:: October 2009 ::







::::

Getting Busy

[wsj] [...] We know what you're thinking, but this is not Obama's fault. Afghanistan is someone else's mess, so why don't you grab a mop? [...]

Hang on a second. It has now been 51 weeks since Obama was elected president, and more than nine months since he took office, and he's just now getting around to asking the "questions . . . that have never been asked"?

But that's not really fair to Obama. After all, he has a busy schedule, what with golf games and pitching the International Olympic Committee and date nights and Democratic fund-raisers and health care and the U.N. Security Council and Sunday morning talk shows and saving the planet from global warming and celebrating the dog's birthday and defending himself against Fox News and all.

"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," FoxNews.com quotes the president as telling servicemen. As for the servicemen who are already in harm's way: Jeez, guys, be patient! He'll figure out what to do about Afghanistan as soon as he gets around to it.

Then again, when he accepted the nomination for president back in August 2008, he seemed to know just what to do:

"When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives. . . .

I will . . . finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

As John Kerry* once said, "You could get whiplash watching the administration policy on Afghanistan change from day to day.

::::

All Falling Down . . .

[pj] Obama’s mega-borrowing is predicated on a rather thin margin of safety. We can service nearly $2 trillion in additional debt this year—on top of the existing $11 trillion—only because interest rates are so low.

But as a veteran of the near usury of the 1970s and early 1980s, I see no reason why interest rates won’t shoot up to 10% once the economy recovers and the U.S. has to convince lenders to buy our paper in an inflationary spiral. In other words, we could fork out each year about $150-200 billion in interest costs on our annual red ink, in addition to paying annually another trillion dollars to service the existing debt. (We forget that many of us young people in the 1970s and 1980s simply never bought anything new due to high interest: my first new car was not purchased until 1989 when interest was only 7.2% on it; my parents bought a small condo in 1980 for the unbelievably low rate of 8.8%, due only to redevelopment incentives in a bad neighborhood of Fresno. Inflation will be back, even in this quite different age of globalized competition and low wages.)

When Obama talks of a trillion here for health care, a trillion there for cap-and-trade, it has a chilling effect. Does he include the cost of interest? Where will the money came from? Who will pay the interest? Has he ever experienced the wages of such borrowing in his own life? Did he cut back and save for his college or law school tuition, with part-time jobs? Did he ever run a business and see how hard it was to be $200 ahead at day’s end? [...]

I think there are a few truths that transcend politics and remain eternal. In life as a general rule, debt has to be paid back, and with greater pain and anger than it was to borrow it. Bullies do not respect magnanimity, but tragically interpret it as weakness to be exploited rather than to be admired.

Hoping that something good comes true —like being self-reliant through solar and wind—does not make it true; neglecting the riches at hand to dream about greater riches that do not exist is adolescent. Radical Islam hates the West, not because of what we do or say, but because of who we are: a dynamic, mercurial culture that challenges all the protocols of a traditional, tribal and religiously fundamentalist society.

Diplomacy is a tool to lessen, but not eliminate, tensions—a way to conduct foreign policy, not a foreign policy in and of itself.

::::

Real problem is Washington's riverboat gamble on saving the economy with free money

[wsj] Members of the Obama administration have taken turns deploring the billions of dollars in year-end bonuses the finance industry is getting ready to hand out. Never mentioned is what they think firms should do with the money. Give it back to their customers? Spend it on office decorations?

Firms can't just wish away revenue sitting on their books. That's an accounting crime. More to the point, aren't surging banker bonuses amid a general downturn the proximate and necessary outcome of Washington's recovery Heimlich, which involves doling out free money to banks and artificially goosing asset prices?

Er, wasn't this the plan?

After all, whatever sloppy incentives are introduced into the mix, Ken Feinberg is on hand to fix them by fine-tuning banker pay. Voilà, Washington has figured out how to stoke a credit bubble with one hand while making sure with the other that it feeds only good and sound "long-term" purposes.

Of course, Mr. Feinberg's clever calibration of carrots only works with the seven bailed-out firms under his direct control. As he grandly told PBS, "The private marketplace should be able to have the flexibility to adopt these programs on their own."

Unpack the ironies and contradictions in that sentence.

Mr. Feinberg is no dummy. Everyone knows the folderol about bonuses is a substitute for tackling the political challenge of "too big to fail." His every explanation has consisted of pleading political necessity over good judgment.

Yet the urgent problem now isn't TBTF, or even banker bonuses. These are distractions. The urgent problem is the giant riverboat gamble that Washington can save the economy by doing what comes naturally—spending money carelessly, creating massive new entitlements without funding them, dishing out cheap credit to politically favored sectors, telling business people where and how to invest.

::::

Gaseous : John Kerry Willfully Clueless or Seriously Uninformed :

Inhofe Point by Point Rebuttal to Senator Kerry 30 Minute Filibuster

On October 27, 2009, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) appeared before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to speak on behalf of the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill. Sen. Kerry spoke uncontested for 28 minutes, allowing no time for questions by members of the Committee.

The following is a line-by-line analysis of Sen. Kerry's assertions. In reading through the document, one will see that Sen. Kerry is badly misinformed about many of the key details and issues surrounding the climate change policy debate.
[epw]

KERRY: "NASA scientists - the best experts we have - tell us that the last ten years have been the hottest decade on record."

FACT: In an October 9 story titled, "What happened to global warming," the BBC (no friend to climate skeptics) wrote: "This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. Moreover, the BBC added: "And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

KERRY: "That's why the countries of the world-including India, China and the United States-have agreed to limit the global rise in temperature to two degrees Celsius."

FACT: China is the world's leading emitter of CO2; India is the 3rd largest. Sen. Kerry never mentioned that China and India continue to reject mandatory, verifiable, binding emissions reductions. Consider this statement on June 30, reported in Bloomberg News, from India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh: "‘India will not accept any emission-reduction target -- period," Ramesh said. "This is a non-negotiable stand.'"

Or consider this statement from a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry: "China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change..." The spokesman went on to say that China is a developing country and its priority was to develop its economy, alleviate poverty and raise living standards. "Given that," he said, "it is natural for China to have some increase in emissions, so it is not possible for China to accept a binding or compulsory target."



::::

A Conversation With Class Act Gore Vidal

[a] [...]Eager for his thoughts on Obama’s presidency and a range of other topics, I caught up with Vidal twice this month at his home in Hollywood. (The first time, he sported a varsity-football-style jacket, bearing patches of the characters from The Simpsons, on which he once made a guest appearance.) [...]

- Do you really wish you had supported Mrs. Clinton?

She would have been a wonderful president. As for my support for Obama, remember that I was brought up in Washington. It was an all-black city when I was a kid. And I’ve always been very pro-African-American – or whatever phrase we now use. I was curious to see what would happen when their time came. I was delighted when Obama appeared on the scene. But now it seems as though our original objection to him – that experience mattered – was well-founded.

- What is Ted Kennedy’s real legacy?

It’s nothing. But I predicted that at the beginning, when Jack started backing him for his U.S. Senate seat. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who was a loyal Kennedy courtier, agreed. But Jack was funny about it. He never took Arthur seriously. He always called him “the movie critic.” (Imitating JFK’s accent) “What does ‘the movie critic’ have to say about this issue?” He liked to tease Arthur.

- In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

::::

Sarah...Speculation

[nwsm] When it comes to writing about Sarah Palin, the media seems compelled to focus on 2012 and her prospects of being the Republican presidential candidate despite the fact that it is a couple of years out.

It's something like putting her into a box that's not to be opened for another 2 ½ years. In addition to marginalizing her, it ignores the key role she's going to play in the crucial congressional elections next year when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate seats are up for grabs.

Unlike her media critics, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fully grasps the significance of the outcome of those elections next year. Should the GOP capture control of the House in the 2010 elections, the threat to our nation's future posed by Barack Obama will be eliminated. He’ll be a lame duck for two long years.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich nationalized the congressional elections which in the past had always been seen as local affairs. Voters were given to understand that their choices in the congressional contests had national implications and they acted accordingly, handing control of the Congress to the GOP.

We have a similar situation now. The outcome of the 2010 congressional contests will decide if the nation is ready to embrace Obama’s Marxist solutions to our multiple problems.

Voters will be confronted with a choice between unlimited government power and individual liberty. If the GOP wants to regain control of the Congress it must characterize the 2010 elections in those terms. [...]

After all, it not her personal charm or her beauty, or her outspokenness that attracts large numbers of Americans. It is instead that the American people recognize her as unashamedly one of their number.

She's the woman next door, the one you meet at the grocery counter, an outgoing friendly neighbor whose head is screwed on straight and who views the world around her much in the way we ordinary folks do. It’s called common sense, unfortunately uncommon in the public square.

That, however, is not how the almost universally liberal media sees her.

To them she is a threat that must be faced and eliminated. She has a target on her back and their arrows are pointed at its center. She must be destroyed, her potential as a successful GOP presidential candidate utterly eliminated. Her candidacy must be strangled in the crib.

To the horror of her legion of leftist detractors, the more they attack her, the stronger she gets. She has a unique talent of recognizing opportunities to get her points across coupled with the knowledge of when and how to strike and when and how to retreat temporarily and tantalizingly from public view.

Take the case of her forthcoming book. It has yet to be released; nobody has the vaguest idea of what it is about; and sight unseen, it is already a runaway best-seller.

If she can market a book in this manner, marketing herself and her political philosophy will be a cinch.

Keep your eyes on her role in the 2010 elections. It will be a portent of things to come.

::::

Democratic donors rewarded with W.H. perks

[wt] During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president's Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick's Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.

::::



::::

N.Y. Fed pushed AIG on contracts

[wapo] The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Tuesday that it had no choice but to instruct American International Group last November to reimburse the full amount of what it owed to big banks on derivatives contracts, a move that ended months of effort by the insurance giant to negotiate lower payments.

Fed officials offered the explanation in a rare response to a media report after Bloomberg News said that the New York Fed, led at the time by then-President Timothy F. Geithner, directed AIG to make the payments after it received a massive government bailout. The officials said AIG lost its leverage in demanding a better deal once the company had been saved from bankruptcy.

Lawmakers and financial analysts critical of the payouts say it amounted to a back-door bailout for big banks. AIG, the recipient of a $180 billion federal rescue package, ended up paying $14 billion to Goldman Sachs over months and $8.5 billion to Deutsche Bank, among others. Before the New York Fed intervened, AIG had been trying to persuade the firms to take discounts.

The precise cost to taxpayers of these decisions is difficult to determine. Bloomberg, quoting an industry source, reported Tuesday that AIG was aiming to pay just 40 percent of the $32.5 billion it owed to the banks. Using those figures, the report concluded that the government needlessly overpaid $13 billion. [...]

The Federal Reserve has declined to detail the terms of the deals and specifics about negotiations with creditors. The Bloomberg report quoted an unnamed AIG executive who said he was pressured by New York Fed officials to refrain from filing any documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would divulge the deals' details.

But Baxter said that was not true. "Our position has always been if your securities lawyer says it is necessary for AIG to make a particular filing, that's what AIG must do," he said.

Bloomberg and other news media organizations have sued to obtain records of the meetings and phone calls, including those made by Geithner. A U.S. District judge ruled in Bloomberg's favor in August, but the Fed has since appealed and won a ruling to keep the information sealed. The identities of the banks were made public when Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) demanded the information in March.

::::

Krauthammer is Generous : 'Obama Is Average'

[s] In a SPIEGEL interview, Charles Krauthammer, the leading voice of America's conservative intellectuals, discusses Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the president's failures and the state of the United Nations and the international community. [...]

SPIEGEL: Mr. Krauthammer, did the Nobel Commitee in Oslo honor or doom the Obama presidency by awarding him the Peace Prize?

Charles Krauthammer: It is so comical. Absurd. Any prize that goes to Kellogg and Briand, Le Duc Tho and Arafat, and Rigoberta Menchú, and ends up with Obama, tells you all you need to know. For Obama it's not very good because it reaffirms the stereotypes about him as the empty celebrity.

SPIEGEL: Why does it?

Krauthammer: He is a man of perpetual promise. There used to be a cruel joke that said Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be; Obama is the Brazil of today's politicians. He has obviously achieved nothing. And in the American context, to be the hero of five Norwegian leftists, is not exactly politically positive.

SPIEGEL: It hardly makes sense to blame him for losing the Olympic bid in one week, and then for winning the Nobel Prize the next.

Krauthammer: He should have simply said: "This is very nice, I appreciate the gesture, but I haven't achieved what I want to achieve." But he is not the kind of man that does that.

SPIEGEL: Should he have turned down the prize?

Krauthammer: He would never turn that down. The presidency is all about him. Just think about the speech he gave in Berlin. There is something so preposterous about a presidential candidate speaking in Berlin. And it was replete with all these universalist clichés, which is basically what he's been giving us for nine months.

::::

A Graphic History of Newspaper Circulation Over the Last Two Decades

[ta] [...] we've taken chunks of data for the major newspapers, going back to 1990, and graphed it, so you can see what's actually happened to newspaper circulation.

Some surprising trends: the New York Post has the same circulation it had two decades ago! Also, the once-captivating battle of the New York City tabloids has become completely moot.

Some unsurprising trends: the Los Angeles Times is an absolute horrorshow. Not shown: the Boston Globe disappearing off the bottom of this chart, in a two decade decline from 521,000 in 1990 to 264,105 this year. [click image for full view]

::::

What if George W. Bush had done that?

[p] A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things? [...]

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers. [...]

::::

Yahoo Geocities - 1995 - 2009 - Closes October 26.09

[cnet] [...] "On October 26, 2009, your GeoCities site will no longer appear on the Web, and you will no longer be able to access your GeoCities account and file," Yahoo wrote in a statement to GeoCities users.

The company said any GeoCities user that wants to maintain the site will be able to port it to Yahoo's Web Hosting service, which would cost $4.99 per month for a year and $9.95 per month afterward. GeoCities Plus customers can port their sites to Yahoo Web Hosting at no additional charge.

Yahoo first announced that it would be closing GeoCities in April. At the time, the company didn't divulge when the service would finally close.

Yahoo wrote on its GeoCities Help page that its decision to close the site was rooted in its desire to help its "customers explore and build relationships online in other ways."

GeoCities' closure marks an end of an era for the Web. The free site-building service, which Yahoo bought in 1999 for $2.9 billion, was a precursor to many of the self-publishing and social-media tools Web users employ today.

As someone who used GeoCities to create his first personal site, I find it a bit sad to say good-bye. That said, it's about time.

*Ed - Ah yes. Geocities. One of the tentacles of Vegas began there, a wee hatch-ling and still remains fond in memoir. It was an easy bit to play about with, frustrating often, though much may have been due to the realities imposed by dial up. Now that's not one of the finer memories. However, the Internet, as far as being common place, was hardly that. We've seen a lot of changes - good and bad - over that +10 years. Adios Geocities.

::::

Gergen Navel Gazes

[usn] [...] It was nearly four decades ago that John Gardner first observed that at the founding, with a population of 3 million, the republic spawned a dozen world-class leaders—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton among them—but today, with a population nearly 100 times that, we struggle to produce even one or two.

That the leadership deficit now seems so chronic suggests that the problem goes deeper than the quality of the individuals who come to power. There is something in the culture that makes leadership even tougher and more perilous than it should be. Why, asked Thomas Jefferson, did the American Revolution create a budding democracy while the French Revolution—coming at virtually the same time and with similar values—ended in tyranny? The answer, he thought, could be traced as much to the quality of the followers as to that of the leaders: American citizens were more accustomed than the French to responsible self-government.

*Ed- ...linking to this article only by reason to point to the comments section, where one can find more wise reply than Gergen has probably ever uttered.

::::

White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

[f] The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said the administration was potentially in violation of the Constitution with its attempt to restrict access to the "eyes and ears" of the country.

"What was averted was a very serious constitutional violation by the White House," Johnson said. "There cannot be selective and arbitrary access to the White House based on some subjective determination."

::::

Health insurer profits not so fat

[y] Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama. [...]

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

::::

New Era of Transparency and Accountability: Czars Not Available For Testimony

[wt] The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress - a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama.

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.

The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.

At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since he took office. Of those, she says 10 - the White House says eight - are in the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or requests for testimony.

::::


"The Left Wing Media and the left in general are desperately trying to dismiss the size and potential impact of the Tea Party / Palin crowd.

From a psychological standpoint, this is understandable and has multiple facets: denial, penchant for sophomoric ridicule, willful blindness, morally relativistic corruption, propaganda, existential paranoia leading to rage – take your pick. As we’re learning through BHO’s administration and the ineptitude Congress has demonstrated for ten years now – the last three especially – these are pretty much all the left has to offer in the way of social policy, governance and general behavior... [...]

Given the prize we were handed after the recent unpleasantness last November, the notion that Sarah needs more and/or better credentials to be elected President is true comedy gold. Anyone who thinks she’s not qualified to be elected POTUS has simply been watching too much Nightly News or reading too much NYT. In fact, her one and only challenge will be to get her message out to everyone who needs to hear it, in the face of an enraged Left Wing Media, which hangs on, parses and deconstructs her every utterance, arrogating unto themselves the authority to (re)define what she stands for.

This worked well enough for BHO. It’s what got him elected despite his countless gaffes, marxist rhetoric, inexperience, corrupt political history and genuinely troubling past. Now that he and his marxist administration have fully revealed themselves, however, that tactic’s effectiveness is waning. Fewer people every day pay attention to The Left Wing Media, which is now frantically trying to recover a modicum of credibility by attacking his dangerous inability to lead and the demonstrable failure of his policies." -goy

::::

ACORN Unveiled Part 1: Press Conference 10-21-09



[part 2] [part 3] [part 4] [part 5]

It's a beautiful thing to see this corruption laden, tax payer dollar funneling travesty called out on the carpet in such a thorough and skillful manner - if decades overdue.

::::

Where Do The Children Play?

[pl] Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have been pressing for an investigation of Countrywide Mortgage's "VIP Program," under which powerful Democrats like Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd received sweetheart mortgages, apparently as bribes. On Thursday of last week, as the committee was about to meet, the Republicans said that they wanted a vote on whether to subpoena Countrywide's records on the VIP program. The Democrats were between a rock and a hard place: the last thing they want to do is investigate their own party's corruption, but at the same time, they don't want to be seen voting to cover up the Countrywide scandal.

So what did the Democrats do? To a man (or woman), they hid. They failed to show up for the scheduled committee mark-up, leaving the Republicans sitting there by themselves in the committee room. The Democrats claimed that they didn't show up because of a conflict with a Finance Committee hearing, but in fact they were there, and were caught on video sneaking out a back door of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's offices.

That's not quite the end of the story. The Democrats, led by committee chairman Edolphus Towns, were stung by ridicule that resulted from Thursday's debacle. So now they've locked the committee room:

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren't present.

Towns' action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns's failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage's reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.
[link]

Oversight Democrats Run Away From Countrywide Bribe Program Vote



Unbelievable.

::::



::::

More ACORN footage has been released, in part, with a more complete segment regarding the Philly office which so ceremoniously proclaimed that they had thrown the film makers out. It would seem that this is not exactly the case.



**UPDATE 2:24 PM EST** [We] muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN’s legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn’t they do so?

What is really sad about this, aside from how much of the media pretended that this did not exist when it began coming to light and legitimate concern regarding this organizations other voter fraud issues, is that these overflowing garbage pits will most likely simply end up changing their name and continuing on.

Expect more commentary such as "it's no big deal," and every other imaginable purely idiotic excuse will be trotted out to deflect and much will go ignored if at all possible. No doubt CNN will continue running updates on garbage like Balloon Boy, because, well, that's just so damned important.

Not enough thanks could be given to the young film makers, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles for this work, dually exposing the corruption long known that resides in this organization and in the process also exposing the trash that is foisted on the populace masquerading as news coverage.

The Media’s Complicity: Analysis of ACORN Coverage

[bg] The mainstream media were complicit in their coverage of the ACORN scandal. Their behavior was and continues to be an insult to democracy and journalistic responsibility as the Fourth Estate has ignored facts, engaged in one-sided sourcing, and avoided basic and inherently important journalistic questioning.

First, there was avoidance. Some media outlets simply ignored the story. On Sept. 15, five days after the Maryland tape was released, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said, “I don’t even know about it… so you’ve got me at a loss” and said that the story might be “just one you leave to the cables.” But, Gibson was not alone in his lack of knowledge. The New York Times did not cover the story for nearly a week. On Sept. 26, Clark Hoyt, The Times’ Public Editor, acknowledged the paper’s tardiness, but insinuated that the story was lacking in facts:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire…But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

Then, there were cases of gratuitously sloppy journalism. Some of the outlets that did cover the story simply skipped over basic interview questions. In several instances, Bertha Lewis made the false claim that the filmmakers were turned away in “dozens of cities.” In a CNN interview with Rick Sanchez, Lewis said, “…the filmmakers went to dozens of offices. They were turned away.” In a more flagrant example of corroborating untruths, Lewis reiterated her “dozens” on MSNBC, stating, “…They were thrown out of dozens of offices. And, in fact, in Philadelphia, we called the police, filed a police report.”

Similarly, Wolf Blitzer, failed to adequately question Lewis. While on his show, Lewis made the following statement: “This sort of notorious crew went around to dozens of our offices. What you don’t see are the offices that threw them out… offices that filed police complaints.”

The lack of depth of these interviews with Lewis has been egregious. Upon hearing of the “dozens,” even the most unseasoned journalist would know to ask, “What were the cities where filmmakers were thrown out?” And, what about the police reports (plural) that were filed by multiple “offices”? Like Sanchez’s treatment of the “dozens,” Blitzer failed to ask for a list of cities that took such action. Lewis was granted a free pass, as no probing questions were asked about the issues in question.

On Sept. 12, just two days after the Maryland tape was made public, Lewis released a statement on ACORN’s Web site, writing, “This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we’ve all recently seen.”

Following subsequent video releases, New York and San Diego were dropped from ACORN’s list of cities where the filmmakers were allegedly “turned away” and the aforementioned statement was removed from ACORN’s Web site, thus erasing evidence of inconsistency.

::::

Maddow/Olbermann Invited to White House Chat with Obama, But Fox Isn't a News Organization?

[mb] Here's a curious turn in the White House vs. Fox News fight.

On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.

This fact quickly turned into ammunition for the folks at FOX. Last night on "Special Report," Bret Baier revealed the information pointing out that opinion hosts from one channel were being invited to a briefing with the Commander-in-Chief, all the while Fox was declared not a news organization.

::::

First they came for Fox : Journalists should defend cable network against White House

[t] [...] It’s certainly the case that Fox is revelling in the White House attacks and its ratings will only be boosted. Rupert Murdoch certainly seems very happy. And, yep, Fox has enough big boys to defend itself. And, yes, the White House campaign is (as I’ve blogged before) silly and – as the Left is realising, essentially counter-productive.

But there is a very insidious element being injected into the anti-Fox campaign. It’s the notion that other news organisations should accept the White House’s partisan contention that Fox News has no legitimacy as a news entity. [...]

Basically, the White House doesn’t want stories like ACORN and Van Jones – legitimate, even necessary, stories which Fox bravely pursued with immense vigour – taking hold. The media will be more compliant, it hopes, if it introduces a chill factor – “Why are you asking this impertinent question about a story which is being run on Fox, which we all know isn’t a news organisation?”

As Tom DeFrank, a veteran Washington journalist now DC bureau chief of the New York Daily News, comments:

I can never remember a White House urging news organizations to boycott other news organizations. That strikes me as unprecedented.

Journalists have a duty to reject this brazen attempt to dictate to the media just who is legitimate and who is not and how we should treat whoever the US government tells us is illegitimate. Where does this lead to? [...]

Those journalists sitting this one out need to ask themselves what they will do when the White House comes after them or their news organisation.

Because if Fox is allowed to be placed out of respectable bounds in this way then when the going gets tougher – as it will - the White House will simply move on to another target.



[wsj] [...] This column is not of the opinion that the White House's verbal attacks on Fox News amount to an assault on free expression. Even Anita Dunn's boasts about controlling press coverage aren't enough to raise a real free-expression issue.

But they say something terribly damning about the media as an institution. The Obama administration, much less the campaign, does not have the legal means to "control" journalists. If it has succeeded in doing so, it is only because journalists are willing to submit to such control. And what good is freedom of the press if you aren't going to exercise it?

::::



[orb] Going Rouge is compiled by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed, two top editors of the left-leaning weekly The Nation, and includes essays by Nation regulars like Katrina vanden Heuvel, Naomi Klein, and Katha Pollitt. It’s the first release from OR Books, a fledgling outfit founded earlier this year by publishing veterans John Oakes and Colin Robinson that “embraces progressive change in politics, culture and the way we do business.”

The Empty Left

They'll be releasing this book on Nov. 17, the same day that Palin's book becomes available. How clever. And with a cover design that would seem to be an attempt at deception. Who else would buy this book, written by, as we're told, this irrelevant woman, this idiot etc.? The people that dislike this lady are the target audience? Oh, satire is it? Ahh...it's a cutesy thing, OK. Now I understand why these types are always informing others how enlightened and intellectually superior they are. It shows. It's perfectly fine to attack a private citizen - duly noted again, the sifting through Plumber Joe's tax returns and personal documentation. It's progressive!

Could these people be any more pathetic? One is continually impressed at how some leftist factions can further raise the bar on classless and clueless nonsense. Is it just an attempt at a capitalist cash in? Could be, but the chances are better that they actually think this is pretty cool and witty and might somehow cause some ill towards the Alaskan ex-governor.

I'm not all that convinced that Sarah has any intention of running in 2012, yet it's certainly her prerogative to do so and there is little doubt of her appeal to many. She seems to be doing just fine, as she always has, doing things just as she cares to.

::::
Carnegie Hall Stagehand Moving Props Makes $530,044

[b] After you practice for years and get to Carnegie Hall, it’s almost better to move music stands than actually play the piano.

Depending on wattage, a star pianist can receive $20,000 a night at the 118-year-old hall, meaning he or she would have to perform at least 27 times to match the income of Dennis O’Connell, who oversees props at the New York concert hall.

O’Connell made $530,044 in salary and benefits during the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. The four other members of the full-time stage crew -- two carpenters and two electricians -- had an average income of $430,543 during the same period, according to Carnegie Hall’s tax return.

At Carnegie Hall, which has featured on its three stages such varied musicians as Duke Ellington, Bob Dylan and the Berlin Philharmonic, only Artistic and Executive Director Clive Gillinson makes more than the stagehands.

Gillinson earned $946,581 in salary and benefits in the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. Chief Financial Officer Richard Matlaga made $352,139, while General Manager Anna Weber received $341,542.

Labor Clout

The stagehands benefit from a strong union: Local One of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees demonstrated its clout in November 2007 when its members walked off their Broadway jobs and closed 26 shows for almost three weeks. The strike ended after stagehands and producers agreed to a five-year contract that both sides called a compromise.

Joshua B. Freeman, a U.S. labor historian at Queens College and author of “Working Class New York,” said the union’s power to shut down a vital part of New York’s entertainment industry gives it leverage in negotiations.

“They have a credible threat of withdrawing their labor,” Freeman said.

Local One President James J. Claffey Jr., who earned $260,877 in salary and benefits in 2007, declined to comment. Union spokesman Bruce Cohen said O’Connell had no comment. Gillinson also had no comment, while Matlaga and Weber didn’t return calls.

::::



::::
Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals

[stng] Have you heard the news? President Obama inherited an economic mess from the Bush administration.

You say that's hardly news? But it's been the message sounded over and over by the White House. Top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on one of the Sunday news shows, "He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression." In San Francisco, Obama talked of being "busy with our mop." White House heavy hitter Rahm Emanuel used the worst-economy-since-the-Depression line on a public TV news show.

You'd think it's October 2008, the final month in the Obama presidential candidacy, rather than October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency. Yet the Obama White House is in full campaign mode -- maybe because it needs to mask the shortcomings of the Obama presidency.

Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion.

Yet just a few months ago, the Obama camp was singing a little different tune. It was under criticism for the $787 billion stimulus package it bulldozed through Congress on grounds that massive spending was needed to keep the unemployment rate from breaching 8 percent. When joblessness hit 9.5 percent in June, Vice President Joe Biden said, "We misread how bad the economy was."

They inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, or the economy turned out to be worse than they thought. Which is it? It can't be both -- unless your brain is completely addled by the Obama charisma. [...]



But that's harmless compared to the virulent campaign against Obama critics carried out by the denizens of MSNBC. Its Obama acolytes seek to demonize opponents of Obama's policies by focusing on most marginal corners of right-wing politics like, for example, the "birthers" who deny Obama is a natural born citizen. The larger scheme is to imply Obama critics are racists.

That's the backdrop to the story of Rush Limbaugh getting booted from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. He was smeared on CNN and MSNBC with false accusations of making two racist comments. He is an abrasive critic of Obama, so he must be racist, or so goes the left-wing story line. I wouldn't defend everything Limbaugh has ever said, but lies were used to blacklist him from professional football for his political views.

Recently an MSNBC personality accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of lobbying for policies that amount to being "treasonous to this country." Remember how liberals roared in outrage at any hint of their patriotism being questioned for criticizing the Iraq War? Well, it's the left that doesn't shy from attacking the patriotism of those it dislikes. Recall the repulsive Moveon.org "General Betray-us" ad against Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. Recent opposition to Chicago's Olympic bid was cast as a sign of a lack of patriotism among Obama critics.

The MSNBC blast against the chamber appears to dovetail with what the Politico newspaper reports is a White House and Democratic effort "to marginalize" the business organization. That echoes the administration assault on the Fox News Channel: It says Fox isn't a news organization.

The White House trying to dictate who's a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?

* Ed- Count us among the surprised to find such a robust article - especially from the Chicago group - and the comments in reply to this article are well worth the glance.

::::

Obama the Graceless

[nro] Republicans needn’t trouble themselves to nominate a presidential candidate in 2012. No matter what, Pres. Barack Obama will be running against George W. Bush.

Bush will be Obama’s eternal foil. At this rate, when Obama writes his post-presidential memoir, it will be titled: An Audacious Presidency, or How I Saved America from That Bastard Bush. His presidential library will have a special fright-house wing devoted to Bush’s misrule. He will mutter in his senescence about 43, like the Ancient Mariner about his albatross.

Obama clearly wants Bush to be the Hoover to his FDR. Since his predecessor left office with 34 percent job approval, Obama understandably feels moved to scorn and berate him. But Obama’s perpetual campaign against Bush is graceless, whiny, and tin-eared. Must the leader of the free world — if Obama still accepts that quaint formulation — always reach for the convenient excuse?

::::



[zt] Barack Obama came to San Francisco on October 15 to attend a private fundraiser at the St. Francis Hotel — where he was greeted by an unexpectedly large and boisterous “Tea Party” protest.

(Other groups showed up as well, and I cover the full event at zombietime: San Francisco Obama Fundraiser Protest.)

Since I had never before encountered an actual “Tea Party” (i.e. an anti-Obama protest by conservative, libertarian and/or right-wing voters), I was curious to see if the partiers lived up to their reputation as “extremists” (at least as portrayed by the media). But instead of scary extremism, what I found was a surprising and piercing sense of humor (something that had been mostly lacking from the angry protests of the Bush era).



::::

War on Fox News : The Obvious and Further Study of Incompetence: "Whiniest Administration Ever"

[d] Today’s exchange with Robert Gibbs, presidential spokesman:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

[d] As President Obama escalates his war on Fox News, some newspaper people are telling him to stop it already.

Not because it is wrong — an unconstitutional wielding of presidential power against a critic — but because it is ineffective. [...]

Helen Thomas: “They can only take you down. You can’t kill the messenger.”

David Carr of the New York Times: “It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, I will listen to you, especially when we disagree’.”

David Zurawik, the TV critic for the Baltimore Sun: “This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox.”

John Nichols of the Nation: “As for the Obama administration, whether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there’s a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is ‘whining.’ And nothing — no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo — does more damage to Obama’s credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief.”

[d] Hume: “It is a little hard to discern a strategy behind the White House campaign of criticism of Fox News unless it’s simply this — an attempt to quarantine Fox and thereby discourage other media outlets from following up stories did originate here. The White House is clearly stung by the revelations about former aid Van Jones. He turned out to have harbored views that were out there where the buses don’t run and he was forced to resign. And the White House could not much have cared for the hidden camera expose of ACORN — an organization with which the president had a past association and one whose voter registration drives have benefited the Democratic Party.”

It got even better as Hume said: “So the president’s aides appear on other news channels to say that Fox, unlike those outlets, is really not a news organization but an arm of the Republican Party. One wonders how our colleagues at CNN and elsewhere like being patted on the head and given the seal of approval by the White House. These outlets already stand accused of being in the tank for Mr. Obama. Do they really want to open themselves up to more such criticism by ignoring legitimate stories because they originate here?”

[wapo] There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat.

It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.

::::

Iran threatens Britain and U.S. after Guard bombing

[y] The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards on Monday vowed to "retaliate" against the United States and Britain after accusing them of backing the perpetrators of a suicide bombing that killed six Guards commanders.

Iranian media say the Sunni Muslim insurgent group Jundollah (God's soldiers) has claimed responsibility for Sunday's bombing in Sistan-Baluchestan province, which killed 42 people in all.

The incident threatened to overshadow talks between Iran and global powers in Vienna on Monday intended to tackle a standoff about Iran's nuclear ambitions. [...]

The United States, Pakistan and Britain have all condemned the bombing, the bloodiest attack in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq, and denied involvement.

"We reject in the strongest terms any assertion that this attack has anything to do with Britain," said a spokeswoman at Britain's Foreign Office. "Terrorism is abhorrent wherever it occurs."

::::

Iran 'doubts' over nuclear deal

[bbc] Iran appears to be backing away from a proposed deal to resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme, Iranian media reports suggest.

A state TV channel said Iran wanted to import fuel for its research reactor, without sending its own enriched uranium out of the country.

Russia, France and the US are preparing for talks with Iran on sending its uranium abroad for enrichment.

Iran had agreed in principle to have some uranium shipped out.

Monday's meeting in Vienna, hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is being seen as a test of the diplomatic process now under way.

But BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne reports from London that the TV report, if true, would be a major blow to the West's hopes of a new dialogue.

It appeared on Press TV, a government-run foreign news channel that often reflects government thinking.

Western powers say Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, a charge Iran denies.

It says its nuclear programme is for purely civilian, peaceful purposes. [...]

Last month, the revelation of a second uranium enrichment plant in Iran further raised Western fears that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The Iranian government has said it will allow IAEA inspectors into the site, thought to be near Qom.

::::

Ayn Rand : The Surprising Popularity of a Libertarian Hero in India

[fp] Consumer spending in the United States may be down, but an interest in Ayn Rand certainly is not. Sales of Rand's last novel, the vigorously pro-capitalism fable Atlas Shrugged, have seen a huge leap in 2009, briefly outperforming even President Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope on Amazon's best-seller list. Few 1,000-page, half-century-old tomes can claim so much.

At tea parties and town halls nationwide, amid outrage over government bailouts of Wall Street banks and Detroit carmakers and the supposed socialization of health care, protesters speak of "going Galt," refusing to work in what they see as a socialist economy, just as Rand's hero John Galt did. Even the mea culpa of Rand's most famous fan and follower, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, has done little to dent the appeal of her radical individualism and libertarianism, which Rand shaped into a philosophy she called Objectivism. But all this makes a certain amount of sense. Perhaps more surprising is the Ayn Rand boom that is building in another mass democracy: India.

Not only do Indians perform more Google searches for Rand than citizens of any country in the world except the United States, but Penguin Books India has sold an impressive number of copies -- as many as 50,000 of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead each since 2005, a number comparable to sales there by global best-seller John Grisham. And that's not counting the ubiquitous pirated copies of her works that are hawked at rickety street stalls, sidewalk piles, and bus stations -- an honor that Rand, a fierce defender of intellectual property rights, probably would not have appreciated.

As modern India continues to undergo seismic economic and cultural shifts, not to mention the current global recession, Rand is emerging as a touchstone for a new generation. For many Indians, she is a tonic of modernization, helping to inspire a break with India's collectivist, socialist past. Rand's mixture of capitalist boosterism and self-empowerment is an irresistible combination for a range of Indians, from think-tankers to corporate barons to pop stars.

Rand's celebration of independence and personal autonomy has proven to be powerfully subversive in a culture that places great emphasis on conforming to the dictates of family, religion, and tradition.

::

The unconservative Ayn Rand and her relationship to the American right

[r] Sources from The New York Times to the United Kingdom's Guardian agree that 2009 is the Year of Ayn Rand. Fortuitously surfing the wave of Rand fascination is the first thorough and largely unbiased book about her life and ideas by a serious American academic, one neither a personal friend nor a bitter enemy of the controversial Russian-born novelist and philosopher.

Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, by University of Virginia historian Jennifer Burns, delivers a smart assessment of Rand's life and ideas and how they influenced each other. On what her book's title promises—the connections between Rand and the American right wing—Ms. Burns is less convincing, though she does provide enough data to make it clear why Rand has never really been a "goddess" to the American right.

Why is Rand, dead since 1982, so hot again today? Ironically, big government, one of Rand's betes noires, is stimulating her sales. Her more than 1,000-page 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, sold 25 percent more copies in the first half of this year than it sold in all of last year, shipping a total of 300,000 copies so far this year—tremendous success for a 52-year-old novel.

Readers and pundits alike look at America and see a world scarily reminiscent of Rand's government-choked dystopia in Atlas. It's a world with a struggling economy where political pull matters more than success in the free market, where the government blithely takes over huge transportation industries.

::::
If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?

[at] This article offers the basic teachings of Karl Marx, so readers may judge themselves whether these might be at work influencing current Administration decisions. In the present chaotic political atmosphere, the phrase "Marxist" is tossed around without explanation. But what exactly does Marxism represent? Marx's universe was simplistic. It presents a godless, sinister world where the powerful prey upon the weak, which can only be healed through revolution. In the resulting apocalypse, wealth is confiscated by revolutionaries so all may benefit. Private property is outlawed as enlightened leaders build a paradise of communism. But before utopia arrives, a principled assault must destroy capitalism.

Besides the above classic theory, a new approach, called Neo-Marxism, has arisen. It focuses upon cultural conversions for communism, and produces explosive fruit, such as Political Correctness, the Sexual Revolution, Global Warming, Hate Speech laws, Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Universal Health Care, etc. Critics warn reborn Marxism is exceedingly dangerous since it is delivered below the radar, and represents a devious bloodless communist assault, a polar-opposite of the violently murderous Bolshevik and Mao uprisings.

Mini-Summary: Marxism concerns wealth. God is dead, Darwin rules. The rich steal from the poor. Communist revolution will destroy capitalism, outlawing private property to establish paradise.

The following is a basic overview of some essential aspects of Marxism [...]

::::



"We already pay farmers not to farm. Why not pay legislators not to legislate? Bill Whittle presents his plan on how to deal with the out-of-control Congress."

::::

Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty, Redux

[cfp] The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it. It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.

The United States of America—that “shining city on a hill”—had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all. But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.

Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history—a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.

America is barreling towards becoming a bit player on the world’s stage, and its vaunted middle class—once the envy of the world—is on the verge of being eliminated.

For the good of the planet, for the good of Gaia. for the good of the collective.

In a little over a month from now, Obama intends to sign away U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations at a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

It will be the occasion of the U.N.‘s COP 15 —meaning the 15th meeting of the 1992 signatories (Council of Parties) to Agenda 21.

Al Gore has said, ”This treaty must be negotiated this year. Not next year. This year.”
Freedom will irrevocably be replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”

Freedom will irrevocably be replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”

America has been set up like a bowling pin, and is about to take a fall. We are at the “end game” point.

And the Globalists know it. Why do you think the Democratic (and many Republican) political hacks on Capitol Hill are so dismissive of the American people?

They are essentially putting on a “dog and pony show” for public consumption, while the final pieces for America’s defeat are slid into place. No, they are not worried about upcoming free elections.

To a great extent the Globalists own the mass media, the entertainment industry, our schools, and the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

Why should they worry?

Already, several generations have been indoctrinated, via our school systems, to value globalization and “social justice,” over personal responsibility and free enterprise.

They have been repeatedly sold the idea that they should, “Think globally, act locally.”

God has been demeaned, marginalized, and eradicated, at every turn. Our religions are, in many cases, a watered down and diluted mimicry of true spirituality.

The “religion” of the Globalists preaches the worship of Gaia—Mother Earth (shouldn’t that be Mother/Father Earth?). They do not worship God.

The Globalists have come out from the closets, the woodwork, and from under rocks. They know that their time of hiding is at long last over. They are brazen about, and proud of, their anti-American/pro-global stance. Their arrogance and hubris is palpable.

Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists—call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise.

They have been duplicitous, Machavellian, clever, and patient. And it has paid off; the trap has been sprung.

How did this happen?

::::

Taliban's Afghan allies tell Barack Obama: 'Cut us a deal and we'll ditch al-Qaeda'

[t] [...] Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil, 38, who served as foreign minister when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, may prove to be President Barack Obama's best chance of ending the gruelling war in Afghanistan - by enabling negotiations with America's enemies.

Such a prospect would have seemed far-fetched only a year ago; but now, as Mr Obama grapples with difficult Afghanistan decisions, faced with a faltering Kabul government and a spreading insurgency, all options are on the table.

Some of them may seem distinctly unsavoury for a president elected as a liberal idealist - in particular the notion of doing deals with Taliban commanders, and empowering former warlords and tribal leaders who have blood on their hands and in many cases hatred in their hearts.

But America's desperation to regain the initiative in an increasingly unpopular war has already produced some remarkable changes, and uncomfortable moral compromises are now on the agenda.

Among them, the Obama administration has indicated that it intends to make a fresh attempt to engage more moderate Taliban groups in talks with the Afghan government - in a determined effort to woo at least some of them away from the fighting that is claiming increasing numbers of American and other Nato forces' lives.

::::

The Clown Show Continues: "Cookies and Gold Stars"

[wapo] After lengthy debate, the Obama administration has settled on a policy toward Sudan that offers a dramatically softer approach than the president had advocated on the campaign trail -- but steers clear of the conciliatory tone advocated by his special envoy to the country.

The new U.S. policy, which will be formally unveiled Monday, calls for a campaign of "pressure and incentives" to cajole the government in Khartoum into pursuing peace in the troubled Darfur region, settling disputes with the autonomous government in southern Sudan and providing the United States greater cooperation in stemming international terrorism, according to administration officials briefed on the plan. It also provides Khartoum with a path to improved relations with the United States if it begins to address long-standing U.S. concerns.

The public rollout of the policy brings an end to months of contentious internal debate on how to confront a government headed by an indicted war crimes suspect, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and blamed in the deaths of more than 300,000 people in Darfur, according to U.N. estimates.

In what is intended as a show of unity for the new policy, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will announce it at the State Department with President Obama's special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration. Rice and Gration had battled fiercely over the direction of the new policy, with Rice pressing for a tougher line and Gration calling for easing U.S. sanctions.

In an interview last month with The Washington Post, Gration said he wanted to give "cookies" and "gold stars" to Khartoum, infuriating human rights advocates and congressional officials. Under the new policy, Gration will not be authorized to negotiate directly with Bashir, and Sudan will not be removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism in the immediate future, officials said.

The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the policy ahead of Monday's announcement.

The review also addresses a long-standing dispute between Rice, who has argued that there is an "ongoing genocide" in Darfur, and Gration over how to characterize the violence in Darfur. From now on, the United States will maintain that genocide "is taking place" in Darfur, officials said. The agreement on genocide represents a setback for Gration, who argued publicly in June that Sudan is no longer engaged in a campaign of mass murder in that region. "What we see is the remnants of genocide," he told reporters.

But the administration's policy also marks a significant evolution for the president and close aides such as Rice. During last year's campaign, Obama and his top advisers had advocated a more confrontational approach to Sudan -- including tougher sanctions and the establishment of a no-fly zone that would prevent Sudanese fighter jets from bombing Darfurian villages. "There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government," Obama said last year. "We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing."

::::



Race Detective Vol. 1

Hilarious and a little bit sad. A few more pages can be found : [link]

"Stay tuned for Volume II.... Same Chuck Time, same Chuck Channel."

::::

The Perpetual : "Just a Joking" : Anita Dunn

[nro] I am not a big fan of saying that officials should resign for stupid remarks. But interim White House communications director Anita Dunn's praise of Mao Zedong as a "political philosopher" is so unhinged and morally repugnant, that she should hang it up, pronto.

Mao killed anywhere from 50 million to 70 million innocents in the initial cleansing of Nationalists, the scouring of the countryside, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Tibet, and the internal Chinese gulag. Dunn's praise of a genocidal monster was no inadvertent slip: She was reading from a written text and went into great detail to give the full context of the remark. Moreover, her comments were not some student outburst from 30 years ago; they were delivered on June 5, 2009. Her praise of Mao's insight and courage in defeating the Nationalists was offered long after the full extent of Mao's mass-murdering had been well documented. Mao killed more people than any other single mass killer in the history of civilization.

So where do all these people, so intimate with our president (Dunn is the wife of his personal lawyer), come from? A right-wing attack machine could not make up such statements as those tossed off by a Dunn or a Van Jones. There seems to be neither a moral compass nor even a casual knowledge of history in this administration. And now we have the avatars of the "new politics" claiming it's okay to praise Mao's political and philosophical insight and his supposed determination ("You fight your war, and I'll fight mine") because Lee Atwater supposedly once evoked Mao too.

Ms. Dunn should simply duck out of her D.C. suburb and ask any Tibetan or Chinese immigrant in his 70s and 80s what life was really like in Mao's China.

::::

A Tale of Two Soundbites

[nro] Here is a tale of two soundbites. First:

“Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Second:

“The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is: You’re going to make choices. . . . But here’s the deal: These are your choices; they are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Tse-Tung was being challenged within his own party on his own plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. . . . They had everything on their side. And people said ‘How can you win . . . ? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?’ And Mao Tse-Tung says, ‘You fight your war and I’ll fight mine . . . ’ You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things. . . . You fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”

The first quotation was attributed to Rush Limbaugh. He never said it. There is no tape of him saying it. There is no transcript of him saying it. After all, if he had done so at any point in the last 20 years, someone would surely have mentioned it at the time.

Yet CNN, MSNBC, ABC, other networks, and newspapers all around the country cheerfully repeated the pro-slavery quotation and attributed it, falsely, to Rush Limbaugh. And planting a flat-out lie in his mouth wound up getting Rush bounced from a consortium hoping to buy the St. Louis Rams. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, said the talkshow host was a “divisive” figure, and famously non-divisive figures like the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson expressed the hope that, with Mister Divisive out of the picture, the NFL could now “unify.”

The second quotation — hailing Mao — was uttered back in June to an audience of high-school students by Anita Dunn, the White House communications director. I know she uttered it because I watched the words issuing from her mouth on The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News. But don’t worry. Nobody else played it.

So if I understand correctly:

Rush Limbaugh is so “divisive” that to get him fired leftie agitators have to invent racist soundbites to put in his mouth.

But the White House communications director is so un-divisive that she can be invited along to recommend Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young. [...]

The White House now says that Anita Dunn was “joking.” Anyone tempted to buy that spin should look at the tape: If this is her Friars Club routine, she needs to work on her delivery. But, for the sake of argument, try a thought experiment:

Midway through Bush’s second term, press secretary Tony Snow goes along to Chester A. Arthur High School to give a graduation speech. “I know it looks tough right now. You’re young, you’re full of zip, but the odds seem hopeless. Let me tell you about another young man facing tough choices 80 years ago. It’s last orders at the Munich beer garden — gee, your principal won’t thank me for mentioning that — and all the natural blonds are saying, ‘But Adolf, see reason. The Weimar Republic’s here to stay, and besides the international Jewry control everything.’ And young Adolf Hitler puts down his foaming stein and stands on the table and sings a medley of ‘I Gotta Be Me,’ ‘(Learning to Love Yourself Is) The Greatest Love of All,’ and ‘The Sun’ll Come Out Tomorrow.’” And by the end of that night there wasn’t a Jewish greengrocer’s anywhere in town with glass in its windows. Don’t play by the other side’s rules; make your own kind of music. And always remember: You’ve gotta have a dream, if you don’t have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?”

Anyone think he’d still have a job?



-Ed: A fine point, glaringly obvious....and how about, what screw loose could actually think that this tongue slobbering soul makes the best choice for 'communications director?' For the love of God, keep your tongue in your mouth if you're going to speak. Competence in action. Read 'em and weep.

::::

The Race Card, Football and Me

[wsj] David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "

Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?

The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.

When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.

Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.

As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.

These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.

::::


Neither social conservatism, nor social liberalism belong in national politics. 1.They concern issues that are not listed in the enumerations of congressional powers.
2. Whether they have a formal title or not, they are "religions." The whole brother's keeper idea... the personal morality... even the, "there is no God" and "evolution," are based on faith or theories.

The constitution gives the federal government enumerated powers that deal with national defense, national trade, protecting free trade among the States, protecting personal liberties, establishing a postal system, and preserving the union of the states.

The GENERAL "welfare" of the United States... for the first hundred years the emphases was on GENERAL. Bills could not favor one state over another, but had to apply "generally" for all states. No bills applied to the welfare of individuals. The word welfare wasn't even used the same way. There was no federal spending on state pork, which is an around-about-way of buying votes. States took care of individual state issues with state budgets.

There is nothing in the Constitution that limits States from pursuing liberal or conservative social agendas at the State level, except for the protection of individual liberty.

I know that constitutional principles have been ignored for decades, but that is not a good enough reason to continue to do so. It is better to be ruled by constitutional law, than the whims of the "current" party. It is time to start tactfully nullifing all those bills from both sides, and decentralize the power, returning it back closer to the people on state and local levels. Grant freedom and liberty, (including excess taxation,) nationally, and then work where your vote is more powerful, close to home. (Contracts made by the federal govt have to be kept, including previous soc/sec etc. So, no I am not talking about reneging on seniors. We need state or private funded and controlled alternatives for the future generations. This can be done.)

We should be arguing about national defense, protection of our freedom, and foreign trade. Isn't that enough! Our national representatives should not be distracted with internal social issues, except where personal liberty is being abused, (and that is already covered by the Constitution, so no further bills should be necessary.) A smaller more limited government would keep our tax money closer to home, where we could apply it to issues, (social or otherwise,) important to us at the state and local levels.

Let's unite where we can on the federal level and leave the rest to state and local legislation, taxes, and budgets. Get involved in state and local politics. Oregon needs to leave NY alone etc... The one size fits all is a sham.

The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Rose Marie (wsj)

::::

Drill

[nro] Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas. [...]

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

::::

Debacle in Moscow

[wapo] About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.

Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review....

::::

Canada's Broadband : Among the Poorest in the Developed World

[cbc] Canada has some of the poorest high-speed internet service in the developed world and is an example of what not to do from a policy perspective, according to a study by Harvard University.

The 232-page study, commissioned by American regulators and released Wednesday evening, found that Canada rates poorly compared to peer countries when measures such as national broadband adoption, network capacity and prices are taken into account.

Canada was 22nd overall out of 30 countries surveyed by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Canada ranked 16th on broadband adoption, 20th on speed and capacity, and 25th on price. Japan, Sweden and South Korea headed up Harvard's rankings, while the United States placed above Canada at 13th overall.

Canada "is often thought of as a very high performer, based on the most commonly used benchmark of penetration per 100 inhabitants," the study said. "Because our analysis includes important measures on which Canada has had weaker outcomes — prices, speeds and 3G mobile broadband penetration — in our analysis it shows up as quite a weak performer, overall."

::::

$16 billion for 30,083 jobs

[d] The first numbers on the “recovery” are out and the first $16 billion of the $787 billion stimulus has created 30,083 jobs, the Hill reported.

I hope those jobs pay $255.70 an hour, because that is what it would take to earn in one year’s time the $531,861.85 we just paid for each job.

Now the $787 billion is not all stimulus. It includes unemployment money, and also the “cost” of keeping the Bush tax cuts — you know the cuts President Obama complained about creating all those deficits.

The White House said that the $16 billion is the first of $339 billion that would be spent.

“According to the White House recovery office’s rough calculations, the 30,083 jobs number projects out to a total of 1.2 million jobs saved or created by the stimulus through September,” the Hill reported.

Actually not. At $531,861.85 per job, that $339 billion will create 637,384 jobs — or half what the White House said — and a far cry from the 4 million jobs Obama promised in January.

::::

Senators Divert 2.6 Billion in Troop Funds to Pet Projects

[wt] Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

::::

Libya : Releases 88 Inmates With Al-Qaeda Ties

[y] Libya on Thursday freed 88 Islamists and announced it will demolish Abu Slim prison, notorious for what human rights groups say was a 1996 massacre in which more than 1,000 prisoners were killed.

The Islamists with Al-Qaeda links walked out of the Tripoli prison, an AFP correspondent at the scene reported.

The Kadhafi Foundation, headed by Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's son Seif al-Islam, confirmed the planned closure of Abu Slim, saying the remaining inmates would be transferred to another jail.

The building "will be destroyed in the next few days," a Libyan source told AFP, adding that a residential district and a green space would replace the prison, which has often been used to detain political prisoners.

::::

Limbaugh To Be Dropped By Bidding Group to Buy Rams

[bh] There are so many levels of insanity with this story that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the facts: Limbaugh is a part of a group that wants to buy the lowly St. Louis Rams so that the team will stay in Rush’s native Missouri. The group has not even made an official bid as of yet, is one of several potential buyers, and Rush would not even be the primary owner of the team.

Despite all of this, just the mere mention of his name has caused a literal hysteria in the public dialogue. Nearly everyone even remotely associated with the NFL (as well as many who have no direct connection at all) have expressed their, often completely ignorant, opinions on whether Rush is worthy to join the highly exclusive club of NFL owners.

The overwhelming view allowed to be expressed in the mainstream media has been irrationally negative towards Rush’s potential bid. The primary “justification” for these views has been the notion that Rush is somehow a racist and that because the league has a high percentage of black players that it would be wrong to have him be a part owner of a team.

What is the basis of this incendiary claim? Well, we all know (because the media tells us so) that strong conservatives are really racists so anything they say that sounds remotely racist must be presumed to be so. Therefore, because Rush resigned in 2003 from a position at ESPN because a legitimate observation about the media coverage of a black quarterback was deemed by Rush haters to somehow be “racist,” this is all the critics need to close the loop on their laughably inane circular argument.

Just after Limbaugh’s resignation, I wrote in my book “The Death of Free Speech” that Rush had made a big mistake because he was allowing the perception to be created that he was essentially, though unintentionally, admitting (by resigning without a fight) that he was indeed a “racist” and that this narrative would come back to haunt both him and the movement. Unfortunately, it appears that I was right.

But even more infuriating than the tactic of Rush’s opponents to take his past statements out of context (or, in some cases, just flat out make them up), is the audacity of those who have chosen to be most vocal about this issue.

It should go without saying that of the 300 million people in this country that Al Sharpton should be at the very back of the line when it comes to being the moral arbiter of who is or is not worthy of owning anything. The man was found guilty in a civil court for having blatantly lied when accusing an innocent man in the infamous Tawana Brawley case. That he is given any platform to speak on this or any other matter of social importance is a damning incitement of our entire society. And yet, here he is leading the charge in the cause to keep Limbaugh from simply buying property.

::

Blackballing Conservatism

[dw] [...] Before I get to the chilling implications for free conservative speech underscored by the vicious, public campaign to blackball Rush Limbaugh as a potential owner of an NFL team, I want to provide a little context about the pre-existing NFL comfort zone of expression.

I will start with two words: Keith Olbermann. In addition to his nightly gig on MSNBC -- a numbing blend of Leftist politics and something approaching Tourette's syndrome -- Olbermann is a co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America," the pre-game show that leads into "Sunday Night Football." Naturally, that would be Sunday night NFL football.

This job, now into its third season, makes Olbermann not a team owner, of course, but certainly a public face of the NFL. And a public face of the NFL with many filthy things coming out of it. These include, just sampling from recent days, his pronouncement that Limbaugh claiming his own success paved the way for Glenn Beck is "is like congratulating yourself for spreading syphilis." We could slap a headline on that -- "NFL talker compares star radio and TV conservatives with venereal disease" -- except that trash talk against conservatives doesn't generate mainstream outrage.

Take Olbermann's noxious attack this week on Michelle Malkin for what he characterized as her "total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Get that? Olbermann calls an accomplished and best-selling conservative author, commentator, blogger, wife and mother (who also happens to be beautiful) a "big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick," but such dehumanizing venom doesn't count as controversial, or even lightly strain his NBC-NFL connection. Why, at this rate, he could end up on a box of Wheaties. His comments certainly don't rate as "divisive" or "inappropriate" - two of the coded charges leveled at Rush Limbaugh's "public remarks" by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay that got Limbaugh's blackball rolling in the first place. [...]

What happened to Limbaugh took place in a uniquely exclusive slice of the private sector frequented by the super-mega-rich and ostentatious, the kind of people with the kind of money that buys protection from the pressures of what is thought of as public opinion. But what happened to Rush Limbaugh - call it "Rush-baiting" -- reveals that what conservative blogger Lawrence Auster calls the "dictatorship enforced by the charge of racism" has absolutely no boundaries.

Limbaugh's critics were so desperate to make a racism charge stick, to tag Limbaugh as untouchably "controversial," that they resorted to demonstrable lies -- statements Limbaugh never made -- and purposely indemonstrable innuendo. Not that this mattered. As in all dictatorships, the charge itself suffices. It didn't even matter that the dictatorship's emissaries, the eternal charlatans Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who actively lobbied the NFL to oppose Limbaugh, are themselves serially discredited race hustlers. Again, the charge is all it takes to demonize and ostracize the opposition. And Rush Limbaugh -- as the leading voice against the radicalism of the Obama administration, one of the most forceful opponents of the totalitarian social engineering we know as "affirmative action," as one of the great communicators of basic conservative principles -- definitely counts as the opposition.

But with the successful transformation of Limbaugh the potential team owner into Limbaugh the expendable "distraction," his brand of opposition -- a plain-speaking adherence to a conservatism best described as Reaganesque -- has been judged unfit, unworthy even, for the sports-loving mainstream and sentenced to the margins. And that is what is most disturbing about this story. Conservatism in our time has been publicly defined as extremism. Which means, for conservatives, it's time for some intensive historical revisionism of our own.

::

[wsj] [...] What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh's outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society. By contrast, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who fires off his own brand of high-velocity, left-wing political commentary but lacks Mr. Limbaugh's sense of humor, appears weekly as co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America." We haven't heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann's nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL. Al Franken made it all the way to the U.S. Senate on a river of political vitriol.

But Rush Limbaugh gets hung out to dry by someone of Roger Goodell's establishment prominence, and barely a soul from that same fastidious establishment has the courage to step forward to criticize it.

It is no secret that this country's politics has become intense across the ideological spectrum. Rush Limbaugh lets his listeners blow off steam and then get on with the rest of their day. But if the people who claim to worry about such things want to see a truly angry right develop in this country, they should continue to remain silent while the left tries to drive Rush Limbaugh and others out of American political life. If that happens, the NFL by comparison will look like an afternoon tea.

::::

“Not Evil Just Wrong” Premiere

A feature length documentary which shows how extreme environmentalism
is damaging the lives of vulnerable people from the ban on DDT to the
campaigns on Global Warming.

Big Hollywood is proud to be a part of the “Not Evil Just Wrong” premiere.

The film Al Gore and Hollywood doesn’t want you to see premieres right here, online at Big Hollywood, Sunday October 18th, 8pm ET/5pm PST. [bighollywood]



"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton

::::

Not A Newsflash! : CNN Blows Worse Every Day

[m] Cable news ratings, October 13, 2009:

• For the 7th consecutive weekday, CNN finished fourth on cable news in the prime time A25-54 demographic. It was the 77th time CNN finished 4th in that category this year. FNC was way out in front, followed by HLN just edging MSNBC by 1,000 viewers.

• Fox News’ total viewer average during prime time of 2,735,000 beat the other three cable news networks combined. Bill O’Reilly, who had the top show, had more than 1,000,000 in the demo.

• The top non-FNC show was Countdown with Keith Olbermann in both categories at 8pmET for MSNBC.

If it wasn't for the supreme bilge pumped out at MSNBC that lingers at the bottom of the class and value barrel, CNN would command the title of most pathetic attempt at news offering available on a television. Seriously, it's one long loop of whatever nonsense story is deemed worthy of running nonstop. And it is nonstop. Beat the dead horse.

To add further viewer intelligence insult and affront, the run repeated crap essentially all weekend - never mind if info regarding their 'story of the day' to saturate has changed dramatically or been debunked....they continue running garbage for the weekend. Could you not afford to pay someone to change the loop or at least add in an update sometime over the course of the weekend? Maybe cancel the planned repeat marathon and stick something else in there? It's beyond pathetic.

There's got to be a majorly deficient thought process going down when someone in charge considers the tripe spouted by McCafferty worth a minute. Or the always breathless and baiting ("I don't want to or mean to say - but I'll say it"), hyperbolic Sanchez or utterly idiotic, emotional train wreck Roland Martin or whateverthehell his name is, eternal card playing clown. Trot out the same line up of pseudo conservative voices and the same line up of gutter snipe liberals - usually a 3 to 1 ratio in favour of the left wing troubadors - and pretend that's a balance.

Carry on fact checking comedy skits CNN - never mind checking your own nonsense while you parade about some weak tea excuse for news reporting or even infotainment. What a disgrace. "Teabagging" is it? Get a clue.

::::

Russia Impressed With Nobel Prize : Hedges on Iran Sanctions

[nyt] Denting President Obama’s hopes for a powerful ally in his campaign to press Iran on its nuclear program, Russia’s foreign minister said Tuesday that threatening Tehran now with harsh new sanctions would be “counterproductive.” [...]

A Russian refusal to back sanctions could expose the Obama administration to criticism at home, where Republicans have argued that the president yielded to Kremlin concerns on the missile shield without getting much in return.

Enlisting Russia is critical for any sanctions campaign because of its geopolitical links to Iran. Russia’s refusal to act now may influence China, which has invested heavily in Iranian oil and gas reserves and has also been wary of sanctions.

::::

Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

[w] Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

::::

The Washington Joke

[rcp] [...] As boom- and bust-prone as high finance always has been and remains, the greatest systemic risk to our economy is not Wall Street. It's the growing federal debt (and weakening dollar) being enacted by those Washington politicians -- the ones who want to protect us from Wall Street.

It soon may be not a risk but a certainty of generations-long economic stagnation and hard times as a direct result of "unsustainable" and ever-growing national debt, driven by a federal budget almost half of which is to be paid for each year by borrowing money -- primarily from China -- and already weakening the dollar such that foreigners are trying to get rid of their dollars any way they can.

Don't take my word for it. In June, the Congressional Budget Office published "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," its summary reading in part: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path -- meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. ... Rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly. ...

"... Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth. ... The accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States (highest marginal income tax rate so far: 94 percent, in 1944-45). High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear."

And yet the same Congress and president who want to stop the banks from taking too much risk cannot stop themselves from ever more deficits. [...]

Here's a thought: As shrinking the unsustainable deficit is a critical prerequisite for a healthy economy, why not just enact the $400 billion of Medicare cuts and $400 billion of health insurance tax increases -- thereby reducing the 10-year deficit by about $1 trillion (when you count reduced interest payments) -- but don't provide the new entitlement benefits that were the purpose of the bill?

Helping out the uninsured might be a nice notion someday. But the first priority now is to avoid permanently destroying our economic capacity -- as we rapidly are doing -- by the insanity of adding to entitlement programs while the dollar begins to fail and the CBO predicts we never will recover from the current debt and deficit levels. So cut the 10-year deficit by that almost $1 trillion.

Then incrementally move the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70 by 2030. That would reduce their costs by about 3 percent of gross domestic product, which is about what it would take to keep them functioning without bankrupting America. It's a start.

::::

Obama Dollar Retreats Most Against Commodities in Wealth Shift

[b] President Barack Obama’s effort to lead the world economic recovery by spending the U.S. out of its recession is undermining the dollar, triggering record commodities rallies as investors scour the globe for hard assets.

As threats of a financial meltdown fade, the currency is falling victim to an unprecedented budget deficit, near-zero interest rates and slow growth. The dollar is down 10 percent against six trading partners’ legal tender in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s first eight-and-a-half months, the sharpest drop for a new occupant of that office since the Reagan administration’s James Baker persuaded world leaders to boost the deutsche mark and yen by debasing the dollar in 1985. This year’s drop followed its best two quarters in 16 years.

“The dollar had been strong because the U.S. was a haven in the storm, and now that the storm is abating, who needs the dollar?” said Edmund Phelps, who won the 2006 Nobel Prize in economics and teaches at Columbia University in New York. “People got exasperated with the tiny returns on safe assets.”

::::



::::

Iran dismisses U.S. warning before nuclear talks

[y] Iran dismissed on Monday a U.S. warning that major powers would not wait forever for Tehran to prove it was not developing nuclear bombs, saying any threats or deadlines would have no impact on the Islamic Republic.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi, speaking a week before talks on a proposal to send Iranian uranium abroad for further processing, also reiterated Iran's refusal to discuss its "nuclear rights" with the six world powers.

"We have announced several times that we have nothing to discuss regarding that," he told a Tehran news conference in comments translated by Iran's state Press TV.

"That means continuation of our activities within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the safeguards agreement of the IAEA and enrichment on that basis," he said, referring to the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Such comments were likely to fan Western suspicions that Iran is seeking to win time by stringing out inconclusive talks while mastering nuclear technology and stockpiling enriched uranium of potential use for atomic energy or weaponry.

Western diplomats believe Iran is trying to show just enough flexibility to keep trade allies Russia and China opposed to painful U.N. sanctions which could target its energy sector.

The West suspects Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability behind the facade of what Tehran says is a civilian enrichment program aimed at generating electricity.

::::

What happened to global warming?

[bbc] For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

::

Surprise : Gore "No Answer"





::::



Food Rules: Your Dietary Dos and Don'ts

Michael Pollan posted a request for readers rules on eating and soon had more than 2500 responses. Here are 20 of his favorites. [nyt]

Pollan is the author of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, winner of the James Beard Award, and The Omnivore's Dilemma, which was named one of the ten best books of the year by both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

::::

Obama Wins The Heisman Trophy



Farcical : TOTUS : Nobel Prize Winner

[b] President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president. [...]

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

*emphasis ours

[w] President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for his work to improve international diplomacy and rid the world of nuclear weapons -- a stunning decision to celebrate a figure virtually unknown in the world before he launched his campaign for the White House nearly three years ago. [...]

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president -- and the first in 90 years -- to win the coveted peace prize. His predecessors won during their second White House terms, however, and after significant diplomatic achievements. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.

In contrast, Obama is struggling with two wars -- weighing whether to increase the number of U.S. troops fighting to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and overseeing the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq. He is mired in domestic struggles over health-care reform and economic recovery efforts, and searching for ways to build momentum to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to assemble an international effort to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Meet the People Who Were Passed Over for Obama

[the weekly standard]

Sima Samar, women's rights activist in Afghanistan: "With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs."

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

"Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence."

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: "These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon."

"Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for 'inciting subversion of state power.'"

"Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. He now lives in the United States."


::::

Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

[t] Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party. [...]

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

::::

Ten Common Food Poisoning Risks

[nyt][...] the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group that tracks food safety issues, has compiled a list of 10 common foods responsible for a large number of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The top 10 foods account for 1,500 separate outbreaks accounting for about 50,000 cases of food poisoning, some of which ended in long-term disability and death. The list comes from the group’s database of outbreaks, compiled from state and federal government reports, scientific articles and news reports. The list only focuses on foods overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, so it doesn’t include meats, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. [...]

Here are the top three riskiest foods on the C.S.P.I. list:

1. Leafy greens (363 outbreaks; 13,568 cases): Responsible for 24 percent of the non-meat outbreaks listed, salads and other greens become contaminated by contact with animals, contaminated water, poor handling practices and even contaminated washing equipment.

2. Eggs (352 outbreaks; 11,164 cases): Most egg outbreaks are because of salmonella poisoning. Although external contamination of the egg can occur from poor handling practices, more often the contamination happens inside the hen, before the shell is even formed. Half of all cases of egg-related illness are in restaurants. Catered events and prisons also reported large outbreaks.

3. Tuna (268 outbreaks; 2,341 cases): Fresh fish can decay soon after being caught, the C.S.P.I. reports, leading to scombroid poisoning caused by a poison called scombrotoxin. Symptoms include skin flushing, headaches, cramps, diarrhea and loss of vision.

The remaining foods on the C.S.P.I. list are:

4. Oysters: 132 outbreaks; 3,409 cases.
5. Potatoes: 108 outbreaks; 3,659 cases.
6. Cheese: 83 outbreaks; 2,761 cases.
7. Ice cream: 74 outbreaks; 2,594 cases.
8. Tomatoes: 31 outbreaks; 3,292 cases.
9. Sprouts: 31 outbreaks; 2,022 cases.
10. Berries: 25 outbreaks; 3,397 cases.

::::

5 Things You Didn’t Know About the Minimum Wage

[epi]

1. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, teenage employment at small businesses is estimated to decrease by 4.6 to 9.0 percent.1

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, teen unemployment is at 24 percent, its highest rate in 17 years.2

2. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, estimates show employment may fall as much as 8.5 percent for young black and Hispanic males age 16-19.3

African American teen unemployment is currently at 38 percent, which is four times the national unemployment rate and 27 percent higher than last year.2

3. According to U.S. Census data, only 16.5 percent of minimum wage recipients are raising a family on the minimum wage. 83.5 percent are teenagers living with working parents, adults living alone, or dual-earner married couples.2

Raising the minimum wage is an ineffective tool to fight poverty.

4. Economists found that 35 percent of minimum wage benefits go to the richest 40 percent of families.4

The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 is over $48,000.2

5. According to a 2003 study by economists at the Federal Reserve, a 2-3 percent decrease in employment can be expected from a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.5

::::

Could double-dip recession be near?

[p] [...] On Friday, national unemployment was reported at 9.8 percent with a loss of more than 260,000 jobs, leaving a staggering 15.1 million Americans out of work — a downside surprise to analysts who were expecting a better result for September.

The Dow Jones, which had been on a streak so hot since March that some had begun saying it reflected a new bull market, sagged hundreds of points lower on the week.

And car sales, which had surged during the government’s Cash for Clunkers program in August, hit the brakes in September as the annualized selling dropped from 14.1 million to just 9.22 million in September.

All that’s enough to convince some observers that the economic recovery is faltering and could be heading for a “double dip” recession. And that would mean the recent green shoots of recovery turn out to be just a pause in a much longer economic slide.

Some leading corporate executives worry there’s no economic engine available to drive growth in 2010: Technology, construction, finance — all sectors that have powered the U.S. economy out of the doldrums in the past — are flat this year. [...]

So even though the Dow started this week on an up note, it’s time to revisit the alphabet soup of potential economic outcomes, which analysts describe by the shapes of the trend lines.

The best-case scenario is a “V”-shaped recovery — a sharp drop and a quick rebound. Next best is a “U” shape, with a sharp drop, a protracted trough, then a recovery.

The worst of all possible scenarios is the “L”-shaped recession, which is a sharp drop followed by a flat line. In other words: No recovery for you.

The numbers have been so bad recently that yet another shape has entered the lexicon — a “square root”-shaped recovery, in which a short bounce back is followed by a long period of stagnation.

New York University economics professor Nouriel Roubini — known as “Dr. Doom” for his grim but accurate forecasts in recent years — said this week that the best the U.S. economy can hope for is a “U”-shaped recovery, with a significant trough before the rebound.

::::



::::

Olympics 2016 : IOC to Obama : No You Can't

Four years and millions of dollars later, you will receives nothing and accept it graciously. Maybe.

Could this be a wake up call? Doubt it. Might the O's - Barry, Mich and Opah - realize that the carnival barking apologist nonsense of "me, me, me, woe is me, so sorry, it's all our fault" campaign blither doesn't actually cut it. You know, once the campaign is over?

Many newscasters seemed shocked into bumbling babble. Mayor Daly was shocked! Little Obama drones everywhere were shocked. Why exactly should that be? Oh, I get it, because the magic man, Obama is president. Clearly, not the entire world does not actually live in the same bubble. The games should have been granted simply on the face of that fact.

The personal bid for the Olympics delivered by these super intelligent, eternal campaigners, should have been delivered as a business marketing plan - why the city will be a great place for the game, what it will do for the games - not about yourselves or more of the my father, blah blah, when I was little, my hometown, me, me, me, warmed over pablum that Barry and Co. have been delivering for years now.

It says something that so many (even we fell to the almost ingrained drumbeat and figured if O's going, it must have been already locked in) were certain that it was a done deal and just a formality.

Anyway, another chalk mark on the board for Commander O and let's face it. Chicago or Rio? Yea, I thought so.

While we're at it, let's wrap up a couple of other things. Letterman hasn't been funny since the 1980's and neither is Whoopi who has always been ignorant and in a battle for the Rosie Master Tool Award crown with Behar. OK? Glad we've cleared that up. Flame out.

- The Cynical Bastard

::::

Obama's Not So Secret Plan To Raise Taxes

[r] Obama’s campaign promise to not raise taxes on households making less than $250,000 a year was always considered a joke here inside the Beltway. It’s the economic “consensus” — and this was true even before the financial meltdown and recession — that rising entitlement costs would eventually mean a higher tax burden for the American people.

Maybe it was a joke inside the campaign, too. Since being elected, Obama has raised cigarette taxes and has advocated raising healthcare taxes, energy and small business taxes, in addition to corporate taxes. What’s more, economic advisers like Larry Summers seem eager to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts, not just those on so-called wealthy Americans. [...]

Liberals love the idea of a VAT because it’s, well, so European — also because it does raise tons of revenue to expand government. And that is what Obama wants: more revenue to pay for bigger government. Is a VAT better than the soak-the-rich approach favored by Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel? Sure. Of course, the concern is that a VAT would be in addition to new soak-the-rich taxes.

See, even after the recession, there might be a 6 percentage point difference between what Uncle Sam spends as a percentage of GDP and what it takes in. Liberals like Krugman have no problem with making up that difference purely through higher taxes, even though that translates into raising the national tax burden by at least a third. And that, even though such a massive hike might well have a crushing effect on growth.

Obama wants a VAT? First, it should be part of broader tax reform, including getting rid of capital gains and corporate taxes. Second, it should accompany an Economic Bill of Rights much like Ronald Reagan used to suggest. Its elements: a) a balanced budget amendment, b) a line-item veto, c) a spending limit such as inflation plus population growth, d) and a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate for any tax increases. (Reagan also wanted a prohibition on wage and price controls. That would likely kill ObamaCare.)

And come to think of it, let’s cut spending and streamline government before cash-strapped, wealth-reduced taxpayers are forced to pony up a penny more, OK?

::::

No Treats From Obama

transmission at 10:10 PM | Permalink