27
Jun
OK, I watched the Vivi O’Donnell video. I got the point of the video. I also get the point Rosie is willing to stoop to any level to promote her vitriol. I also think Rosie’s gonna get a lot of heat over this only because she didn’t take the time to make sure her message was clear. This also reminds me of my last poll I did on Rosie:
In that circumstance, as this one, Rosie made very little effort to support her comment, she just blurted things out and when it came back on her she wasn’t prepared to defend it. Same in this case, she just tosses her daughter out there for public consumption with no explanation. Given that circumstance, people are left to come to their own conclusion. A lot of those conclusions will be wrong. That’s not their fault, it’s Rosie’s. I’m not going to jump on that bandwagon, but I will condemn Rosie for once again not being willing to go the extra one inch and better explain what the substance to her message is. She just seems to think she has the right to say whatever’s on her mind because she said so. And God forbid anyone question her.
This is amusing, and stupid.
But there’s more than a little lost in translation, according to Galvin.
The article goes on to point out the problems converting names to Chinese encounters such as Mitt Romney becoming “Sticky Rice” and Fred Thompson becoming “Virtue Soup”. Now, the problem I see immediately is a lot of these voters won’t know one from the other. So, given two unknowns, which would you rather have, sticky rice or virtue soup? No one really likes sticky rice. It artificially creates a bias against a candidate. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Secondly, as far as I can tell without doing any real research, neither Romney nor Thompson, nor any of the presidential candidates are Chinese names in the first place. So why bother translating the names? This is stupid, stupid, stupid. If these voters haven’t been in an English speaking country long enough to at least recognize words using Roman letters such as “STOP”, “MERGE”, “VOTE HERE”, “SALE”, or “CAUTION”, they don’t need to be voting in the first place.
Political correctness just takes any normal situation and screws it up. I bet you, if Romney or Thompson appealed to any of these voters, they’d recognize his name on a ballot. In English. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin’s the only one who seems to have the intent of the initiative correct. He wants to leave the names in Roman letters, but print the INSTRUCTIONS in Chinese. That actually makes a lot of sense. However, I’m sure even he will get tired when every dialect on the planet expects their ballots presented the same way.
How’s about we just print them in English and expect the voter to know how to read rudimentary English?
This is just too cool!
27
Jun
Elizabeth Edwards sent a personal message out to the world for Ann Coulter to hear after Coulter made this rather non-political comment:
“If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” Coulter said Monday, riffing on remarks made by HBO’s Bill Maher.
To which Ms. Edwards is responding with:
“The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it,” Edwards said by phone on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” where Coulter was a guest……
It debases political dialogue,” Edwards said. “It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about issues if you’re using this kind of language.”
What “this kind of language” is to me is trash. In order to elaborate more fully, we’ll need to agree on the definition of trash:
trash [trash] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation,
noun
1. anything worthless, useless, or discarded; rubbish.
2. foolish or pointless ideas, talk, or writing; nonsense.
3. a worthless or disreputable person.
4. such persons collectively.
5. literary or artistic material of poor or inferior quality.
6. broken or torn bits, as twigs, splinters, rags, or the like.
7. something that is broken or lopped off from anything in preparing it for use.
8. the refuse of sugar cane after the juice has been expressed.
9. Computers. an icon of a trash can that is used to delete files dragged onto it. verb (used with object)
10. Slang. to destroy, damage, or vandalize, as in anger or protest: The slovenly renters had trashed the house.
11. to condemn, dismiss, or criticize as worthless: The article trashed several recent best-sellers.
12. to remove the outer leaves of (a growing sugar cane plant).
13. to free from superfluous twigs or branches.
[Origin: 132575; ME trasches (pl.), appar. c. Norw trask rubbish; akin to OE trus brushwood, ON tros rubbish
]
Synonyms 5. drivel, rot, hogwash, nonsense.
To further assist in clarifying my point, I even boldened the very specific parts I have a problem with. It is one thing, as a political commentator, to debate the politics of an issue. That’s not what Ann thrives on. What Ann thrives on is attempting to destroy individual people. Because of that, I have chosen, long ago, to rid myself of this superfluous twig of the political dialogue I choose to participate in. Elizabeth Edwards is nutty liberal. This is most likely the only time I’ll agree with her. But, in this one case, she’s dead-on 100% right and Ann needs to grow up.
People love picking on Bush and crediting him with destroying the Republican control in Washington. In one particular way I think he has. He didn’t tell the Ann Coulters of his party to shut up and show the Christian values they claim they’re fighting for.
This also plays into the point I’ve been making about the Neo-cons hijacking the party. Ann Coulter is not the least bit symbolic to me of the core values of the Republican Party. She is the poster child at this time of what the Neo-Cons have done to it. To cite my source one more time, “the slovenly renters have trashed the house”.
As to be expected, there are diverse reactions to this:
- James Joyner nails it I think with “The irony is that this is a very conservative sentiment. That Coulter, one of the chief propagandists of the modern conservative movement, has to be lectured on civility by the left is sad commentary, indeed.”
- Mona notes: “Coulter is routinely asked to appear at right-wing festivals such as the Conservative Political Action Conference. When will they have the decency to stop?”
- John Aravosis of Americablog asks: “If you or I said this, we’d be arrested. And we certainly wouldn’t be given TV time on ABC, NBC or any other show than FOX. Why did NBC let her on the show after this?” ( The answer’s simple John, MSNBC hates conservative values. The best way to illustrate all that is wrong with Neo-Conservatism is to invite Coulter on your show. To make it better, put her in a confrontation. )
- My friend Storm has a LOT to say.
- And the usual suspects all chime in as well.
- And lastly, I’ve had something to say about Coulter in the past as well.
26
Jun
Just read this:
That’s Sally Quinn’s assertion. I’m a Republican, and I had never heard that “big question” before. Ever. She then continues with….
Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same.
Could? I thought this was “The GOP plan to oust Cheney”. Now it’s starting to sound kind of speculative. Why would the GOP do this according to Quinn?
The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008.
Now it’s an idea? It’s gone from “THE PLAN”, to “THE SPECULATION”, to “THE IDEA”. So, why would the GOP do this?
The idea is to install a vice president who could beat the Democratic nominee in 2008. It’s unlikely that any of the top three Republican candidates — former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — would want the job, for fear that association with Bush’s war would be the kiss of death……
That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.
I’m kind of completely lost now. If it’s the kiss of death for any of the rest of the candidates, would it not be the kiss of death for Thompson as well?
WaPo has a tendency to sort of create their own little world and report on it. This is another perfect example of that. Here’s the real world Sally, Bush is not a terribly popular president right now, but he’s not the kiss of death because of the war. He’s the kiss of death because he’s a lame duck. Everyone can take potshots at a lame duck because they won’t be around long enough to have anything to bargain with. Putting a lame duck VP in office with basically one year left won’t do anyone a hill of beans benefit, and will cripple said candidates’ chances of winning. Look how popular Clinton was. Gore couldn’t even win. Look how popular Reagan was, Bush the elder couldn’t make it two terms. So, riding on the coat-tails of a sitting president is not a proven winning formula. When Nixon/Ford left office, the Dems took over just long enough to look even worse and hand it back to the Republicans who lasted just long enough to make Clinton look good, who lasted just long enough to make Dubyah look attractive. Only once, since 1980, has a VP won. He lasted one term.
Sally, I really don’t think John Warner’s that stupid. He was around in 1992 when the only VP in office lost. He knows just how well that fantasy plays out.
So, I really think Sally Quinn’s just making this stuff up as she goes and there is no plan to replace Cheney.
25
Jun
The media is making a deal out of the fact the three perceived front runners, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Bloomberg, are all from New York. Just a point of clarification on that story. Rudy is indeed born and raised in New York. Bloomberg was born and spent a lot of his life in Boston. Hillary didn’t live in New York until after she ran for the Senate. For reasons unknown, she’s now adopting a Southern accent and pretty much claims she’s from Arkansas ( she’s actually from Illinois ).
So, take that one with a grain of salt. And, for what it’s worth, it doesn’t make a hill of beans difference to me where they are living at this point in time.
22
Jun
The Senate passed its version of the Clean Energy Act of 2007 last night. I’ve addressed a few of the issues of it before. However, as with most all legislation, it got kind of changed along the way. So, here’s a recap courtesy of CNN:
An increase in automobile fuel economy requirements to a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020 from the current requirements of 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.
What you can expect is lip service here. “Fleet average” doesn’t include trucks, vans, or SUV’s. As such, manufacturers will have to roll out a hand full of hybrids to offset their traditional hotter selling lower-mileage cars. Big deal, they’re doing that already. I see very little, if any, impact this will realistically have.
Requires that half of the new cars manufactured by 2015 be capable of running on 85 percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.
Ever prime your engine withe ethanol? Cars will already run on 85 percent ethanol or biodiesel. What happens is the manufacturers basically void all warrantees if you try. And, for the older cars that don’t real hot, ethanol can destroy your seals real quick. However, this legislation doesn’t address older cars at all. What it does is tell manufacturers that what they are doing now, they HAVE to do by 2015. Makes a lot of sense huh?
A requirement to produce 36 billion gallons a year of ethanol, as a substitute for gasoline, by 2022, a sevenfold increase over production in 2006. Ethanol would be made from corn and cellulosic sources such as prairie grass and wood chips.
That’s all fine and good, but where is this 26 billion gallons of ethanol going to come from? Are they going to subsidize corn farmer? Are they going to give incentives to other farmers to grow corn? The demand has been there for years, the profits not. I expect the price of corn to skyrocket without even making it to the pump.
Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.
Price gouging is already illegal. This is nothing but rhetoric and pandering. The question this presents to me is by presenting an artificial demand for corn, will those price gouging standards apply to vendors as they try to compete to buy the required ethanol? I see a situation where companies will HAVE to have ethanol and it won’t be there. This will be very typical supply and demand, with demand far outweighing supply. When that happens, the product gets real expensive real fast. This legislation only applies to oil producers. So, the logic here is people can gouge corn, but not oil. See a business angle there yet? Can you say “futures”? I can.
New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.
Good idea. That’ll clean up all those old cars on the road real quick now won’t it.
Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies.
Great idea. This should have been done years ago. What’s that you say? It has been? It couldn’t have been, this is the Democrats response to Bush’s failed energy policies. That being the case, I guess it won’t resemble anything like the Department of Agriculture’s
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program. It’s only been doing exactly what this legislation demands since 2002. The Democrat’s answer to what they consider failed policies is doing exactly what they claim failed. Brilliant huh? Wanna bet MSNBC and CNN catch on to that one as well?
Support for large-scale demonstrations that capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and inject it into the ground.
I’ve already had fun with this one. Richard Branson offered something like $25 million for a contraption that just sucks the bad stuff out of the air and pumps in the ground like nuclear waste. So, another guy immediately says he has something that will do just that. The Democrats say “Hey, if he can do that, all our problems are solved!”. So, they stick legislation in an energy bill to support an even bigger version of this carbon-sucking machine. Anyone ever read The Emporer’s New Clothes
This bill just sticks a bunch of promises and hopes that are already being researched and done now. What it doesn’t do, in the least bit, is address the immediate problem that will be a complete mess by 2012.
President Bush said he didn’t really like this legislation. He made that announcement in Alabama. At a nuclear plant. You know what those are. They provide about 20% of the nation’s energy and have had very few significant problems, for the last 25 years or more. Best I can tell, this tried and true, non-greenhouse emitting source of energy, was totally ignored in lieu of a bunch of promises and pandering that may, or may not, ever be used to deal with our future energy needs. At least they didn’t get the brilliant idea of adding taxes to help us deal with these high prices to fly.
Sounds like I don’t care much for this legislation, don’t it? I want something tangible, and I want it now. Fund the construction of about 100 more reactors NOW. Build more refineries NOW. When there is surplus electricity as oil becomes scarce, the private sector will move itself to the cheapest energy regardless of all this phony political pandering we’re seeing here that realistically does nothing while oil continues to erode the economy.
But, history will correct me if I’m wrong here. Bookmark this post and come back in one year and see what has changed and then we’ll discuss how wrong, or right, I am. At this time, I’m very confident I’ve got this PR stunt nailed.
The debate started innocently enough, and I was fairly bored with it. It started something like this:
To which Nancy’s spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami replied:
“…..cheap political stunt that just won’t fly,”
OK, I can buy that. It does seem like a political stunt that I thought was an appropriate response to her cheap political stunt. However, Elshami couldn’t quit and had to add this:
……And why would anyone think it is responsible to restrict the ability of the speaker of the House to bring the concerns of the American people to foreign leaders? It is part of the speaker’s job.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I’ll elaborate that a little more clearly.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
It is NOT the duty of the Speaker to present issues to foreign leaders. Wiki lays it out very simply, so I’ll use them:
The ONLY duty the Speaker of the House has is to keep order in the House of Representatives. That’s it.
They are not a diplomat. They do not represent nor negotiate on behalf of the United States or its people. They call Congress to order an assure Parliamentary Procedure and Roberts Rules are followed.
That’s it.
For some reason Nadeam Elshami seems to have the roles of Speaker and President very confused.
And no one in the media seem willing to call him on it.
And while we’re at it, Elshami is also the person who stated it’s been a long standing policy that in the absence of a spouse children often fly in their place. Well, that is…….
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
And no one called him on that either.
And Elshami is the person who uttered these words:
How do I put this. I’ll try it this way:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Let me explain it this way, the President is in charge of the Executive Branch, the House is part of the Legislative Branch. They are not the same. Signing Orders are simply how the President instructs the Executive Branch to operate. It is not the duty of Congress to instruct the President how he operates his staff. Once again, Elshami is more than eager for the Speaker to completely usurp the President’s authority as vested by the Constitution.
And no one called Elshami’s hand on that one either.
Whoever Elshami is, they seem to get a lot of their facts bad wrong and no one seems to care. That wouldn’t be so bad, but it kind of amazes me the spokesperson to the third most powerful person in our government is either so completely ignorant of the Constitution or just doesn’t care. Either way, they’re dangerous to me.
What’s even scarier about Nadeam Elshami? Try finding one single picture of them on the internet. Pretty creepy to me that a spokesperson can be so completely invisible. Gotta make ya wonder huh?
A lot of people feel media in general is horribly biased towards Democrats and liberal politics. Other people think it’s a conspiracy theory. MSNBC kinda puts it all in perspective in a very simple way I had never even thought of doing. They looked at where journalists give their money. Now, to me, if I were a journalist and were wanting to at the very least appear neutral, I wouldn’t give to anyone for any reason. I rarely do anyway and I’m just a typical guy with no claims of being neutral on any issue. So, it seems to me that if someone tends to give to a particular organization, they are biased towards that organization. Fair enough assumption? So, without further doo-doo, here’s the facts according to MSNBC:
- Journalists donating to Republican/Conservative issues: 17, that’s 12%.
- Journalists donating to Democrat/Liberal issues: 125, that’s 87%
- Journalists donating to both: 2, that’s 1%
According to Opensecrets, the media industry as a whole leans toward Democrat/Liberal issues as well by at least a 2 to 1 margin over the last 10 years or so.
Having more fun with Opensecrets, of the top 20 recipients each year since 1996:
- Media has donated over $22 million to Democrat candidates, $6 million to Republicans, and $100,000 to Independents.
- 89 were Democrat, 30 Republican, 1 Independent
- All six top recipients were Democrat, four of six second places were Democrat, five of six third places were Democrat, five of six fourth places Democrat, and the Republicans finally broke in with half of the fifth place finishes. The best an Independent could do in any year was 17th.
- Only five people received donations four or more of the six periods, they are all Democrat.
- The top 10 recipients over this time are:
- John Kerry (D)
- George Bush (R)
- Hillary Clinton (D)
- Barbara Boxer (D)
- Al Gore (D)
- Richard Gephardt (D)
- Charles Schumer (D)
- Howard Berman (D)
- Tom Dasche (D)
- Bill Bradley (D)
Not terribly surprising, the only Republican that consistently did well on the list was the President of the United States. Several Democrat candidates for office were on the list, none Republican.
Had enough? Still think what you read and see from the media is objective in any way?
Quickie update:Over at Captain’s Quarters, the discussion on this topic has taken the angle of not allowing journalists, read media in general, to donate to political candidates. To me this is a horrid idea. Rather than cloaking media bias, I want to know it exists. If I know it exists, I know how to take an article by said journalist. Rather than cloaking their bias by not allowing donations, I’d rather have a media database that tracks their activities and donations like opensecrets.org does for politicians. After all, media does consider itself The Fourth Estate of our government. So treat them as such. Make them report donations, outside incomes, and other influences as our elected officials do now.
Then, we might have more accountability from the media instead of less.
Steve Forbes is all undone about the political posturing of several members of Congress who are making claims they’re gonna fix the price of oil. Here’s a couple of snippets:
Now, I tend to agree with every single word Forbes utters there. It makes absolutely no sense at all to add expenses to the cost of oil in an effort to lower the price of gas. None. All you all are hearing is pandering and rhetoric. I hate pandering and rhetoric. What we need is to encourage other alternative sources of fuel in a major way instead of just falling back on the oldest political ploy in the books, taxing. Rather than adding to the expenses of oil use, we need to be giving SERIOUS breaks to those who don’t use oil. Not a $1500 tax break for using a hybrid vehicle. The problem there is most people who need it most can’t afford to buy a new car in the first place. The trick in my opinion is to provide tax incentives on the purchasing of the fuels that it takes to run these hybrids. If you have a hybrid running on ethanol or diesel, get about a 50% deduction on your taxes. Make it worth businesses and individuals’ trouble in the long run to buy hybrids.
Of course, the obvious drawback here politically is that is taking money out of the hands of those people pandering to the public by making the case that giving them more of your money would solve the problem magically. It never has, and it never, never, will. Don’t fall for this rhetoric. Look for a real answer. The only magic bullet is not lowering the price at the pump, it’s lowering the cost. The only way to do that is to lower demand. Period.
And if you hear your Congressman promising to lower the cost by raising the expenses, tell him to come here so I can set them straight. Or, better yet, next time vote for someone who understands the very basics of supply and demand.
That’s all I have to say about this today.
