17
Feb
A man in Buffalo, New York, beheaded his wife a few days ago. “Experts” have been debating whether it was an “honor” killing or not.
What’s the point?
In this country, murder is murder. Unless defending yourself, there is no justification for it. It is a crime punishable by death in a lot of states. In all states it pretty much means your life is over as a functioning citizen. Whether people believe in capital punishment or not, we all pretty much agree it should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. In this case, an innocent mother was brutally killed.
I don’t care what his reason for doing it was, beheading is just not an acceptable means of dealing with your frustration. It’s been a while since I’ve said it here, but this guys just needs killing in the worst possible way.
In New York, there is a death penalty. However, it is on court ordered moratorium. Given the politics of their Supreme Court, it most likely won’t be lifted any time soon. Given that, the man who chopped off the head of his wife, the mother of his children, will live a long time.
17
Feb
Sent to me by a friend who shall remain anonymous:
Three dead bodies turn up at the mortuary, all with very big smiles on their faces. The coroner calls the police to tell them what has happened.
The Coroner tells the Inspector, “First body is a 72 year old Frenchman. He died of heart failure while with his mistress. Hence the enormous smile.”
“The second body is an Irishman, 25 years of age. He won a thousand dollars on the lottery and spent it all on whisky. Died of alcohol poisoning, hence the smile.
“The Inspector asked, “What of the third body?”
“Ah,” says the coroner, “This is the most unusual one. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, 66, struck by lightning.”
“Why is she smiling then?” inquires the Inspector.
“Thought she was having her picture taken.”
There are basically three steps to passign any legislation. They vote on it. If it passes, and there are differences, it’s those differences are reconciled in conference. The amended legislation is then voted on again. If it passes, the President signs it and it is done. Before the initial round of voting, Harry Reid stated that if this legislation didn’t pass quickly, the Dow would crash.
- After voting did NOT occur the next day, the Dow went up 200 points.
- When the initial vote occurred to close debate ( force a vote in a heavily Democrat congress ), the Dow plummeted 382 points.
- Today, President Obama is poised to sign it into legislation. The Dow is down so far about 250 298 points.
That makes Harry’s total off about 832 880 points. The Dow is off over 650 points since the stimulus was pretty much guaranteed to pass to the time it was signed.
Somehow, I just don’t think there is any corporate confidence in this thing.
17
Feb
A friend sent me this. Love it!
This isn’t the first time this has happened, but it’s being discussed again ( via Kerry Picket at Newsbusters.org ):
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”
As is pointed out in the article, this isn’t the first time this has been discussed:
I don’t have any clue about what we’re going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically – I don’t have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I’m a big pro-balance person. That’s why I love the founders — checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be — political, economic, technological –out of balance, you’ve got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people’s rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we’re going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to –”
That’s from 1998, Hillary Clinton to be exact. Obama’s Secretary of State.
And, that’s not all.
Another Obama cabinet member had something to say about restricting free speech on the internet:
Now, whether you call it “fairness”, “reasonable restrictions”, or whatever, limiting free speech is nothing more than limiting free speech. I personally don’t thinki it can be done. Unlike tv and radio, the internet allows a person to seek out any opinion they see fit. There are no geographical restrictions. There are no reasons to assume a person’s ability to seek contradicting opinions on any subject are restricted. Therefore, the only possible restriction would be governmental. That’s what Waxman, Clinton, and Holder have mentioned. They are contemplating creating the problem they are complaining about.
Now, I’m not going to go so far as to say this is a liberal idea. I am going to go so far as to say this is a political pwoer grab in order to shut up people they don’t want to hear.
I’m not going to freak out about this either. The Supreme Court I think would shoot this thing down in a heartbeat. Waxman, Holder, and Clinton know that. That’s why it’s never gotten beyond the discussion or planning stage. And, it should never get beyond that either.
Sure, there’s a lot of bad stuff on the internet. A lot of mindless uncaring people have something to say. The problem with this country is we assure their right to say it in order to make sure those who do think and care have that same ability to voice their opinion. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it needs to stay. The only filters on the internet should be those chosen by each individual.
If Waxman, Holder, and Hillary Clinton have their way, the only thing I’m sure we’d ever be allowed to see would be Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann. How fair would that be under this Fairness Doctrine?
Let Waxman know that you don’t appreciate his Big Brother tactics by contacting him here.
QUICKIE UPDATE: February 19, 2009: President Obama says he is against the Fairness Doctrine. I find that a little hard to believe. However, now Waxman denies he ever had anything to do with it. I find that even harder to believe.
They say numbers don’t lie. However, numbers, in the context of time, can change in meaning. We all remember the economic boom of the Clint0n years. Everyone got real quiet while the numbers came in, and the money rolled freely. Everything was exploding in value and no one really knew why, or cared that much to know why. Then, shortly after the boom started, things started getting dicey. Depending on who you ask, it’s either a Republican cause, or a Republican cause, as to why things haven’t been so golden since 1998 or so. The #1 Democrat issue has been the fact that rampant profits haven’t existed since then. Although I’m sure others out there have the same thought I do, I thought I’d elaborate a little on what I think the problem we have right now is. First, let’s start with some numbers:
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| GDP | 2.50% | 3.70% | 4.50% | 4.18% | 4.45% | 3.66% | 0.75% |
| Dow | 33.46% | 26.01% | 22.64% | 16.10% | 25.23% | -6.18% | -7.10% |
| Housing | -0.24% | -1.15% | 3.00% | 6.36% | 5.47% | 6.16% | 6.70% |
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |
| GDP | 1.60% | 2.51% | 3.64% | 2.94% | 2.78% | 2.03% | 1.28% |
| Dow | -16.76% | 25.32% | 3.16% | -0.61% | 16.29% | 6.43% | -33.84% |
| Housing | 8.74% | 9.04% | 10.28% | 10.45% | -1.19% | -13.19% | -16.39% |
Now, the problem as I have seen it for a while is if you look at those numbers, something sticks out. In brief, from 1995 until the end of 2008, the Gross Domestic Product grew over 40%. The median price of homes grew over 34%. However, the Dow Jones Index grew at 110%. Something’s amiss here it seems. The Obama team is doing everything it can to address the credit issue. However, the housing issue in my opinion is correcting itself based on where it should be in relation to what the country is earning. It’s in line with what the country has been producing. However, that credit comes in the form of banks having certain assets to offset their lines of credit. They did this previously by issuing stock, trading stock, and using stock values as leverage. The big problem I see here is that in perspective to everything else, the stock values on the Dow are still way out of line with everything else. In other words, it needs to come down more, faster. Or, the GDP needs to grow faster. Delaying foreclosures or pressuring banks to change their lending practices does nothing to increase GDP. Doing nothing to increase GDP means the Dow should come down a LOT more in my opinion. If the Dow comes down a LOT more, then the equity and cash value from stocks will be greatly diminished. Given that, if Obama forces banks to hold onto bad loans, and the equity of the banks continue to decline rapidly, rather than propping up the industry as the bailout plan was supposed to do, it could actually be delaying the crisis only, and making it profoundly worse when it does collapse.
Rather than giving it to the banks, and forcing them to pursue even more bad loan practices, I think the remedy is to let the market correct itself, as painful as that sounds, and do whatever Obama can to get the GDP moving up faster. Working for a social service does not increase GDP. We need to be forcibly pushing domestic production. And, my perosnal pet would be to do it in new green technologies. Then, if we get the GDP moving up, and the market corrects itself, THEN those houses people were stuck with at way-over-inflated values will become affordable again and people will actually have the appropriate incomes to afford traditional mortgages.
As far as numbers lieing goes, does anyone really want another economic boom that fubars the economy for a decade afterwards? And, I still have to shake my head when Nancy Pelosi talks about Republicans not regulating industry enough. Look at those numbers for the late 90′s again. The Dow averaged 25% gains a year while nothing else came even close to supporting those numbers. Who was watching that? It’s just been adjusting since then to about where it should be. And, if you think the last year has been scary on the Dow, by my calculations, it should drop about another 2000 points if the economy doesn’t pick up.
That would put it about 1995 levels. And, given Obama’s socialist tendencies, I don’t think he’s willing to do what it takes to stop that slide.
Now, this is juicy stuff that makes for a made-for-tc movie and endless headlines on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc….
Wrong.
If you didn’t see it here:
You probably would never have known. That’s a local Buffalo station report.
Now, as others have suggested, let’s replay this incident and substitute a Catholic or any other demonination as the source of the story. You know, like that chick who killed her preacher husband a few years ago. Hers wasn’t quite as gruesome. She just shot him. Mundane stuff that got played in the media for months. This guy beheads his wife in a public arena and no one says a word.
What is going on in this country?
I sure wish I had an inside to CNN. I’d love to know why this is not front-page stuff when the beer tax in Oregon is? Is CNN that afraid of Islam?
Well, apparently Fox isn’t. However, the silence of others is almost preferable to Fox’s headline.
That is the bold statement from Nancy Pelosi regarding the stimulus package. Some people don’t buy that. I’m sure Keith Olbermann will question her on some of the specifics of the stimulus that some people consider earmarks or pet projects. I’d either bitch or moan about the stimulus package’s details, and figure out what is or is not pork, but, I can’t find where I can read it. Being as the last draft was put together last night, and they are pushing it to be passed today, I can’t see how anyone can dispute Nancy’s claims.
However, given her history, I’m willing to bet the farm there’s all kinds of pet projects in it.
We’ll see soon enough I guess. I’m sure Keith Olbermann will provide the scoop.
Two quick updates:
- The Washington Post reports that there is indeed some pork in this stimulus bill.
- Jonathan Adler is SHOCKED!
However, since this was not a “spending bill”, and the earmark process was by-passed in lieu of just writing it directly in the legislation, Nancy Pelosi will still claim what she said was true. And, I’m sure she’ll have a justification for every penny of this boondoggle. Hopefully, the average voter will know what’s happened to them.
One example in my opinion of what would have been considered a pet project: $1 BILLION has been designated for a clean coal plant. This was a common request by FutureGen, a company from, you guessed it, Illinois. This is despite the very clear message Obama sent about coal:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
OK, so now we’re going to give $1 BILLION of taxpayors’ money to a company that Obama has no intent of allowing to be developed?
That may not be an earmark, but it sure sounds like a pet project to me.
12
Feb
During the 2008 campaign, a lot of people, me included, suggested Obama had a socialist agenda. The other side poo-poo’d the thought without giving any hint as to why it should be poo-poo’d, you just weren’t allowed to say that. However, within the first 100 days, which a lot of people seem to think are important, the agenda in DC has been dominated by two issues:
- Capitalism is bad. Private industry is under attack right now as Congress investigates the banks it gave TARP funds to. The committee members are not satisfied with what the banks did with the no-strings-attached money they gave the banks a few months ago. Now they want to add strings. A couple of the banks are more than willing to give the money back. The committee is saying no, they have to keep it, and they have to distribute it to the poor. Sounds like socialism to me.
- Big government is good. I don’t mean government in the general sense, which a lot of people do, but “big” government, as in the feds only. For instance, the money allocated for education won’t go to states to distribute as they see fit, it will be aministered through Title I. That’s the federal program. One entity running everything is socialism.
And, if you want to toss in some Big Brother conceptualization, Ben Nelson calls this the ‘jobs squad’. However, although this “jobs squad” might be putting some cash in some people’s pockets, the only goal those people will have is milking the government for even more. That’s not capitalism. That’s not what got us to the point we’re at today. What people need to remember is capitalism got us to the point today where even the economic situation that Obama and his cronies are saying is so dire that we should abandon free market principals, it is still the most powerful economy in the history of mankind. It needs some tinkering. However, if you look at all the socialist economies of the past, they have never gotten to the point where our economy is right now even the in the midst of this “economic catastrophe”. The ones that thriving right now, like China, are doing so by incorporating capitolist ideas into their economy. Obama, ignoring 2,000 years of history, is doing the opposite. And, what he is also doing is completely ignoring the fact that is was undue regulations with socialist agendas that caused the meltdown in the first place.
I think the signal coming from The White House is crystal clear and dangerous as hell.
10
Feb
No need for discussion, it’s just a clever photochop. I just thought it was funny as hell!
