Another terrible candidate who may very well wind up Governor of New York. It’s funny how the blame for the recession goes: blame Bush, blame the private sector, blame greed, blame de-regulation, blame the Republicans. No mention is ever made of the absolute fraud that Democrats perpetrated by forcing loose lending standards onto banks so they could make a fat buck on poor and lower middle class home owners. This is the heart and soul, the core of the crash we’re still trying to recover from. Now, one of the primary architects of that crash is seeking the governorship of New York by attempting to further cripple the banks he so roundly screwed in his years at HUD. He has no business even sniffing the chair once occupied by Theodore Roosevelt.
Andrew Cuomo
February 8th, 2010Weapons of Mass Delusion
February 7th, 2010“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.”
He did not, as so many sources are claiming on the right, say that we will never see snow in Washington DC again. As the city is buried under 2 feet this week, that rumor has spread like wild fire. I’m well aware of the argument that goes, a single isolated day or season of unexpectedly cool weather cannot refute the much larger sample of data that demonstrates the earth is indeed warming. This is why those “in the know” scoff (usually audibly) when some global warming doubter announces “Take that Al Gore!” in the middle of a snow storm. I still make those jokes, mostly because they’re funny.
Obviously, Mother Nature is unfamiliar with the fickle nature of public opinion. One or two snowstorms and everyone forgets about what our president calls “the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” Clearly Mother Nature - just like every other aspect of universal existence in the minds of left wing idealogues - does not know what’s best for her.
It’s not that I’m disagreeing with the argument above. Obviously, one cold winter cannot refute the overall trend. Although, trends are funny things when selected out of a 4 and a half billion year history. There’s a lot of room to pick and choose where to start and end things in order to make the argument you have already decided is most correct. The beauty of numbers is that any statistician can manipulate them to look however he or she wants. And how do we know a new trend is not starting right now? But let’s go with the logical assertion: isolated climatological events cannot disprove overall trends.
RFKJR starts off his mis-quoted article with an anecdote that leads to this statement:
“Those odd climatological phenomena led me to reflect on the rapidly changing weather patterns that are altering the way we live. Lightning storms and strikes have tripled just since the beginning of the decade on Cape Cod.”
See, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. If it’s not valid to use these individual events to disprove “overwhelming scientific evidence,” why is it acceptable to use other isolated events to scare the bejesus out of everyone? Hurricanes, tornadoes, lighting storms, heat waves… every single time one of these events happens, you are guaranteed to find some prophet of doom or other wetting his pants in hysteria over the coming calamity. You can almost hear the panic after the last three years of relatively quiet hurricane activity (despite the dire warnings). What are they going to scare us with now?
You will even notice that growing talk of a cooling trend since 1998 has led the panicky left to change their mantra from “global warming” to the supremely arrogant “climate change” so as to account for their inability to accurately predict what Mother Nature will do next. Now, virtually any climate event at all can prove the need for drastic government action. The opposite of “climate change” is the one condition we can say with absolute certainty will never happen: climate stasis.
While we’re on the subject of double standards:
Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy … as Upton Sinclair pointed out, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’”
Upton Sinclaire makes a very good point. The problem is, RFKJR and the left can only see one side of the coin. When governments and international communities pour money into studies, grants and stipends we call it “research.” When private industries do the same thing, we call it deception. On the left it’s science, on the right it’s lobbying. RFKJR either denies or ignores the possibility that money contributed to various scientific endeavors does not have a similar corrupting influence. Only the evil oil companies are corrupted by the need to prolong their relevance. Climate scientists are not interested in self service, they are driven only by a noble concern for generations of the distant future.
The major problem with global warming or climate change or whatever else the alarmists want to call it now is the massive leap of assumptions they expect us to make. First, we must accept that global warming is actual and not going to reverse any time soon. Next, we must assume that major changes are occurring largely because of human behavior. We then must assume that a complete elimination of that behavior (say, zero carbon output) will suddenly reverse the earth back to “normal” behavior. We assume that any alternative energy source we discover will not have some other negative impact on the surrounding environment (like Ethanol for example). And finally, we assume that massive government investment in various unprofitable technologies will magically make those solutions profitable and palatable.
This goes without mentioning the radical left who believe global governments should institute severe restrictions on corporate and individual behavior. Suppressed economic activity is simply a reality that we must all come to accept in order to divert disaster. This camp does not seem to understand that environmentalism is a luxury of wealthy societies. Americans are environmentally minded mostly because we can afford to be. If you doubt that, take a look at the abysmal record of environmental consciousness in the developing world. When you have no idea where your next meal is coming from, you’re much less interested in the consequences of obtaining it. It’s not that some level-headed “solutions” like reasonable investment in alternative energy are such terrbile ideas. But if the choice is between radical government intervention or tidal waves: I’ll take the tidal waves.
Words
February 6th, 20101. Palin is right. Using the word the way Rahm Emanuel used it is identical to using the N-word to refer to black people. If you want to talk historic discrimination, nobody tops the handicapped. It’s just a smaller and less well-heeled lobby that will complain.
2. Rush is half right. People can say whatever they want. Of course, I’ll wager all the money America owes to China that while Rush will continue to insult the handicapped, there’s zero chance he’ll ever use the second word on the air. That’s a double standard in my book.
3. Speaking of double standards, if Emanuel were a Republican the heat would be much higher. There’s no doubt about it. Where were the excoriators of Don Imus when Reid made his slur? Where is the pitchfork carrying mob that came after Larry Johnson now that a prominent Democrat is insulting the handicapped? Such people are enormous hypocrites. The reason Reid and Emanuel get off with a slap on the wrist is that most of the minders of everyone else’s business tend to be Democrats and the hypocrites who will bring down non-political or right wing quarry will look the other way when it’s one of their own. With the exception of the fanatically relgious, political correctness is a left wing phenomenon. Palin is just finding this out.
4. This whole conversation is absurd. Rahm Emanuel should be careful what he says in a public forum because he’s a public official. That said, firing him over it would be ridiculous; although in most corporate jobs, if one were caught making such a slur there would be zero chance they would get out of it without at least a few hours of diversity brainwashing. If the CEO of Bank of America were overheard saying what Emanuel said for example, the chorus calling for his head would be deafening - and Emanuel would undoubtedly be part of it. Rush Limbaugh is a radio host, he can say whatever he wants. You will notice Don Imus has been back in business for some time now. That’s a testament to the reality that the American people couldn’t care less about any of this. They’re far more concerned with how the administration Emanuel represents is wasting their tax money. Let’s get back to that, shall we?
Football, Healthcare and Entitlement
February 5th, 2010“The fans have been loyal customers. They’ve made everyone rich. They deserve some respect.”
Nope. Fans deserve whatever they’ve paid for. A football game, a beer, a hot dog, a jersey, a DVD, whatever. That’s it. The only demographic outside of owners, players and NFL employees who have any claim on the NFL are season ticket holders. If no games are ever played again, they are entitled to reimbursement because they’ve paid for games they aren’t going to get to see. I’m sure television networks, radio stations and other businesses have certain agreements but they have their own armies of lawyers and bureaucrats to make sure they are looked after.
It’s like saying I’m entitled to health care. Football - just like health care - is the product of someone else’s labor. Nobody is entitled to it - not even the players and owners. Once you introduce entitlement into the equation, it becomes slavery. It sounds silly but pretend for a moment nobody wanted to play football but yet “fans” considered themselves entitled to seeing it on a regular basis. Someone would have to be forced to play it. This is why “a right to” vs. “a freedom to” are two completely different concepts. I know Wetzel just said fans deserve respect but honestly, I’m not sure what that means. He also said this:
“People want to watch football on Sunday and asking them to choose sides in a fight over such fabulous fortunes just exasperates their frustrations. This is an entertainment diversion, just go play.”
I think he was reiterating what he considers would be conventional wisdom amongst fans but anyone who makes those assumptions is wrong. For players, this is not a diversion. It’s what they get paid to do. For owners, it’s a massive investment to which they’ve devoted plenty of time and money. It’s also a livelihood for many employees who represent neither side. None of them are entitled to the NFL’s perpetual continuance but it’s only an entertainment diversion to fans - and that’s precisely why they deserve nothing beyond what they’ve already paid for.
Somewhere along the line, Americans have confused freedom with entitlement. I’m entitled to my job, I’m entitled to my health care, I’m entitled to a certain salary, I’m entitled to education for my kids paid for by someone else, I’m entitled to “healthy choices” on someone else food menu, I’m entitled to a smoke free environment under someone else’s roof, I’m entitled to my IPOD, I’m entitled to football games on Sundays… Bull. You’re not entitled to any of it. You’re fortunate to live in a society that is capable of producing those things and you’re free to partake in them provided you can afford to do so, they are avaialble and that you agree to allow others to enjoy or not enjoy these various fruits as they see fit.
Don’t get me wrong. I love football. I own numerous Dolphins jerseys, I’ve attended more than my share of football games, I partake in multiple fantasy football leagues, I pay particular attention to the weekly spreads, I’ve bought DirecTV just for the NFL package… It would be nothing short of tragic to me if somehow the NFL ceased to operate for a season or longer. However, if Peyton Manning thinks he isn’t making enough money, he’s perfectly free to sit out until he gets a contract he’s satisfied with. If Dan Snyder is unhappy with the millions he’s currently raking in and thinks he should lock the players out for a bigger profit - good for him. I’m sure I’ll have an opinion on who is right and who is wrong but that’s for the courts to decide. If they all decide to retire and become Scientologists, I guess I’ll have to hope they start showing 24 reruns on Sunday.
Wetzel is right about one thing. The current NFL product is excellent. Both sides are foolish to consider tinkering with it so they can make a few extra bucks. I hope they fix this long before next season. If they don’t, look on the bright side: at least we’ll be spared the embarrasment of watching Brett Favre end his career on an interception for the third time.
Go Lindsey!
February 4th, 2010“For those of you who follow SI Covers, know that female athletes are RARELY featured on the cover.”
Really? There aren’t too many men on the cover of Playboy either. Profitable organizations cater to the demographic that supports them. Of course women are not often featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated. I hate to break it to you but women’s sports are not even remotely as profitable as men’s sports. It’s not because of discimination or chauvanism. It’s because men are better athletes, their sporting events are more interesting to watch and - most importantly of all - men are by and large the demographic that have the most interest in watching sports in the first place. The National Organization for Women aren’t buying Sports Illustrated in massive numbers. If you don’t like it, read Vanity Fair.
Lindsey Vonn’s a big girl. She has the freedom to make her own decisions. If she wants to appear on the cover of a magazine and pose provocatively, that’s her business. I hope she makes millions. Personally, I don’t see how this pose is provocative. This is what skiers look like when they ski down the mountain - even the men. But if she were to appear on the cover of Hustler with her shirt off and a beer in her hand, more power to her. I’d definitely buy it.
I like this comment: “she also represents (the) norm of feminine attractiveness.” Attractiveness by nature is going to be exclusive. Whether it’s fat girls, thin girls, white girls, black girls or 11 foot blue babes with long tails and dreadlocks, someone’s getting left out. There has to be some norm. Why shouldn’t it be Lindsey Vonn? All of this feminist “objectification” BS comes from un-attractive women who are disappointed that they are not sex symbols and envious of those who are. Besides, it cuts both ways. Are we going to pretend that McDreamy and McSteamy are not objectifying nicknames for fictional male characters created soley for their sex appeal to women? Sports is entertainment and that’s one entertaining cover.
Orson Wellesian
February 4th, 2010For the love of God.
Jon Stewart on O’Reilly
February 4th, 2010“Stewart argued that, unlike a newspaper with clearly labeled news and opinion sections, viewers might not realize that shows such as Glenn Beck’s and O’Reilly’s were not news, to which O’Reilly answered that it’s so obvious that his program belongs in the “opinion” category that even people in Pakistan know it — a point he illustrated by doing an impression of Pakistani viewers watching his show.”
“Viewers might not realize…” Jon Stewart himself defends the Daily Show repeatedly by rightly pointing out that viewers are smart enough to understand what they’re seeing. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He criticizes Cramer for misleading viewiers but then defends his own show as not serious. He criticizes FoxNews for misleading viewers while his own brand of misleading is just “entertainment” or “fake news.”
I’m sure there’s plenty of bias to be found in the general “objective” news segments on Fox. Stewart for whatever reason makes no attempt to demonstrate that. Instead, he goes after shows that are clearly opinion such as Hannity, Beck or O’Reilly. These shows are no different than Maddow, Olberman … The Daily Show. Stewart has acknowledged in interviews that his own show has a “liberal” bias. He defends this by hiding behind the words “fake” or “funny” as if that somehow makes his show different than O’Reilly. He makes the same defense when he’s criticized for not asking tough questions or taking interviews seriously enough. He’s not serious, except when he wants to be. None of these shows are “news” if by “news” we mean the unbiased coverage of current events.
As a matter of fact, finding such outlets anywhere is pretty scarce. For a while, there was a somewhat golden age of television journalism where everyone was watching the same three channels and the journalists made an effort to report the news without inserting their own opinionated slant. This generation sees that age as the norm because we grew up with it. We definitely view that era through rose colored glasses but also, that was an anomaly in the history of news. For a while, we were all watching the same information and having the same conversation. The advent of cable and the Internet promptly ended that circumstance and we’ve gone back to a million information outlets and a million fractured conversations.
This is how it’s looked through most of our history. Various camps setting up “news” sources and working hard to smear eachother, promote their own interests, defend their own points of view, etc. FoxNews is the norm not the exception. And if you think CNN, NBC, Time, The New York Times, the Associated Press and many others aren’t slanted towards the left, you just aren’t paying attention. Stewart complains that Fox does not warn its viewers of the slant on some of its shows (as if say, Hannity’s show being opinion is not self evident). Meanwhile, he himself does not provide any warning for his own show’s admittedly liberal bias. This is OK because John Stewart is just trying to be funny. Comedy gets a free pass. Stewart’s too consumed by his own hyperbole to notice his own hypocrisy.
Case in Point From the Previous Post
February 3rd, 2010“’You have to look at the big picture of what [the incentives] are providing,’ said Ramadan. ‘Not only are you getting cleaner energy, you also have the creation of jobs in that sector. And because there are special incentives for companies that are New Jersey-based, it brings business to the state.’”
Wrong. If that money were freed up and solar power let to die of natural causes, the money might go towards more useful public functions - such as education or law enforcement. If it’s freed up in the form of less taxes, that money might go towards industries consumers actually find valuable. The same goes for the remark about jobs. If that money is not spent on solar welfare, maybe those jobs are created in education or law enforcement or in the private sector which actually caters to consumer demand vs. government preference.
“The incubator” is just another word for life support to an industry that can’t survive without siphoning tax dollars to keep it afloat. Subsidies such as this injure the economy, they don’t help it. If government would get the hell out of the way and let consumer demand drive innovation rather than government hubris, perhaps we would emerge from this cloud of debt and bureaucracy that so frustrates the American public. Perhaps a real alternative energy source that consumers want and businesses find profitable will be discovered. It will never happen while government tries to pre-determine winners and losers.
Conflict of Interest?
February 3rd, 2010Ray LaHood “misspoke” on the Toyota Recall.
Really? Why should I trust anything that Ray LaHood has to say regarding Toyota? He represents an administration that A.) was elected largely with money contributed by labor unions who clearly have no reason to love Toyota and B.) currently owns two of Toyota’s major competitors outright. In private business, we call this a conflict of interest. It would be similar to Pete Rose gambling on the Reds. This administration seems either to have no concept of this conflict or chooses to ignore the conflict altogether.
The primary problem with all of these government purchases of private sector industries is the damage it does to the free market. Privately owned businesses have to maintain profit margins. To do so, they must make decisions based on the free choices of individual consumers. Publicly owned entities can run at enormous deficits and have no reason to provide anything of value to consumers. They allow government to make those decisions for consumers. For instance: what kind of car to drive, what kind of foods to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, what sort of and how much fuel consumers choose to use, etc. It’s no secret that many in the Obama administration and on the left in general do not like the decisions consumers are making concerning these (and many other) areas of private life. The more control government has over these industries, the easier it is for them to force the behavior that they (and their campaign contributers) would like to see out of consumers. In other words: less freedom.
A second problem is demonstrated by the Toyota controversey. Perhaps Toyota has made some poor decisions regarding their gas pedals and perhaps the government is doing the right thing here. They seem to be at least operating honestly. Nevertheless, why should I trust a government with such glaring conflicts of interest? If an umpire is on the bankroll of one of the two teams he is umpiring, he has every motive to be biased towards the side buttering his bread. His ability to objectively judge the situation is severely compromised whether that conflict exists in perception or reality. Another Obama turd in the public punch bowl.
Tim Tebow
February 3rd, 2010“But I’d rather see an athlete behave with conviction than degrade himself to make money. I’d rather hear Tebow talk about what God has done for him than read another story about an athlete who beats up his wife or girlfriend.”
Great column by Jemele Hill. I hate the abortion discussion in this country. Both sides of the debate tend to be nauseating, but give Tebow credit. He’s standing up for what he believes in and he’s doing it with more class than most of these pro-this or pro-that fools generally tend to display. It’s safe to say that nobody really doubts Tim Tebow’s courage at this point, even if it isn’t as courageous as it once was to stand in the pocket against that celebrated Mickey Andrews defense. This decision though took more courage than anything Tebow ever did on the field. You don’t have to agree with him but put aside your politics for five seconds and show this kid some respect. As Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade would say:
“He has chosen a path. It’s the right path. It’s a path made of principle that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.”