- MCCAIN SAYS HE MIGHT AGREE TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL TO TRY BINLADEN IF HE WAS CAUGHT ALIVE.
- HOT AIR HIS THE DETAILS - ON THIS SHITFORBRAINS IDEA.
- AND INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL NOW WOULD CHIEFLY BE A INJUSTICE BECAUSE THE EUROWEWEENIES
- AND ANYTHING LESS THAN DEATH FOR BINLADEN WOULD A GRAVE MISCARIAGE OF JUSTICE.
- NUREMBERG HAD THE DEATH PENALTY - AND WAS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL, ALBEIT ONE WITH INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION.
- BY FLOATING THIS, MCCAIN ONCE AGAIN PROVES HE IS NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE BUT A CENTRIST/MAVERICK.
- IF HE WASN'T THE ONLY TRUSTWORTHY HAWK IN THE RACE I WOULD NOT VOTE AT ALL THIS GO ROUND.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
CENTRIST MCCAIN SENSELESSLY PANDERS FOR LIBERAL VOTES AGAIN: SUGGEST AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR BINLADEN MIGHT BE OKAY WITH HIM
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms. Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment." .... The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric - one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. - save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans . Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans - a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama - who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists - has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.....
The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans - most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama. What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain). Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans - a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
More here
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms. Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment." .... The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric - one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. - save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans . Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans - a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama - who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists - has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.....
The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans - most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama. What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain). Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans - a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
More here
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Wikipedia versus "Knol"
I recently put up on Paralipomena an article about "Knol" -- the new Google alternative to Wikipedia. I imagine that most readers here are well aware that Wikipedia is totally unreliable on politically contentious matters. Anything opposed to Green/Left beliefs gets wiped rapidly -- sometimes within minutes. Try to find on Wikipedia anything much that argues against global warming if you don't believe me. Leftists have been devotees of political censorship ever since Napoleon. They just cannot afford to have people hear the whole story about their nonsense. And Wikpedia turns them loose.
One has to laugh at Wikipedia protestations of "neutrality". The bias is so bad that some people are predicting the demise of Wikipedia.
So an alternative that allows only the original author to delete stuff was badly needed. And Knol seems to meet that need. I thought therefore that I might help to get the ball rolling by putting up a few articles. The first one I put up is here.
I soon began to see the virtue of the Google approach. I have already received several steamed-up and ill-informed emails from a guy named Cyrus Robinson (cyrus.robinson@gimail.af.mil) who objects to what I have written. Clearly, if I had put the same stuff up on Wikipedia, he would have deleted it immediately. But on Knol he cannot.
It's ironical that the Leftists at Google are doing something that may help conservatives so I wonder how long that can last. Will Google start finding pretexts to delete conservative comments? Time will tell.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
One has to laugh at Wikipedia protestations of "neutrality". The bias is so bad that some people are predicting the demise of Wikipedia.
So an alternative that allows only the original author to delete stuff was badly needed. And Knol seems to meet that need. I thought therefore that I might help to get the ball rolling by putting up a few articles. The first one I put up is here.
I soon began to see the virtue of the Google approach. I have already received several steamed-up and ill-informed emails from a guy named Cyrus Robinson (cyrus.robinson@gimail.af.mil) who objects to what I have written. Clearly, if I had put the same stuff up on Wikipedia, he would have deleted it immediately. But on Knol he cannot.
It's ironical that the Leftists at Google are doing something that may help conservatives so I wonder how long that can last. Will Google start finding pretexts to delete conservative comments? Time will tell.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Friday, July 25, 2008
DID THE WESTERN WALL TRY TO REJECT OBAMA'S NOTE?
IT SURE LOOKS THAT WAY:
GO 35 SECONDS IN... IT TAKES ABOUT 10 SECONDS FOR OBAMA TO GET THE NOTE TO STICK.
ACCORDING TO SOME REPORTS, THIS WAS THE PRAYER:
GO 35 SECONDS IN... IT TAKES ABOUT 10 SECONDS FOR OBAMA TO GET THE NOTE TO STICK.
ACCORDING TO SOME REPORTS, THIS WAS THE PRAYER:
"Lord Protect my family and me," reads the note published in the Maariv daily. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."I HOPE SOMEONE HAS PLACED A NOTE IN THE WALL ASKING GOD TO PREVENT AN OBAMA VICTORY.
MORE "SKY-IS-FALLING" ECONOMIC NEWS FROM MSM
AMERICAS
But, er um... thats up a "whopping" 0.58% of all mortgaged homes. LESS THAN 1%.
Some housing crisis!
Why does the MSM call it a housing crisis!?
Because the GOP has the White House, and they want the Dems to take it.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
The housing BOOM is being corrected - as it must be. It is not a crisis. This correction is long overdue, and much complicated by terrible mortgage practices by the financial community which is making the correction a little tougher.
The economy will rebound. If the USA doesn't elect Obama. If the USA elects Obama, then he will raise taxes and the economy will then go into a recession. One the MSM will blame on Bush.
IF YOU WANT THE USA TO GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND STAY OUT OF RECESSION THEN YOU CANNOT VOTE DEMOCRAT.
US home foreclosures on the rise
The number of homes in some stage of being repossessed more than doubled in the three months to June, a report shows.
The number of US homes in some stage of foreclosure more than doubled between April and June from the previous year.THE WAY THE BBC/MSM REPORTS ON IT, YOU'D THINK THERE WAS A MORTGAGE CRISIS.
Figures from research firm RealtyTrac showed that one in every 171 US households was in the process of losing their home - up 121% on last year.
But, er um... thats up a "whopping" 0.58% of all mortgaged homes. LESS THAN 1%.
Some housing crisis!
Why does the MSM call it a housing crisis!?
Because the GOP has the White House, and they want the Dems to take it.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
The housing BOOM is being corrected - as it must be. It is not a crisis. This correction is long overdue, and much complicated by terrible mortgage practices by the financial community which is making the correction a little tougher.
The economy will rebound. If the USA doesn't elect Obama. If the USA elects Obama, then he will raise taxes and the economy will then go into a recession. One the MSM will blame on Bush.
IF YOU WANT THE USA TO GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND STAY OUT OF RECESSION THEN YOU CANNOT VOTE DEMOCRAT.
ONLY IN AMERICA: OBAMA'S CHOCOLATE NUTS FOR SALE
ONLY IN AMERICA COULD A HALF BLACK MAN WITH NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS GET NOMINATED FOR THE PRESIDENCY...
AND GET A CANDY BAR NAMED FOR HIM:
AND GET A CANDY BAR NAMED FOR HIM:
FAA May Cut Back Flights From Israel To U.S. - Are The Ghetto Walls Closing On The Jews Again?
No, we don't have room for any more of you here. No room left at the inn, Jews.
And now,
the FAA is going to cut back on flights out of Israel? Am I crazy to think this is the beginning of the ghettoization of Israel itself?Can our Presidential candidates assure us there will not be a second Holocaust?
Is Phillip Roth's nightmare beginning to come to reality?
FAA May Cut Back Flights From Israel To U.S.
From CBS:
The Federal Aviation Administration could soon cut back the number of flights from Israel to the United States after finding Israel's aviation safety to have "severe Security shortcomings," according to a report by Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The FAA says it uncovered serious flaws in flight safety during a tour of Israel's airport security this week.
Primarily, at Ben-Gurion International Airport the FAA found a lack of proper supervision, overcrowded airspace, and outdated technology. An Israeli air panel came to the same conclusion just a year ago, but no changes were implemented.
A report is expected to be released in 90 days which will detail the FAA's decision on whether flights from Israel to the U.S. should be limited.
Anyone got any stats to back me up on this?
For instance, at the beginning of June 2008 (a little over a month ago), it was reported that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Michael Chertoff announced that the U.S. had signed a landmark agreement with Israel to share information about airport security. I would presume that that means Mr. Chertoff must have thought Israel was doing a pretty good job:
JERUSALEM, May 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Thursday he will seek to adopt novel Israeli methods, like behaviour-detection technologies, to better secure America's airports. "That's a scenario where Israel has a lot of experience," Chertoff said in an interview with Reuters. "I think that it is of interest to us to see if there is any adaptation there."
And now, the FAA is limiting flights because of severe security shortcomings???
Compare the relative aviation records of
They've seen this in Berlin before....
From Michael Zak, money quotes from Hayek:
The Obama speech at the Hitler Monument
One People !!
One World !!
One Leader !!"At the core of the socialist outlook on life is what Friedrich Hayek described as 'the fatal conceit.' Far from any conscious or conspiratorial intent, a socialist's fatal conceit stems from his egotistical assumption that any problem would disappear if his will could triumph over it. Government employees, whom he projects would somehow act on his behalf, serve as the proxy for imposing his will on society.
A faceless bureaucracy is too impersonal, however, for some socialists, who prefer a proxy with a face. These people prefer to focus their aspirations on some charismatic leader, whose cult of personality attracts people from across the political spectrum who otherwise might not agree on anything else. What does matter to these socialists is that they can all dream about how The Leader would impose their own will on society if only he were in charge of everything!
Relieved of the burden of having to think for themselves, these fascists -- yes, that's who they are -- can easily find their political passions unrestrained by reason. For both mainstream socialism and the fascist variant, reality is an enemy. Attempting to stay one step ahead of reality is the mechanism by which the expansion of socialist policies knows no bounds."
See also: Jonah Goldberg...
OLMERT NOT COOPERATIVE WITH INVESTIGATORS
He may be due for questioning again next week, but according to recent reports, he'd rather defy responsibility:
A few hours after Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz criticized Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for "evading" detectives trying to schedule a fourth session of questioning, the premier's lawyers informed police that he would be available for questioning next Friday.Olmert is only pulling out the victim card, and Hanegbi is only acting as his apologist. He's only whining, and whining, and whining, and not really trying to prove himself convincing at all.
"Olmert's lawyers have said he's available for questioning next Friday, but we are not yet sure if this is when the interrogation will take place," a National Fraud Unit spokesman said. "We'll see."
However, according to various reports Friday, police had indeed agreed to question the prime minister next week.
Olmert's media adviser Amir Dan on Friday morning rejected Mazuz's criticism, saying that the prime minister had always complied with all questioning requests. "We would be pleased if with the same efficiency, and instead of wasting time, Mazuz would order an inquiry on the routine testimony leaks," he added.
Nevertheless, until Thursday, all efforts by the National Fraud Unit to schedule another interrogation session had been met with failure.
Police would like to question the prime minister about the cash-filled envelopes he allegedly received from Long Island businessman Morris Talansky, and the "Olmert-tours" investigation, in which he is suspected of double-billing several charities and a government ministry for travel arrangements, and using the excess to pay for personal family travels.
On Thursday, as part of his response to a High Court petition demanding Olmert's suspension, Mazuz wrote, "Police are facing significant obstacles in attempting to set a date for questioning the prime minister, as well as setting the number of hours the session should last. These are difficulties that the police has not faced in interrogations with other public officials, including previous prime ministers."
Police have cited difficulties in arranging another session since the start of the Talansky investigation, which some former senior officers say are deliberate efforts on the part of Olmert to delay the investigation.
Meanwhile, Kadima MK Tzahi Hanegbi told Israel Radio on Friday morning that Olmert was very angry and felt frustrated and helpless because he believed he wasn't being given the opportunity to prove his innocence due to the persistent leaks.
Regarding Mazuz's criticism, Hanegbi urged police and the Prime Minister's Office to reach an agreement over the interrogation sessions and not to argue in public over the timetable.
"Racist to diss Obama" -- so says hip-hop artist "Nas" ... and 620,000 others
I guess Nas didn't really mean his song "Hate Me Now":
See here for the Fox response to the petition.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Note: THREE toons on OBAMA WATCH today.
"At 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, Nas is joining the Web sites ColorOfChange.org and MoveOn.org to deliver a petition with more than 620,000 signatures demanding that the network end what the organizations call a "pattern of racist attacks against black Americans including presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle." "Fox poisons the country with racist propaganda and tries to call it news," Nas said in a statement. A spokesperson for Fox News could not be reached for comment at press time.I think the 620,000 would have a lot more reason to criticize Fox if Fox used the sort of language that Nas uses in songs such as "Shoot 'Em Up", "Got Urself A Gun" etc.
A press release announcing the event accuses the network of an alleged pattern of incidents, which "many believe are a veiled attempt to prey on racism and intolerance and cast the Obamas as `outsiders,' " citing as evidence an onscreen graphic that referred to the candidate's wife as "Obama's baby mama," a pundit who "confused" Obama with terrorist al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and then joked that both should be "assassinated," and the now-infamous comment by a Fox anchor who described the Obamas' fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab." It also cites an incident in February, when Nas nemesis Bill O'Reilly talked about calling a "lynching party" to deal with Michelle Obama.
Source
See here for the Fox response to the petition.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Note: THREE toons on OBAMA WATCH today.
Swamps ("Wetlands") a ticking 'carbon bomb'
These guys send themselves up. After we hear what a bomblike disaster it is to destroy swamps, we read: "About 60% of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century". So how come nobody noticed the bomb going off?
The world's wetlands, threatened by development, dehydration and climate change, could release a planet-warming "carbon bomb" if they are destroyed, ecological scientists said on Sunday. Wetlands contain 771 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth and about the same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere, the scientists said before an international conference linking wetlands and global warming.
If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal Regional Environment Program in Brazil. "We could call it the carbon bomb," Teixeira said by telephone from from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the conference. "It's a very tricky situation."
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the Intecol International Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil's vast Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect these endangered areas. Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves, tundra, lagoons and river flood plains. Together they account for 6 percent of Earth's land surface and store 20% of its carbon. They also produce 25% of the world's food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as buffers against violent coastal storms.
Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilisation. About 60% of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century, mostly due to draining for agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat extraction add to the destruction.
More here
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
The world's wetlands, threatened by development, dehydration and climate change, could release a planet-warming "carbon bomb" if they are destroyed, ecological scientists said on Sunday. Wetlands contain 771 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth and about the same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere, the scientists said before an international conference linking wetlands and global warming.
If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal Regional Environment Program in Brazil. "We could call it the carbon bomb," Teixeira said by telephone from from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the conference. "It's a very tricky situation."
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the Intecol International Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil's vast Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect these endangered areas. Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves, tundra, lagoons and river flood plains. Together they account for 6 percent of Earth's land surface and store 20% of its carbon. They also produce 25% of the world's food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as buffers against violent coastal storms.
Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilisation. About 60% of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century, mostly due to draining for agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat extraction add to the destruction.
More here
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
MY INSTANTANEOUS REACTION TO OBAMA'S SPEECH
I was just reading the text of Obama's speech in Berlin.
Sadly, McCain just doesn't have what it takes to beat this guy, in my opinion.
The only hope is for Obama to be caught with a young boy or a dead woman.
By the way, if he means what he says in his speech, he won't be a bad President. He would probably be even better than Clinton. He would not be worse than Jimmy Carter.
Problem is, I don't think he means what he says.
One thing in his speech which is very powerful, and true (and I've been saying this on my blog for four years now) is that America needs Europe.
In Obama's speech he says, Europe must understand that America has sacrificed for their freedom and Europe is now taking on more responsibility for its freedom.
That, of course, isn't true, but it is a nice diplomatic way of saying, "Get up off your asses and do something, Euros."
Or, it could be Obama code meaning, "I'm going to pull all of our troops out of Europe and everywhere else in the world. No more American "hegemony"."
With Obama, who keeps close friends like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, we just can't be sure what he means.
But, we can guess it's probably not so good for America.
By the way, here's what Obama said vis a vis America's partnership with Europe:
These things are true, whether he really means them, or not.
The most obvious immediate criticism is that Obama seems to believe, and I mean really believe, that his "world" citizenship is as important as his American citizenship.
Another criticism is that Obama seems to envision himself as some sort of immaculate conception. He mentions none of the history of American Presidents and Berlin. Where is the gratitude to Reagan? (I've read bits of Obama's Audacity of Hope. As far as I can tell, Obama does not recognize anything positive in the legacy of Ronald Reagan.)
Obama speaks of "tearing down walls."
Where does he think that phrase came from? Pink Floyd?
Sadly, McCain just doesn't have what it takes to beat this guy, in my opinion.
The only hope is for Obama to be caught with a young boy or a dead woman.
By the way, if he means what he says in his speech, he won't be a bad President. He would probably be even better than Clinton. He would not be worse than Jimmy Carter.
Problem is, I don't think he means what he says.
One thing in his speech which is very powerful, and true (and I've been saying this on my blog for four years now) is that America needs Europe.
In Obama's speech he says, Europe must understand that America has sacrificed for their freedom and Europe is now taking on more responsibility for its freedom.
That, of course, isn't true, but it is a nice diplomatic way of saying, "Get up off your asses and do something, Euros."
Or, it could be Obama code meaning, "I'm going to pull all of our troops out of Europe and everywhere else in the world. No more American "hegemony"."
With Obama, who keeps close friends like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, we just can't be sure what he means.
But, we can guess it's probably not so good for America.
By the way, here's what Obama said vis a vis America's partnership with Europe:
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our
world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In
America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role
in our security and our future.
Both views miss the truth -- that Europeans today are bearing new burdens
and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as
American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of
this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around
the globe.
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt,
there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship
continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift
this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required
to do more -- not less ...
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn
inward. America has no better partner than Europe.
These things are true, whether he really means them, or not.
The most obvious immediate criticism is that Obama seems to believe, and I mean really believe, that his "world" citizenship is as important as his American citizenship.
Another criticism is that Obama seems to envision himself as some sort of immaculate conception. He mentions none of the history of American Presidents and Berlin. Where is the gratitude to Reagan? (I've read bits of Obama's Audacity of Hope. As far as I can tell, Obama does not recognize anything positive in the legacy of Ronald Reagan.)
Obama speaks of "tearing down walls."
Where does he think that phrase came from? Pink Floyd?
OBAMA: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR HEIR TO KURT COBAIN?
It can't be over-emphasized how inappropriate Obama's speech in Berlin is:
He's calling it a major policy address, yet instead of delivering it at a prominent euro-policy think-tank, he's giving it at a partisan campaign rally where the first act is a popular rock band, and beer and brats will be served.
Besides that: what can this naive neophyte - with next to no foreign policy experience or training - tell Germans or Europeans or anybody abut Euro-Amereican relations?
NOTHING.
Maybe that's why he's speaking at a rock concert!
ROUND UP AT MEMEORANDUM
He's calling it a major policy address, yet instead of delivering it at a prominent euro-policy think-tank, he's giving it at a partisan campaign rally where the first act is a popular rock band, and beer and brats will be served.
Besides that: what can this naive neophyte - with next to no foreign policy experience or training - tell Germans or Europeans or anybody abut Euro-Amereican relations?
NOTHING.
Maybe that's why he's speaking at a rock concert!
ROUND UP AT MEMEORANDUM
Why is the right happier than the left?
Summary and comments by Andrew Norton below followed by a few comments from me -- JR
So far as I am aware, every survey that asks about political orientation and happiness finds that right-wingers are happier than left-wingers. In the 2007 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, Liberal identifiers were a massive 13% ahead of Labor identifiers as describing themselves as `very happy', 40%/27%. At his blog, Winton Bates summarises a new article on this subject, by Jaime Napier and John Jost in the June issue of Psychological Science, this way:
I don't doubt that there is a statistical relationship between beliefs about inequality, meritocracy, and getting ahead that helps explain why leftists are not as happy as conservatives and others on the right. Even the new president of the American Enterprise Institute, Arthur Brooks, makes this point in his book Gross National Happiness.
But how likely is that when people are asked how happy they feel, their mind turns to ideological rationalisations of inequality? Why would some local income inequality disturb some respondents so much, and not all the people who are sick in hospital, or dissatisfied with their personal relationships, or any of the other things known to have big negative effects on personal well-being?
I think there is a better theory, one that is more consistent with the subjective well-being literature, which explains this result: that both lower average happiness and leftism have a common link to a weaker sense of personal control and optimism. Both these attributes are strongly correlated with happiness; and one of the tasks of the `positive psychology' movement (the clinical side of subjective well-being research) is to try to enhance these senses.
For example, in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2005 those who agreed or strongly agreed that they had a good chance of improving their standard of living were more than twice as likely as those who disagreed or strongly disagreed to rate themselves at 9 or 10 on a 0 to 10 happiness scale. By lesser margins, those who thought that they could get a new job at least as good as their current one, and those who enjoyed having a lot of choices, were significantly happier than those who thought it would be difficult to get a new job or did not enjoy having choices.
When we tabulate these against party ID, Liberal supporters are 10 to 23 percentage points more likely to give answers suggesting that the respondents feel in control and optimistic about the future.
People who don't feel like they are fully in control of their lives or optimistic about their own prospects are more likely to support left-wing parties, which promise to look after them. But optimistic and in-control people are more likely to want the government to let them get on with their lives without interference, and support right-of-centre parties.
Societal inequalities may play a role in why people feel the way they do, but I would hypothesise that it has more to do with the how the respondent feels that it affects him/her personally than with inequality in general. Americans, for example, tend to be much more optimistic about their prospects than Europeans, even though actual social mobility is similar in both places.
But neither liberals nor conservatives (in the American senses of those words) are likely to directly consider inequality when asked about their personal happiness. Conservatives won't rationalise it because they won't think about it; and unless they are highly ideological (such as being a university academic) `liberals' won't think about it either. But their lack of control and optimism will affect their answer.
Source
I am always surprised that the Left/Right happiness gap is not greater. Pervasive dissatisfaction with the world about one is the defining characteristic of Leftism. It is what Leftism is. That the gap is not greater probably shows that most people are not very political.
The academic explanation given above by Jost & Co. is absurd. They show that by removing ideology from the equation, the gap is less. So if you take most of the Leftishness out of Leftism, the gap is less. Big deal! True-by-definition or artifactual findings are of course exceptionally uninteresting but parading such findings as empirical fact is an old dodge of the intellectually second-rate. It's not the first example of extraordinarily poor scholarship from John Jost, of course. The relevant journal abstract is presented below: -- JR
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
So far as I am aware, every survey that asks about political orientation and happiness finds that right-wingers are happier than left-wingers. In the 2007 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, Liberal identifiers were a massive 13% ahead of Labor identifiers as describing themselves as `very happy', 40%/27%. At his blog, Winton Bates summarises a new article on this subject, by Jaime Napier and John Jost in the June issue of Psychological Science, this way:
The study suggests that some of the association between political orientation and subjective well-being is accounted for by beliefs about inequality. The authors examined the effect of introducing ideological variables - relating to beliefs about inequality and meritocracy- in regression analyses explaining life satisfaction in the U.S. and nine other countries. They found that when the ideological variable was introduced into the analysis it took some of the explanatory power away from the political variable. .
The authors conclude that "inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives, apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light"
I don't doubt that there is a statistical relationship between beliefs about inequality, meritocracy, and getting ahead that helps explain why leftists are not as happy as conservatives and others on the right. Even the new president of the American Enterprise Institute, Arthur Brooks, makes this point in his book Gross National Happiness.
But how likely is that when people are asked how happy they feel, their mind turns to ideological rationalisations of inequality? Why would some local income inequality disturb some respondents so much, and not all the people who are sick in hospital, or dissatisfied with their personal relationships, or any of the other things known to have big negative effects on personal well-being?
I think there is a better theory, one that is more consistent with the subjective well-being literature, which explains this result: that both lower average happiness and leftism have a common link to a weaker sense of personal control and optimism. Both these attributes are strongly correlated with happiness; and one of the tasks of the `positive psychology' movement (the clinical side of subjective well-being research) is to try to enhance these senses.
For example, in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2005 those who agreed or strongly agreed that they had a good chance of improving their standard of living were more than twice as likely as those who disagreed or strongly disagreed to rate themselves at 9 or 10 on a 0 to 10 happiness scale. By lesser margins, those who thought that they could get a new job at least as good as their current one, and those who enjoyed having a lot of choices, were significantly happier than those who thought it would be difficult to get a new job or did not enjoy having choices.
When we tabulate these against party ID, Liberal supporters are 10 to 23 percentage points more likely to give answers suggesting that the respondents feel in control and optimistic about the future.
People who don't feel like they are fully in control of their lives or optimistic about their own prospects are more likely to support left-wing parties, which promise to look after them. But optimistic and in-control people are more likely to want the government to let them get on with their lives without interference, and support right-of-centre parties.
Societal inequalities may play a role in why people feel the way they do, but I would hypothesise that it has more to do with the how the respondent feels that it affects him/her personally than with inequality in general. Americans, for example, tend to be much more optimistic about their prospects than Europeans, even though actual social mobility is similar in both places.
But neither liberals nor conservatives (in the American senses of those words) are likely to directly consider inequality when asked about their personal happiness. Conservatives won't rationalise it because they won't think about it; and unless they are highly ideological (such as being a university academic) `liberals' won't think about it either. But their lack of control and optimism will affect their answer.
Source
I am always surprised that the Left/Right happiness gap is not greater. Pervasive dissatisfaction with the world about one is the defining characteristic of Leftism. It is what Leftism is. That the gap is not greater probably shows that most people are not very political.
The academic explanation given above by Jost & Co. is absurd. They show that by removing ideology from the equation, the gap is less. So if you take most of the Leftishness out of Leftism, the gap is less. Big deal! True-by-definition or artifactual findings are of course exceptionally uninteresting but parading such findings as empirical fact is an old dodge of the intellectually second-rate. It's not the first example of extraordinarily poor scholarship from John Jost, of course. The relevant journal abstract is presented below: -- JR
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
By Jaime L. Napier and John T. Jost
In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
TONIGHT ON KFNX TALK-RADIO
Tonight, July 24, at 8:00 P.M. Phoenix time, Pamela Geller will host "Voices of Freedom," a one-hour weekly show on KFNX 1100. See this time-zone chart (Refresh the page!) if you are in a different time zone than Phoenix, Arizona; click directly on the word "PHOENIX" to get a world map of time zones.Tonight's guest is Caroline Glick, columnist for the Jerusalem Post and the author of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad. Her bio is HERE.
Tune in if you can! In addition to AM air time at the scheduled hour, KFNX offers live streaming at the station's web site.
VOICES OF FREEDOM: THE SHOW THAT MAKES JIHADISTS CRY.
Additional information about VOICES OF FREEDOM
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A NIGHTMARISH IMAGE: LIVNI AND OBAMA
IMAGINING THAT ISRAEL'S SECURITY AND AMERICA'S SECURITY
MIGHT SOON BE IN THE HANDS
OF LIVNI AND OBAMA IS A NIGHTMARE...
MIGHT SOON BE IN THE HANDS
OF LIVNI AND OBAMA IS A NIGHTMARE...
I WOULD FEEL MUCH BETTER ABOUT THE SECURITY OF ISRAEL AND THE USA AND THE FREE WORLD IF THESE TWO MEN LED OUR TWO NATIONS INSTEAD.
MCCAIN AND NETANYAHU ARE PROVEN LEADERS.
OBAMA AND LIVNI ARE NOT.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
OIL BUBBLE BURSTING
NYTIMES:
CommoditiesMarket SummaryAt 6:14 PM ET: Aug '08 light sweet crude futures and Aug '08 gold futures are both down in after-hours electronic trading. Aug '08 light sweet crude futures are down $0.04, or 0.03%, at $124.40 a barrel in Nymex trading and Aug '08 gold futures are down $1.90, or 0.21%, at $920.90 an ounce. Dec '08 corn futures closed down $0.02 today, or 0.30%, at $5.91 a bushel.
ON OBAMA'S BIG BAD MOUTH: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MISSPEAKING, LYING AND LYING BIG - AND BADLY
THIS IS MISSPEAKING:
"Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."
THIS IS LYING:
"I never did anything on behalf of Rezko."
THIS IS LYING BIG - AND BADLY:
Only an egomaniac could lie so baldly in front of so many people. An egomaniac who knows he is untrustworthy, who knows his deeds and accomplishments are not up to snuff.[OBAMA:] Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."
- OBAMA IS NOT AS SMART AS PEOPLE SAY, AND HE IS NOT HONEST.
- WHEN ADDED TO HIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND HIS BAD JUDGMENT, IT MAKES HIM UNFIT FOR THE NOMINATION, LET ALONE THE OFFICE.
- BUT HE'S GOING TO BE NOMINATED ANYHOW.
UPDATE: WATCH OBAMA LIE HERE:
- MCCAIN SHOULD USE THIS, BIGTIME.
- OBAMA'S LIE IS RIGHT UP THERE WITH HILLARY'S LIE ABOUT THAT AIRPORT SNIPER IN TUZLA.
- LEFTIES ARE SO SCREWED UP THEY CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH FROM FANTASY.
- WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE ABLE TO BELIEVE IN CRAP LIKE AGW, OR THAT GUN CONTROL REDUCES CRIME.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
Kossacks suppress mockery of themselves
Similar mockery aimed at conservatives is routine, of course:
I have put the original article up here in case it becomes inaccessible elsewhere.
Conservatives can take it. Leftists can't. Why? I think Milan Kundera was on to something when he said “No great movement designed to change the world can bear to be laughed at or belittled. Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches.”. Yaacov Ben Moshe has more on that.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
"Just as I finish a piece laughing at DailyKos for claiming that it is conservatives that feel they have to "create their own alternate reality" because of their "rigid ideology," I find a story out of The Austin American-Statesman where the DailyKos forced that paper to pull a story that had a mildly satirical take on last weekend's Netroots Nation conference in Texas. Apparently, the DailyKos folks didn't like The Austin American-Statesman's "reality" so the Kossacks flooded the paper with their insistence on creating a new one.
The original article by the Statesman's Patrick Beach knocked the nutrooters for the so-called "surprise" Gore visit, said it turned into a "faint-in," and that their general feeling was "terribly self-confirming," among other snippy comments... fun, but snippy. The general tone of the piece was that of amusement at how seriously the nutrooters took themselves. And, even more galling to said nutrooters, this story was the front page editorial of Sunday's edition.
This did not sit well with the nutrooters in question. So, in the true spirit of "tolerance," respect for "freedom of speech," and an interest in a "free press," the denizens of the DailyKos whipped themselves up into a frenzy of complaints. The din was so loud that the compliant folks at the Austin American-Statesman acquiesced to the demands for retribution. The Statesman pulled the piece from their website and made abject, groveling apologies to the folks at the DailyKos.
Source
I have put the original article up here in case it becomes inaccessible elsewhere.
Conservatives can take it. Leftists can't. Why? I think Milan Kundera was on to something when he said “No great movement designed to change the world can bear to be laughed at or belittled. Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches.”. Yaacov Ben Moshe has more on that.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Nutty Australian government climate scheme knocked on the head
The conservatives seem to have taken seriously the advice given to them the day before by the widely-read Andrew Bolt -- See immediately following the article below. Rudd's problem now is that the Greenies think his scheme is too little so they won't back it and the conservatives think it is too much so they won't back it -- in which case the scheme cannot get through the Senate
Kevin Rudd faces a delay in the introduction of his carbon emissions trading system until after the next election, with Brendan Nelson vowing last night that the Coalition will not accept a start-up date before "2011 at the earliest". The Opposition Leader told The Australian that the Prime Minister's plan to begin emissions trading in July 2010 was a threat to the economy and the Coalition would reject legislation allowing trading until it was clear whether China and the US would join a global pact to reduce their emissions. International talks aimed at creating a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol on emissions reduction will not be completed until late next year following a meeting in Copenhagen.
Dr Nelson's warning came ahead of a meeting in Sydney today of a coalition of Australia's biggest exporters and the powerful Australian Workers Union aimed at considering alternatives to the Government's plans to address climate change, detailed in a green paper released last week. Today's AWU Climate Change Roundtable was convened by the union's national secretary, Paul Howes, and will include representatives of the LNG, cement and aluminium industries.
A growing chorus of exposed industries - including airlines, petrol refiners, LNG exporters, cement manufacturers and aluminium smelters - has voiced concerns in recent days that billions of dollars of investment risk being lost overseas. Their concerns tally with AWU fears that thousands of jobs would be lost on the tide of outgoing investment.
In a letter obtained by The Australian inviting employers to today's roundtable, Mr Howes says participation would serve to inform the commonwealth's final policy on the ETS. Opposition resources spokesman David Johnston also widened the gap between the major parties yesterday by insisting the LNG industry be offered free permits under the ETS.
Dr Nelson's comments on the timing of the introduction of emissions trading mean Mr Rudd faces the choice of agreeing to a delay or negotiating with the Greens for Senate approval for his plan. Government sources have made it clear Mr Rudd sees little chance of compromise with the Greens, who want his $500 million taxpayer-funded investment to research clean coal technologies scrapped.
Last night, Dr Nelson said there was no room for "extreme positions on either side" of the climate debate. "If Mr Rudd wishes to be saved from himself, I am here to help," he said. "He is proposing to bring legislation into the parliament before the Copenhagen meeting even occurs, which will determine what sort of shape the global response will take from 2012."
Dr Nelson said it was possible the Opposition would back emissions trading legislation with "responsible amendments". But his starting point was the absolute conviction that Australia should not embrace action that could damage its economy without knowing whether big emitters like China, the US and India would join a new global emissions reduction pact. "(Mr Rudd is) determined to do this from 2010 from my view without having due regard for the economic consequences of what he is about to do," Dr Nelson said.
"Mr Rudd is proposing to impose on Australia in about two years' time an emissions trading scheme which is still poorly developed. The economic assumptions underwriting it are yet to be developed, let alone tested, in an Australia in a deteriorating economic climate." Insisting the actions of the US, China and India were "the main game", he also said the Coalition wanted a guarantee that Mr Rudd's promised reductions in fuel excise to make up for increases in fuel prices continue indefinitely, not be reviewed after three years, as was the Government's proposal.
Mr Howes, who yesterday declined to comment on the AWU-convened meeting, has previously warned the Government's goal of having an ETS in place by 2010 would destroy local jobs. "The roundtable will bring together senior executives from a range of industries and peak industry organisations in the trade-exposed emissions intensive sector of the Australian economy that have a stake in the sector's future under an emissions trading scheme," Mr Howes wrote in his letter.
The Australian Aluminium Council, the Cement Industry Federation and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association confirmed yesterday they and some of their member organisations would attend the meeting. AAC chief Ron Knapp said he would be raising the "significant impact of the ETS on the economy and employment in this country". "The ETS doesn't change future global aluminium production expectations; it just changes the address of smelters and that's to the detriment of Australia."
CIF chief executive Robyn Bain said she would attend with representatives from member companies Cement Australia and Adelaide Brighton. "We're all in agreeance that the emissions trading scheme needs to deal with carbon reduction but ensure that industry - particularly manufacturing in Australia - is kept and has the ability to grow."
APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said the ETS meant Australia's LNG industry and its "capacity for assisting the world move to a lower greenhouse future will be seriously compromised and that means thousands and thousands of jobs - existing and new - will also be at risk".
Senator Johnston yesterday said the Opposition front bench would agree on Tuesday that LNG was a clean transitional fossil fuel and deserved free permits, despite falling outside the threshold for compensation set down by the Rudd Government in its emissions trading green paper. The front bench is "not going to take very much persuading", he said. "The alternative is to do what the Government is doing, which is to effectively say to the LNG industry, 'You should go and develop somewhere else where you don't have a carbon price ripping at your profitability'."
The evolving Coalition position widens the differences between the Coalition and the Rudd Government as Labor seeks Coalition support for its emissions trading regime in the Senate. But some in the Coalition believe it should differentiate itself from the Government even further.
Labor has said it understands the LNG industry's concerns and will talk to LNG producers before it reaches a final position on its scheme. But the Government is adamant that it cannot compensate all trade-exposed industries, or deliver full compensation to those it does help, because this would impose an intolerable burden on other sectors of the economy.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said government assistance to industry would have to be gradually reduced over time. "To do otherwise would be economically irresponsible - it would compromise Australia's efforts to reduce carbon pollution and place more of the burden on other parts of the economy," Senator Wong said after attending a meeting in Sydney to discuss the Government's white paper.
Also yesterday, Wayne Swan declared his pledge to use "every cent" in revenue raised through the ETS to help assist households and business would continue for the life of the Rudd Government.
Source
If Michael Short can doubt, so can the Liberal Party
By Andrew Bolt
Michael Short, business editor of The Age, continues his assault on the warming evangelicals running the rest of his paper by publishing yet another article (this one by Professor Geoffrey Kearsley) finally telling Age readers the truth about global warming - that it stopped a decade ago:
Short's campaign could prove critical to Kevin Rudd's future. Age readers are unlikely to have ever heard this heresy before, and will now be told it's OK to doubt. What's more, Short is clearly showing the Fairfax bosses what a real editor committed to restoring The Age's long-dead reputation for open debate would look like. He has put himself in the running to take over from editor Andrew Jaspan, a global warming fanatic who has tried instead to suppress debate and has just fired the only conservative columnist (contributer Jon Roskam) on the grounds that he's too well exposed. If Short replaces Jaspan and takes The Age off the global warming bandwagon, already being quietly deserted by The Australian, Rudd's hopes of marginalising sceptical scientists and inconvenient truths will be destroyed. The ABC can't sell Rudd's religion by itself.
But you see, of course, one last hurdle. The Liberals still do not have the courage of their lack of conviction in man-made global warming. Too scared by the media, they are going along with Rudd's insane emissions trading scheme and the global warming bandwagon. They are refusing to attack Rudd on his weakest spot. They will thus share with him the dishonor of having being conned by bad science and salvation-seekers. They will never be able to say: We warned you. We were right, and Labor once more wrong.
In short, they lack the courage of Michael Short. And they fail to heed this warning in Kearsley's article, which I repeat: The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should wait and see.
Liberal MPs: There has been no warming for a decade. Dare to doubt the theory. Dare to wait and weigh the fresh science. Do not let Rudd drag you off the cliff with him.
UPDATE
Even the ABC is starting to give air to the sceptics it tried so hard to ignore or ridicule. Here is ABC Adelaide 891 interviewing Dr David Evans, who once helped the Australian Greenhouse Office build models predicting terrible warming:
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Kevin Rudd faces a delay in the introduction of his carbon emissions trading system until after the next election, with Brendan Nelson vowing last night that the Coalition will not accept a start-up date before "2011 at the earliest". The Opposition Leader told The Australian that the Prime Minister's plan to begin emissions trading in July 2010 was a threat to the economy and the Coalition would reject legislation allowing trading until it was clear whether China and the US would join a global pact to reduce their emissions. International talks aimed at creating a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol on emissions reduction will not be completed until late next year following a meeting in Copenhagen.
Dr Nelson's warning came ahead of a meeting in Sydney today of a coalition of Australia's biggest exporters and the powerful Australian Workers Union aimed at considering alternatives to the Government's plans to address climate change, detailed in a green paper released last week. Today's AWU Climate Change Roundtable was convened by the union's national secretary, Paul Howes, and will include representatives of the LNG, cement and aluminium industries.
A growing chorus of exposed industries - including airlines, petrol refiners, LNG exporters, cement manufacturers and aluminium smelters - has voiced concerns in recent days that billions of dollars of investment risk being lost overseas. Their concerns tally with AWU fears that thousands of jobs would be lost on the tide of outgoing investment.
In a letter obtained by The Australian inviting employers to today's roundtable, Mr Howes says participation would serve to inform the commonwealth's final policy on the ETS. Opposition resources spokesman David Johnston also widened the gap between the major parties yesterday by insisting the LNG industry be offered free permits under the ETS.
Dr Nelson's comments on the timing of the introduction of emissions trading mean Mr Rudd faces the choice of agreeing to a delay or negotiating with the Greens for Senate approval for his plan. Government sources have made it clear Mr Rudd sees little chance of compromise with the Greens, who want his $500 million taxpayer-funded investment to research clean coal technologies scrapped.
Last night, Dr Nelson said there was no room for "extreme positions on either side" of the climate debate. "If Mr Rudd wishes to be saved from himself, I am here to help," he said. "He is proposing to bring legislation into the parliament before the Copenhagen meeting even occurs, which will determine what sort of shape the global response will take from 2012."
Dr Nelson said it was possible the Opposition would back emissions trading legislation with "responsible amendments". But his starting point was the absolute conviction that Australia should not embrace action that could damage its economy without knowing whether big emitters like China, the US and India would join a new global emissions reduction pact. "(Mr Rudd is) determined to do this from 2010 from my view without having due regard for the economic consequences of what he is about to do," Dr Nelson said.
"Mr Rudd is proposing to impose on Australia in about two years' time an emissions trading scheme which is still poorly developed. The economic assumptions underwriting it are yet to be developed, let alone tested, in an Australia in a deteriorating economic climate." Insisting the actions of the US, China and India were "the main game", he also said the Coalition wanted a guarantee that Mr Rudd's promised reductions in fuel excise to make up for increases in fuel prices continue indefinitely, not be reviewed after three years, as was the Government's proposal.
Mr Howes, who yesterday declined to comment on the AWU-convened meeting, has previously warned the Government's goal of having an ETS in place by 2010 would destroy local jobs. "The roundtable will bring together senior executives from a range of industries and peak industry organisations in the trade-exposed emissions intensive sector of the Australian economy that have a stake in the sector's future under an emissions trading scheme," Mr Howes wrote in his letter.
The Australian Aluminium Council, the Cement Industry Federation and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association confirmed yesterday they and some of their member organisations would attend the meeting. AAC chief Ron Knapp said he would be raising the "significant impact of the ETS on the economy and employment in this country". "The ETS doesn't change future global aluminium production expectations; it just changes the address of smelters and that's to the detriment of Australia."
CIF chief executive Robyn Bain said she would attend with representatives from member companies Cement Australia and Adelaide Brighton. "We're all in agreeance that the emissions trading scheme needs to deal with carbon reduction but ensure that industry - particularly manufacturing in Australia - is kept and has the ability to grow."
APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said the ETS meant Australia's LNG industry and its "capacity for assisting the world move to a lower greenhouse future will be seriously compromised and that means thousands and thousands of jobs - existing and new - will also be at risk".
Senator Johnston yesterday said the Opposition front bench would agree on Tuesday that LNG was a clean transitional fossil fuel and deserved free permits, despite falling outside the threshold for compensation set down by the Rudd Government in its emissions trading green paper. The front bench is "not going to take very much persuading", he said. "The alternative is to do what the Government is doing, which is to effectively say to the LNG industry, 'You should go and develop somewhere else where you don't have a carbon price ripping at your profitability'."
The evolving Coalition position widens the differences between the Coalition and the Rudd Government as Labor seeks Coalition support for its emissions trading regime in the Senate. But some in the Coalition believe it should differentiate itself from the Government even further.
Labor has said it understands the LNG industry's concerns and will talk to LNG producers before it reaches a final position on its scheme. But the Government is adamant that it cannot compensate all trade-exposed industries, or deliver full compensation to those it does help, because this would impose an intolerable burden on other sectors of the economy.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said government assistance to industry would have to be gradually reduced over time. "To do otherwise would be economically irresponsible - it would compromise Australia's efforts to reduce carbon pollution and place more of the burden on other parts of the economy," Senator Wong said after attending a meeting in Sydney to discuss the Government's white paper.
Also yesterday, Wayne Swan declared his pledge to use "every cent" in revenue raised through the ETS to help assist households and business would continue for the life of the Rudd Government.
Source
If Michael Short can doubt, so can the Liberal Party
By Andrew Bolt
Michael Short, business editor of The Age, continues his assault on the warming evangelicals running the rest of his paper by publishing yet another article (this one by Professor Geoffrey Kearsley) finally telling Age readers the truth about global warming - that it stopped a decade ago:
There is much more yet to learn. My point is this: It may well be that human activity is indeed changing the climate, at least in part, but there is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a greater role. If it does have, then global warming is likely to stop, as it appears to have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails to ignite, then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate. The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should wait and see.
Short's campaign could prove critical to Kevin Rudd's future. Age readers are unlikely to have ever heard this heresy before, and will now be told it's OK to doubt. What's more, Short is clearly showing the Fairfax bosses what a real editor committed to restoring The Age's long-dead reputation for open debate would look like. He has put himself in the running to take over from editor Andrew Jaspan, a global warming fanatic who has tried instead to suppress debate and has just fired the only conservative columnist (contributer Jon Roskam) on the grounds that he's too well exposed. If Short replaces Jaspan and takes The Age off the global warming bandwagon, already being quietly deserted by The Australian, Rudd's hopes of marginalising sceptical scientists and inconvenient truths will be destroyed. The ABC can't sell Rudd's religion by itself.
But you see, of course, one last hurdle. The Liberals still do not have the courage of their lack of conviction in man-made global warming. Too scared by the media, they are going along with Rudd's insane emissions trading scheme and the global warming bandwagon. They are refusing to attack Rudd on his weakest spot. They will thus share with him the dishonor of having being conned by bad science and salvation-seekers. They will never be able to say: We warned you. We were right, and Labor once more wrong.
In short, they lack the courage of Michael Short. And they fail to heed this warning in Kearsley's article, which I repeat: The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should wait and see.
Liberal MPs: There has been no warming for a decade. Dare to doubt the theory. Dare to wait and weigh the fresh science. Do not let Rudd drag you off the cliff with him.
UPDATE
Even the ABC is starting to give air to the sceptics it tried so hard to ignore or ridicule. Here is ABC Adelaide 891 interviewing Dr David Evans, who once helped the Australian Greenhouse Office build models predicting terrible warming:
The case that carbon emissions cause global warming is now entirely theoretical and it's all driven by computer models and computer models and theory aren't evidence. But it's worse than that - something else happened. By 2006 we had a new result. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is missing, and therefore, we know that carbon emissions aren't the main cause of the recent global warming.
(The satellites are) telling us the temperatures have been flat or slightly down since 2001.
I think we should do a lot further research on climate, on alternate energies, on clean coal; and we should probably plan an emissions trading scheme, but not implement it. I think instead we should wait to see what the big countries do. Wait to see what climate research produces and wait to see whether temperatures resume going up.
I would like the press and the Opposition to ... simply ask Penny Wong, as the relevant Minister - to ask - to show the evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. We're about to change our economy radically so as to de-carbonise it. So, obviously, the onus is on the people who wish to do that, to say, well, why? Show us the evidence. But I think you'll find there is none; there'd be a bit of an embarrassed silence.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
APPARENTLY SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL PERU THERE'S GLOBAL WARMING: SEVERE COLD KILLS 59
VIA TOM NELSON:
2 - IT'S FREAKIN' FREEZING.
3 - AND AGW = BS.
BBC:
... people in Peru's highlands continue to experience freezing weather that has become deadly.1 - IT'S NORMAL.
The country's national weather service, SENAMHI has reported that temperatures in the region of Puno have dropped to as low as -26.5°C (-15.7°F).
With snowstorms and freezing winds reaching between 25 and 30 kilometers (15 - 19 miles) in speed, Hernan Saavedra, SENAMHI's regional director assured that weather conditions in Peru's highlands were normal for this time of year.
2 - IT'S FREAKIN' FREEZING.
3 - AND AGW = BS.
BBC:
The authorities in Peru say severe cold weather has killed at least 59 people, most of them children, in the south-east of the country.SOMEBODY TELL AL GORE TO STFU.
The freezing cold has left more than 60,000 people without food and shelter.
FORWARD THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA TO EVERY DEMOCRAT YOU KNOW BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 25
HERE'RE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL YOUNG PEOPLE PRESENTLY ENAMORED OF OBAMA:
Do you really feel that a man whose career was made by Rezko and the Chicago machine,Well... it's better to find out now. Before you throw away your vote.
who refuses to release his law firm's billing records or his state senators records or his complete medical records,
who cannot admit he was wrong about the surge,
who - in the biggest speech of his life - promised never to disown his preacher of twenty years only to dump him three weeks later...
who has taken vague if not contradictory positions on NAFTA, campaign finance, the flag-pin, the status of Jerusalem, gun control, the Cuban Embargo, marijuana, and FISA...
is worthy of your vote?
HOW CAN YOU VOTE FOR A MAN LIKE THIS - A SECRETIVE, WISHY-WASHY IF NOT PHONY POLITICIAN WITH DUBIOUS IF NOT CORRUPT ROOTS IN CHICAGO?
WHAT IN HIS CAREER CONVINCES YOU HE WILL STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT!?
HE DID NOT STAND UP FOR REVEREND WRIGHT.
HE DID NOT STAND UP FOR FISA.
Before you vote for Obama you deserve better explanations for his ties to Rezko, his law clients, what he did in the Illinois state senate, and his health.
Don't just blindly trust him.
By reneging on his campaign finance promise and his FISA promise he has at the very lest proven he is not to be entirely trusted with your vote.
Don't be a sap. Don't let yourself be played for a fool.
You owe it to yourself to take a good long hard look at him.
I did.
And I don't like anything about what I've seem.
Your turn.
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF FINDING OUT?
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH FOR OBAMA: THE SURGE WORKED
THE SURGE:
OBAMA IS A TAX-RAISING LEFTIST, AN APPEASER AND A DOVE.
AND AN ASS.
HE'S THE PERFECT STANDARD-BEARER FOR TODAY'S DEMOCRAT PARTY.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
- OBAMA OPPOSED IT.
- IT WORKED.
- IT'S WHY OUR TROOPS WILL SOON BE COMING HOME AND/OR REDEPLOYING IN VICTORY, AND NOT IN DEFEAT.
- AND OBAMA OPPOSED IT.
- THAT'S INCONVENIENT.
- SO - LIKE PELOSI - HE GIVES MORE CREDIT TO THE SUNNI AWAKENING AND IRAN THAN TO OUR TROOPS.
- TROOPS HE DESIRES TO CALL HIS AND PUT UNDER HIS COMMAND.
OBAMA IS A TAX-RAISING LEFTIST, AN APPEASER AND A DOVE.
AND AN ASS.HE'S THE PERFECT STANDARD-BEARER FOR TODAY'S DEMOCRAT PARTY.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
GENERAL OBAMA READY TO OVERRULE MILITARY COMMANDERS
IHT:
MORE ON GENERAL OBAMA HERE.
AMMAN: Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that there was "no doubt security has improved in Iraq," but that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect forces to fight what he called "a perilous and urgent" battle against terrorism in Afghanistan.IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO OVERRULE ALL THE MILITARY.
"My job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq," Obama told reporters in Jordan after finishing a three-day tour of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama, who is on a weeklong trip through the Middle East and Western Europe, lauded the efforts of the U.S. military to reduce violence in Iraq.
He conceded that top U.S. commanders had said they resisted the idea of a timetable for withdrawing troops, saying that they wanted to "retain as much flexibility as possible."
Asked whether he intended to ignore their advice, Obama declared: "No, I'm factoring in their advice, but placing it in this broader strategic framework that's required."
- BUT ON MILITARY ISSUES, IT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED HAT NON-COMPETENT DECISION-MAKERS WOULD DEFER TO COMPETENT ONES.
- OBAMA EITHER THINKS HE'S MORE COMPETENT THAN THE MILITARY COMMANDERS - LIKE PETRAEUS - OR HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT MORE COMPETENT PEOPLE THINK.
- OR BOTH: THEY ARE EACH SYMPTOMATIC OF THE EGOMANIAC OBAMA IS PROVING MORE AND MORE EACH DAY.
- EITHER WAY IT REVEALS HIS UNFITNESS FOR COMMAND.
- IT MAKES OBAMA SOMETHING OF A CHICKEN-DOVE.
- [MORE ON CHICKENDOVES HERE AND HERE. -
- WHICH REMINDS NE: WHEN WILL ANYONE ASK OBAMA WHAT HE THINKS OF CINDY SHEEHAN
- AND WHETHER HE FEELS THAT THE 4000 US TROOPS WHO WERE KILLED IN IRAQ DIED IN VAIN?]
- BOTTOM-LINE: IT GOES BEYOND AUDACITY FOR A NON-COMPETENT SCOUNDREL LIKE OBAMA TO BRAG THAT HE WILL OVERRULE COMMANDERS WHO KNOW MUCH MORE THAN HE DOES.
MORE ON GENERAL OBAMA HERE.
THE USA HAS 37% OF THE WORLD'S OIL - IF THE DEMOCRATS LET US GET TO IT!
THIS SEEMS PROMISING: "The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management today published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States. "800 BILLION.
I DUNNO IF THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT TO YOU, BUT TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF OIL...
WIKI:
According to British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy, as of 2007 Saudi Arabia reported it had 264 billion barrels (42×109 m3) of estimated oil reserves, around 21% of conventional world oil reserves.[12] Since Saudi Arabia produced about 3.2 billion barrels (510×106 m3) of oil in 2006, this would give it over 80 years of reserves at current rates of production.
[...]Oil shale
The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil.[citation needed] However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.
- IF 264 IS 21%, THEN 100% IS 1.4 TRILLION.
- PLUS 800 BILLION = 2.2 TRILLION.
- THAT WOULD MAKE THE USA HAVE ABOUT.,.. ER UM 37% OF THE WORLD'S OIL - AND SAUDI ARABIA ONLY... 12%.
- THE USA WOULD HAVE 3X AS MUCH OIL THAN THE SAUDI.
- IT WOULD BUST OPEC BETTER THAN ANY LAWSUIT.
- AND IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE USA HAS 320 YEARS OF OIL FROM SHALE.
- ASSUMING THE DEMS LET US USE IT.
- AND JUST STARTING THE PROCESS OF GETTING TO IT WILL LOWER PRICES, (AS THE ADDITIONAL SUPPLY IS FACTORED INTO PRICE CONSIDERATIONS).
- WANT TO USE IT?
PREVIOUS POST WITH MORE BACKGROUND HERE.
UPDATE: AND PASTORIUS REMINDS ME OF THIS ONE, TOO.
- THIS STORY OS BUILDING: SPREAD THE WORD.
- VOTE GOP SO WE CAN DEVELOP THIS RESOURCE!
SEMTEX EXPLOSIVE MISSING
(Hat-tip to Bob McCarty Writes)
Check out this BBC News article:
Check out this BBC News article:
French search for stolen SemtexSee Bob's posting to find out why the story caught his eye!
French anti-terrorist officers are searching for 28kg (61lb) of Semtex explosive missing from a depot in the suburbs of the city of Lyon.
France's interior ministry confirmed an investigation was underway, saying the manager of the site had been suspended.
Semtex is a powerful explosive favoured by terrorist groups as it is odourless and difficult to detect.
Police said detonators were also missing and that they are treating the theft "very seriously".
The depot, in a disused 19th century fort at Corbas, is used for storing explosives by a civil defence unit charged with the job of blowing up bombs and ammunition left over from the two world wars.
Police said the discovery that the Semtex was missing was made on Friday but admitted the explosives could have been taken up to a week ago.
In a statement released late on Friday the interior ministry said there had been "security failings" which had made the theft possible.
Police sources have declined to confirm a newspaper website report which said that the store had been unguarded.
Semtex, which was first made in the Czech Republic, is used in mining and demolition work.
A bomb containing about half a kilogram of the explosive caused the blast which brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people.
CLOSE CALL THIS TIME
A copycat bulldozer attack took place, just a few weeks after the last one, and fortunately, no one was murdered this time:
An Arab driver intentionally crashed his Caterpillar bulldozer into a city bus and hit two cars in central Jerusalem Tuesday afternoon in an apparent effort to recreate the terror attack in the capital several weeks ago. The bulldozer reportedly left a construction site opposite Liberty Bell Bark near the corner of King David Street in the heart of the city, wounding one person moderately and several more lightly. The driver was first shot by a civilian, but kept smashing cars until being shot dead by a border policeman.My guess is that the police realize this time that they could make things worse for themselves by going by the notion that they're not allowed to use deadly force to prevent monsters like that one from murdering innocents. I'm glad if they're acting responsibly this time. They're also going to be monitoring Arab workers at construction sites in order to prevent further attacks of this sort.
UPDATED: DEVASTATING--Instant Replay of Obama on the Surge: THEN and NOW
with a BIG h/t to Sweetness and Light, these are highly illustrative of a man willing to abandon his so-called "new politics" and "principle" at the drop of at hat. (WARNING--watch them fast; before the Obama "Thought Police" move to get them removed--like virtually every other Obama contradiction has been documented has been targeted by the Stalinists in his campaign recently...) So if you see the message "Message No Longer Available" on any of the videos below you will know why:
Obama on the Surge in South Dakoka:
Obama on the Surge on Face the Nation:
Obama on the Surge on MSNBC:
Obama on the Surge on Meet the Press:
Obama on the Surge on Today Show:
And FINALLY: Obama on the Surge--Today in Jordan:
Note how he gives credit to EVERYONE but our men and women who have risked--and in some cases sacrificed--their lives. This is an ABOMINATION.
RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: IN THIS LAST ONE OBAMA REFERS TO THE USA'S TREASURIES AS "MY MONEY." A FREUDIAN SLIP!
UPDATED: I think Dan Riehl was absolutely spot-on with this:
Obama on the Surge in South Dakoka:
Obama on the Surge on Face the Nation:
Obama on the Surge on MSNBC:
Obama on the Surge on Meet the Press:
Obama on the Surge on Today Show:
And FINALLY: Obama on the Surge--Today in Jordan:
Note how he gives credit to EVERYONE but our men and women who have risked--and in some cases sacrificed--their lives. This is an ABOMINATION.
RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: IN THIS LAST ONE OBAMA REFERS TO THE USA'S TREASURIES AS "MY MONEY." A FREUDIAN SLIP!
UPDATED: I think Dan Riehl was absolutely spot-on with this:
Obama's reprehensible, ill-informed and misleading comments regarding Iraq - and specifically the surge - may qualify him as the first genuinely un-American presidential nominee in history. It's impossible to define a man who would attempt to gain the office of Commander-In-Chief by losing an American war an American. Evidently Obama's upbringing instilled in him nothing of the best of American tradition. He's, purely and simply, a total sell-out - all ego and ambition, with no realistic positive vision for America at all.
What the hell is this below supposed to mean? I was clueless and got it dead wrong, but, if not for that, my judgment would have been right ...?? because I am the messiah come to deliver you from Satan Bush. Now don't ask me anymore tough questions, or I'll write a whiny op-ed in the New York Times that everyone's always picking on me, just as they were my wife before I cried about that. What a pathetic excuse for a man, let alone a would be world leader this clown is.
"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."
Yeah, without an increased troop presence bringing more security due to the surge, the Sunnis would have just up and kicked al-qaeda out on their own. What a scumbag this guy is. He just sold out the entire military in that one statement - and all to try and save his ass for being so absolutely wrong on Iraq. Disgusting.
It's fair to conclude this dilettante would sell-out anyone, or anything to gain a political advantage. Not only does America not need a president like that, frankly, we can't afford one. The all-Obama all the time press coverage of his current travels has to qualify as one of the low points in our media's history. And that is saying something, indeed.
American liberalism, 2008
In 2008 we find ourselves grappling with an ideological flesh-eating parasite in modern liberalism. It champions determination, drive, resourcefulness, grit and plain old-fashioned ballz - only in promulgating itself, and for no other purpose. In that singular endeavor of self-reproduction, it never wanes, fumbles or retreats. Holding high the banner of itself, it shows all the "patriotism" for which it shows theatrical horror elsewhere, including the resolve to seek out, interrogate and punish the desultory and apathetic.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
All the energy and heat of an erupting volcano; All the single-minded determination of any wild, starving predator; All the stamina of water wearing away on a rock; The power of a tidal wave.
All these forces of nature reserved for simple reproduction of the idea. And only for that, for the idea is nihilism. We are not good, we don't belong where we are, and nothing is worth anything, for we are undeserving of whatever it is.
What peaceful people they'd be if they were consistent about this. Because then they'd say "well, we should get out of this war because it's just too dang painful and hard, but if there's other folks who disagree about that and they outvote me, that's quite alright. What's the use of arguing. Heck, I'm not too sure I should have an opinion about it anyway."
Quite the difference between that hypothetical product of consistency, and what we see them do every day and every week, no? Wouldn't it be nice if they worked up one-tenth as much anger toward radical terrorists as what they have in reserve for conservatives, "neocons," and other ideological opponents?
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
All the energy and heat of an erupting volcano; All the single-minded determination of any wild, starving predator; All the stamina of water wearing away on a rock; The power of a tidal wave.
All these forces of nature reserved for simple reproduction of the idea. And only for that, for the idea is nihilism. We are not good, we don't belong where we are, and nothing is worth anything, for we are undeserving of whatever it is.
What peaceful people they'd be if they were consistent about this. Because then they'd say "well, we should get out of this war because it's just too dang painful and hard, but if there's other folks who disagree about that and they outvote me, that's quite alright. What's the use of arguing. Heck, I'm not too sure I should have an opinion about it anyway."
Quite the difference between that hypothetical product of consistency, and what we see them do every day and every week, no? Wouldn't it be nice if they worked up one-tenth as much anger toward radical terrorists as what they have in reserve for conservatives, "neocons," and other ideological opponents?
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Why is only one of these cartoons tasteless and offensive?
Regular readers of Tongue Tied will know why from long experience. It is an examnple of the golden rule of hate speech: Only conservatives can utter hate speech (or hate cartoons) while anything that Leftists say is "free speech", no matter how offensive it is.
The first cartoon did in fact come from a Leftist source -- which is why it was simply dubbed offensive rather than hate speech -- but it mocks a Leftist so that must be condemned. But a cartoon that ridicules a conservative? No problem!
The media were filled with condemnations of the Obama cartoon. Even McCain and various GOP figures condemned it. But the second cartoon (which also appeared in a well-known source) has aroused not a murmur in the media in the 4 weeks since it first appeared.
And note that the second cartoon depicts torturers as Asians (albeit Asians who look rather like Obama, Hillary and GWB). From anybody else that would be "racist".
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
OBAMA CAN'T GO 48 HOURS WITHOUT PULLING A BONER,
AND THE MSM CAN'T GO 24 WITHOUT SUCKING IT.
PROOF HERE AND HERE AND HERE AND HERE -AND THEY ALL HAVE LINKS.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.