787 billion “Thanks!” for all the community organizing last year. The solutions which Obama’s summit comes up with will not help, probably hurt, and combined with the specter of Obama Care and Cap-and-Tax will continue to freeze business and keep unemployment high. However, in Liberal circles, just showing up while looking concerned is usually enough to assuage their concerns. So in that sense, Obama’s already won simply by having the summit and looking like he cares.
On the other hand, being able to read the writing on the wall while being truly concerned about the economic direction of this country, Newt Gingrich decided to hold his own “REAL Jobs Summit.” Here’s Newt talking about this issue (and Afghanistan) on Hannity last night. Real time-tested solutions, real business people, and common sense; tax cuts, spending cuts, small business incentives and less regulation. Sounds nice — to be implemented by (fill-in the blank) in January 2013, however.
When union leaders and corporate interests are represented over the national Chamber of Commerce and major representative small business firms, one gets the sense that Obama’s summit is likely to produce more damage than anything else. I know who wins this duel!
It’s always been said that liberals have disdain for the military, and last night, Chris Matthews illustrated it beautifully. In reviewing Obama’s speech, in which he spoke of President Obama going into “enemy territory” in giving his speech at West Point, and referred to the cadets as rabble that used to be roused by the Bush administration. The utter disdain showed to those who put their lives on the line for our freedom by Matthews and the left in general is purely despicable.
“The common security of the world is at stake” says the President, but we’re getting out in 18 months because it’s a rather pricey endeavor. OK, Taliban and al Qaeda types, just wait until July 2011 and start your offensive as you wave the American transport planes good-bye!
I like that we’re sending 30,000 more troops, but General McChrystal asked for a minimum of 40,000 (the request was for 60,000 with no less than 40,000). LBJ had his own ideas that sometimes conflicted with his generals too (I’m just sayin’). I didn’t like the way the President politically criticized Bush to position himself in a better light, or used the troops at West Point Academy so blatantly as a photo-op. Also, enough with the Tal-EE-ban and Pak-EE-stan pinky-extended Ivy League snobbery.
He’s no Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan (we knew this), but Obama’s wartime leadership is thus far not even close to George W. Bush either. Say what you will about the Iraq War, when President Bush announced the Surge strategy in January 2007 he was direct, victory-oriented, spoke of completing the mission not about how soon we can leave, and noted with a serious tone that more soldiers will die in the short-term in order to complete the long-term goal. A wartime President giving a wartime speech: it was short, to-the-point and honest. Obama voted against the Surge in one of the few days he actually showed up to his Senate job, now condones his own.
Obama was wrong then and is kind of right now. I guess a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Teleprompter gave a speech that at times was rousing and hearkened back to what makes America great, but fell short in many areas. Being Commander-in-Chief during wartime isn’t something you can vote “present” on. I wish him and the troops luck, but Obama’s not been the kind of President who’s as of yet evoked confidence in his leadership abilities.
It started out well — the defense kept the New Orleans Saints to 3 points, then the New England Patriots offense marched 80 yards to score a touchdown on their first drive of the night. Woo hoo!
What happened? Simple: the Saints are for real (in a nice warm dome anyway) and the Pats still have major issues.
When Brady’s on, he’s incredible. When he’s off… well, that’s when the defense needs to step up. That’s what’s been missing this season. The Pats could likely go 11-5ish this season (they’re 7-4 now) and maybe win the division with that terrible defense, but as they say: “defense wins championships.” Ask the 2000 Ravens, the 2001 Pats, the 2002 Bucs, and the 2007 Giants and I think we can all agree that’s true.
As a burgeoning Yankee fan, I can appreciate what it’s like rooting for a team which is expected to win every season. The Pats are having a generally good year by most standards, but for spoiled Pats fans like myself, fairly or unfairly I expect more from the Golden Boy and the Evil Genius than last night’s 38-17 embarrassment.
Pure speculation here, but it seems that the CBO has done a 180 in the last several months. Initially, their predictions on the cost of ObamaCare were pretty harsh to the Democrats, and fairly accurate. In recent months, they seem to be using skewed accounting to illustrate that ObamaCare will:
CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy.
So, the CBO is now reporting results based on economic theory and “previous similar policies” rather than hard data. Given that there is no economic evidence that “previous similar policies” have produced good results, this whole CBO estimate is a farce. Even the few jobs the Stimulus has created were temporary and are now going away. So what does Obama have on the CBO and its director, Douglas Elmendorf? This is Chicago Thug Politics that we are talking about, after all.
Liberals and Conservatives have a fundamental difference in philosophy when it comes to private sector vs. public sector. Liberals laud the public sector as the savior of America (the government being the solution to all problems) while Conservatives look at government as a necessary evil, and aim to keep it as limited as possible while still performing the functions necessary to ensure a civil society based in freedom. The current makeup of the Obama administration, arguably the most left-wing Presidency in history, highlights this point well. In a piece over at American Thinker, Ed Lasky points out that as a percentage of total cabinet positions, the Obama administration has the fewest numbers by far of cabinet appointees with any private sector experience of any President in the 20th century. The numbers are simply staggering. The previous low by President Kennedy of just under 30% has been completely blown away by Obama, who clocks in at less than 10%. Maybe this explains partially why the stimulus, health care, and every other program that Obama has proposed builds up government at the expense of the private sector. Then again, maybe this is just a reflection of who liberals are, and how much disdain they have for every day Americans who build businesses, create jobs, and have been the engine of our economy for the past century.
The Australian Liberal Party (really conservatives) continued their ongoing game of political musical chairs today when the party ousted its leader Malcolm Trumbull and replaced him with Tony Abbott. Apparently, our Aussie conservative friends were unhappy that Trumbull agreed to support Kevin Rudd’s proposal for an expensive tax and cap scheme. Upon being elected, Abbott immediately set to work to kill the new tax scheme and early indications are that he has succeeded.
It appears the Climategate scandal has legs. Although foreign skepticism seems to be confined to center-right politicians such as Vaclav Klaus and our Aussie friends, it is clear that the tide of public opinion is turning on those who covered up the real data to buttress their arguments in favor of a more intrusive government. Where this goes is anyone’s guess, but it is now clear that the climate change debate is anything but settled, no matter how silent the media may be.
When the story of the four police officers who were ambushed and murdered in a Washington state coffee shop broke yesterday, few could have imagined that the story would have a newsworthiness beyond the intrinsic horror of the event. Today, we learned that the crime may have an impact on the 2012 Presidential election.
Like Ed Morrissey, I know that Huckabee would never intentionally set a murderer on the loose. However, such a lenient approach to criminal justice issues raises a red flag for anyone with Presidential ambitions.
So you want to change the planet’s behavior in regards to CO2 production? You also want to tell us that man-made global warming will destroy us all one day soon unless we act right now this very instant. You take your Nobel Prize and wag it in front of us saying that your science is sooooo tight that anyone who has a different view is a “denier” (like a Holocaust denier type-thing, or worse… I can’t tell from your tone).
After a British version of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) wanted to see the University of East Anglia data, that very bombshell came out. Not very good for that whole “peer review” thing, is it? Climategate is getting more and more interesting as time goes on!
Drudge even led with this story saying that despite the holes in the man-made climate change argument, not only is Copenhagen is still going forward, but let’s prosecute the hackers! Sounds a lot like those ACORN nuts (ha!) trying to turn the tables on those who exposed them. It’s weak.
One of the few things I know about science is that in order for a hypothesis to be proven, one must test again and again eliminating all other feasible possibilities, hopefully with others testing and replicating your findings (“peer reviewing” in scientific parlance). Science looks to disprove possibilities, not prove existing prejudices. Any scientific theory that uses absolutes in their language is junk. Religious institutions discovered millennia ago that there’s this thing called “faith” which presupposes the religion’s belief system, but also implies that it all may not be evident. It’s pretty airtight because it allows for other possibilities.
Climategate is demonstrating the marital woes of science and politics; and while we noticed that church and state was not always a great and stable marriage, neither apparently is science and state.
John “F’in” Kerry* finally gets some revenge on the Bush Administration through a new report on how we missed our chance to get Bin Laden in December 2001 in the mountains around Tora Bora. However, on page 9 of the 49 page file (pdf file) Kerry notes that his report’s thesis relies on the same slew of well-known intelligence reports that Bin Laden was likely in the region at the time and we missed our opportunity to nab him. On file page 20 he admits that we really had no clue how many fighters were even in the Tora Bora complex, yet somehow concludes that our generals should have moved all our troops out of the cities and from Taliban clean-up operations to chase Bin Laden in the mountains (notice the Lib focus on individuals who committed a crime, rather than as Operation Enduring Freedom as part of a war).
If you’re feeling a little deja vu, it’s the same old report with the same old enemies: the obligatory smack at Bush and Rumsfeld, this time throwing General Tommy Franks under the bus for using too few troops and not being prescient enough to divine the exact location of a few men and their goats in a mountain pass on the brink of winter in one of the most geographically complex and difficult areas in the world. If we tried harder, I’m sure Kerry and his ilk would have complained about all the money and bombs we wasted hitting rocks, mountainsides and yetis. Could we have nabbed Bin Laden back then? Maybe. That’s the same story we’ve had since 2002. Maybe. There’s nothing new here.
However, speaking of throwing people under the bus, it’s no coincidence that Our Dear Leader the Most High and Beneficent Barack Hussein Obama (mm mm m) is going to announce a half-baked strategy to win in Afghanistan this coming Tuesday: a few more troops, a slightly different urban approach, more lip from the Pakistanis, etc. Kerry’s report is merely exposition to paint the worst possible picture of the Bush Team so that if Obama’s masterful plan falls flat, they are already in position to blame Bush for Obama’s potential failure. We have such brave leaders nowadays, don’t we?
*If any Democrat thinks that putting Kerry in charge of this report helps give it gravitas in ANY way, they remain as delusional as ever.Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?
