Just wanted to share this...
via Michelle Malkin
Make sure you follow the link to the photographs.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Quote of the Day
Actually the quote is from a few days ago, but "Quote of the Day" seemed like a much more concise title. The quote I'm referencing comes at about the 7-7 1/2 minute mark in the video: "They have more czars in five months than the Romanovs had in three hundred years!"
(Still no luck embedding the video clip. If anyone knows how to do that on here, please enlighten me!!)
(Still no luck embedding the video clip. If anyone knows how to do that on here, please enlighten me!!)
The White House: No "Fly" Zone
I was so excited, thinking that this was going to be the day that I figured out how to embed a video clip. Alas, 'twas not to be. Maybe you just can't do it on blogspot? At any rate, it kept giving me an "error" message. Now, on to the actual point of this post:
Headline: Obama & the Fly
Now, I'm usually the first in line to say, "Oh geeze, is there anything this man does that doesn't immediately receive oodles of media attention?" But this one actually made me laugh. Not to mention that as soon as I saw the headline I thought, "Haha, the White House is a 'No Fly Zone!' It's like a pun!" (No, seriously, that was my exact thought process. I probably shouldn't admit to things like that!) So I couldn't just pass up a perfectly packaged post title! Plus, it's kinda funny when the camera pans down to the dead fly on the floor-- such melodrama!
Headline: Obama & the Fly
Now, I'm usually the first in line to say, "Oh geeze, is there anything this man does that doesn't immediately receive oodles of media attention?" But this one actually made me laugh. Not to mention that as soon as I saw the headline I thought, "Haha, the White House is a 'No Fly Zone!' It's like a pun!" (No, seriously, that was my exact thought process. I probably shouldn't admit to things like that!) So I couldn't just pass up a perfectly packaged post title! Plus, it's kinda funny when the camera pans down to the dead fly on the floor-- such melodrama!
Double Standard
PBS board members have decided, after nearly 25 years, to enforce a law that went down on the books in 1985 to eliminate any programming that could be considered partisan or sectarian. This includes religious programming, such as the morning "Mass for Shut-Ins," which is popular among elderly Catholics who would otherwise miss out on such services. According to the decision, the station can keep these shows, however, no new religious programming will be allowed.
There is no federal law barring religious programming on public television, but PBS is worried about their image: They don't want to be seen as endorsing these programs. I don't watch much PBS, so I'm not sure about how they present their programming, but it would seem simple enough for them to make a disclaimer before the shows in question like other networks do before airing church services (or even infomercials, for that matter)-- "The following program in no way represents the views or opinions of so-and-so-station or it's subsidiaries, parent company, friends, siblings, uncles, or cousins..."
Things get a little stickier when you consider that PBS receives some of its funding from taxpayers. Critics feel that allowing the programming to continue at all amounts to taxpayer funded evangelism. But let's think for a minute about some other organizations who receive taxpayer money. Let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. It also receives federal funding. So, taxpayers-- many of whom oppose and even abhor the practice of abortion-- are indirectly funding abortions in the same way that the irreligious or antireligious are indirectly funding religious programming on PBS.
My point is this: PBS was formed to provide localized programming for communities across the nation. There are many communities across the nation who both benefit from, and appreciate religious programming. PBS should continue to air religious programming, and continue to proudly add new religious programming to their line-up, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions in the name of women's rights.
There is no federal law barring religious programming on public television, but PBS is worried about their image: They don't want to be seen as endorsing these programs. I don't watch much PBS, so I'm not sure about how they present their programming, but it would seem simple enough for them to make a disclaimer before the shows in question like other networks do before airing church services (or even infomercials, for that matter)-- "The following program in no way represents the views or opinions of so-and-so-station or it's subsidiaries, parent company, friends, siblings, uncles, or cousins..."
Things get a little stickier when you consider that PBS receives some of its funding from taxpayers. Critics feel that allowing the programming to continue at all amounts to taxpayer funded evangelism. But let's think for a minute about some other organizations who receive taxpayer money. Let's take, for example, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. It also receives federal funding. So, taxpayers-- many of whom oppose and even abhor the practice of abortion-- are indirectly funding abortions in the same way that the irreligious or antireligious are indirectly funding religious programming on PBS.
My point is this: PBS was formed to provide localized programming for communities across the nation. There are many communities across the nation who both benefit from, and appreciate religious programming. PBS should continue to air religious programming, and continue to proudly add new religious programming to their line-up, as long as Planned Parenthood is still performing abortions in the name of women's rights.
He Was For It Before He Was Against It...
Apparently, even when Obama helps make the rules, he doesn't believe he should follow them. From the article:
"The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service," McCaskill said in a statement. "The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. 'Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason. I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."
Obama voted for the legislation requiring specific notification to Congress of the reasons to dismiss an inspector general. Any move to fire an inspector general requires 30-days notice. Obama voted for the law to strengthen the independence of inspectors general." (emphasis mine)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Obama voted for that law before he realized he might one day have a problem with the independence of inspectors general.
"The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service," McCaskill said in a statement. "The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. 'Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason. I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible."
Obama voted for the legislation requiring specific notification to Congress of the reasons to dismiss an inspector general. Any move to fire an inspector general requires 30-days notice. Obama voted for the law to strengthen the independence of inspectors general." (emphasis mine)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Obama voted for that law before he realized he might one day have a problem with the independence of inspectors general.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Reading List
Not sure if I'll make this a regular feature, or just something that I do every once in awhile, but I thought that today was a good news/opinion day, and there were several pieces I enjoyed reading, so I'm posting links for you, too.
Thomas Sowell: Equality or Payback?
Lou Pritchett's Open Letter to Barack Obama
Michelle Malkin: Sen. Coburn: Our Watchdog
Daily Mail Online: Barking but true...
MSNBC: Sarah Palin Accepts Letterman Apology
Thomas Sowell: Equality or Payback?
Lou Pritchett's Open Letter to Barack Obama
Michelle Malkin: Sen. Coburn: Our Watchdog
Daily Mail Online: Barking but true...
MSNBC: Sarah Palin Accepts Letterman Apology
Just What The World Has Been Waiting For!
The first "anti-stab" knife will be soon be available for purchase in the UK. The knife, which has a rounded edge instead of a point is designed to snag on clothing or skin, making it more difficult to stab someone. It will retail for around £40-50 (about $50-65) and the Home Office's Design and Technology Alliance (whose job is to research products that can deter crime) gives it a "very favourable" review.
"It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound," the knife's creator said. "Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone." Now, that may seem like an excellent selling point to some, however when you consider that Britain has a gun ban, a stab-resistant knife in your drawer isn't going to be much of a comfort to you if someone is breaking into your home.
By the way, the comments section on the timesonline article is a fairly amusing read-- most of the people (the ones who aren't telling the "Yanks" to quit commenting on their society) from the UK and other parts of Europe are just as flabbergasted by such a product.
"It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound," the knife's creator said. "Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone." Now, that may seem like an excellent selling point to some, however when you consider that Britain has a gun ban, a stab-resistant knife in your drawer isn't going to be much of a comfort to you if someone is breaking into your home.
By the way, the comments section on the timesonline article is a fairly amusing read-- most of the people (the ones who aren't telling the "Yanks" to quit commenting on their society) from the UK and other parts of Europe are just as flabbergasted by such a product.
ABC News to become the All Barack Channel
On June 24, according to Drudge Report, "ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care..."
Now, it's not like the president has never before taken over television when you would rather be watching something else (and by this, I mean every president since TV was invented-- and they always seem to schedule their speeches for the times when the few shows I actually watch are showing. It's frustrating. I need to invest in a DVR, I think.). But this isn't quite the same. First, anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver the World News from inside the White House, a gimmick played just a couple of weeks ago or so by NBC Nightly News. Following this, however, will be a prime time special entitled "Prescription for America," in which Obama and other White House officials will be allowed to sing the virtues of health-care-for-all without the inconvenience of opposing viewpoints. The Republican National Committee requested the opportunity to provide that opposing viewpoint; their request was denied.
The Chief of Staff of the RNC, Ken McKay, sent a letter to ABC News, expressing his worry that without any voice of opposition, the program would become little more than "a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda." In response, ABC News assured the public that "ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue." And from whence will these diverse voices hail? "ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control." Highly reassuring words from just one of the many news sources in the deep end of the tank for Obama.
Now, it's not like the president has never before taken over television when you would rather be watching something else (and by this, I mean every president since TV was invented-- and they always seem to schedule their speeches for the times when the few shows I actually watch are showing. It's frustrating. I need to invest in a DVR, I think.). But this isn't quite the same. First, anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver the World News from inside the White House, a gimmick played just a couple of weeks ago or so by NBC Nightly News. Following this, however, will be a prime time special entitled "Prescription for America," in which Obama and other White House officials will be allowed to sing the virtues of health-care-for-all without the inconvenience of opposing viewpoints. The Republican National Committee requested the opportunity to provide that opposing viewpoint; their request was denied.
The Chief of Staff of the RNC, Ken McKay, sent a letter to ABC News, expressing his worry that without any voice of opposition, the program would become little more than "a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda." In response, ABC News assured the public that "ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue." And from whence will these diverse voices hail? "ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control." Highly reassuring words from just one of the many news sources in the deep end of the tank for Obama.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Lauer / Palin
My very favorite trait of Sarah Palin's is that she refuses to be talked over or talked down to in an interview. She is always, always in control of the conversation and does not allow her interviewer to take her down tangential roads that end in pointless rhetoric. She stays on topic and does not back down when her stand is questioned.
I have yet to figure out how to embed a video clip on here, so I'm just going to give you the link and hope that you click it and watch.
A little background: Matt Lauer is interviewing Sarah Palin about a deal in the works to get oil from Alaska's North Slope to the rest of the U.S., via pipeline. However, the bulk of the interview is dedicated to the ongoing back-and-forth between Palin and David Letterman over disparaging remarks Letterman made about Palin's daughter. (Just which daughter Letterman was actually disparaging is open to interpretation, as 14-year-old Willow was with Palin during her recent trip to New York. However, Letterman claims that the "joke" was about 18-year-old Bristol, as though that somehow makes it better.)
I have yet to figure out how to embed a video clip on here, so I'm just going to give you the link and hope that you click it and watch.
A little background: Matt Lauer is interviewing Sarah Palin about a deal in the works to get oil from Alaska's North Slope to the rest of the U.S., via pipeline. However, the bulk of the interview is dedicated to the ongoing back-and-forth between Palin and David Letterman over disparaging remarks Letterman made about Palin's daughter. (Just which daughter Letterman was actually disparaging is open to interpretation, as 14-year-old Willow was with Palin during her recent trip to New York. However, Letterman claims that the "joke" was about 18-year-old Bristol, as though that somehow makes it better.)
Justice Is Blind-- Just Not COLOR Blind
In a 2001 speech at the University of California, Berkely Law School, Judge Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This has caused much concern that, should she be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor's admitted racial bias could affect her decision-making in sensitive cases. While her supporters claim that she probably could have worded her statement differently, it is hard to understand how their intent could be any different, particularly when many other things she has on similar matters are taken into account.
In an early 1990's interview, Sotomayor had this to say on the subject of merit: "I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means and in any context whether it is judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself bring merit to the system." According to Sotomayor, your experiences are what matter-- whether or not your worked hard in meeting these experiences is irrelevant. Following this logic, then your experiences are what make you who you are. If you are raised in a low-income family on the poor side of town, and that family doesn't emphasize the value of an education or encourage learning and self-motivation, then it is not your fault if you have a hard time excelling-- or even just getting by-- the concept of merit is biased against you.
In fact, Sotomayor freely admits that affirmative action got her where she is now. "I am the perfect affirmative action baby," she said, acknowledging that due to her background, and in spite of test scores lower than those usually exhibited by students in Princeton and Yale Law School, she was admitted and given scholarships to attend both schools. That's not to say that she spent her life slacking off and hoping in her racial background to get by-- by all accounts, Sotomayor worked hard, both in school and her professional life.
In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which came before Sotomayor in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor sided with Judges Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack in a per curiam decision to uphold a lower-court decision against the plaintiff, and in favor of the City of New Haven's decision to scrap test results after no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. Apparently, the "richness" of Sotomayor's experiences was not enough to enable her to empathize with eighteen firefighters-- one of them Hispanic-- whose merit was incorrectly color-coded. I find it ironic that, in the end, Sotomayor reached the same conclusion as "a white male who hasn't lived that life."
In the interview from the early 1990's, Sotomayor also said, "I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench." However, it shouldn't. The sense of fairness in our courts is derived from the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States. Those laws are the same, whether they are carried out by a white judge, a black judge, or any judge in between. It is nobody's job to interpret the Constitution, as though it is written in a mysterious, cryptic code. Its meaning is plain, and it applies to everyone equally. When a judge begins making decisions on the basis of race, gender, or past experience, the Constitution ceases to be the law of the land, and we the people become subject to the whims of individual judges.
In an early 1990's interview, Sotomayor had this to say on the subject of merit: "I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means and in any context whether it is judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself bring merit to the system." According to Sotomayor, your experiences are what matter-- whether or not your worked hard in meeting these experiences is irrelevant. Following this logic, then your experiences are what make you who you are. If you are raised in a low-income family on the poor side of town, and that family doesn't emphasize the value of an education or encourage learning and self-motivation, then it is not your fault if you have a hard time excelling-- or even just getting by-- the concept of merit is biased against you.
In fact, Sotomayor freely admits that affirmative action got her where she is now. "I am the perfect affirmative action baby," she said, acknowledging that due to her background, and in spite of test scores lower than those usually exhibited by students in Princeton and Yale Law School, she was admitted and given scholarships to attend both schools. That's not to say that she spent her life slacking off and hoping in her racial background to get by-- by all accounts, Sotomayor worked hard, both in school and her professional life.
In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which came before Sotomayor in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor sided with Judges Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack in a per curiam decision to uphold a lower-court decision against the plaintiff, and in favor of the City of New Haven's decision to scrap test results after no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. Apparently, the "richness" of Sotomayor's experiences was not enough to enable her to empathize with eighteen firefighters-- one of them Hispanic-- whose merit was incorrectly color-coded. I find it ironic that, in the end, Sotomayor reached the same conclusion as "a white male who hasn't lived that life."
In the interview from the early 1990's, Sotomayor also said, "I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench." However, it shouldn't. The sense of fairness in our courts is derived from the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States. Those laws are the same, whether they are carried out by a white judge, a black judge, or any judge in between. It is nobody's job to interpret the Constitution, as though it is written in a mysterious, cryptic code. Its meaning is plain, and it applies to everyone equally. When a judge begins making decisions on the basis of race, gender, or past experience, the Constitution ceases to be the law of the land, and we the people become subject to the whims of individual judges.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Just Say No (to ObamaCare)
Welcome to the inauguration of a new blogging category!
This is one of the many situations we all have to look forward to, should Obama's plans for "fixing" health care in our country come to fruition.
From the "comments" section following the story:
"Its every day now.. Labour's National Health disaster.."
"...Be persisten girls. You pay for it. NHS is not free!"
Just Say No to ObamaCare!!
This is one of the many situations we all have to look forward to, should Obama's plans for "fixing" health care in our country come to fruition.
From the "comments" section following the story:
"Its every day now.. Labour's National Health disaster.."
"...Be persisten girls. You pay for it. NHS is not free!"
Just Say No to ObamaCare!!
Monday, June 8, 2009
Words (temporarily) Fail Me...
This entire article had my thoughts sputtering incoherently, but when I got to this gem, I think I felt a minor explosion somewhere in my brain:
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a New York senator at the time as well as a presidential candidate, said a mandate was essential. At one point, she said she was open to garnisheeing the wages of anyone who refused to comply."
That's right. If you decide that you cannot afford or do not want health insurance, she thinks it's a great idea to just TAKE THE MONEY FROM YOU WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!
I intend to spend more time exploring the road to Hell by way of socialized medicine, but I just had to "impulse-blog" on this piece. It absolutely blows my mind that ANYONE would so SHAMELESSLY admit that they think they (as members of a bloated beauracracy) have ANY right to money that THEY DIDN'T EARN!! I think that that bothers me more than the fact that she said it-- the fact that she said it without immediately hanging her head in SHAME and apologizing for such an arrogant display of presumptuousness. Then again, that she made the statement at all seems to indicate that she has no shame.
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a New York senator at the time as well as a presidential candidate, said a mandate was essential. At one point, she said she was open to garnisheeing the wages of anyone who refused to comply."
That's right. If you decide that you cannot afford or do not want health insurance, she thinks it's a great idea to just TAKE THE MONEY FROM YOU WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!
I intend to spend more time exploring the road to Hell by way of socialized medicine, but I just had to "impulse-blog" on this piece. It absolutely blows my mind that ANYONE would so SHAMELESSLY admit that they think they (as members of a bloated beauracracy) have ANY right to money that THEY DIDN'T EARN!! I think that that bothers me more than the fact that she said it-- the fact that she said it without immediately hanging her head in SHAME and apologizing for such an arrogant display of presumptuousness. Then again, that she made the statement at all seems to indicate that she has no shame.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Let's Be More Like Europe!
Everyone knows that if you want to meet the true connoisseurs of culture, or the real paragons of progressivism you simply have to travel to Europe. Anything we can do the Europeans can do better-- and look better while doing it, right? Well, it's true if you believe everything you hear, anyway. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard someone extolling the virtues of the Europeans-- how they dress better, how they are more tolerant, how they offer free health care, how they care more about the environment, etc. I often hear people-- both regular every day people, and many of the "people who matter" (you know the type)-- claiming that Americans should strive to be more like Europeans, especially when it comes to government. It turns out however, that the current en vogue trendiness of European socialism may be losing some of its popularity-- in Europe, at least.
Elections have been taking place across the European Union, and the results may surprise you. It seems that many member countries of the EU are moving slowly but surely to the right. According to suggestions by exit polls, the 736-seat EU Parliament will consist of 263-273 conservatives (which comes out to about roughly 36-37% of the total seats), and 155-165 "center left" members (for a total of about 21-22%). In France, 28.3% of the vote went to conservatives, followed by 17.5% for the Socialist Party. Right leaning parties also won in Italy and Belgium, while in Spain and Britain, the conservatives are either tied with or ahead of their opposition. In Austria, the "rightist" Freedom Party was the winner.
So there you have it, folks: Europe has spoken. Throw away your old ratty socialist garb and don the new and improved gowns of conservatism.
(And for the record, I'm honestly not so naive as to think that this heralds the death of socialism... I just like seeing the "but people really do want socialism" bubble burst time and again!)
Elections have been taking place across the European Union, and the results may surprise you. It seems that many member countries of the EU are moving slowly but surely to the right. According to suggestions by exit polls, the 736-seat EU Parliament will consist of 263-273 conservatives (which comes out to about roughly 36-37% of the total seats), and 155-165 "center left" members (for a total of about 21-22%). In France, 28.3% of the vote went to conservatives, followed by 17.5% for the Socialist Party. Right leaning parties also won in Italy and Belgium, while in Spain and Britain, the conservatives are either tied with or ahead of their opposition. In Austria, the "rightist" Freedom Party was the winner.
So there you have it, folks: Europe has spoken. Throw away your old ratty socialist garb and don the new and improved gowns of conservatism.
(And for the record, I'm honestly not so naive as to think that this heralds the death of socialism... I just like seeing the "but people really do want socialism" bubble burst time and again!)
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Um... Duh...
"Is the press giving the president a free pass?" That's the tagline of this article from Newsweek. "The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time," says author Robert J. Samuelson, who goes on to explain that this love affair is not good for America. I concur. My only question: What took Newsweek so long to notice what regular people have been aware of since the begining?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
