“All Politics Is Local”

Why would someone in the prime of his life enter the buzz saw of local politics … particularly in a state as corrupt as Massachusetts? Beats me. But there is such a person and his name is William Callahan ... and he is running for the State House here in the place aptly named a “Commonwealth” after the left-leaning politics of its inhabitants. For generations this state has been run by Democrats to the point that it is assumed to be their birthright. Yes, Governor Romney did govern his state for four years, but he could but make a small dent in its political hackery caused by this state’s one party rule … 87 % of its legislature is Democratic … and this has resulted in its last three Senate Presidents being convicted of felonies … stay tuned for possibly more. Generations of Democrat legislative rule here in Massachusetts has created a miasma of political privilege and disdain which, in turn, has led to fiscal irresponsibility and creeping moral corruption. We can ill afford this long ethical slide to continue. It may very soon become irreversible.

Enter William Callahan, a recently retired Colonel in the National Guard (as the National Guard’s Fiscal Officer for all of Massachusetts) who had served two tours of duty in Iran. Bill is a level-headed optimist ... still believing that he can help change things (see: Callahan's Webpage) … and I have signed on to do my small bit to help him. He is running a vigorous ground campaign here in the Middlesex’s 5th district comprising Natick, Sherbourn, and part of Millis, Massachusetts … going from door to door plying his message of restoring ethical standards in our Massachusetts government, working diligently to reduce our states’ out-of-control spending and confiscatory taxing, and improving government transparency, i.e., open up our governmental processes to the fresh air of full and timely disclosure. He is running against David Linsky, not the worst of the Democrat Beacon-Hill actors who has done some beneficial things for our communities. But he has never seen a tax increase that he didn’t endorse or a pork-barrel bill he would eschew… and, over the most recent session, has voted with the Democrat leadership over 99% of the time. This is why he needs to be replaced.

Will Bill win ... in a state whose citizens first consider the “D” or “R” following a candidate’s name before voting? It certainly is an uphill slog. But I cannot count out someone who has won two Bronze Stars for his service for his country in a hostile foreign land ... and is endorsed by U.S. Senator Scott Brown and the Natick Police Patrol Officers' Association.  But then again Massachusetts has its own form of IEDs. I am doing my small part to help this good man avoid being blown up in his attempt to make things better.  And I would appreciate anyone who might help in this effort to pass this message along.

Thank you.

(Title quote is attributed to the former Speaker of the U.S. House from Massachusetts, Tip O'Neill.)

Ham Sandwich

When the Watergate scandal was in full swing, I wore an American flag pin upside down on my jacket until Tricky Dick Nixon resigned. If I were still wearing suits, I would repeat this cry of distress today. As the Benghazi scandal continues to fester, it is becoming clearer exactly what occurred there … and it wasn’t pretty. A reader of the Powerline blog has assembled a detailed timeline of events there that helps to answer a lot of questions. Please take the time to read this fascinating hyperlink so that you too may start to connect the sordid dots: Powerline Blog Reference. One revelation in this post was that there was, despite direct orders to “stand down,” a small rescue mission sent to Libya which did reach Benghazi in time to affect things somewhat. Fascinating reading!

Now we learn that our Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta has relieved General Carter Ham, the leader of the U.S. Africa command, of his duties … see: Washington Times Story. One does not have to be a genius to understand that this was likely due to Ham’s sending of this and/or another proposed rescue mission. Now comes the interesting part. It seems clear that this rather drastic action on Panetta’s part indicates that this “stand down” order was from him … or, more likely, from President Obama. An order from below this level should not have engendered such drastic punishment to the general. Yes, General Ham was clearly wrong to disobey such an order … just as it was more egregiously wrong to issue it.

Back to the cover-up. The gang that killed Osama (and apparently helped cause four Americans in Benghazi to suffer the same fate), in the cold light of dawn, realized how this screw-up might affect the upcoming Presidential elections. So they clearly started covering their tracks … and grabbed the convenient excuse of the You-Tube anti Islamic video being the cause of the Benghazi “riots.” They peddled this concoction for almost three weeks and offered lame excuses about an on-going investigation as to why they couldn’t answer direct questions. Now that things are quickly unraveling, they are still hoping to make it to November 6th without the whole fetid mess being exposed. Nixon did avoid the more serious Watergate revelations until after his election. But given the speed of current news cycles on the Internet (the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. are doing their level best to ignore this story), I doubt if Obama will be quite so lucky. I sincerely hope not.



Afterward: A naval strike-force Admiral is also being replaced (see: ABCNewsStory).  Is this related?

Cowed

The unfolding events in Benghazi, Libya on this past September 11th are becoming very disturbing.  It has become abundantly clear that everyone in the administrative chain of command, including the President, knew in real time what was transpiring on that fateful night.  And for almost seven hours nothing was effectively done.  This is 180-degrees against American tradition and against the most basic instincts of human nature.  One can speculate until the cows come home as to why this was the case, but the actions and words of Leon Penetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama can only cause one to conclude that the decision was made, at whatever level, that these four American's lives were expendable.  CIA Director, David Petraeus seems to be unwilling to made the scapegoat ... see: Weekly Standard Piece, but the recent revelations of how Hillary and Barack acted whilst standing beside the coffin of his son Tyrone and talking to the father, Charles Woods (see: Another Weekly Standard Piece), suggests to me the utter calculated callousness that these political bovines were trying to use to misdirect blame.

It is inexcusable for how our administration acted and (did not) react to this Benghazi massacre.  Even if more lives were lost as a consequence of an attempt to protect our United States's sovereignty and lives, we still would have acted with honor.  Now we have lost four lives and our honor to boot.  To compound this outrage, the administration then went on to commit an even greater sin ... the cover-up.  For at least two weeks they peddled the fallacy of an anti-Islam YouTube video was the reason for the Benghazi attacks.  I needn't repeat the litany of falsehoods that our administration manufactured to try to excuse this infamy.  But thinking back on this period, it turns my stomach. 

George W. Bush was frequently called a "cowboy President." The Obama tag team are not cowboys ... merely cowed.  Unfortunately, we must endure them for at least a while longer.

Swiss Cheese

Recently, I am getting an annoying flurry of messages on my PC from my virus detection software, avast!, which say “Malicious URL Blocked!” Then when I ask for further explanation, I see:

avast! saved your computer from crashing

You just dodged a bullet

You may be wondering how you ended up with a virus, especially if you were visiting a ‘normal’ site. The latest research from the avast! Virus Lab shows that more than 80% of malware (viruses,spyware, and the like) spreads through legitimate websites, with only 1% coming from suspicious or ‘dodgy’ sites.

Now, how is it that my operating system and Internet browser, both from Microsoft, are so inept and insecure that, decades after their constructions, such malicious intrusions can happen? Simple answer – Microsoft has focused its business strategy on maintaining its revenue and profit stream … and ignoring the true wants and needs of its customers. This bloated company's software is so full of holes that is resembles a good Swiss cheese. To me, there in no excuse for this sloppiness and sloth … and this fault will eventually bring Microsoft down.  I predict that, within five years, this fate will become blatantly obvious to anyone watching.

Whopper

I'm sorry in advance for the length of this blog post … but unfortunately it seems to be required.  Monday night’s Presidential debate had the following exchange between the candidates:

Mitt Romney – “The president in his campaign some four years ago said he'd meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year. He'd sit down with Chavez and Kim Jong-il, with Castro and with president Ahmadinejad of Iran. I think they looked and thought, ‘Well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the United States.’ And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.”

President Obama – “Nothing, uh, Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been, uhh, probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact-checker and every reporter has looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true.” (Italics mine.)

Now here are actual news stories (shortly after his inauguration) indicating whom Obama was willing to (or did) meet with:

Ahmadinejad: Telegraph Story 

Kim Jong-il: CFR Story 

Castro: Politico Story 

Chavez: The Daily Beast Story 

I have also found these following quotes from Obama ... apologizing for his country (shortly after his inauguration) on the Rush Limbaugh’s website (see: Rush Limbaugh Site).

In Strasbourg, France (4/3/2009): “In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

In Mexico City, Mexico (04/17/09): “I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border. So we have responsibilities as well. We have to do our part.”  (A Fast and Furious set-up?)

Three quotes in Cairo, Egypt (06/04/2009): “Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”

“In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

“There's been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”


And I can not neglect to note the spate of Obama’s bowing to foreign leaders … in China, in Saudi Arabia, in Japan, in India, and in Mexico … see: Google Images.


Now, after all this evidence, was not Obama the one who was telling the most gigantic of whoppers?

Cuban Missile Crisis

Other than the Boca Raton Presidential debate, last night was another special occasion.  It was the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis ... the night when John F. Kennedy went on national television to stare down the Russians and try to force them to remove offensive nuclear missiles from Cuba.  I won't go into the gory details here, but, suffice it to say, most of the world believed that the U.S. and Russia were only hours away from a nuclear Holocaust. If you want more details, see: History Channel.

The purpose of this blog entry is to relate my personal story of this evening full of national angst.  I was, at the time, attending New York University's Graduate School of Business at night working toward an MBA.  This night I had a course in Marketing 101 and I still remember the Professor's name, Hector Lazlo.  Professor Lazlo always passed out a mimeographed outline at the start of each class with bullet points for each topic he would be covering.  This night's topic was The Survey Process.  I was sitting about half-way back in a crowded classroom.  A short way into his lecture, Professor Lazlo got to a bullet point titled "Telephone Survey."  He then, in all seriousness, said: "A telephone survey is when you do a survey over the telephone."

Given the tense atmospherics because of the upcoming JFK speech, this lecture point appeared to me the epitome of inanity.  Basically I said to myself: "The world might be coming to an end tonight and I'm sitting here listening to some asshole tell me that 'a telephone survey is when you do a survey over the telephone'" ... and I started to laugh.  In fact I got a little hysterical.  I was laughing so hard I had to crouch on the floor behind the other students so the Professor wouldn't see me (although he certainly could hear me.)  After a few moments I composed myself and retook my seat.  And I fortunately escaped this incident unscathed

After class, I went home and saw JFK trump Nikita Khrushchev ... and the Ruskies removed the missiles a few days later.  That night, the U.S. also fortunately escaped a nuclear war unscathed.

Arrested Development

I've started writing this blog entry prior to tonight's Presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida.  (I will await finishing it until after this last verbal duel.)  The theme of this post is Obama's smarmy, snarky conduct during, at least, the second debate and, all to often, when he is addressing his worshiping crowds on the campaign trail.  I am waiting until after tonight's debate because I am reasonably certain that there will be even more of these sniping snide comments from our man-child President.

There is even a Twitter account that captures Obama's snarky-isms ... see: Snarky Obama.  And many in the Main Stream Media are also picking up this meme ... see: Obama's Small Campaign.

After the debate -- I was not disappointed.  Obama was condescending, patronizing, and kindergarten-teacher like.  (I think everyone watching this debate knows what aircraft carriers and submarines are.)  And, in most of his disputes with Romney, it was the President who had his facts wrong (Romney did say in his op-ed on the auto industry that he believed that the federal government should provide loan guarantees during this industry’s managed bankruptcy).  I realize that many left-leaning talking heads, rather desperately I might say, averred that Obama won.  I disagree.  It was Romney who looked presidential and Obama who looked angry and frustrated.

Perhaps this continued puerile conduct is why Obama is more popular with young voters?

Armstrong

There used to be a radio program called Jack Armstong, All-American Boy.  Much later came an American champion bicyclist, Lance Armstong, who won the Tour de France seven times and gave his countrymen a retro-feeling of national pride.  Now this hero is being stripped of these titles and losing most of his advertising sponsors because of doping (see: Fox Sports Story).

"Doping" means that Lance Armstrong remove small amounts of his blood and replaced them before key bicycle races to enhance his red cell count ... as well as a naturally-occurring hormone EPO (see: Wikipedia Entry) and thus his endurance profile.  Now these are both so natural that all the testing that Lance Armstrong went through never found them.  Nor were they apparently found in most all of the other cyclist`who were also doping.  It is generally conceded now that virtually all entrants into the Tour de France were also doping then.

What does this all mean? As suggested in the Fox Sports article, endurance bicycle racing has been so tainted that the Tour de France winners in the Armstrong years should be left blank. This being the case, I suggest that then they should also be left blank up to the present time since this doping has gotten even more sophisticated. Or alternatively, perhaps, Lance Armstrong and his doctors were better at this doping process sooner than the other competitors. Therefore, Armstrong and his team were in the vanguard of advancing the science of endurance performance … obviously an important development outside of the field of sports.

So then what were Lance Armstrong’s sins? Obviously lying is certainly major among them. But then most other cyclists were and are also culpable of this sin … and, as we have painfully learned from a phalanx of recent politicians, lying is now too often considered a virtue. Can we wipe the slate of all this doping and lying surrounding this cycling sport? I sincerely doubt it. And thus, just like we seemed to have swept all the steroid use in baseball (and other sports) under the rug, we might well consider doing the same with doping in endurance bicycle racing. After all, the long-term health effects of doping seem a lot more benign than that of steroid use. Is “doping” that much less fair that utilizing the latest materials technology in building the bicycle itself … or using a diet of specialized carbohydrate loading before the race?

Morality is often an elusive prey.

Romnesia

President Obama is now using a snarky put-down for his opponent -- "Romnesia" (see: AP Video).  This is meant to describe Mitt Romney's changing stance on key issues ... flip-flopping if you will.  How might Romney retort to describe the disaster of Obama's failed economic policies?  May I suggest "Obamanation"?  (Noting the degree to which our country has suffered over the last four years.)  But will he?  I hope and expect not. The difference is class.  I sincerely doubt that Romney would stoop to such "schoolyard" tactics.

But then I'm not so loath.

Justice Delayed

It's been almost three years since Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people and wounded more than 24 others at Fort Hood, Texas in one of the few successful acts of domestic terror during the Obama presidency.  For some callow and probably political reason, this administration has labeled this heinous act "workplace violence."  Now relatives of the victims in this incident are attempting to get it called what it was ... an act of terrorism (see: AP Story) in order that they might receive just the military benefits due them.  (Contrast this modest request with the largess that was passed out to relatives after the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Centers).

Even more disturbing is the time it has taken to bring this Islamic zealot to justice in this case.  Many suspect that Nidal's refusal to shave off his beard for "religious reasons" has been a convenient excuse to delay his trial until after the upcoming presidential elections.  Fortunately, a military court has just decreed that the beard must come off (see: NBC News Story) ... but too late to remind voters of how silly Obama's administration has been in dealing with this atrocity.  But then, let us also note that the still-living 9/11/2001 conspirators are just now coming to justice in military tribunals at Guantanamo, Cuba.  (One can partially blame George W. Bush for this travesty ... although Attorney General, Eric Holder, had also pooped the bed big time on this one.)

"Justice delayed is justice denied."  How true ... how true.

Hope and Change

Hope, Arkansas

Changer

I hope for a change of Presidents.

(This is the last one ... I promise.)

Binders

The Chinese once bound women's feet under the misguided notion that it was very sexy ... and, possibly, with the side effect that it kept their women close to home (even though such binding was actually performed by women.).  Now, there seems to be a (frivolous?) Democrat attempt to suggest that Mitt Romney had used binders as a different mode of subjugation.  When he was Governor of Massachusetts he leafed through "binders full of women's resumes" looking for women to hire for his cabinet and administration (see: Washington Post Story).  Even the previous WaPo story kind of poo-poos the meme that has arisen around Romney's comment in the Tuesday night Presidential debate.  I agree.  This is clearly silly-season strategy and rhetoric.

To suggest that looking through binders full of women's resumes is somehow a degradation of the fairer sex appears to this misogynist as laughable.  I wonder if Slick Willy Clinton ever looked through binders full of women's resumes when he zeroed in on Monica Lewinsky as his White House intern?

Afterthought:  Perhaps the Dems are trying to imply that Romney wanted women to become constipated?

Juxtaposition XXXVIII



Eye Candy *



Candy Crowley

Joined at the hip ...?

Afterward:  Apparently Mederator Candy Crowley had in front of her, during the recent Presidential debate, a copy of the transcript of Obama's Rose-garden comments made the morning after the Benghazi attack ... wherein the word "terrorism" was used.  Of all the possible documentation she might have had with her at that time, this transcript would not seem to have been of paramount importance.  This then begs the question: Was this a collusive set-up between the White House and Crowley in anticipation of what Obama would say and how Romney might react?  If it were, CNN should summarily fire Ms. Crowley.  Ha Ha!


* Recent self-description on The View.

Frugal Green Energy

Electric car battery maker, A123 Systems, just joined the growing list of our Department of Energy-backed companies receiving taxpayer dollars ... who then have gone belly up (see: Market Watch).  This time the hit was $123 million ... not quite the $535 million that Solyndra cost us ... but then not peanuts either.  The list of green-energy corporate failures goes on and on:  Compact Power Inc., Ener 1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Amonix Solar, SpectraWatt, Evergreen Power, Range Fuels, Raser Technologies, and ECOtality to name but a very few ... and in the wings are Sun Power, First Solar and Solar Trust of America (see Brainard Dispatch).   This has cost our bumbling Energy Department buffoons billions of dollars and will certainly cost us taxpayers billions more. As Mitt Romney has aptly opined ... our government "doesn't just pick green-energy winners and losers, it just picks losers."

I have come up with a better idea for how the Obama administration can produce green-energy much more frugally ... scroll down please ...

Afterward: Add Satcon Technology Corp to the above list of failed DOE-funded greenies (see: The Foundry Story)

The Buck Stops Here ... Kinda

Just in time to provide her boss some political cover in tonight's debate, Hillary Clinton now says that it was her responsibility to provide the necessary security to the Benghazi consulate ... kinda.  Although she says that the buck stops with her, she does water down this noble gesture by saying it was her security people who actually made the decision not to respond to the request for more security ... that led to the terrorist attack and murder of our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans there on September 11th.  See: Michelle Malkin Story ... particularly her hypertext link: delegated the blame.

This seeming noble act on Hillary's part tells me three things:
1) Despite her protestations to the contrary, Hillary Clinton still does have political ambitions regarding who will be the Democrat candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  (But, I would expect, between now and then, she will get a better hairdresser.)
2) She has some doubts as to whether her boss, Barack Obama, will prevail in the current election.  Otherwise Joe Biden would be the natural (if silly) choice to head the Democrat ticket then.
3) That master politician, Bill Clinton, is probably behind this posturing on Hillary's part.  This likely is because he seems to be obsessed with getting back into the White House ... even as the second fiddle.  Perhaps he had left some good cigars hidden in the Oval office?

Prediction

If Mitt Romney were to win the Presidential election on November 6th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average would immediately advance by at least 1,000 points.  (It already is creeping up as Romney keeps doing better in the polls.)

Ice Cube

President Obama faces a bit of a dilemma tomorrow night in his critical debate at Hofstra University with Mitt Romney.  If he emulates his sidekick, Joe Biden, and emotes himself into a fiery frenzy, he will be going across the grain of his carefully-constructed image of Mr. Cool (see my previous blog entry: Mr. Cool).  I am convinced that his seeming unflappable demeanor was a big asset in his run for the Presidency in 2008 ... and for his continued popularity among the viewers of TV shows like The View and The Dave Letterman Show.   Since television is a cool medium, this u-turn in style may have the unintended consequence of sullying his aura, particularly among females (as I am convinced was the result of Biden's debate buffoonery.)

So, tomorrow night, Obama must walk a thin line between being aggressively hot and being passively cool.  I can't predict how he will actually perform, but, if Obama can pull off this tricky maneuver, Romney will be back climbing a steep hill to 270 electoral votes.

Hanging Threads

I believe that the national media (including Fox) is too often derelict in their duties when it comes to following-up on significant news stories. Too too often the American public is left hanging to discover the real story behind the story … or what occurred as a consequence of what was once front-page headlines. Let me offer a few glaring examples:

- What has happened to the implementation details of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill? This law was passed over two years ago to remedy the excesses that caused the financial meltdown of 2008 … and left many important details to be determined by this Administration. Most of these details are still hanging … why?.

- Exactly who made the decision that there would be no rescue mission sent to Benghazi during the six-hour siege of our Consulate there … where four Americans were killed including our Ambassador to Libya. It is crystal clear that our administration at all levels was aware (in real time, including pictures) of what was occurring there, but no rescue reaction was tripped. In addition to the who, why was such malfeasance displayed in this matter?

- What rationale did President Obama have in totally ignoring the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission to reduce our annual federal deficits?

- Who was responsible for leaking the details of the Osama ben Laden raid in Pakistan and his killing? The President has “launched an internal investigation” into this matter … exactly who is leading this probe and what progress has been made to date?

- Shortly after Obama was inaugurated, he formed the Middle-Class Task Force with VP Joe Biden as its Chairman. This task force was purposed with the duty of “raising the living standards of middle-class, working families in America.” How many times did this commission meet and what were its recommendations … and have any of these recommendations been implemented?

- What were the exact terms of the Chicago teachers’s strike settlement? Did Chicago or the teachers’s union benefit most?

- Why was Anthony Wiener never charged with any crime as a result of his exhibitionist peccadilloes?

- How many entities (businesses, unions, etc.) are still receiving wavers to the implementation requirements of Obamacare?

- What are the minute details behind what the Public Broadcasting System receives and spends every year? It is a public entity after all and, one would think, that these financial details (including Big Bird's take-home) would be readily available and aired by the media on a regular basis.  Afterward: I just discovered that Big Bird makes over $341,000 per year (see: IB Times Story ).  Yipes!!

- Exactly how much voter fraud is known to take place? (This is a tricky one since it is so bound up in the agendas of each political party.)

- How many times have President Obama and Bibi Netanyahu actually talk in the last six months?

There are tons more of these media lapses, but I think this is enough for now … and easily makes my point.

Legal Eagle

Massachusetts Senate candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has a very unique riposte to Senator Scott Brown's charge about just how little she stands up for the common man.  She now says that, even though she was a lawyer (or perhaps a legal consultant?) for The Travelers Insurance when it was a defendant in a class-action lawsuit by a plaintiff group of asbestos victims, "[s]he pointed out that that plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case and asbestos workers’ unions have said her advocacy in the case helped protect the settlement for victims" (see: boston.com Story).

Perhaps it is true that, even though Elizabeth Warren was contracted to help the defendant, The Travelers, and took a hefty fee for this legal effort, she was "secretly" working for the plaintiffs.  How can this be?  Either she is misrepresenting what she did in this case ... or she violated her legal ethical standards when she tilted toward the plaintiffs when representing and taking money from the defendant.  This is clearly a major conflict of interests ... and should cause a further look by the Harvard Law School and/or the Massachusetts Bar Association.  Ha Ha!!

Dissing (Rhymes with ...)

Gaffawing Joe

Earnest Paul



 



Plus 82 interruptions ... the Scranton way?

Afterward: One of the best comments I've heard about last night's V.P. debate was that Joe Biden came across very much like Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

My Favorite Gay Liberal



Camille Paglia

No it's not Andrew Sullivan.  It's Camille Paglia.  She has just released a new bombastic book titled, Real Housewives, wherein she claims she will vote for the Green Party candidate and calls George Lucas the greatest living artist (!?) ... see: Salon.com Article. (It's worth a scan.).  Therein she also waxes ecstatic about Monet's Iris paintings.  Now I know she generally has great artistic taste, but I will let you, kind reader, be the judge insofar as who better depicts the bliss of new Spring irises ... Monet or Van Gogh?



Monet's Irises




Van Gogh's Irises

 My wife and I  visited last year the monastery in St. Remy where Van Gogh painted what I consider to be the better of the two renditions ... see: Mille-Bornes (about half way down) for some context.

The Second Joust Opponent

And here are the reprised questions (from an August posting on this blog) that I would like the moderator,  Martha Raddatz (or some open-minded Centre College student) to ask of Paul Ryan in tonight's Vice Presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky:

1) You were a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission and voted against its final recommendations which President Obama ignored anyway ... costing us two additional years of huge budget deficits. If you could do it all over, would you have voted for these reforms?

2) You have been widely castigated for putting forward two federal budgets that, although they passed the House, died in the Senate. You have been around Washington for a number of years and, assumedly knew what Harry Reid would do, so why did you allow yourself to be subject to such political ridicule for no real national economic benefit?

3) The Democrats are continuing to repeat the mantra that your tax reform proposals will cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on middle-class Americans. Without getting too deep into the weeds, how can you simply explain exactly how your and Romney’s current tax proposals will affect the various classes of our citizens?

4) Your suggested reforms to Medicare are being used by your opposition to frighten our senior citizens. How can you here assure our seniors that they will NOT be pushed off a cliff in their wheelchairs?

5) For American citizens, below age 55, you have proposed a Medicare voucher program whereby they can shop around for health insurance that suits their needs better. Democrats retort that these premium supports will fall further and further behind their actual medical care costs … and the deficiency will come out of their pockets. How do you respond to such charges?

6) Your solution to our Medicaid problems involves block-granting states federal money so that they can solve the escalating costs in these programs each in their own way. How can you be sure that this process will not be equally inflationary and, instead of one large national medical care cost problem for indigent citizens, we will not end up with fifty separate state problems.

7) You voted for Medicare, Part B under President Bush. If you had a Mulligan on this vote, would you do it again?

8) In order to move toward a balanced federal budget, I assume you also would pare back spending in the discretionary portion of the federal budget. Please specify what your top three priorities would be ... and how far would you go with Defense Department cuts?

9) You have virtually no foreign policy experience and, since you are only a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the Western World, what are your foreign policy concerns and priorities?

10) You are widely respected by your House colleagues for your camaraderie and working relations. What role do you see yourself playing, if you are elected, in helping Romney push his legislative agenda though what might be a hostile Congress.

The Second Joust

This Thursday night is Joe Biden's turn in the barrel ... the Vice Presidental town-hall type debate at Centre College (Danville, KY) ... contesting him against that pit bull Paul Ryan.  I have previously in this blog listed ten questions I would like to see Ol' Joe squirm his way through then.  Rather than just hypertext reference these queries, I've decided to reproduce them here (and tomorrow I will re-list the questions for Paul Ryan):

1) Since you have in the past been accused of leaking state secrets, have you had anything to do with any of the recent serious White House intelligence disclosures?

2) You voted against the George H.W. Bush's invasion of Kuwait to repel Iraq's invasion? You strongly advocated the splitting of Iraq up into three separate states along the lines of its ethnic minorities. You voted against George W. Bush's successful surge in Iraq. In general your foreign policy decisions have often been sub-optimal. If you were to become President, how can the American people trust your questionable judgement to maintain our hegemony in the world?

3) You have been accused of ... and admitted to plagiarizing part of a law review article in college and a large portion of a speech by Neal Kinnock. Do you believe that this is the character profile that Americans should expect of their Vice President?

4) You indicated to President Obama that the passage of Obamacare was "a big f...ing deal." In particular, which portion(s) of this remaking of the American health-care system are you most proud of? And do you condone the manner in which it was back-doored into law?

5) You chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas … which set the dubious standard for acrimony and partisanship. Are you proud of the what you accomplished with these hearings?

6) You chaired the Simpson-Bowles Commission whose recommendations for fiscal reform many have considered noteworthy … and which President Obama completely ignored. Did you ever go to bat with the President to try to get him to implement any or all of this committee’s findings?

7) You champion yourself as coming from working-class roots. How can you identify yourself as middle class when you live in a 3.5 million dollar mansion in Delaware?

8) At the beginning of his administration, President Obama created a Middle-Class Task Force with you as its chairman. This task force was purposed with the duty of “raising the living standards of middle-class, working families in America.” Can you name three accomplishments of this committee?

9) Early on, President Obama also gave you the assignment of overseeing our 800 billion dollar Recovery Act ... better known as stimulus spending. Exactly how involved were you in this oversight since "many of its shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready" … and this program has been generally deemed an utter waste of money?

10) Now that you and Nancy Pelosi have had considerable plastic surgery on the taxpayers's dime, do you believe that Medicaid and Medicare should make available equally lavish reconstructions for all their insurees?

My Tinfoil Hat

Jack Welch (former CEO of General Electric), Donald Trump (The Donald), Mort Zuckerman (Editor of U.S. News & World Report, owner of the N.Y. Daily News, and founder of Boston Properties), and most right-wing talk-show hosts believe that the recent favorable 7.8% unemployment rate is very suspicious ... thinking that the data has been somehow rigged.  However, I have not yet seen any of them (including the New York Times in two stories) who can point to a possible reason for this misfeasance ... except for myself (bedecked in my tinfoil hat) among a very few others. 

And this is because I have discovered an Obama political operative who has been running the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) since June 14th of this year and whom I suspect is the reason that the unemployment rate suddenly dropped below 8% ... a big political plus for The Barry one month before the Presidential election ... strangely serendipitous.  Her name is Erica Groshen.  None of the luminaries mentioned above seem to know of this coincidence.  Even a recent ABC story seems to think that the BLS is still under the control of apolitical bureaucrats ... see: ABC News Story.  Nonsense!

In order to show you how far off the reservation I have sidled (excuse me, Elizabeth Warren), let me direct you to two wingnut websites I have uncovered ... see: Freedumb Nation and Net Right Daily (please indulge me and read them both).  Although these sites do seem a little odd, they both give one an idea of how really far left this new head of the BLS seems to drop her Birkenstocks.  And, if you believe that her political bent would not cause her to "persuade" her direct reports to follow her lead to the most bizarre adjustment for BLS unemployment statistics in at least 29 years, then you don't understand "the Chicago way."

Hope and Change

Bob Hope



Che Guevarra













"Hope is not a strategy" -- Mitt Romney

"Change for its own sake is anarchy" -- George Potts

Fishy

For those who read this blog site regularly it is clear why the unemployment rate in the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release “unexpectedly” dropped to 7.8%. Since this statistic has become so politically sensitive, the Chicago-style of political gamesmanship is to “fix” the number, not the problem. So last March, Obama broke a long tradition and named one of his political operatives to head this government agency (see: Funny Business). So shortly after this hack was confirmed, U.S. employment numbers were suddenly revised upwards by 453 thousand. Now, the September official BLS release shows a phenomenal one month increase in employment by 873 thousand (the biggest one-month jump ever, see: BLS Release and click on the HTML version of the A-1 table under Monthly Household Data). Wow!! This comes at the same time that second quarter GNP growth was revised downward to 1.3%. Realistically, this two things can’t happen simultaneously.

Watch the Obama administration and its stenographers in the Main Stream Media blare these phony unemployment rates from the roof-tops and in 18-point agate type … and demean those who question these shenanigans. This is extremely fishy and stinks up this election cycle even more. It is really unfortunate that our government now feels privileged to manipulate such statistics for political gain.

Hope and Change



Hope Lange - R.I.P.



U.S. Assets

TKO

Pat Buchanan said late last night that Mitt Romney won the first Presidential debate in a walk, “If it were a 16 round boxing match, Romney won 13 rounds.” I agree and I would even expand on his metaphor … it was at least a Technical Knock Out (TKO) for Mitt. In particular Romney said three things that caught my attention … and often went against his own self-interests:

1) Reluctant as he was to provide details about his proposals to broaden the income tax base, Romney did suggest one possibility … cap total itemized deductions at something like $25,000 or $50,000. This is a brilliant solution that primarily would impact the very wealthy and does not target any specific itemized deductions (which would create a political firestorm). For instance, Romney’s million$ of charitable deductions would no longer help reduce his income tax burden as in times past. To me this shows the level of true statesmanship from Romney … showing his rabid commitment toward reducing our nation’s deficits (and mimics my previous tax proposals ... see: Taxing Ideas).

2) When discussing what was wrong with the Dodd/Frank bill, Romney said that it did not get rid of “too big to fail.” This he said was a gigantic “kiss” to the five biggest Wall-Street banks (see: Huffington Post). What?!? Romney is conspiring against the gang that couldn’t shoot straight and that did a lot to cause the financial meltdown in 2008. He, of course, was right and I think it showed great courage to dis what is some of his financial support.

3) Even though Romney said he loved Big Bird and Jim Lehrer, he said he would nevertheless stop federal funding of PBS in order to help reduce government spending. I concur. Our government now gives this network close to a half billion dollars a year and this is supplemented by private donations; annual week-long auctions of donated goods; foundation and corporate largess; and now even actual ads of increasing length. Basically PBS is now a fully commercial network and Romney (and I) think that it is now time for our government to back away. Perhaps this would mean that some of the producers and personalities on this network would take a hit to their high six-figure take-homes (see: Big Bird Dollars), but I believe that they will easily survive.

I now look forward to the remainder of these debates with greater optimism.

The First Joust

Tonight is the first Presidential debate and, according to the Main Stream Media's narrative, one of Mitt Romney's last three chances to overcome his lagging poll results. The moderator of this first debate, Jim Lehrer of PBS, is not exactly the most unbiased referee who could have been chosen.  But then neither was moderator David Gregory of the recent Scott Brown/Elizabeth Warren debate at UMass/Lowell.  After an initial leftward list, David Gregory did manage to steady his tilt before the end of that joust.  Let us hope that Jim Lehrer can also approach this standard.

This first Presidential debate is to take place at the University of Denver in Colorado.  In fact, all the major debates this election year will take place at venues obviously favorable to Democrats ... universities (see: Debate Venues).  However, that aside, the real challenges to the Republican candidates are the questions they are to be asked ... as are the optics surrounding these contests.  Regarding these questions, previously on this blog I have already constructed ten questions I would like to have asked of each Presidential contestant.  For those who don't recall them, these queries are repeated here: Obama Queries and Romney Queries.  If Jim Lehrer (or possibly the audience) asks anything like these questions, I think this first joust could turn out to be a reasonably-fair contest.

I can't predict the optics, but I bet it will include the candidates's beaming wives and families ... but probably not any horses.

Surprise!

In 2008 53% of Americans voted to elect Barack Obama as our President ... many based on the premise that this would prove that they were not racists ... and, as an added benefit, the stain of slavery would be forever removed from our country's cirriculum vitae.  Now we discover that Obama's "typical white folks" comment (referring to his Caucasian grandparents) back in those Helicon days was just a peek behind the curtain of his inherent reverse racism.  Pulling the curtain all the way back, we now discover the true extent of Obama's odium toward many of those who elected him to the highest office in this country.  It's not a pretty picture ... see: Daily Caller Video.  (Those of you who chose not to click on this link, needn't continue reading.) 

Why this fairly bright, extensively privileged man of mixed racial heritage would have such animosity toward half of his DNA frankly escapes me?  Perhaps his white mother's radical teachings in his formative years?  Perhaps his lost love and longing for his African father?  Perhaps some anti-American indoctrination in the madrassas he attended in Indonesia?  Perhaps his experiences as a community organizer among Chicago street gangs?  Perhaps his friendship with that anarchist, Bill Ayres?  Perhaps listening for 20 years to the pulpit rantings of that avowed racist, Reverend Wright and his Black Liberation Theology teachings?

Whatever the root cause of his deep-seated racial bias, I think those of us willing to see can clearly follow Obama's governing track for evidence of this crippling slant ... not just his back-seat decision-making, but his wreckless mortgaging of our country's future.  By comparison, such a rant makes Romney's "47%" comment look pale ... if you will excuse the expression

Just Whistle

Last time around Wall Streeters (such as Goldman Sachs) contributed the big bucks to the Obama campaign ... this time, not so much.  But stepping into the vacuum are the lawyers ... particularly the lawyers representing government whistle-blowers (see: New York Times Article).  So far, this one small legal cadre have coughed up $3 million to Obama and will likely come across with lots more before November.  These lawyers have benefit under Obama to the tune of roughly 40% of the $1.6 billion that the government has rewarded whistle-blowers under the current administration.

I am in favor of the notion that whistle-blowers should be rewarded for the job-risks they take ... however I don't think that their lawyers are quite so exposed.  Also, I question the advisability of politicians taking big donations from a group of lawyers who benefit greatly if and when your administration caves-in on any legal matters they bring (to my mind, something Eric Holder has shown himself capable of doing.).  And, finally, I am also compelled to inquire as to how much the whistle-blower(s) on the $535 million Solyndra fiasco received?