Mark Levin over at The Corner on NRO had this comment:
Now, being as this is the first time I’ve ever seen a need to actually quote National Review here, I thought it must be pretty clever. Biased, sure, but clever. However, Dr. Steven Taylor over at Poliblog apparently differs in his opinion, labeling it:
By Dr. Steven Taylor
One of his readers backs him up by pointing out they HAVE raised minimum wage. I just gotta wonder WHY Dr. Taylor considers this the dumbest quote of the day? All he does is give a lead to The Daily Dish, which labels it:
Malkin Award Nominee
One post makes an observation. The combined text between the two posts responding to it is a total of zero words. You know how dumb a post with zero words sounds to me?
OK, so to tackle the question pondered, which seems to draw scorn but no ability to reciprocate, the Democrat Congress HAS raised minimum wage, and HAVE decided to allow the tax incentives to expire, and HAS funded the Iraqi war they say they oppose. So, the net effect is they have raised your taxes, given you nothing since most states had higher minimum wages anyway, and sent billions more dollars to Iraq.
There ya go Mark, Steven, and Andrew Sullivan. I really haven’t kept up with the Iraqi governmen, but I know OUR Democrat Congress has done all kinds of stuff. And if they keep at it, every Iraqi citizen will have free health care and higher standard of living than the US.
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.
Once again, Nancy Pelosi has pinned herself into a corner she can’t get out of. By making ethics a purely partisan issue over the last couple of years, she’s got a real problem on her hands now. Subsequently, she allowed a horrible bill to fly through Congress yesterday. In essence, they want to kick Jefferson out of Congress.
I got a REAL problem with that. Actually, more than one.
- Although caught with his hands in the cookie jar, he’s not been CONVICTED of anything. Nothing. Nada, Zip. In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty. Although the implications of his actions and the guilt of those around him are enough to suggest voters elect someone else, they are not enough IMO to justify legal actions. Congress should know better than that.
- This opens the door to very simply framing a legislator and kicking them out based on the publicity of the situation. I don’t like that at all. In the future, that’s all you’d see in the news media is one inflammatory accusation after another in an effort to get members of the other party kicked out.
- By casting judgment, for the second time in one day Congress has usurped the Judicial branch. To me that’s scary folks. A lot of people liked accusing Bush via the Patriot Act of Big Brother tactics. But, Congress passing the laws and enforcing them as well IS Big Brother.
- I see this as an effort by the Democrats to appease the criticism that they were going to clean house moreso than a concentrated effort to solve the core problems. Once William Jefferson is gone and forgotten, doing what they have so far, it’s back to the same old business as usual. That’s not fixing anything.
- I see this as a quick and easy way for the Democrats to get a thorn out of their side. Congressmen in trouble score all kinds of headlines. Former-Congressmen in trouble barely get a mention. Given the ethics platform Nancy Pelosi ran her slate on, and the way she ran it, I want Jefferson in her face until she actually does something about the ethical problems that she accused only one party of participating in. Too many people apparently bought that argument. So, those same people should hold her feet to the fire and demand reforms that she’s promised but never delivered on.
Immediately following the official indictment of William Jefferson, Congress reacted by passing House Resolution 451:
Resolved, That whenever a Member of the House of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress, is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in a court of the United States or any State, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall, not later than 30 days after the date of such indictment or charge–
(1) empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations; or
(2) if the Committee does not empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations, submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the actions, if any, the Committee has taken in response to the allegations.
The bill passed pretty much unanimously. However, I got a real issue with this legislation. It’s not terribly difficult to understand I hope. It goes something like this. It is the job of the judicial branch of our government to investigate crimes, it is the job of our legislative branch to make laws and collect and spend taxes. I don’t see what effect at all empaneling a subcommittee to do what the judicial branch is already doing will accomplish. And, what’s worse, I see where one of these subcommittees could actually conflict with and possibly interfere with the judicial efforts. In this case, there is apparently an ongoing investigation into the actions of William Jefferson that could possibly extend to other members of Congress. It strikes me that if a member knew they were being investigated, and managed to get on one of these subcommittees, they could very possibly interfere with the investigation itself by having the subcommittee make recommendations pointing blame elsewhere. Even though these subcommittees hold no legal power, they could very easily sway public and/or public sentiment. Which in a lot of cases, can interfere with the investigation itself.
This is feel-good reactionary piece of legislation that I don’t like. Although they probably would have faced some criticism, in my opinion, public statements condemning the actions of William Jefferson were all that was necessary. Once the actual facts are completely revealed, and of course, Jefferson is proven guilty, then the actions he took to circumvent the law should be examined by Congress and some action taken to prevent the same actions from occurring in the future.
The new, kinder, gentler, Nancy Pelosi led Congress.
When the new Democrat controlled Congress took over in January, they got a reprieve, with about a 15% jump in approval ratings just for being there. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of the Senate came in with guns firing. They passed all kinds of major legislation including raising the minimum wage. The approval rating increased. Things were looking good. However, starting a month or so ago, they got hung up on Iraq. They started inserting all kinds of pork into the military bill, which got it killed. They started setting deadlines for Iraq, which got the legislation killed. The result? A nearly 10% drop in favorability since they started their attack on the war in Iraq. The result on the President during this same time?
Largely unchanged.
Now, if the person supporting the war remains largely unchanged, and the people opposing the war are dropping like flies, that should tell ya something. What it tells me is that since the people opposing the war are living and dieing on that one issue right now, and they’re ratings have dropped BELOW the person supporting it, the answer is obvious. A couple of days ago I did a thingy on how I felt media was mis-representing the US sentiment by how they presented their polls. I think this is more evidence that I’m right.
A clue here to Nancy, Harry, and the Dems. Most people don’t like the war. However, they understand what’s going on. The more the Dems undermine our soldiers, and that’s what it LOOKS like, the worse it’s gonna get and the very apparent take-over of the White House in 2008 will be squandered exactly the same as it was by Kerry in 2004. They’ve read this situation totally wrong by relying on the extreme left caucus within their party and basically nothing but push polls in the media. And unless they start looking at the situation realistically instead of personally political, they’ll lose the White House in 2008 and probably Congress as well. You heard it here first. ( Well, maybe, I haven’t seen anyone else going out on this limb yet. )
15
May
Today is the national protest aimed at the oil producers where people are encouraged to not buy gas for one day as a sign of protect.
I won’t be buying gas today. My wife won’t be buying gas today. It’s not because either of us think this will work. It’s because we bought gas the previous day or two. and just don’t need any.
I really don’t think this accomplishes anything. What you don’t buy today, you’ll buy tomorrow. The oil companies could care less which day we bought their product. The only real protest that would work is when our entire society decides to eschew some things so that we don’t have to drive as much as we do now. Not just for one day, but everyday. Only then will there be any impact at all. So, I’d just as soon they quit pushing the idea that a one day temper tantrum will amount to anything and start pushing tangible ideas like giving up an activity that cuts gas use permanently.
And, buy higher mileage vehicles too.
And, build more eco-friendly houses, like the one I’m building now.
Then, they’ll see the writing on the wall that people want cheaper energy and look for something new that is not a vanishing resource.
President Bush’s favorability rating has hit traditional lows for a lame-duck president. Congress’s approvals are pretty much where they always are, which is pretty miserable. However, a LOT of people are saying this proves we need to be out of Iraq whether it means cutting and running, handing an entire country and military over to terrorists, or allowing chaos to totally overwhelm the entire Middle East.
I got a real problem with all this assuming.
I subscribe to a polling service called Vizu. Basically anyone can make a poll for any reason they like. I make them all the time. I love polls. However, polls are dangerous. Vizu IMO very clearly illustrates why. If you search on Vizu for “the war in Iraq”, you’ll get about 40+ polls. Some worded differently, many worded exactly the same. The most commonly worded one is “Do you support the war in Iraq?” Now, before I get to the result, think about how it’s worded. Who really wants a war anywhere? Pretty stupid question if you ask me. There’s only a hand full of people on this planet who really “want” a war. There are some who want to support out troops, so they’ll read the question a little differently. There are some who understand why we’re there, so they’ll support it. But, in order to justify answering that question positively, you have to add something to the question. So, actually I’m kind of surprised that that question merits only on average about 70% of the respondents “against” a war. Any war. The way it’s worded, Iraq is “just” a war.
Then there are polls worded a little differently, “Is the war pointless“. Now, along with that 71% that are against “the war in Iraq”, 72% think the war in Iraq is pointless. What that tells me is 72%, which is amazingly similar to 71%, don’t have a clue what’s going. And, I’ll bet, 72% don’t want to. Because if they did, they’d probably feel more compelled to support the war in Iraq. And, most people don’t want to support a war. Any war.
I think those numbers are fairly constant across the US. No one wants to support a war. So, the media, and some vested political interests, take each and every single poll they can, and connect the dots that since Bush’s ratings are so low, it’s BECAUSE people are against a very specific war. In order for that to be true, those 70% would have had to have been neutral at some point, and switched their minds at some point. That’s not what’s happening here folks. Sure, some have, but IMO what is happening is the media in general have appealed to a prevailing sentiment of people not wanting to “support” any way, and applying that to a specific circumstance that is Iraq. They’re push-polling and trying to affect national issues with the results they push.
Now, what would happen, do you think, if that question were asked a little differently? It applies to the exact same circumstance, only it’s more specific.
See what I mean? Although 70% of the people might be against supporting a war, any war, 100% of the people don’t want to “support” Al Qaeda. Not too many people would respond to that question tho. Because, if they did, they’d be supporting a war. A war in Iraq.
On CNN:
I don’t really get an anti-war impression from what she says here. However, a lot of people are reading that into it. Some are trashing her for it, others using it as a rallying cry. She’s a prominent Democrat, so she’s gonna get it regardless of whether she meant anything by it or not. It is what it is. However, She then goes on to basically contradict that statement:
SEBELIUS: So we’re borrowing equipment from around, but National Guard are our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in. And it will just make it that much slower.
ROBERTS: Have you asked for help from other states?
SEBELIUS: We are reaching out to other states, and a lot of offers are coming in. What we are going to establish is sort of a virtual inventory, so that people can put on our inventory what they have. And as we need it, we’ll put it down.
If she needs firetrucks, Humvees wont’ solve that problem. Secondly, unless there’s looting and rioting going on, I really don’t see a need for the National Guard here at all. As hard as CNN tried to push her into making this a political football, I think she did OK in trying to be civil. What she did do IMO is illustrate, as what happened in Louisiana, that governors seem in general to be completely ignorant of what resources they have in the event of a catastrophe and who is responsible for providing those resources. And, in light of that ignorance of what they have available, every single time, blame it on “someone else”. It’s her job to know what resources she did have at her disposal. If she doesn’t have the National Guard at her ready disposal, then she should have the state police. If she needs a firetruck, she should know where to find a firetruck. The National Guard doesn’t normally have firetrucks.
UPDATE: The Next Day.
Her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said the governor didn’t mean to imply that the state was ill-equipped to deal with this storm. Sebelius’ comments about National Guard equipment were, instead, meant as a warning about the state’s inability to handle additional disasters, such as another tornado or severe flooding, she said.
“We are doing absolutely fine right now,” Corcoran said. “What the governor is talking about is down the road.”
Sebelius has long spoken out about the fallout from sending National Guard units and equipment overseas. She says the war in Iraq is damaging domestic disaster readiness, because needed manpower is drained from states and the Pentagon is not replacing equipment at a fast enough rate.
Ohhh kayy.
I am getting sick and tired of politicians who use the devastation of others as opportunities to promote their own personal political philosphies.
Here’s their message:
Letter to House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture
Dear Member,
Tomorrow you will have a hearing on the nations current rural broadband programs. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for the Rural Broadband Loan Program, which subsidizes broadband service in rural areas. RUS has spent more than $871 million to provide this service since 2003. A report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development entitled Broadband Statistics to December 2006 found that, while the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the 30 countries it researched, our nation ranked 15th in broadband deployment penetration. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supports of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you abolish the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
Besides the more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the program has lost its focus on serving rural America. A 2005 audit conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General stated RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS definition of rural area is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitan areas Though the law does not explicitly forbid issuing loans to communities with preexisting service, we question whether the Rural Broadband Loan Program should be providing funds for competition in many of the communities served, while other communities go entirely without service.
Instead of allowing the free market to flourish, RUS has been subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in neighborhoods that already have this service. The government should no longer be allowed to waste the taxpayers money in bringing broadband to rural areas. This goal should be left entirely to the private technology sector. CCAGW asks that you support the abolition of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
I am completely opposed to their opinion. Completely.
First of all, they liken the broadband services as basically all being the same. They are not. Not even close. Just because a community has dial-up does not mean they have the resources to provide adequate bandwidth to lure industry. A typical DSL connection will not support an internet based company. In order to do this, you have to have huge chunks of bandwidth. The local cable company or DSL company doesn’t need that type of overhead to provide typical home-based internet browsing. As such, although most of the rural United States may have broadband penetration as CAGW states, they are at a disadvantage to attracting industries to most third world nations at this time. Given the financial and technological resources available in the United States, that is quite embarrassing to me.
On a national security level, clustering all our communications assets in very localized urban areas is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. There is no need to all of our critical data to be in Washington, DC. Put some in rural Kentucky. Put some in rural Nebraska. Hell, put some in Kansas. Spreading those resources out makes things a lot more complicated for enemies.
Now, on a bigger picture that Tom Schatz is missing, some people feel that urban areas are the main problem in global warming. There’s a phenomena called urban warming named specifically for that effect. It’s not much of an issue in rural areas. I have pondered several times on my blogs that it seems to me that de-urbanizing the United States would do the US, and the world, good. We no longer need to cluster a million people in a small area thereby overwhelming the Earth’s ability to provide. We don’t need huge expanses of concrete and asphalt. We just need to spread out a little. We need to live amongst the trees so those trees can counter our CO2 emissions a little more efficiently. We just don’t need cities in this day and age and they are doing more harm than good. A big part of the reason we don’t need cities any more is because of remarkably improved communications. It is no longer expected of a person to meet face-to-face every single time you have an important message. We don’t have to hand deliver documents. We don’t have to assemble 100 people in the same room to coordinate a message. The internet has solved all those issues. So, to say broadband is not worth the government investing in it is ludicrous and extremely short-sighted.
CAGW does a lot of good things and tackles a lot of truly wasteful spending. However, in this case, they’re 100% wrong.
I think everyone that comes here knows who George Tenet is.? I sort of doubt those who come here a lot have a clear idea of what I think of Tenet.? My feelings on George Tenet, in case you don’t want to look at the other posts, is quite simple.? Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno were the principals behind the failures that led to 9/11, George Tenet is the primary failure that led to our involvement in Iraq.? I won’t belabor the point again, you can read my other posts to see why I state that so strongly.? However, Tenet’s in the news again.? He, ( drum roll please ), wrote a book: At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
Now, the reason I came to the conclusion about Tenet that I did long ago is that my take on things is George Tenet was only concerned about one thing when he was director of the CIA.? That one thing was George Tenet.? I haven’t read his book.? I won’t read his book ( lack of time moreso than some political statement ).? But, from what I have gathered, he pretty much lays the blame for Iraq right in Bush’s lap.?
That’s what I expected him to do.? So, this doesn’t surprise me in the least bit.
Not one single atom of my soul is even curious as to why he would say what he is saying now.
Not one.
It is that predictable.? And, it proves what I’ve always felt about the man.? There has probably not been a more self-serving butthead in Washington in my lifetime.? And that, folks, is saying a LOT.
The claim he makes that has everyone talking right now is that there was very little debate within the Bush administration about going to war with Iraq.? At the time, I’m sure there wasn’t.? They relied on a ton of evidence to support their argument that Hussein had WMD’s.? They had a ton of evidence that Hussein was a military aggressor.? They had a tone of evidence that terrorist organizations existed in Iraq that were planning the US harm.? They had a ton of evidence that Iraq had violated just about every term of the United Nations imposed cease-fire.? They had a ton of evidence that the United States was at war with terrorist organizations sponsored by some unknown entity that had deep pockets ( a government perhaps? ).? In other words, the evidence was overwhelming that Iraq, in many ways, was a threat to the well-being of the United States.
All of that evidence was presented by George Tenet.
Now, he wants you to forget that and point your fingers at someone else for not doubting him at the time.
I’m not.? I hope others don’t as well.
If you want to point fingers at who was responsible for this Iraq mess right now, point it where the blame lies.? Point it at George Tenet for giving Bush everything he needed to justify it.? The reason George Tenet has remained at The Center of the Storm is because he created the storm.
