Some Aviation News

I enjoy flying.  I probably don't do it enough to truly detest all the crap that we put up with before getting on planes.

But, here are some pilots you might want to avoid...

Remember David Carroll, he was the singer who flew United, then they broke his guitar and he made a You Tube video out of his song about it?  Well, now United lost his luggage again. You'd think United would have some sort of special handling flag for him...

He still has his video...



Air France took delivery of their first A380.  Even in AF's classic colors, it looks ugly.

If you like videos of ugly planes....

Barack Obama: Not Qualified to be President (Caution: Birther Rant?)

Frank Fleming, of IMAO, and Pajamas Media, has an interesting theory on why Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be president -- he's really an eight year old girl.

From Frank:

"With the evidence suggesting that Obama is in fact female and no more than eight-years-old, his Hawaii certification is obviously a forgery, and our country is currently at great risk. Any day now, North Korea could offer to get him a pony in exchange for nuclear secrets, and that little girl Obama would probably jump at the offer (unless he’s scared of ponies). So we need to declare his presidency unconstitutional and eject him from office. But when we throw him out, we’d better buy him a new Barbie doll or something, or he’ll never stop crying."

Read the entire (hilarious) article here.

Liberal Dictionary: Rich

The latest entry in the Liberal Dictionary is:

 

Rich: Anyone who makes more money than a Liberal

Short Video Presenting Alternative View to AlGoreWarming

This video, brought to you by The Idea Channel, posits something that actual scientists, not government bureaucrats (i.e. the IPCC) or AGW Alarmists (i.e. Al Gore), should do with respect to "climate change" - study the actual data and explore the largest driver of climate change possible within our universe (the Sun).

Spend 10 minutes to learn something the Legacy Media won't tell you:

ShamWow! Now with improved commercials!

Ok, watching TV last night, I saw a semi-rap version of the Sham-Wow commercial.  I was going to find that on  YouTube and post it here, but...I found this version, which is much better.

Full Disclosure (so the FTC doesn't come after me): I was given the ShamWow as a gift, and I have this review of it:

• It really does pick up liquids like Vince says in the commercials, especially when new
• Use it, as we do, mainly to clean up an incontinent dog's peeing, and it'll get beat up pretty fast.  10 years? Haha! Not likely in heavy use.
• They do come like new in the wash.  If you don't use them for gross stuff, just wash them regularly, they might last 10 years.
• Now that you get the "ShamMop" it's an even better deal at $19.99 (plus shipping and handling).

Anyway, onto the ShamWow Jam:

Mark Steyn - Brilliant! (As usual, you must read)

You must read this post from Mark Steyn, titled, Mr. Tough Guy.

In it, Steyn discusses the whininess that is the Obama administration, and their bringing Chicago-style politics to bear against their domestic political enemies, but not against this nation's enemies and foes.

Steyn takes Disraeli's advice to politicians to "Never explain and never complain" and rips into the O-admin.

You should read the entire post, but here are my highlights:

Regarding Bam's attempts to explain his health care plan, "The more he explained the more unpopular the whole racket got. So he declared that the time for explaining is over, and it’s time to sign on or else."

So, the Bam admin has turned its attention to complaining,

• "If you express concerns about government health care, they complain about all these “racists” and “domestic terrorists” obstructing his agenda."
• "If you wonder why his “green jobs” czar is a Communist 9/11 truther and his National Endowment for the Arts guy is leaning on grant recipients to produce Soviet-style propaganda extolling Obama policies, they complain about Fox News."
• Regarding the administration's whining about Fox, "It gives off the air of somebody only marginally less paranoid than this week’s president-for-life in some basket-case banana republic ranting on the palace balcony because his interior security chief isn’t doing a fast enough job of disappearing his enemies."
• Steyn points out, "For two years, the U.S. media have been polishing Obama’s boots, mostly with their drool, to a degree unprecedented in American public life."

Turning his attention to "the Chicago Way," Steyn has these gems:

• "When a man has spent his entire adult life in the 'community organized' precincts of Chicago, it should hardly be news that much of his Rolodex is made up of either loons or thugs. 
• "So when Communications Commissar Anita 'Mao Ze' Dunn starts berating Fox News for not getting into the same Maosketeer costumes as the rest of the press corps, you begin to see why the Chairman might appeal to her as a favorite 'political philosopher.'
• "Given the “pay czar”’s instant contract-gutting of executive compensation and the demonization of the health insurers and much else, it’s easy to look on the 44th president as an old-style Cook County operator: You wanna do business in this town, you gotta do it through me. You can take the community organizer out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of the community organizer."

As Steyn points out, "The trouble is it isn’t tough, not where toughness counts."

• "In Moscow, it’s Putin and his gang, contemptuously mocking U.S. officials
• "In Tehran, it’s Ahmadinejad and the mullahs openly nuclearizing as ever feebler warnings and woozier deadlines from the Great Powers come and go. 
• "We were told that Obama would use 'soft power' and 'smart diplomacy'" but "if Obama’s 'smart diplomacy' is so smart that even Hamid Karzai ignores it with impunity, why should anyone else pay attention?"

Finally, the money shot:

"The Chicago way? Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight? In Iran, this administration won’t bring a knife to a nuke fight. In Eastern Europe, it won’t bring missile defense to a nuke fight. In Sudan, it won’t bring a knife to a machete fight.

"But, if you’re doing the overnight show on WZZZ-AM, Mister Tough Guy’s got your number."

Nukes, revisited

Anonymous, in response to my post on Nuclear Weapons: Keeping the World Safe for 60 Years, said these things:

>>I would like to know, how exactly would using nuclear weapons on a country to keep them from going to war work? 
Very effectively


>>If Iran invaded Pakistan, and Pakistan used its nukes to attack Iran, the fallout would kill every last man, woman, and child in the Middle East. 
Hmmmm, probably not.  Prevailing winds being what they are, odds are better that Pakistan would be impacted more than the rest of the Middle East.  Take a look at the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Probably wouldn't kill every person.  Depends, though, on how many bombs Pakistan has and how bad their targeting is.


>>And, have nuclear weapons kept wars from happening? No. Maybe they kept the US and the USSR from going into all out war, but they found ways to fight each other regardless. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, to name a few. 


If you read my post, it was all about how nuclear deterrence only works when the actors are rational, as the US and USSR were during the Cold War.  The post was about the stupidity of unilateral nuclear disarmament and the abandonment of missile defense.  Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't used to discourage conventional war (as you point out in these proxy wars), it was designed to discourage nuclear war.


You also ignored the central point that the LACK OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS on our part would do nothing to reduce nuclear weapons on anyone else's part, especially those countries we trust least with them.  North Korea, Iran, Pakistan do not have nukes because WE do, they have them because they want to deter South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India. 


>>No country would use nuclear weapons on an invading country, that makes no sense. They would kill themselves in the process.


Oh, that depends.  Granted, WW3 would have been fought in Europe again, but, US strategy included the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, even at risk to Western European allies and NATO troops.  Depends on how bad you're losing.


>>Nuclear war could only lead to one thing: the annihilation of the entire human race. 


Not necessarily true.  Certainly possible, in the all-out sense, but, not guaranteed.


>>Your idea of nuclear weapons as peace keepers, especially today, is completely foolish.


No, that was the reality of the Cold War.  Period.


However, you probably stopped reading the post because it was critical of Obama's naivete'.

Don't make fun of the South. A reader gets my wrath.

I don’t normally chide reader’s grammar (except for the your/you’re pet peeve).  Blogging and responding is a stream of consciousness kind of thing and should stay informal.  Typing is not everyone’s best skill, so nitpicking typos is silly.  Plus, I like getting replies to my posts.  It’s nice to know that someone is reading (other than my family), but…if you’re going to leave a post claiming a certain class of people (Southern, non-city dwellers in this case, I gather) are stupid, please don’t demonstrate your own stupidity.

So, dear readers, I give you Jimmy from Nebraska.  I will address the style and substance of Jimmy's post (Jimmy in italics, my response in bold):

nice heading for this blog,

Hmmm. Thank you, but those of us in the uneducated South start our sentences with capitals.  Did you mean the blog itself, or the post?

after reading your responses I have to say, you are indelibly great...

Again, that capitalization thing.  And, I AM great.  Did you mean incredibly, perhaps?  If you mean indelibly as “that cannot be eliminated, forgotten, changed, or the like,” I will take that as high praise and accept your compliment.  Thank you, Jimmy.  Also, thanks for the correct usage of “you are” and “your.”  You were 2 for 2 in the same sentence.  Impressive!

accept for the fact that you're just another idiot

Accept?  Perhaps you mean “except.”  But, you got “you’re” right!

On the substance: The Left never ceases to amaze with the level of their debate.  I am demonstrating that you, sir, ARE an idiot.  All you can do is call me one.

protagonising the republican pitch to uneducated people around the country.

Protagonising?  Since there is no word, “protagonising,” I assume you are making a verb of the noun “protagonist.”  In this case the definition being “a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc.”  This would make “to protagonize” mean “to advocate for a particular cause.”  I like it.  Not a word, but I like the meaning.  This is a minor point, but, since I am grading, when you are talking about the Republican party, capitalize it.

On the substance: This sentence AFTER calling me an "idiot."

and don't refute the fact that people residing in rural areas are more likely to vote republican and are, on the whole, less educated than people residing in urban environment.

Again, capitalize the R in Republican.  It’s either “in an urban environment,” or “in urban environments.”  I don’t like the entire construction of the clause, so let’s try, “less educated than people who live in urban areas.”

On the substance:  Ever see the county-by-county breakdowns of election results in 2004 and 2008.  You are, obviously correct, those who live outside urban areas are decidely conservative and vote Republican.  However, I challenge the assumption that they are either less educated, or less intelligent.  You ever looked at the state of schools in urban areas?  It's awful.  I contend that these people are just as knowledgeable about politics and current events as their urban kin (maybe more so, actually) and they bring some much simpler and straightforward (not as "nuanced") values to the voting booth.  I am proud to have them on my side.  Belittle them at your peril, Jimmy from Nebraska.

If you still aren't convinced, maybe we should look at the worst educated state in the US. Looks like this belongs to the great state of Mississippi.

Up until this point, I thought maybe you were one of those Leftists who don’t use caps.  Some kind of nod to egalitarianism, or something like that.  But, alas, now you decide to start using them.  Anyway, let’s fix that second sentence by adding a word so that it makes sense.  “Looks like this honor belongs to the great state of Mississippi.” 

On the substance: Indeed, the US Chamber of Commerce ranks Mississippi last of the 50 states on their Education Report Card.  Know who is ranked 51st?  Haha!  Not a state, but perhaps the most urban place possible - the District of Columbia. This is a place where 87% of the vote goes to Democrats.  Another company ranks states by "smartness."  Mississippi is not last there.  MS is 47th, but, in the bottom 5: Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona.  1 purple, 1 blue, and 3 red.  They don't rank DC, but let's assume, safely, that it would probably be in the bottom 6, easily.  

Looks like it's been a red state during every presidential election for the past 60 years.  I suppose that could be a coincidence that has nothing to do with the education level of the registered voters. Well maybe the rest of the uneducated South can provide answers than, oh wait.

Then.  Not than, then. The "oh wait" doesn't seem to lead anywhere.


On the substance: You are not even right on your history.  Turns out MS has a very interesting history in presidential elections.  Maybe if you did any research, you'd know this.  MS voted for these non-Republicans since 1948: Strom Thurmond in 1948 (a Dixiecrat), Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, unpledged electors in 1960 (eventually, the voted for Harry Byrd), George Wallace in 1968, and Carter in 1976.  Certainly the victories there for Thurmond and Wallace were largely due to racial politics, but voting for Carter and Stevenson (twice!) sure don't help your argument.


Maybe you meant the last 30 years.

And don't tell me Reaganomics made America economically thriving.

Normally, the beginning of sentences with “and” is considered bad form, but, I like doing it, too.  Definitely ok in blogging.  UPDATE:  His name was Ronald Reagan, not Reagon.  So, it's usually called Reaganomics.  Oops, you had this right.


On the substance:  I ask you, if not Reaganomics, what then caused the 8 years of uninterrupted growth  from 1982-1990?  Ok, I'll answer for you.  Actually, it was Reaganomics, in concert with monetary policy at the Fed which defeated inflation and brought interest rates under control from the disastrous Carter years. Reagan's tax cuts, most certainly did make the American economy thrive for 8 years.  Created 21 million new jobs and saw tax receipts double.  All this while defeating the Soviets.  Impressive feats.

If that were true, and the residuals of such a successful economic policy carrying through Bush's administration, Bush would have never lost the 92' election based on the economy being in the tank.

This sentence, while I understand what you are trying to say, is poorly worded and ineffective.  Also, the apostrophe (when you lop off the first two digits of the year) goes before the 9, not after the 2.


On the substance: Unfortunately, the business cycle is not something Presidents control on their own.  If that were so, wouldn't the current occupants of the WH (surely the smartest people ever!) have this whole mess turned around by now?  Bush 1 lost because he was seen as out of touch (remember the scanner incident), he broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and Ross Perot siphoned off enough fiscal conservatives to give Bill Clinton a win with 43% of the vote.  But, hey, ignore history at your peril.  It helps my side when the Left refuses to deal with facts.

You surely cannot argue there was any greater factor to the defeat with Bush's approval rating so high after the quick and affective removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait just a year earlier.

This sentence could use some reconstruction.  Maybe consider some commas to delineate your thoughts better.  The word you were really looking for is “effective” not “affective.”


On the substance: I will agree that after Gulf War 1, to see Bush lose was pretty incredible, but, things can change quickly in politics.  This is why we never can count Obama out.  The economy is bigger than what a president can do alone and he can take credit for it when it does turnaround.  Plus, with all his plans kicking in AFTER 2012, people won't see the affects of the really bad stuff until after the next election.

And oh yeah, the following president only oversaw the greatest period of economic growth the world has ever seen.

I like the “And” starter, but you need a comma after “And.” 


On the substance:  Bill Clinton, at the insistence of a Republican controlled Congress, kept marginal tax rates relatively low and actually lowered capital gains taxes (a very supply-side, i.e. Reaganesque tactic).  He balanced the budget, and addressed welfare reform with Newt and the GOP.  He was lucky enough to be president when the dot com bubble was forming (and lucky enough to be leaving when it burst) and much of the current run-up in real estate prices happened on his watch and was abetted by his policies.  He was lucky health care reform failed.  I'd give your left arm for a little Clintonite governing these days.  Looks positively Reaganesque compared to what we have now.

But surely that had nothing to do with Clinton's economic policy, it had to be coincidence, right.

Comma after “But” and this needs a semi-colon after policy, and it’s a question, right?


On the substance: Clinton's economic policy could be summed up thusly, "Do whatever it takes to re-elect me."  If that meant getting in bed with Gingrich and balancing the budget and delivering tax cuts, and saying "The Era of Big Government is over," that's what he'd do.  Like I said, I would trade the current WH occupant for Bill Clinton in a NY minute.  Self preservation is a powerful motivator.  Bill Clinton knew enough to understand what it took to keep himself popular (a good economy) and he did it.  He was no true believer in the Statist agenda. I fear Obama is.

But you are great, that's unquestionable.

Comma after “But,” but, you are correct.

Friday night thoughts...Deficits, jobs, elections, polls

The deficit is $1.4T this year.  That's the highest it's been (as a % of GDP) since 1945, at the end of WW2, when it was 21% of GDP.  Today's is about 10%.  So, not as bad as at the end of a world war, but, the worst since then.  In typical O-admin fashion, this news was released on a Friday, and was predictably blamed on the Bush administration.  Amazingly, while the Obamacons blamed Bush's TARP for some of it, they alternatively credited the early payback of TARP loans and interest on TARP loans for making it less worse than it could have been.

What's it all mean to us little guys?  It means inflation is just around the corner as the Fed decides to use the power of the (printing) press to pay this down.  Once we're done adding another $1T in health care costs, and God knows what else Obama has in store for us, we'll have "the rich" taxed at 100% and the middle class will have to start paying their fair share.  This on top of all those fees and fines you'll have to pay to fund that same health care tab, as well as the extra energy costs you'll get to enjoy from the cap and tax bill.  But, don't fret, you'll save in car expenses with your 40MPG electric car.

Next subject...Good news for the GOP in elections?

Republicans won special state house elections in Tennessee and Oklahoma on Tuesday, taking seats that had never been held by a Republican and that hadn't been held in 45 years, respectively.  In Albuquerque (that's in New Mexico, Rob), the GOP won the mayor's office, which they hadn't held for 28 years.

Real conservative Pat Toomey leads Arlen Specter in PA senate race and is even with a real democrat (Sestak).  Maybe PA voters will at least get the real thing in the 2010 election (Specter barely beats Sestak for D nom today).

Christie back up in NJ, 45-41.  46% view Biden unfavorably (what's wrong with the other 54%).  Biden's son trailing GOP congressmen for Biden's old Senate seat, 47-42.

White House uses some bogus new math to determine that 30,000 jobs have been created or "saved" by the Obamastimulus so far.  They claim that the 30k jobs figure is based on an analysis of 5% of the contracts let so far, and that projects out to an actual number of 1.2M jobs created or "saved."  It must not be a straight line extrapolation, since if 30k is 5%, that comes to 600k jobs.  Anyway, they are smarter than me, so who am I to argue.  The numbers that actually count say we've got 9.8% unemployment, the worst in 30 years.

Why Capitalism Works. Just saying.

Let me say something about why I am a free market conservative as simply as I can.

In my world, people, acting in rational self-interest, will act in a manner that serves their interests.  Free market capitalism has shown that the group, acting in this manner (self-interest) better regulates the machinery of commerce to fulfill supply and modulate demand, than any state-run attempts ever have.  The people don't have to be geniuses.  They don't need fancy college degrees, they only need to act on their own interests.  It is a self-regulating system.  

Oppose that with state-run systems, which require five year plans and the genius of academics, to forecast supply and demand and try to match them, in some magical way that only the smartest can do.  Everywhere it has been tried it has failed.  It can not succeed.  Yet, every generation or so, some new group of Statists come along, and thinking they are smarter than the last set, they try it again.  It doesn't work, but, it can cause a ton of pain, and be impossible to clean up. 

Updated: A Statist Reader Chimes In. I respond. You praise my greatness.

My post on Michael Wilbon and Rush Limbaugh drew a lot of comments (well, for my blog), including from a reader (Brandon in Minnesota), who posted this in the comments, in a little running debate we were having.  Rather than consign it to the (unread) comments, I thought I'd promote it here.

Brandon's comments, then my response in bold:

Well I'll try not to dwell on your closing comments, but if you want to talk about individual freedom, you better not be looking at the republicans for this, who were responsible for enacting the patriot act, as well as denying recogition of homosexual partnerships, and a women's right of choice, none of which have any constitutional valor and in my opinion undermines our constitution.

[ME] First off, the Patriot Act was passed with vast majorities in both houses, and received “yea’ votes from Barack Obama.  Multiple times.  If it’s such an affront on Constitutional Rights, perhaps you should join the ACLU and oppose RICO statutes also, which were the model for much of the law and which are much more intrusive into Americans lives than any part of the Patriot Act.  Can you show a SINGLE American who has had their Constitutional rights abrogated by the Patriot Act.  Please be specific.

Denying homosexuals marriage – also a position held by candidate (and so far, President) Obama and held by a majority of Americans.  Interesting that you use the word partnerships.  Many Republicans, Conservatives, and especially Libertarians have no problem with civil unions and partnerships, which can also be done easily by gay couples by visiting an attorney.  What the public and policymakers are opposed to is the recognition by the state of homosexuals as married couples.  This has its roots in Western tradition, and yes, Biblical teachings.  But, regardless of the genesis of the opposition, it’s bad policy for society, in my opinion.  As a member of this Republic, should public opinion change, I will live here still.  However, I don’t consider marriage, and the Constitution doesn’t either, a right.  And certainly, there is no right to have your marriage, however consummated, recognized by the state.

Choice – Last I looked, Roe was the “settled” law of the land.  So, I don’t know which Republican or conservative is out there denying women this “right.”  The fact is that Roe was badly decided, and has been badly interpreted since 1973, more broadly than even the jurists who decided it could have imagined.  Yes, there are many in the conservative and life movement who would like to see restrictions on abortion, some even want to ban it.  A ban won’t happen now without a Constitutional amendment, so, I think women are well protected there.  However, unless you’re the most doctrinaire of Liberals, I think we could agree that some reasonable restrictions on the practice are acceptable.  There are many things we don’t let 16 year old girls do in this country with their bodies, except, in many states, get abortions without parental consent.  So, some parental consent laws would be nice.  Waiting periods.  Access to alternative information.  A ban on murder of live births.  

Personally, I think the loss of 30 million future citizens is a form of genocide that the “choice” movement will some day regret.  I’d like to see abortions banned in all cases except where the life of the mother is at risk, rape, and incest situations.  Guess that makes me a right wing misogynist racist, but, I don’t see the sacrifice of 9 months plus recuperative time is too high a price to pay to spare the life of a potential President, Nobel Prize winner, or cancer curer.  Since abortion was championed by, and Planned Parenthood was founded by renowned eugenicist (and arguably racist) Margaret Sanger, I am not sure favoring abortion in a discussion of racism is a winning strategy.

As for Obama turning america into socialist Canada and Europe, you're right, he is pushing us in that direction. If you want to say this is bad, you would also have to say that the social programs FDR founded during the great depression are also bad.

[ME] I would say most of FDR’s New Deal was bad economic policy, as well as doing little to stem the tide of the depression.  It’s ignorance of history to think that FDR’s New Deal saved us from the depression.  It was WW2 and the massive military spending, followed by the years of pent-up demand, that cured the depression’s ills.  While many of those social programs did begin an important safety net, in economic terms the New Deal was, and remains, a bust.  LBJ expanded FDR's vision with his Great Society and War on Poverty.  The Great Society gave us two more bankrupt programs, Medicare and Medicaid and the War on Poverty, despite trillions spent, has been about as successful as our Drug War.  Obamacare is another step in the statist's wet dream of a society totally controlled by those smarter than the rest of us.  Likewise, it will result in bankruptcy and more and more of the middle class becoming wards of the state.

I would say if you look at America before WWII and after(or before the new deal and after) from an economical standpoint, I think you would find we were much better off after. If you think we lost a lot of freedoms from the new deal, you're absolutely correct, but what you can't say is that it made our country weaker in the long run because there isn't a single piece of evidence supporting that claim.

[ME] Let’s just consider the legacy of the New Deal.  It’s an example of programs that, once started, way outlive their usefulness.  Even Social Security, the cornerstone of the New Deal, is nearing total bankruptcy, and yet, resists all attempts at reform.  Enacted at a time when life expectancy was 67 years old, it never envisioned having to support seniors who live to be 85-90.  Maybe that’s the secret mission behind Obamacare?  All serious attempts to turn SS into a program that can actually pay for itself have been soundly defeated by those who have a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of the modern social welfare state.

As for your claim that all christians are hipocrates, I disagree.

[ME] I won’t argue religion with you.  There has only been one Christian who wasn’t. You don’t get into heaven by good works alone.  Amazing is Grace. 


Update:  Any Christian who doesn't acknowledge that they are a hypocrite, is lying.  I said I wouldn't argue religion, but I'll let my sister sum it up, since she does it much more eloquently than I.  "Nobody gets into heaven based on good works. Period. It is all based on faith in Jesus Christ and God's immeasurable grace. Because of that amazing grace, we want to do good works even though we know our debt to Jesus Christ can never be repaid."

Sure there are times in life where every christian will make a hipocritical statement, but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is hipocritical to the christian religion. I know many christian in my community who have good, well paying jobs who don't pride themselves with their possessions. They lead simple lives and devote large portions of their time and money to support causes they believe in. You should note that these people are not outspoken right wing conservatives, and actually tend to vote democratic, even though they may not believe in things like abortion or gay marriage. I'm not saying these people are everywhere, but they are out there.

[ME] Ok.  I get it, Christians come in all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. 

As for you questioning my short term experience in prison and using it to claim I have some sort of understanding how people of color live in the inner city, your right, it's biased, but nonetheless, you get an unmistakeable feel for social life on the streets by living there. I also had good relationships with my counselor and a corrections officer I knew from my childhood and they were more than willing to share their stories with me on what it's like to work in that environment.

[ME] I’m not going to make any inroads with you on this one.  Your personal experience is what shapes you, almost to a fault.  I have a problem, and I think it shows a bit or racial insensitivity to think that every black person lives in the “hood” or is a criminal.  There is a sizable middle class black population, and I think we ought to be looking at that group to help solve the issues of the black underclass, rather than using the underclass to perpetuate white guilt and base our treatment of the entire black community on what is a minority of that community.

Back to racism, ever person who believes that people collecting paychecks from the government are bloodsucking leaches on their hard earned money, and know that the vast majority of the people collecting that money are people of color, have a strong leaniency [sic] tendency towards being racist.

[ME] I just think this statement is so disingenuous.  Makes for a nice talking point for Liberals but is entirely untrue.  Conservatives understand and actually think there is a proper role for government in providing a social safety net for the downtrodden.  But, we have to balance that against the need for society to grow (economically) and expand opportunity.  Bill Clinton used to take credit for passing Welfare Reform, which actually removed more people from the welfare rolls and helped people get working, raising them up, vice keeping them wards of the state.  These days, the Left doesn’t want anything to do with Clinton’s accomplishments.  I really don’t care what the color of welfare recipients are.  I want those who can work, to work, and those who can’t let’s figure out what can be done for them.  The problem with your approach is the truly needy are squeezed by those who could be productive members of society.  Tell me how THAT helps anyone of any color?

People in the right wing media know this fact, and they pound it into their listeners of viewers over and over. They do this because it makes them money and it makes them money in several ways, namely, emotional viewers and listeners will tune into the show more often giving them better ratings.

[ME] Please.  I’ll be honest with you, the welfare debate was important in 1992, not today.  Can you provide some specific examples of these statements?  

I think what I do hear is astonishment by right-wing hosts that we are now in an America where more than 50% of the population pays no income taxes.  That’s great for them, I guess, but, we’re not talking welfare recipients here, we’re talking average, everyday Joes.  I would think that’s great, but, the Left creates a class warfare issue out of this, telling these people the rich have got to pay “their fair share” when the rich already pay the vast majority of income taxes. The problem really isn't the poor who deserve and should receive tax dollars to assist with their recovery.  The problem is when this entitlement mentality seeps into the vast middle class.  That's where we're headed, and once that is entrenched, reversing it will be impossible without massive upheaval in society.

 The other way it makes them money is the more round-about way of getting people active in the republican party, donating time and resources to it, which in turn gets more republicans elected resulting in less taxes for the rich, including people hosting these programs and the companies that run them.

[ME] Wow, talk about cynical.  I guess it’s working out so good for these guys it got them 40 Senators, and 180 or so representatives.  The empirical evidence does not support this claim.  What conservatives actually hope, and what the Kennedy (John) and Reagan tax cuts proved is that when you have pro growth economic policies, you have MORE rich people paying taxes.  The idea is kind of like Wal-mart, volume, volume, volume.  

I guess this doesn't necessarily make Rush Limbaugh (or other right wing media hosts) a racist, but as a result of his program, racism is more prominent in America.

[ME] Really? More prominent than in 1860?  How about 1900?  How about 1940?  How about 1964?  Just what periods are you comparing?  I thought electing the first black president kind of put the lie to the racism charge.  Obama didn't win without getting a pretty large percentage of white folks' votes.  Have they all suddenly reverted to form, or are just the ones who didn't vote for him racist?  If so, color me racist.

But, I will stipulate that the charge of racism is more common, because it basically is what a leftist reverts to when he can’t win an argument on the merits.

good chat.
Thank you.

ABC Covers Subs under Ice

Nice report from ABC about ICE-EX. With video. Oh, and you get to watch a KY commercial to boot!

Sharp Elbows Blows Away Local Sports "Journalists"

Sharp Elbows blog listened to his local sports radio station in St. Louis today, and he heard one of the hosts (one of whom is a reporter for the Post-Dispatch) claim that Rush Limbaugh "incites violence on a daily basis."

Since these morons were broadcasting from a local bar, he decided to drive on down there and confront them.

You Tube video below, but visit Sharp Elbows for the rest of his comments and the comments section.  View the video to see what happens when Liberal weasels are confronted.  Hide behind your microphone, you Liberal  putzes.

Update on Wilbon/Rush Dust-up: Wilbon says "I'm sorry"

I posted a couple of days ago about Michael Wilbon's jumping on the anti-Rush Limbaugh Hate Train.  Also tweeted PTIShow over the weekend, when I heard the quote, and received a very unsatisfying answer.

Regardless, on yesterday's PTI, Michael Wilbon said he spoke to Rush Limbaugh and apologized for using a quote attributed to Rush that was not spoken by Rush.  He said he wanted to speak personally to him about his bigger point.  I guess his bigger point was that black people revile Rush.  I was all over that in my previous post, so, I don't think there's much Rush can say to Mike.  Mike needs to learn something, not the other way around.

Meanwhile, the entire media complex has been using these manufactured and unattributed quotes over the last few days to impugn Rush and hurt his chances of being in the new St. Louis Rams ownership group.

Rush has responded in quite a bit of fiery indignation to them, and, you can read his on-air comments about this at his website.  I am glad he's firing back and daring the media, who he rightly calls out for claiming the Internet is a cesspool of lies and misinformation, at the same time using it to spread...lies and misinformation.

At the same time, this subject has been great for page views here at Sleepyeyedwhiners, so, maybe I'l ldo a daily Rush Limbaugh racism post.

AIM-9X: Submarine Protection From Aircraft??

Aviation Week reports this week on the successful launch of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile from an underwater launch system.

Spoken of affectionately as part of the "Littoral Warfare Weapon Concept" the AIM-9X could provide submariners with some protection from those pesky helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft that so annoy the submariner.

However, planners are touting it not just as a defense weapon, but also as a weapon to use against high-speed surface ships.  If the program proceeds to become a program of record in 2012, it could have an IOC of 2015.

You'll like the acronym for the launch canister, SACS, for Stealthy Affordable Capsule System.  SACS can also be used for launching UAV's or communications systems.

Pretty cool.

Michael Wilbon lays an egg on Limbaugh and racism

ESPN has a show called Pardon the Interruption, or PTI, that airs most days at 5:30PM and is hosted by former sportswriters Tony Kornheiser (from who's old radio show I was banned) and Michael Wilbon.  Next to RedEye, this is my favorite show, largely because Tony and Mike have great chemistry, and they are generally (Tony, especially) funny and pithy.  Wilbon's a bit of a jock sniffer, but, hey, if you were a sports journalist (TK was less devoted to sports in his career), you would be, too.  Side note - He's good pals with the hilarious Charles Barkley, who we share a connection with, since Barkley once tried to pick up my wife at a charity golf tournament.

Anyway, on Friday, October 9th, the topic veered to Rush Limbaugh's proposed ownership interest in the hapless St. Louis Rams, and some black players' reactions being that they wouldn't play for the racist Limbaugh.

This brought out of Mike Wilbon the following statement (it may be important to the reader to know that Mr. Wilbon is a black man):

"I don't know whether Rush Limbaugh is a straight-up bigot, or if he simply plays one on TV and radio, but he is universally reviled by black people in this country and justifiably so based on his public proniouncements, constantly saying things that are offensive.  I'm just going to mention one.  He referred to the NFL by the way, in terms of the Bloods vs. Crips without the weapons and another point he said 'Slavery' and this is in context, 'had its merits' and he joked, I guess he joked, 'the streets were safer after dark.'"

First, Mr., Wilbon, the Bloods vs. Crips quote, as you indicate you know, is taken out of context, and the slavery quote is totally unattributed to Rush and only appeared in a hit book published without sourcing the quote.  So, essentially, you have taken one quote out of context, and another you chose to use as "in context" without knowing that there is no proof that Limbaugh even said it.

As Jay Nordlinger wrote in National Review this week, sportswriters should, like singers, just leave their politics at home.  I know Tony Kornheiser is as big a Leftist as Wilbon, and yet, we never hear him injecting his political views, and certainly not using made-up quotes to further what may even be a valid point.

Wilbon's point was that the black community reviles Rush.  Well, the black community reviles conservatives and Republicans, despite having so little to show for 50 years of fealty to the Deomocratic party, and, despite being fairly conservative in their own lives.  I've never understood it, but, look, Wilbon, this community votes 90% for a party (the Dems) who have demonstrably taken them backward.  Clearly, they have reason to revile those who oppose their chosen political party, even beyond charges (usually false, by the way) of racism - it's been drilled into them by leaders who really crave power, and have found it in the Donkey Party.

I would hazard a guess, that among black athletes, the support for Republicans is slightly better than the 10% of the general population of blacks, but, that would be based on their socio-economic plight (being rich, and all that) not their skin color.  Conservatism tends to attract a lot more adherents after they start paying confiscatory taxes.

Wilbon also went on to discuss that players say Limbaugh doesn't get the culture (this was the crux of the segment, based on comments in this New York Daily News article).  What culture is it he doesn't get?  The one that aborts 30% of their children?  The one that has a 70% illegitimacy rate?  The one that glorifies misogyny and murder in rap music?  The one that has elevated "thug" to something aspirational?  The one where only 30% of black men graduate high school?  The one that makes up 70% of prison populations (and, of those, 80% of the crimes are against other blacks)?  If Wilbon is not familiar with THAT culture, perhaps that is because he hangs with black athletes, nearly all of whom have graduated from high school, and many from college.  And, I somehow doubt Wilbon ran into many of this crowd at St. Ignatius Prep or Northwestern.

So, instead of using this as a means to address real problems in the black community, Wilbon (and the others  who will pile on) wants to use it for conservative-bashing via commentaries on racism.  This won't advance anyone anywhere.  Instead, it foments the seeds of division and continues a meme that has been drilled into the black community for 40+ years now.

I challenge Mr. Wilbon to get out of the bubble he's in.  Start with Daniel Patrick Moynihan's The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.  Visit the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and Bill Cosby and even Barack Obama. There are things holding blacks down today.  Quite honestly, racism is not one of them.

Weekend Thoughts and links...

Mark Steyn on "Who Won" on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

I thought Liberals were all about human rights, and the promotion thereof.  During the Cold War, they lambasted American presidents (of all parties) for cozying up to dictators to counter a Soviet threat.  Yet, today, they have little to say when Obama disses the Dalai Lama to curry favor with the Communists in China, sides with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro against the defenders of the Honduran Constitution, has little to say in support of Iranian protestors (and, in fact, legitimizes the Hitlerian leadership of that country), and sells out Poland and the Czech Republic to kowtow to Vlad Putin.  You used to be able to count on Democrats to stand for the little guy, both at home, and abroad.  Now, they do neither.

The largest beneficiaries of Obama's political agenda, from saving auto companies to medical insurance reform to bank bailouts to cap and tax, will be massive corporations and Big Labor.  Losers will be you and me.  But, we'll have free health care (unless you're one of the unfortunates forced to pay for coverage, or taxed for your excessive coverage).

You used to be able to count on Democrats to stand for the little guy, both at home, and abroad.  Now, they do it nowhere.

Michael Moore has a new "documentary."  It has something to do with how rotten capitalism is.  One needs only look at the cesspool that was Eastern Europe and still remains in China to see that capitalism is the greatest thing to ever happen for economic growth, and the planet.  Moore's latest foray into fantasyland isn't selling too well, apparently.  However, Michael Moore is a very wealthy man.  No one has ever gone broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people, nor will Moore.

UGA lost to Tennessee 45-19.  Lane Kiffin begins domination of future FSU coach, Mark Richt.

Obama Wins! (Oh, it's just the Nobel Peace Prize, go back to sleep Chitown)

I don't feel it is appropriate, on a day we are attacking the moon, for Barack Obama to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

But, at least he's bringing home the bacon, although his chief qualification seems to be "He's not Bush."

 

 

Cheering Against Obamalympics. As American as Apple Pie.

Greg Gutfeld, host of Fox's Red Eye (airs nightly at 3am, and is the best politics/comedy show on earth), also publishes his monologues at his Dailygut.com web site.  (BTW, RedEye beats several prime time cable shows in the 25-44 demographic.  It airs at 3am. Ok.  Get it?  DVR it.)

Today's is so good, I am just going to cut and paste it for you, it sums up why finding the Obamalympics not coming to Chitown as funny is not un-American.

"So while chuckleheads like Jesse Jackson and Senator Roland Burris hilariously blame George Bush for Chicago losing the 2016 Olympics, whiny columnists like Mike Lupica are up in arms that conservatives might be gloating over President Obama's big screw-up. Apparently laughing at all this is somehow anti-American, because Obama is our President, and he was doing this for all of us.

You know... kind of like when Bush was trying win a war in Iraq - and all those left wingers stood behind him.

And that's my first point: The right has every right to gloat over Obama's humiliation, because, thankfully, NO ONE DIED. Unlike, say during the Iraq war, where, whenever there was a roadside bombing, the progressives did their own special victory dance - using the consequences of war to gloat over an embattled president and an unpopular country. I didn't hear much of the smarmy press calling them out.

So, if I take pleasure in watching Obama's big fail, it's only because it proved a point I made before he was elected: that being likeable, in and of itself, does nothing for America. To protect our nation and further our interests, our leader must reject the need to be loved by the world, and embrace being feared, even hated. I know that's hard for our guy. Being a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," he enjoys the accolades of Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and Russia. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

But hey - screw the Olympics. Maybe Obama should now focus on bringing the World's Fair back to Chicago. If there's one thing that could make dictators like us more - it would be temporary structures filled with stuff from other countries. They look positively magical, even if they're flimsy and fall apart in a strong wind.

Which sounds familiar.

And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist."

Obamalympics - will be held in Rio instead

Due to widespread crime in Chicago, where honor roll students are beaten to death by unruly mobs, and criminal landlords refuse to improve living conditions in their state-sponsored slums, the Olympics for 2016 were awarded to Rio instead, where you expect these things to happen, Rio being the largest city in barely third-world Brazil.

If you've been sitting under a rock you may have missed that the United States sent a delegation of Chitown glitterati to include Oprah, Mayor Daley, Michelle Obama (you may know her better as "The First Lady") and the President of Chicago (and the United States, too), Barack H. Obama.

Many (including such smart right-wing observers as myself and Rush Limbaugh) assumed that Obama's presence in the delegation meant it was "in the bag," so to speak.  After all, if the top politicos of Chicago-style politics couldn't secure a victory with a group of crooks like the IOC, how did they rise to the top of Chicago's power structure?

ABC Anchorette Goes Nuts Over Carter Library

Jimmy Carter, worst president in history, has some new stuff at his presidential library.  ABC's Claire Shipman is all gaga over this crap, apparently.

This leads me to wonder.  It's been almost 30 years since this moron was president.  Hasn't everything there was to be learned, or read, about his presidency been learned, or read already?