The news is out that Obama is going to address the country on Tuesday evening and that BP has been given a deadline for a better plan to close off the oil flow. Obama is trying to appear like ha is doing something.
Let me be fair. Obama may actually be doing something to improve the cleanup effort in connection with the oil spill. So far we know nothing at all that Obama has done, but he may be doing something. We do know, however, the Obama is stepping up his public relations efforts to make it look like he is doing something.
The problem with much of this effort is that it is way too late. to put it inot context, consider this scenario. A foreign power has launched a nuclear attack on the USA and its bombs have hit 7 of the 10 largest cities. Obama has now decided that it may be a good idea to hit back, so he has asked the remaining military for a counterattack plan. Sure, we will destroy the attacker, but the USA has already sustained incalcuable damage. That is about where we are with the oil spill. The damage is overwhelming, much worse than it would have been had Obama acted as a president and taken charge of the situation. Much worse than it would have been had there been a coherent response to the spill and a plan for cleaning up the mess. I am glad that Obama seems to be trying at least to look like he is doing something. I doubt, however, if all the dead wildlife or impoverished fishermen, hotel workers, and others who lost their livelihood care much about anything other than why Obama has been so apathetic and incompetent for so long.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
You knew it was coming--right!
Today, obama is pushing for a new $50 billion stimulus "jobs" package of money for state and local governments so that they can avoid layoffs of public workers. What a surprise!
The biggest component of the massive "stimulus" package passed in the first few days of the Obama administration was nearly $200 billion in money sent to states as a pay off to the public employee unions that helped Obama and the Obamacrats take power. When the economic downturn hit and state and local revenues were cut dramatically, the normal reaction would be downsizing by the state and local governments. Such a downsizing would have meant that taxes in the states could have remained where they were rather than being ratcheted up to pay for all those employees and their gold plated benefits and pensions. This would have been a good things allowing the economy to rebound faster.
Instead of promoting economic growth, however, the Obamacrats decided to pay off their union allies by sending money to protect extravagant salaries, benefits and pensions. But the federal money has now run out, and the unions are pressuring their clients in the government to send more. Hence Obama's request.
The truth is that it would be totally counterproductive for the feds to send money to keep state workers on the job. What is needed is the contraction of the state work forces; the contraction of benefits for the remaining workers and the end to crazy pension schemes. Of course, Obama says that failure to send the money will result in layoffs of teachers. He ignores the thousands of bureaucrats, administrators, and the like who just pull down a fat paycheck for showing up (most of the time). Do we really need to spend millions across the country for diversity administrators who promote diversity in state government? Do we really need tourism departments in states that are sometimes bigger than the number of tourists who come to those states? Is there any reason why state workers should make on average 50% more than private workers and still get better benefits and pensions?
In 1976, New York City had a financial crisis that forced it to cut back. City employment went from over 300,000 workers to under 200,000. Essential city services were not affected. Indeed, the only difference I noted at the time was that when I went to the County Clerks office to file papers, there were only two people ignoring those in line instead of the six people who used to ignore us. There is no question that similar cuts should be made nationwide. Congress should not step in to rescue the extra workers. Indeed, the Congress that relies on cutting waste and corruption to fund the health care plan (ha ha ha ) should at least try to let the states cut waste and corruption in state governments.
Look at New Jersey. The budget proposed by Governor Chris Chistie cuts over 25% of all state expenditures. That is not a cut in the rate of expansion, that is an absolute cut in what is being spent. The budget makes painful choices, but look at the cuts to education. Christie told the teachers that if they would agree to a pay freeze -- not a cut -- and to paying 1.5% towards the cost of their healthcare (they now pay nothing), there would be no layoffs of teachers. The union refused. Instead, the union went on TV with an ad campaign charging that Christie was attacking the school children of the state. So there you have it, if the teachers don't get a raise and have to pay a tiny amount towards their own healthcare (like everyone else does), it is an attack on the kids. The truth is that all that has been uncovered is the limitless greed of the unions. The teachers already make substantially more than the median income in New Jersey in exchange for working 9 long months out of 12.
Obama's new stimulus bill is an abomination. Obama has got to go!
The biggest component of the massive "stimulus" package passed in the first few days of the Obama administration was nearly $200 billion in money sent to states as a pay off to the public employee unions that helped Obama and the Obamacrats take power. When the economic downturn hit and state and local revenues were cut dramatically, the normal reaction would be downsizing by the state and local governments. Such a downsizing would have meant that taxes in the states could have remained where they were rather than being ratcheted up to pay for all those employees and their gold plated benefits and pensions. This would have been a good things allowing the economy to rebound faster.
Instead of promoting economic growth, however, the Obamacrats decided to pay off their union allies by sending money to protect extravagant salaries, benefits and pensions. But the federal money has now run out, and the unions are pressuring their clients in the government to send more. Hence Obama's request.
The truth is that it would be totally counterproductive for the feds to send money to keep state workers on the job. What is needed is the contraction of the state work forces; the contraction of benefits for the remaining workers and the end to crazy pension schemes. Of course, Obama says that failure to send the money will result in layoffs of teachers. He ignores the thousands of bureaucrats, administrators, and the like who just pull down a fat paycheck for showing up (most of the time). Do we really need to spend millions across the country for diversity administrators who promote diversity in state government? Do we really need tourism departments in states that are sometimes bigger than the number of tourists who come to those states? Is there any reason why state workers should make on average 50% more than private workers and still get better benefits and pensions?
In 1976, New York City had a financial crisis that forced it to cut back. City employment went from over 300,000 workers to under 200,000. Essential city services were not affected. Indeed, the only difference I noted at the time was that when I went to the County Clerks office to file papers, there were only two people ignoring those in line instead of the six people who used to ignore us. There is no question that similar cuts should be made nationwide. Congress should not step in to rescue the extra workers. Indeed, the Congress that relies on cutting waste and corruption to fund the health care plan (ha ha ha ) should at least try to let the states cut waste and corruption in state governments.
Look at New Jersey. The budget proposed by Governor Chris Chistie cuts over 25% of all state expenditures. That is not a cut in the rate of expansion, that is an absolute cut in what is being spent. The budget makes painful choices, but look at the cuts to education. Christie told the teachers that if they would agree to a pay freeze -- not a cut -- and to paying 1.5% towards the cost of their healthcare (they now pay nothing), there would be no layoffs of teachers. The union refused. Instead, the union went on TV with an ad campaign charging that Christie was attacking the school children of the state. So there you have it, if the teachers don't get a raise and have to pay a tiny amount towards their own healthcare (like everyone else does), it is an attack on the kids. The truth is that all that has been uncovered is the limitless greed of the unions. The teachers already make substantially more than the median income in New Jersey in exchange for working 9 long months out of 12.
Obama's new stimulus bill is an abomination. Obama has got to go!
Let's stop trivializing Nazis
The Nazis headed by Adolf Hitler were among the most vile human beings of the last hundred years. They were amss murderers committed to genocide. Only murderers like Mao Zedong,Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and the Ottoman Turkish authorities who slaughtered the Armenians are similar in the annals of shame. Each of these disgusting people killed over a million people as well. The things that were done by the Nazis were so far outside the norms of decent human behavior that they are difficult for a civilized person to comprehend.
Unfortunately, calling someone a Nazi has become an ever increasing trend on the left in the United States. Bush was subjected to all the Bush-Hitler nonsense because he led the invasion of Iraq and the freeing of all those Iraqis who were suffering under Saddam Hussein. Nancy Pelosi claimed that the Tea Parties used Nazi symbols at their rallies (a phony charge, but one that the Main stream media repeated again and again.) Now Jerry Brown compares his Republican opponent Meg Whitman to Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels, and when called on it says that it was only "jogging talk". Does decency and common sense get suspended while jogging? I guess I do not exercise enough to get to that point. I bet you have to first run ten miles and fall on your head at least five times. Brown owes Whitman a sincere apology -- that's right sincere!
I think that American politicians better stop trivializing the Nazis. It is possible to disagree without accusing adversaries of genocidal tendencies.
Unfortunately, calling someone a Nazi has become an ever increasing trend on the left in the United States. Bush was subjected to all the Bush-Hitler nonsense because he led the invasion of Iraq and the freeing of all those Iraqis who were suffering under Saddam Hussein. Nancy Pelosi claimed that the Tea Parties used Nazi symbols at their rallies (a phony charge, but one that the Main stream media repeated again and again.) Now Jerry Brown compares his Republican opponent Meg Whitman to Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels, and when called on it says that it was only "jogging talk". Does decency and common sense get suspended while jogging? I guess I do not exercise enough to get to that point. I bet you have to first run ten miles and fall on your head at least five times. Brown owes Whitman a sincere apology -- that's right sincere!
I think that American politicians better stop trivializing the Nazis. It is possible to disagree without accusing adversaries of genocidal tendencies.
Eleanor Clift must go
We now have the view of liberal apologist Eleanor Clift on the Helen Thomas affair. Writing in Newsweek Clift says: "She [Thomas] was talking about the settlers, and if she had said they should go back to Brooklyn, where many of them are from, she probably wouldn’t have made news."
Clift is wrong on so many counts. First, I have watched the video of thomas (I wonder if Clift has). Thomas was not talking about settlers. She was talking about all israeli Jews. If she meant the settlers, then she would have told them to go back to Israel since that is where they came from. Clift just makes up the settlers slant to Thomas' remarks. Such creative writing is not unusual for Clift, but it is still incorrect.
Second, the settlers do not come from Brooklyn. There are about half a million Israeli Jews who live in areas that people like Clift classify as settlements. That is more than the number of Jews in Brooklyn by far. It is also more than five times the number of people who have immigrated to Israel from the entire United States over the last fifty years. Again, Clift makes it up as she goes along, but she is still wrong.
Third, if Thomas had only said that all Israeli settlers shold go back to Brooklyn, there still would have been uproar. Imagine this: If David Broder had said all blacks should go back to Africa, there would have been uproar. Now suppose what he said was that all black activists should go back to Nigeria. would the uproar have been any less. I hope not. Indeed, I know that it would have been just as large and loud.
Clift is an apologist for anti-semitism. whether or not Thomas was a dependable liberal, she is also clearly an anti-semite. Clift should also be dumped. It is time for Newsweek to step up to the plate and take a stand.
Clift is wrong on so many counts. First, I have watched the video of thomas (I wonder if Clift has). Thomas was not talking about settlers. She was talking about all israeli Jews. If she meant the settlers, then she would have told them to go back to Israel since that is where they came from. Clift just makes up the settlers slant to Thomas' remarks. Such creative writing is not unusual for Clift, but it is still incorrect.
Second, the settlers do not come from Brooklyn. There are about half a million Israeli Jews who live in areas that people like Clift classify as settlements. That is more than the number of Jews in Brooklyn by far. It is also more than five times the number of people who have immigrated to Israel from the entire United States over the last fifty years. Again, Clift makes it up as she goes along, but she is still wrong.
Third, if Thomas had only said that all Israeli settlers shold go back to Brooklyn, there still would have been uproar. Imagine this: If David Broder had said all blacks should go back to Africa, there would have been uproar. Now suppose what he said was that all black activists should go back to Nigeria. would the uproar have been any less. I hope not. Indeed, I know that it would have been just as large and loud.
Clift is an apologist for anti-semitism. whether or not Thomas was a dependable liberal, she is also clearly an anti-semite. Clift should also be dumped. It is time for Newsweek to step up to the plate and take a stand.
Howler of the Day
Maureen Dowd writing in the New York Times: "The press traveling with Obama on the campaign never had a lovey-dovey relationship with him."
Could she be any funnier? I do not know how the times could allow her to say that.
Could she be any funnier? I do not know how the times could allow her to say that.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Could they be more biased or less factual
The headline on yahoo news this morning screams that Hispanics are fleeing Arizona. Here are the first two sentences of the piece" "Arizona’s hard-hitting immigration law is driving Hispanics out of the state weeks before the controversial law goes into effect. Although concrete figures are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests Hispanics, both legal residents and illegal immigrants, are starting to flee."
Well there you have it. The reporter has no figures available to confirm that there are Hispanics departing and certainly has no way of knowing if those who leave are legal or illegal, but the claim of Hispanics "fleeing" is made nevertheless. No facts, but a clear point of view. In the real world, this is called biased reporting.
Indeed, if you red further in the piece, you find that the same anecdotal evidence of Hispanics leaving was present in Arizona before the immigration law was passed. The poor economy and a lack of work was the cause for most departures according to the article itself. Still, the article does not miss the point to blame a bunch of "hyper-conservative wold white men" for the law. So a bad economy which Obama has been unable to improve is the main cause for departure, but that does not stop them from blaming the left's typical bogeyment: conservative old white guys.
Can it really be that the folks who write and edit this news do not understand taht they are just printing their political philosophies and not news? Can they really think that anyone who actually reads these articles will be swayed by this biased crap? do they realize that they are engaged in gratuitous race baiting -- old white guys putting down poor Hispanics -- when the truth is quite the contrary?
It is time that the media tries to report the truth, not the rantings of some leftist who simply ignores the facts. Indeed, even the White House has cut back on the claptrap about how the Arizona law unfairly attacks Hispanics. If the Obamacrats can realize that the American people recognize the law as both fair and necessary, why can't the media?
Well there you have it. The reporter has no figures available to confirm that there are Hispanics departing and certainly has no way of knowing if those who leave are legal or illegal, but the claim of Hispanics "fleeing" is made nevertheless. No facts, but a clear point of view. In the real world, this is called biased reporting.
Indeed, if you red further in the piece, you find that the same anecdotal evidence of Hispanics leaving was present in Arizona before the immigration law was passed. The poor economy and a lack of work was the cause for most departures according to the article itself. Still, the article does not miss the point to blame a bunch of "hyper-conservative wold white men" for the law. So a bad economy which Obama has been unable to improve is the main cause for departure, but that does not stop them from blaming the left's typical bogeyment: conservative old white guys.
Can it really be that the folks who write and edit this news do not understand taht they are just printing their political philosophies and not news? Can they really think that anyone who actually reads these articles will be swayed by this biased crap? do they realize that they are engaged in gratuitous race baiting -- old white guys putting down poor Hispanics -- when the truth is quite the contrary?
It is time that the media tries to report the truth, not the rantings of some leftist who simply ignores the facts. Indeed, even the White House has cut back on the claptrap about how the Arizona law unfairly attacks Hispanics. If the Obamacrats can realize that the American people recognize the law as both fair and necessary, why can't the media?
Thirty Seconds Over Natanz
The Times is reporting in London that Saudi Arabia has given Israel clearance to overfly the kingdom in order for Israeli bombers to reach Iran's nuclear facilities. No one knows if this is true, but it is much more of a deterrant to the Iranian nuclear program than the half hearted UN sanctions that Obam worked so hard to get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)