I saw this before it made the news. Originally I wasn’t going to comment on it because I was so repulsed by it:
Now, this makes me uncomfortable because I feel like I’m promoting kiddie porn. However, what this does do for me is eliminate the embarassment last week was for the Texas Attorney General’s office in having the Supreme Court order the girls back into the protected confines of Jeffs. The Supreme Court ruled that although some girls were in jeapordy, not all were and each case would have to be tried seperately. To me, having seen these pics, it’s obvious any young girl living with Jeffs is in jeapardy. He just needs killin in the worst possible way. For that matter, these girls’ parents don’t deserve living either. This is just sick. Even though the Supreme Court may have ruled the way they did, they are way wrong in their conclusion. This stuff is illegal and when a person does something like this as openly as Jeffs is, there is no way an average person can assume that any particular girl in that compound is safe from this perversion. Just because he says he’s a “church” doesn’t mean he can get away with this trash. This isn’t religion, this is child molestation. This is pathetic.
27
May
Barack Obama’s campaign has been all about “change“. However, one thing seems bound not to change if Obama is elected. Whereas we’ve had to deal with nucular, internets, and global warmings, now we’ll get muddled facts instead of words:
- Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.
- Obama told Larry King on CNN — asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers — “We don’t have the technical capacity to create something like that.” ( He’s a US Senator, he has the capacity. For that matter, I do too. )
- “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died – an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser. ( it was actually 11 people. )
- And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” ( Speaking about small-town people. Scratch the NASCAR vote. Shortly after, CNN would do a hit piece on voters in Kentucky inferring they were all racist because they didn’t vote for the guy who claimed they were bitter. )
- “It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”
- “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today – our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” — Barack Obama, Memorial Day 2008.
- Recently there is some confusion over Obama citing his uncle liberating Auschwitz. That creates all kinds of issues. The video is muddled and hard to understand. However, a much clearer version of the same story was given in 2002: “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.” Problems here, 1. The US never entered Auschwitz. It was abandoned by the Germans and occupied by Russia. In fact, the US never got close to Auschwitz as it’s in Poland. Treblinka had been abandoned two years before. I doubt bodies were still laying around. 2. His only possible uncles would be Kenyan. 3. In 2002, it was his grandfather, in 2008 his uncle.
Now, the problem I see Obama working himself into is he seems to do best when speaking about nothing particular. Being a candidate of change means nothing. There is nothing concrete about “change”. However, when he speaks about specifics of that “change”, he gets them wrong an awful lot. And, what’s even more curious is when he gets them wrong, he sometimes has no problem sticking with them. Now, Bush has been trashed for eight years for mangling words. It’s never been questioned whether he was being truthful or not in his manglings. Obama speaks fluently, but gets facts wrong, way wrong sometimes. Which would you think is worse? I mean, how often did we hear “Bush lied, people died” when they couldn’t exactly figure out what the lie was? Obama is apparently giving those same people all kinds of reason to shout him down. But, outside of the expected conservative/Republican blogs and a snippet or two from Fox, that’s about it. Wonder why that is?
27
May
My favorite speech of the campaign so far. Well, not sure about the entire thing, but this one line takes the cake so far:
“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today – our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” — Barack Obama, Memorial Day 2008.
Not sure if my sense of patriotism would be particularly strong after a statement like that. Maybe my sense of something else
Now, I don’t believe that to be necessarily true, I just can’t find one I think is terribly smart. Today’s example is Thom Hartmann. In 2005, he tried convincing people that Jimmy Carter tried to prevent the Bush Energy Disasters – 28 years ago. Now, the reason he states this is because Jimmy gave a couple of speeches saying we relied too much on foreign oil and he was gonna do something about it. However:
- Carter’s idea to supplant oil demand was with coal. Any coal. Dirty coal, didn’t matter. Within a few short years coal production was booming and Europe and Canada were complaining we were destroying their environments with acid rain. Today’s tree-huggers wouldn’t go along with that too well I would think. Not only that, but most people who blame this on Bush ARE tree huggers and therefore wouldn’t allow it in the first place. So, to say Carter’s ideas would work today is, well, stupid.
- After Carter’s speech, oil consumption did decline. However, the entire economy declined along with it. 1980-1982 was a tough economic time. However, a decade later, oil consumption in the US also declined as well. There was no speech at that time decrying our dependence on oil. That president at that time, oddly enough, was a Bush.
- Part of Carter’s “enlightened” energy policy was a windfall tax such as what Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton support. In 1978, it led to the exodus of quite a few refineries since producing oil abroad didn’t get subjected to the windfall tax. Needless to say, this is the very last thing we need now as most are arguing the problem is production capacity we lost in 1978, not the supply.
- The price of gas used to be regulated by the federal government. This kept prices low, but kept supply sometimes in jeapordy ( see the Oil Embargo ). The President that removed the regulations and thereby allowed the prices to soar was none other than, Jimmy Carter.
By discouraging domestic production with the windfall tax and encouraging non-renewable sources of energy such as coal, it was Jimmy Carter’s energy disasters of 1978-1980 that had more to do with the price of gas today than anything Bush has done.
Now, this is the part where it gets real painful for people like Thom Hartmann. Figure the logic of citing Jimmy Carter saving us from Bush’s disaster. Consider this, the all-time most expensive dates for national average of gas adjusted for inflation:
| date | adj price |
| 3/21/1980 | 1.317 |
| 8/20/1979 | 1.244 |
| 3/18/1981 | 1.224 |
| 3/14/1981 | 1.223 |
| 2/20/1981 | 1.223 |
| 2/16/1981 | 1.221 |
| 4/9/1981 | 1.220 |
| 2/25/1981 | 1.219 |
| 3/2/1981 | 1.218 |
| 3/28/1981 | 1.218 |
| 4/2/1981 | 1.217 |
| 3/12/1981 | 1.217 |
| 4/8/1980 | 1.216 |
| 3/23/1981 | 1.216 |
| 3/26/1981 | 1.216 |
| 3/30/1981 | 1.215 |
| 4/13/1981 | 1.214 |
| 3/8/1981 | 1.214 |
| 4/6/1981 | 1.214 |
| 4/16/1981 | 1.213 |
That’s right, all twenty were either under Jimmy Carter, or immediately following his presidency and his energy policies. ( Now, I’m sure 2008′s rocketing up that chart, but Thom wrote this in 2005. )
Either that or he’s banking on the average reader forgetting all about the truck strikes of, you guessed it, 1979.
There is no legacy at all of Jimmy Carter’s energy policies being anything other than a disaster that nearly crippled the United States economically and led to him being voted out of office the first possible chance. He made a speech saying we need to do one thing, and then promptly put policies in effect accomplishing the opposite that we are still suffering from today. If Thom Hartmann thinks that is what we need now, well, I think that’s stupid. But, it once again illustrates what I have always felt. The key to being liberal is in the words. The key to being conservative is in the actions. Right now, we need action. What we don’t need is more words.
13
May
I received this email from a politician I know well and respect. So, I take it as being sincere:
There are less than eight months until the election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans. To show our solidarity as Americans, let’s all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice.
It’s time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive with your headlights ON during the day. If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights OFF at night.
Not sure about you all, but I feel it is my patriotic obligation to do this. Urge all your friends who love their country to do this too!
13
May
Republican leadership decided that since so many people are making fun of the over-abuse of the word “change” in this year’s elections, they’d go with a new slogan themselves. So, not to be outdone by the Dems, they rolled out “Change You Deserve!” The Dems were quick to point out that the makers of Effexor couldn’t be happier. Michelle Malkin immediately lamented how stupid the party is. Now, I gotta wonder how stupid this truly is. First of all, like it or not:
This symbolism carries a punch that the imagery of rebuilding American families just doesn’t quite pull off. Quick survey here, what age group does NOT take some kind of pill to make them feel better? The economy soured on Jimmy Carter, he whined that the country was in a general malaise. But, he didn’t do anything about it. So, that just left everyone feeling even worse about themselves than they did before. They voted Jimmy out as soon as they could. What the symbolism of “Change you Deserve” carries is two-fold. First of all, if you elect Obama, who’s run on the vaguest “change” ticket of all-time, and he wrecks the country, then, that was what you deserved for voting for “change”. I gotta agree with that one 100%. I hate “change” as a theme. Might as well vote for a turd in a toilet, it’s gonna change soon enough. Secondly, it implies that since politics has never, ever, once, made anyone feel good about themselves, the Republicans are going to change all that by giving all Americans over the age of eighteen and who did vote correctly in 2008 a prescription for anti-depressants.
That’ll work.
Now, since this whole issue is being seen as fubar by noted people such as Michelle, I think we need to update the platform image as well. Another quick survey here, who gets excited and motivated by elephants? ( If you do, that’s more than I need to know. ) They’re huge clumsy animals that don’t fit in the family bed at all. I suggest an image change to go along with the platform change:
OR,
AIN’T NOTHING LIKE THE REAL THING!
All kidding aside, I do think this was a well thought out choice. One of the perceived side-effects of Effexor is the sudden urge to commit Rambo on unsuspecting peeps. I’ve been down that road before on that topic. Perfect imagery combatting the imagery Obama’s projecting of wimpy whiny folks who cling to guns and religion out of resentment. I know a few of those that combat that resentment with anti-depressants.
So, it all DOES make sense now don’t it?
( This is why I usually prefer to sit back and think about things real hard before posting a knee-jerk reaction. )
It’s making the rounds again as the Dems warm up for the fall. Obama’s already testing it. Clinton has worn it out already. Several have already blamed the price of gas on Bush, and most have offered their solutions to the Bush problem. When you listen to them make those arguments, remember one thing:
That’s the imports under Clinton. Now, compare that to the imports under Bush:
During the same periods, domestic production decreased by 15% for Clinton, 11% under Bush. In fact, it’s actually leveled off in the last couple of years.
So, the net result is the foreigners did not quite as well under Bush as Clinton, but locals haven’t been hurt nearly as much under Bush as they were under Clinton.
And, the reason we’re paying what we are now is almost exclusively because OPEC figured out we can’t support our petroleum fix. And, they’re right. However, we can very quickly find a new supplier. The Clintons wanted more foreign oil, the Bush’s wanted more domestic. Which would you prefer?
And, once you’ve answered that, answer this one for me again. Who is more beholden to the major oil companies? I’ve never bought that crap from day one for the simple reason I have seen us selling out to OPEC for the last twenty years. They supported every terrorist on the planet and we just kissed their butts for that cheap oil. Now, all of a sudden, someone says we’re tired of that crap and the price of oil suddenly skyrockets.
So, the question becomes, will the next President sacrifice our security for cheap gas as I think the previous one did? Or, will the continue to let them know we’re tired of terrorism and pay the price at the pump?
Or, will they get even ballsier and declare a state of emergency and send drilling rigs to the reserves we’ve got right here and tell OPEC and the eco-terrorists to kiss our oily butts? While at the same time sanctioning five hundred new reactors and mandating all new personal transportation by 2015 be electric.
Then, watch the price of oil half way across the planet.
A big storm blew into Myanmar last week. An even bigger storm is brewing. So far, 62,000 people are either dead or missing. Nearly 1,000,000 are homeless. The United Nations, along with the United States, rushed to provide food for the homeless. The Myanmar ruling junta confiscated it.
Now, this is where I get pissy. The United Nations complained about it.
That’s it.
As usual, that’s it.
A military junta with no military equipment shut down the United Nations.
Ohhhh-kayyyyy
Now, folks, we’ve got a massive disaster already occurring, and bound to get much much worse unless conditions are stabilized. This won’t just affect Myanmar, it will affect the entire region. That would be millions of people starving and draining resources that apparently are getting more scarce every day. All because the Myanmar rulers are scared to death of dealing with the outside world.
Now, what the UN SHOULD have been doing is telling those rulers we’re coming in whether they like it or not. Whether they like it or not, the disease and famine that’s assured to occur on a massive scale is a threat to the rest of the world whether those idiots like it or not and the rest of the world has the right to protect itself from the stupidity of the Myanmar leaders. And if the Myanmar leaders get in the way one more time, the United Nations has at its disposal quite a few fighter aircraft that have these smart missiles with their individual names on them. Just ask Khadafi how well they work and Hussein how well they work.
But, that’s not the United Nations’ way of doing things. They’re gonna whine and do nothing while millions of people starve to death yet again.
At least I’m not alone in feeling the United Nations is a complete waste of time and resources.
Barack Obama laid an egg last night ( From Hotair ):
OK, let’s look at this a little better.
- Roosevelt did talk to the Japanese. They were telling us to leave them alone so they could invade China.
- Roosevelt did talk to Hitler. He told us to leave them alone so they could unify Europe, one country at a time.
- While Roosevelt was talking to the Japanese, they bombed Pearl Harbor.
- Rather than talking even more, Roosevelt put together the mightiest military machine ever assembled. In other words, Roosevelt realized Obama’s idea sucked and Bush’s idea worked.
- Although Truman talked a little with the Japanese. He dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese when they didn’t surrender exactly as he saw fit.
- Truman didn’t negotiate with North Korea, he sent troops. They are there to this day, fifty years later.
- Kennedy didn’t negotiate with Castro over the Cuban Missile Crisis. He surrounded the island with the Navy and dared the Russians to do something about it. Castro blinked.
- Kennedy didn’t negotiate with Castro to leave power, he tried to do it covertly with military in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
- Kennedy did NOT negotiate with the North Vietnamese. The French and United Nations told Kennedy to go help them fight a war and left us holding the bag.
It wasn’t technically a “surrender” to leave Saigon. However, when we exited, Saigon ceased to exist, the South Vietnamese governmet was eliminated and South Vietnam became a part of communist North Vietnam, which is what the entire war was aimed at preventing. Additionally, several million innocent people lost their lives due to the vacuum of power that allowed the Khmer Rouge to run wild.
Either Obama is totally clueless about US history, or, more likely, he’s convinced the voters are. I’m gonna guess he’s more right than wrong on that. But, substitute “Al Qaeda” for “Khmer Rouge” and you’ve got the exact same circumstances in Iraq that you had in southeastern Asia in 1975.
This folks, is nuts:
How exactly is she going to “go after” OPEC? Even if she does prove they are a monopoly ( which, by definition, they are not ), who in the world order of things cares? China’s been dumping stuff on the world markets for years. The WTO slaps their wrists and they just do it some more. The WTO is basically useless as a regularoty or policy enforcement force. It is most useless when dealing with something bigger and richer than it is. Namely, OPEC. They don’t have to be a member of WTO, even though most are. So, what’s she going to do about it?
The one very obvious thing she can do about it drill for more domestic oil, lessening our dependence on foreign lands almost immediately. However, she has repeatedly and very enthusiastically voted against any domestic development of petroleum in almost any way. So, scaring OPEC into lowering their prices via increased domestic competition is off the table. And, they know it.
Once again, I need to state the absolute simplest rule of business economics. Nothing gets any simpler that this:
IN ORDER TO DRIVE DOWN PRICE, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE SUPPLY.
Period.
The fact Hillary is unwilling to adhere to the simplest business concept is the only reason needed to totally dismiss any economic ideas she might have as far as I am concerned. It’s obvious she’s pandering for votes. But, when the pandering is this bad, I would only hope the people being pandered to aren’t that stupid and call her bluff.
I am however, quite often wrong when assuming people think about what the candidates are actually saying.
H/T Poliblog.
