The Wall Street Journal reports on Democrat Representative Maxine Waters, demonstrating how her own party wants her to keep her nose out of certain financial legislative decisions. This attitude is despite Ms. Waters' position as a member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Why the concern? Because Ms. Waters and her husband have a big stake in "minority" owned OneUnited Bank. Her involvement is complex, from her practice of giving the bank's executives special access to Federal Treasury officials, to the shares, stock options and other benefits she and her husband have in the bank, to her husband's postion as a director of the bank.
Ms. Waters has also been relentless in her efforts to prevent OneUnited from being forced to merge with other, "non-minority" owned banks. At a hearing on minority lending in 2007, Ms. Waters alluded to two banks, Independence Bank of Washington, D.C., and "another bank that was about to be acquired by a major white bank out of Illinois." You know, the special white bank, where only white people can go.
Racism in all its forms is stupid and vile. What's even more stupid and vile is when one party -- the Democrat one -- allows its members to practice racism publicly, without consequence. That those members can use their racism to affect legislation is beyond belief. When it comes to Liberals, however, you can't consider any action too outlandish, too outrageous or too foolish.
[Edit 3/14: Michelle Malkin has a bit more detail on the antics of Maxine Waters. How in the world can she still hold office? Oh, that's right, she's a Democrat. There are no standards for behavior.]
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Truth About Rush
I'm a big fan of Rush Limbaugh's, and I'm ecstatic that the Obama administration has seen fit to target him as an enemy. (Hmmm...weren't enemies lists a bad thing just a short while ago?) Rush has the opportunity to fight back via his radio show, and the backbone and skill to do so effectively.
In a recent column by Matt Towery, the wisdom, or lack of it, in attacking Rush is confirmed by polling data. (Read Towery's column for that information.) My point here is Towery's description of his one brief personal encounter with Rush:
"It was enlightening. He was the complete opposite of his persona. He was soft-spoken, extraordinarily polite and clearly not taking himself too seriously. My friends who know him well tell me he is still that way today."
Towery later gives one of the best descriptions of Rush Limbaugh the radio personality that I've ever seen articulated:
"...anyone who listens to his show knows that Limbaugh plays the role of pompous ringmaster, but in jest. After five minutes it is clear that he is not a hatemonger."
A huge percentage of the people who criticize Rush Limbaugh have never listened to his show, much less listened long enough to get the subtleties of his humor. Their remarks and accusations are not only wrong, but very wrong. The mistake the Obama bunch has made is forgetting the twenty million Americans who listen to Rush, and who enjoy his show. Rush is a skilled communicator, and his Conservative message gets through very effectively. The Democrat attacks are adding to the number of people who will realize the power and the wisdom of Conservatism. More power to them.
In a recent column by Matt Towery, the wisdom, or lack of it, in attacking Rush is confirmed by polling data. (Read Towery's column for that information.) My point here is Towery's description of his one brief personal encounter with Rush:
"It was enlightening. He was the complete opposite of his persona. He was soft-spoken, extraordinarily polite and clearly not taking himself too seriously. My friends who know him well tell me he is still that way today."
Towery later gives one of the best descriptions of Rush Limbaugh the radio personality that I've ever seen articulated:
"...anyone who listens to his show knows that Limbaugh plays the role of pompous ringmaster, but in jest. After five minutes it is clear that he is not a hatemonger."
A huge percentage of the people who criticize Rush Limbaugh have never listened to his show, much less listened long enough to get the subtleties of his humor. Their remarks and accusations are not only wrong, but very wrong. The mistake the Obama bunch has made is forgetting the twenty million Americans who listen to Rush, and who enjoy his show. Rush is a skilled communicator, and his Conservative message gets through very effectively. The Democrat attacks are adding to the number of people who will realize the power and the wisdom of Conservatism. More power to them.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
It Takes a While
Gallup just released a poll indicating that more Americans than ever – 44% -- believe that the threats the media report about global warming are overexaggerated. In the decade since Gallup started tracking this topic, the percent of Americans who believe the media is correct, or is underestimating the threat, is also at its lowest level ever.
There is a distinct political bent here. Republicans are more likely to be cynical about media coverage of the subject – that’s a shock – than Democrats. However, the increase in the number of disbelievers is from the population of independents. Democrats tend to have a certain, um, inflexibility of thought.
A comment about Gallup’s report, however. This is a quote: “Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change.”
That passage illustrates how poor reporting can mar otherwise good information. You can accept that “global warming” is real – the average temperature over the last century has gone up a bit less than one degree Centigrade; that is, the globe has warmed. Accepting that point does not concede that 1) Warming is caused by humans; or 2) The effects will destroy us.
The meeting in New York City referenced is the International Conference on Climate Change. Debunking the science – or more precisely, the lack of rigorous scientific standards – used by global warming alarmists should be the job of every scientist. I’ll repeat a point I’ve made before: When did “global warming” become “climate change?” Could it be because the earth has not experienced warming for several years, has perhaps even cooled? If you call it climate change, then you can use any sort of weather to prove your point. Global warming actually requires warming.
Again, another previously-mentioned point: If their science was up to snuff, they wouldn’t have to cheat; e.g., the discredited “hockey stick” graph; their practice of ignoring the “Little Ice Age;” the almost unknown fact that increases in CO2 gas follow warmer temperature, not cause it. Yet now, government interference into businesses is based on their CO2 emissions.
The ICCC’s purpose is to allow a discussion of the side of the scientific argument that the media and the government don’t want you to hear. Despite the claims by global warming profiteer Al Gore, the argument is most definitely not over.
There is a distinct political bent here. Republicans are more likely to be cynical about media coverage of the subject – that’s a shock – than Democrats. However, the increase in the number of disbelievers is from the population of independents. Democrats tend to have a certain, um, inflexibility of thought.
A comment about Gallup’s report, however. This is a quote: “Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change.”
That passage illustrates how poor reporting can mar otherwise good information. You can accept that “global warming” is real – the average temperature over the last century has gone up a bit less than one degree Centigrade; that is, the globe has warmed. Accepting that point does not concede that 1) Warming is caused by humans; or 2) The effects will destroy us.
The meeting in New York City referenced is the International Conference on Climate Change. Debunking the science – or more precisely, the lack of rigorous scientific standards – used by global warming alarmists should be the job of every scientist. I’ll repeat a point I’ve made before: When did “global warming” become “climate change?” Could it be because the earth has not experienced warming for several years, has perhaps even cooled? If you call it climate change, then you can use any sort of weather to prove your point. Global warming actually requires warming.
Again, another previously-mentioned point: If their science was up to snuff, they wouldn’t have to cheat; e.g., the discredited “hockey stick” graph; their practice of ignoring the “Little Ice Age;” the almost unknown fact that increases in CO2 gas follow warmer temperature, not cause it. Yet now, government interference into businesses is based on their CO2 emissions.
The ICCC’s purpose is to allow a discussion of the side of the scientific argument that the media and the government don’t want you to hear. Despite the claims by global warming profiteer Al Gore, the argument is most definitely not over.
Technical Catastrophe
While trying to edit my labels, I accidentally deleted ten of my past posts. Nothing to say about it, other than "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Now I'm Somebody
In today's mail I received several copies of the book I ghostwrote that hit the bestseller list on Amazon. Pretty cool.
[3/12/09 Edit: I forgot to mention, the books were autographed. Ghost autographed. Snicker.]
[3/12/09 Edit: I forgot to mention, the books were autographed. Ghost autographed. Snicker.]
Friday, February 27, 2009
Teenager Audio Test
You may have heard about the ringtone that was developed that supposedly only teenagers can hear. Now you can take the test online and see if you listened to too much Motley Crue in the 80s (with the volume turned to 11, of course.)* Apparently my hearing is superhuman to make up for my poor eyesight. I heard it fine.
* Cheers, Tracy.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Lists
NPR has an article on the importance and popularity of lists. Famous listmakers include Benjam
in Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and David Letterman. Shakespeare is said to have used the word "list." Facebook has a document going around called "25 Random Things About Me." (A list that I would never be tempted to create.)
I use lists constantly. My planner is full of old grocery lists, to do lists, people to call lists, lists of phone numbers, speeches, meetings, writing assignments and other ephemera. As I get older, though, I've run into a downside. There's nothing quite as abashing as coming up on an old list and not quite realizing or remembering what it's a list of.
in Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and David Letterman. Shakespeare is said to have used the word "list." Facebook has a document going around called "25 Random Things About Me." (A list that I would never be tempted to create.)I use lists constantly. My planner is full of old grocery lists, to do lists, people to call lists, lists of phone numbers, speeches, meetings, writing assignments and other ephemera. As I get older, though, I've run into a downside. There's nothing quite as abashing as coming up on an old list and not quite realizing or remembering what it's a list of.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
AP/Obama Smooch-Fest #2
Reflecting the propagandist nature of Associated Press reports, AP reporter Devlin Barrett wrote a glowing story about Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder with the headline "Holder: US a nation of cowards on racial matters." The story reports on how Holder -- during Black History month -- says Americans don't talk about race enough.
Barrett's "reporting" continued: "In a country founded by slave owners, race has bedeviled the nation throughout its history, with blacks denied the right to vote just a few decades ago."
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, giving blacks the right to vote, was ratified in 1870. For the math impaired (like the AP's Devlin Barrett,) that was 139 years ago -- quite a bit more than "a few decades ago."
Barrett's "reporting" continued: "In a country founded by slave owners, race has bedeviled the nation throughout its history, with blacks denied the right to vote just a few decades ago."
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, giving blacks the right to vote, was ratified in 1870. For the math impaired (like the AP's Devlin Barrett,) that was 139 years ago -- quite a bit more than "a few decades ago."
A Sure Sign That It's On Its Way
A headline on Fox News: "White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival"
In recent weeks Obama has shown how his words differ from reality:
On his promise of bipartisanship: "I won." Congressional Democrats then proceeded to craft the stimulus bill without Republican input.
Obama also promised to accept public financing for his presidential campaign. He later reneged on that promise.
Obama promised that there would be no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill. Look here for how that worked out.
So if Obama publicly declares that he's against the Fairness Doctrine, that means that plans are already in motion to implement it. Of course, it will have another name, and the first step will be a small intrusion on the First Amendment. But rest assured, it's coming. You can count on Obama's words -- if you expect the opposite of what he says.
In recent weeks Obama has shown how his words differ from reality:
On his promise of bipartisanship: "I won." Congressional Democrats then proceeded to craft the stimulus bill without Republican input.
Obama also promised to accept public financing for his presidential campaign. He later reneged on that promise.
Obama promised that there would be no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill. Look here for how that worked out.
So if Obama publicly declares that he's against the Fairness Doctrine, that means that plans are already in motion to implement it. Of course, it will have another name, and the first step will be a small intrusion on the First Amendment. But rest assured, it's coming. You can count on Obama's words -- if you expect the opposite of what he says.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Former Astronaut Nails Global Warming
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming. Schmitt contends that the facade of a "consensus" exists because scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that global warming is manmade."They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Schmitt is scheduled to speak at the International Conference on Climate Change to be held next month in New York.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Start the Vacation Counter
Liberals made a big deal out of tracking the number of "vacations" President Bush took during his time in office. They always included the "vacations" when Bush took foreign dignitaries or administration officials to his Crawford ranch, not bothering to consider if work was being done or not. To the Bush-haters, trips to Crawford always counted as "vacation."
Barack Obama has been in office less than a month and is already taking three days off. Start your counter.
Barack Obama has been in office less than a month and is already taking three days off. Start your counter.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Congress: "TV Stations Did Whaaaat??"
More than a decade ago, the federal government began the process of forcing a transition from analog television to digital. For several years, the message has been Digital transition on February 17, 2009. Get your converter box before it's too late! Millions of people have spent money to buy converter boxes for their analog televisions, so they could continue to watch TV.
The government even set up a government website to address the situation. (www.dtv.gov) A telling phrase is from the FAQ:
Why are we switching to DTV?
An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads. Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
In other words, the government saw a way to make money. The government now "owns" the broadcast spectrum, to the extent that it can auction it off. No word on who the government bought it from.
The conversion has had a rough start. Test conversions in specific cities have had poor results. Many people were not prepared, or the digital technology had glitches. The government was not able to keep up with the demand for coupons that provided a discount to consumers for the converter boxes.
As a result, Congress has pushed the mandatory conversion back to June 12, 2009. Now, instead of the compulsory transition date they have had in effect for years, they give TV stations the "choice" to switch to digital broadcasting. Many stations, after having spent millions of dollars on upgrading or replacing their equipment, will go ahead with the transition on February 17, as has been the plan for years.
It's likely that millions of people will be without television service come February 17. Only now, instead of Congress taking the heat for their legislation, they will be able to throw up their hands as though they had nothing to do with it. They will likely come out with public statements about how TV stations are victimizing the poor and the elderly. They will put their own foolishness off on someone else.
When the TV riots of 2009 start, blame Congress.
The government even set up a government website to address the situation. (www.dtv.gov) A telling phrase is from the FAQ:
Why are we switching to DTV?
An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads. Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).
In other words, the government saw a way to make money. The government now "owns" the broadcast spectrum, to the extent that it can auction it off. No word on who the government bought it from.
The conversion has had a rough start. Test conversions in specific cities have had poor results. Many people were not prepared, or the digital technology had glitches. The government was not able to keep up with the demand for coupons that provided a discount to consumers for the converter boxes.
As a result, Congress has pushed the mandatory conversion back to June 12, 2009. Now, instead of the compulsory transition date they have had in effect for years, they give TV stations the "choice" to switch to digital broadcasting. Many stations, after having spent millions of dollars on upgrading or replacing their equipment, will go ahead with the transition on February 17, as has been the plan for years.
It's likely that millions of people will be without television service come February 17. Only now, instead of Congress taking the heat for their legislation, they will be able to throw up their hands as though they had nothing to do with it. They will likely come out with public statements about how TV stations are victimizing the poor and the elderly. They will put their own foolishness off on someone else.
When the TV riots of 2009 start, blame Congress.
Friday, February 06, 2009
And So It Begins
Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen." .
These are the words of Michigan Democrat Debbie Stebanow. also known as Mrs. Tom Athans, who was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. Athans refers to his network as a "viable alternative to Air America...Progressive Talk Radio is a viable format that has great commercial potential..."
Air America is the Liberal radio network that had lower ratings than reruns of static and which went bankrupt a couple of years ago (but not before its executives managed to rip off the Boys and Girls Clubs.)
So Senator Stebanow wants to introduce legislation that would eliminate her husband's competition.
Nope, nothing corrupt there.
These are the words of Michigan Democrat Debbie Stebanow. also known as Mrs. Tom Athans, who was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. Athans refers to his network as a "viable alternative to Air America...Progressive Talk Radio is a viable format that has great commercial potential..."
Air America is the Liberal radio network that had lower ratings than reruns of static and which went bankrupt a couple of years ago (but not before its executives managed to rip off the Boys and Girls Clubs.)
So Senator Stebanow wants to introduce legislation that would eliminate her husband's competition.
Nope, nothing corrupt there.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
American Banks Nationalized by Force!
Sometimes the crackpot conspiracy theories are right. This story got by me. From an article in Time magazine:
"On October 13, the nine bank bosses, assembled in the Treasury's imposing boardroom, were each handed a piece of paper [by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson]...
"[The government's program] called for the U.S. government to take partial ownership of nine leading banks... "
Although Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich resisted, Paulson gave the bankers no choice." (Emphasis mine.)
Now Wells Fargo is being slammed in the media for conducting their traditional celebration to reward sales bankers because they took bailout money -- even though they were forced to take it. In other words, the banks have been nationalized, some against their will. And today Obama announced a salary cap for executives in companies who took (or were forced to take) bailout money.
Where is the outrage? The word nationalized has been scrupulously avoided in the media. Shouldn't the federal government be in the hot seat, not Wells Fargo?
"On October 13, the nine bank bosses, assembled in the Treasury's imposing boardroom, were each handed a piece of paper [by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson]...
"[The government's program] called for the U.S. government to take partial ownership of nine leading banks... "
Although Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich resisted, Paulson gave the bankers no choice." (Emphasis mine.)
Now Wells Fargo is being slammed in the media for conducting their traditional celebration to reward sales bankers because they took bailout money -- even though they were forced to take it. In other words, the banks have been nationalized, some against their will. And today Obama announced a salary cap for executives in companies who took (or were forced to take) bailout money.
Where is the outrage? The word nationalized has been scrupulously avoided in the media. Shouldn't the federal government be in the hot seat, not Wells Fargo?
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Today's Most Important Headline
"Czech president attacks Al Gore's climate campaign"
Want to guess who I'm rooting for in that battle?
Second most important deadline:
"Georges St-Pierre dominates B.J. Penn at UFC 94"
One of the few times I've rooted for a foreigner (St-Pierre is Canadian) over an American.
Want to guess who I'm rooting for in that battle?
Second most important deadline:
"Georges St-Pierre dominates B.J. Penn at UFC 94"
One of the few times I've rooted for a foreigner (St-Pierre is Canadian) over an American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)