The tax deal negotiated between the President and Republican leaders is a great agreement for the country and for Conservatives. The president realised that to raise anyones taxes in this fragile economy would amount to at the very least more stagnate economic growth more then likely a double dip recession. The republicans made him do what we would not have done extend the tax cuts to everyone including the wealthy who by paying more to the government deserve the highest tax breaks. By making the president to sign the deal conservatives have won the debate that over tax cuts manly that taking money out of people's pockets and redistributing to social programs handicaps economic growth.
Many conservatives have complained about the deal saying that the extension of unemployment benefits perpetuate the welfare state. They of coarse are correct but nobody wants to deal with the reality of their benefits running out during the Christmas season. Deficit hawks on all sides have complained that this deal will add to the deficit and that the voters didn't elect them to do that. While this is correct any short term deficit this causes is like a truckle of water in the Niagara Falls and since this is an extension it doesn't add any new money to the deficit. The spending increases are tough but the public really doesn't want a confrontation with the president and the new Congress before they actually become the New Congress. The president always wins a fight with congress he has the media and with it a big megaphone. Tempera deficits are acceptable in recession and War and we are in both.
Oh and one more thing no President would ever run for reelection taking tax cuts away so this extension of the Bush tax cuts itself is likely to be extended maybe for a decade.
We got most of what we wanted and this economy will stabilise because of it. A good deal indeed not just for us but for the country!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
my perdictions
O.K here they are my midterm predictions, First since all politics is local, Louisville gets a new mayor a Republican one Hal Hiner for the first time since who knows when. Andy Barr wins in Lexington, Unfortunately John Yarmith wins his final term in congress, He doesn't run again because the district gets more conservative due to 2011 redistricting and he retires in 2012.
Also the House goes Republican with a net 55 seat gain, Pelosi retires from congress not wanting to be in the minority.
The Senate is 50-50 after this election with West Virgina going democratic along with California to offset the republican surprising victory in Washington state. That leaves Joe Lieberman as the swing vote, he starts out casting his vote with the Democrats eventually switches to the republicans in the summer because of foreign policy and the senate switches eventually probably in the summer of 2011. Republicans gain a vast majority of governorships which helps Republicans in the keep the house for ten years. We will have more bipartisanship which helps the President at least for a while offset the horrid economy but he still loses to Mitt Romney in 2012!
Also the House goes Republican with a net 55 seat gain, Pelosi retires from congress not wanting to be in the minority.
The Senate is 50-50 after this election with West Virgina going democratic along with California to offset the republican surprising victory in Washington state. That leaves Joe Lieberman as the swing vote, he starts out casting his vote with the Democrats eventually switches to the republicans in the summer because of foreign policy and the senate switches eventually probably in the summer of 2011. Republicans gain a vast majority of governorships which helps Republicans in the keep the house for ten years. We will have more bipartisanship which helps the President at least for a while offset the horrid economy but he still loses to Mitt Romney in 2012!
Monday, October 25, 2010
More of the same
2008 was a frustrating year for Conservatives! So many people were in love with then canidate Obama that it was hard for them to focus on the issues. My Liberal friend kept marveling about how clean a campaign it was and as much as I wanted to counter her the general election campaign he ran was pretty clean(of coarse it did not hurt that the mainstream media had a crush on him the entire campaign but that's another story.
I relized that the rhetoric being used was so inspiring it caused young people that were inexperienced with politics to ignore whatever good sense they had and believe that the president would actually usher in the new kind of politics that he campaigned on
Now, two short years later people are waking up to the fact that politics have not changed and this president lies just like all the the rest The latest example a few weeks ago during a campaign the President alluded to the possibility that foreign money is influencing our elections, What he was referring to was the chamber of Congress which has been very critical of this administration and it's policy's spending money to defeat Democrats. Now any huge organization has overseas affiliates and they do pay dues. However organizations are required to separate the money they receive from overseas from money raised from overseas. These comapany's are not allowed to use any raised from overseas on the election. The President raised the possibility that the Chamber of Congress was acting illegally. When asked to provide proof of this alligation the President's spokesmen said, "Can you prove there not. So it's up to your opponents to disprove a negative! that's the definition of negative campaigning. The president's spokesmen then desperate to regain the high ground said well they should provide a list of who is giving from overseas, that's a debate worth having but can we have the lists from the overseas unions that contribute to you too, after all what's good for the President is good for his opponents too.
The interviewer even said the president's original comments were peanuts and other members of the mainstream media know that the charge of foreign money influencing our elections from the US Chamber of Congress was a baseless charge.
When the President said this some got mad not me upon reflection it made me happy because he proved he's no longer above the frey, no longer just about hope. The President proved in some ways he like every other politician and represents more of the same.
The president may be a good man but his comment represent something that more and more people are realizing his day to day reality no longer lives up to his lofty campaign speeches.
I relized that the rhetoric being used was so inspiring it caused young people that were inexperienced with politics to ignore whatever good sense they had and believe that the president would actually usher in the new kind of politics that he campaigned on
Now, two short years later people are waking up to the fact that politics have not changed and this president lies just like all the the rest The latest example a few weeks ago during a campaign the President alluded to the possibility that foreign money is influencing our elections, What he was referring to was the chamber of Congress which has been very critical of this administration and it's policy's spending money to defeat Democrats. Now any huge organization has overseas affiliates and they do pay dues. However organizations are required to separate the money they receive from overseas from money raised from overseas. These comapany's are not allowed to use any raised from overseas on the election. The President raised the possibility that the Chamber of Congress was acting illegally. When asked to provide proof of this alligation the President's spokesmen said, "Can you prove there not. So it's up to your opponents to disprove a negative! that's the definition of negative campaigning. The president's spokesmen then desperate to regain the high ground said well they should provide a list of who is giving from overseas, that's a debate worth having but can we have the lists from the overseas unions that contribute to you too, after all what's good for the President is good for his opponents too.
The interviewer even said the president's original comments were peanuts and other members of the mainstream media know that the charge of foreign money influencing our elections from the US Chamber of Congress was a baseless charge.
When the President said this some got mad not me upon reflection it made me happy because he proved he's no longer above the frey, no longer just about hope. The President proved in some ways he like every other politician and represents more of the same.
The president may be a good man but his comment represent something that more and more people are realizing his day to day reality no longer lives up to his lofty campaign speeches.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tea party thoughts
Politics is an art not a science but it does have some scientific principles that everyone agrees with one is when you lose you must either weight for the other side to mess up or your side has to get more voters.
What happens in wave elections is the Party in power does enough to make people mad that the American public comes out passionately to support the party out of power. It happened it 2008 people that had never voted or rarely vote voted for the new President with the funny name It also happened in 2006 and 2004 because a new majority disliked President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. In 2004 new people voted for President Bush because they approved of his handling of the War on Terror and disliked the democratic platform on the social issues of the day such as gay marriage and Partial birth Abortion. People vote when they are frustrated and angry about the country.
The tea party started started do to anger over the bailout of the banks something that started in the Bush administration and had nothing what so ever with race. It continued with the bailout of Gm and Chrysler. The Tea Party then came to a full boil over the Health Care reform because they felt that the President was ignoring the will of the people.
Now I'm no expert but wasn't that the same way most Liberals felt about President Bush in 2008. Now to be fair some people in the Tea party are bigoted against the President because of his race, is that the reason for the tea party, No way because the same people that were against Bill Clinton's Health Care plan were and are against this current incarnation. Nobody suggested racism as the primary reason for opposition in 1994. Why mention it now Well we know why the President is black, and it's easier for people to demagogue the opposition by calling it names then to actually engage in dialogue about the issue. To his credit the President isn't doing this but his friends are and that by it's very nature is also racist.
Are there some racists in the tea Party yes is that the majority of tea party sentiment, no because the Tea Party is frustrated at all government excesses and not just those committed by the current President. Are there bad people in every organization yes, but that doesn't mean that the tea party itself is bad because it causes people to think about the Constitution and the excess of government as a whole. That like it or not is what political activism is all about!
What happens in wave elections is the Party in power does enough to make people mad that the American public comes out passionately to support the party out of power. It happened it 2008 people that had never voted or rarely vote voted for the new President with the funny name It also happened in 2006 and 2004 because a new majority disliked President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. In 2004 new people voted for President Bush because they approved of his handling of the War on Terror and disliked the democratic platform on the social issues of the day such as gay marriage and Partial birth Abortion. People vote when they are frustrated and angry about the country.
The tea party started started do to anger over the bailout of the banks something that started in the Bush administration and had nothing what so ever with race. It continued with the bailout of Gm and Chrysler. The Tea Party then came to a full boil over the Health Care reform because they felt that the President was ignoring the will of the people.
Now I'm no expert but wasn't that the same way most Liberals felt about President Bush in 2008. Now to be fair some people in the Tea party are bigoted against the President because of his race, is that the reason for the tea party, No way because the same people that were against Bill Clinton's Health Care plan were and are against this current incarnation. Nobody suggested racism as the primary reason for opposition in 1994. Why mention it now Well we know why the President is black, and it's easier for people to demagogue the opposition by calling it names then to actually engage in dialogue about the issue. To his credit the President isn't doing this but his friends are and that by it's very nature is also racist.
Are there some racists in the tea Party yes is that the majority of tea party sentiment, no because the Tea Party is frustrated at all government excesses and not just those committed by the current President. Are there bad people in every organization yes, but that doesn't mean that the tea party itself is bad because it causes people to think about the Constitution and the excess of government as a whole. That like it or not is what political activism is all about!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
It's the Iman, Stupid!
The mosque near ground zero controversy is a tough one for me because I realize that if public sentiment guides the law then this nation that is already balkenized can cancel out a religious domination, all practicing Catholics and Baptists need to realize what a bad precedent it would be to allow pressure from a local comminity to prevent the building of a house of worship or mosque. The problem in not with the mosque itself but the iman who has made comments saying,"it was United States policy that created Osama Bin Laden". To make matters worse to recognize that Hammas is a terrorist organisazion. I believe his these comments underly a basis extremism and contempt for the this Republic. If he really wants to bring faiths together then he should tour the United States explaining how Al Queada is incompatable with the true meaning of Islam. For goodness sake why not build the Mosque somewhere else in deference to those directly efeected by 9/11. To build the Mosque near ground zero seems like spite. There are no shinto shrines in close proximity to Pearl Harbour. Unless of course the Mosque is being built as a sign of cultural dominence over the west?!!?
I thought that by the calling off of the buring of the Koran that perhaps a repectfull dialog could ensue that would lead to the Mosque not being built. This however remains to be seen. The right to build the Mosque is not in question. The only quarrel is its location and hurtful memories it may cause. That combined with the Extremist views of this Iman make the building of this Mosque incredibly unwise.
The mosque near ground zero controversy is a tough one for me because I realize that if public sentiment guides the law then this nation that is already balkenized can cancel out a religious domination, all practicing Catholics and Baptists need to realize what a bad precedent it would be to allow pressure from a local comminity to prevent the building of a house of worship or mosque. The problem in not with the mosque itself but the iman who has made comments saying,"it was United States policy that created Osama Bin Laden". To make matters worse to recognize that Hammas is a terrorist organisazion. I believe his these comments underly a basis extremism and contempt for the this Republic. If he really wants to bring faiths together then he should tour the United States explaining how Al Queada is incompatable with the true meaning of Islam. For goodness sake why not build the Mosque somewhere else in deference to those directly efeected by 9/11. To build the Mosque near ground zero seems like spite. There are no shinto shrines in close proximity to Pearl Harbour. Unless of course the Mosque is being built as a sign of cultural dominence over the west?!!?
I thought that by the calling off of the buring of the Koran that perhaps a repectfull dialog could ensue that would lead to the Mosque not being built. This however remains to be seen. The right to build the Mosque is not in question. The only quarrel is its location and hurtful memories it may cause. That combined with the Extremist views of this Iman make the building of this Mosque incredibly unwise.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
responce to the comment
First of all some clean up from last column I will try to keep it as factually based as possible, I am all for having a national debate on Civil Unions that would probably lead to my side losing. If one ones to strengthen civil unions in the Entire country then let a Presidential candidate discuss that By the way the Majority of states that do have civil union laws do make them similar to marriage in an effort to please the Gay Lesbian transgender lobby In many states especially liberal ones these votes are called basically every benefit other then actually calling the union marriage. Again national standards are set at the ballot box except for outright bigotry are up to the people and there Representatives in congress. Gay marriage/ relationships don't meet that standard unless they are being denied a public right. If you feel they are that's fine but do it though the public process not through the courts. If Civil Unions can fix the few benefits that Gays don't get then address it there without trying to force it upon the American public. The only time the courts should social engineer is when they have an interest to do so. If Gays were being put in jail up or stigmatized by government and the law then the court would have a point but leading society is not something the court should do. Society will see when it's wrong eventually if homosexuality is on par with society then let the consensus of the people catch up. Race can not be helped sexuality can and therefore is a behavior and so there is not a compelling state interest for the Court to declare it unconstituntal gay Sodomy will never reach that standerd unless they actually do find the so-called gay gene. Marriage is a state issue that's why we have different ages for marriage in different states right now are those also un-constitutional as well, are all laws based on morality up for debate. Is that a debate you won't to have, or is it better to fix the civil union law and make it more beneficial, or scrap the law and disregard 5000 years of society!
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Twisted justice is no justice for anyone
The promblem with the Gay marrige Ruling inside from my roigloous is it was based on te Equal Protection Clause which arrises from the Civil war and civil rights era. There was somthing back then that I could do as a white man if I was born then that tha a black men coukd not marry a white women, as a white man now I have the same rights as a homosexual he can marry one women I can marry one women therefore strickly speaking there is a no specal treatment being given to me that he does not have I have the option of marrying one women so does he.
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
two wroungs...
There are two types of racist's in this country people that hate other people bassed on the color of there skin and people usually past victims of racism that can't get beyond race.
The Administration faced both of those cases in recent weeks and reacted to them badly.
In Nov. 2008 the New black Panthers sought to intimidate pole workers that might actully cheack if felons were eligible, wearing there garb and standing outside the polls one brandishing a club. There are only two reasons for this either intimidate white voters or as I mentioned before distract pole workers from doing there job. This is obviously a threat to democracy no one has the right to intimidate anyone into not voting even poll workers. The Attorney General showing the same cowardice on race that he lectures the American people on choose not to prosecute.
Conservatives and most Americans I believed were shocked that this example of reverse fascism was allowed to stand in this country. Consequently we have the case of Shelly Sherod who at a NAACP meeting expressed an unwillingness to help a white farmer who was talking douwn to her. The White House most likely said o.k here's an example of how this Adminastration can show that were not reverse racists. One problem Mrs. Sharrod recounted how her actions were wrong and she no longer felt that way she also did help the white farmer who now regards her as a friend. While liberals in the media are currently going crazy about how Conservatives hipped the story.(they have a point we Conservatives must do better at not jumping to conclusions on stories on race) they ignore that the justice Department lack of response to the New Black Story most likely caused the overreaction to Mrs, Sharrod comments which when taken in context are actually touching.
The Administration faced both of those cases in recent weeks and reacted to them badly.
In Nov. 2008 the New black Panthers sought to intimidate pole workers that might actully cheack if felons were eligible, wearing there garb and standing outside the polls one brandishing a club. There are only two reasons for this either intimidate white voters or as I mentioned before distract pole workers from doing there job. This is obviously a threat to democracy no one has the right to intimidate anyone into not voting even poll workers. The Attorney General showing the same cowardice on race that he lectures the American people on choose not to prosecute.
Conservatives and most Americans I believed were shocked that this example of reverse fascism was allowed to stand in this country. Consequently we have the case of Shelly Sherod who at a NAACP meeting expressed an unwillingness to help a white farmer who was talking douwn to her. The White House most likely said o.k here's an example of how this Adminastration can show that were not reverse racists. One problem Mrs. Sharrod recounted how her actions were wrong and she no longer felt that way she also did help the white farmer who now regards her as a friend. While liberals in the media are currently going crazy about how Conservatives hipped the story.(they have a point we Conservatives must do better at not jumping to conclusions on stories on race) they ignore that the justice Department lack of response to the New Black Story most likely caused the overreaction to Mrs, Sharrod comments which when taken in context are actually touching.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
political musings
First of all I hope everybody had a safe and happy Forth of July, Many many subjects today son lets get to it.
The Supreme Court rightly decided that the Second Admenment means what it says and by implication that the Secound Admenmanment is just as important as anything other right or privilege that we have as Americans. The Second admenment was not I repeat not for hunting it was one of our safeguards against a tyrannical government so that the average person could join a militia if needed. Now of coarse we know there are better ways to change government, but it's nice to know we still have that right guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers. Guns are a part of this country and can not be taken away to reduce crime, that gene is out of the bottle, they are things we can do around the margins but to limit gun violence but the 2nd Admement is alive and well both for good and bad. We adores the bad by enforcing laws against the criminals, but the Right to Bear Arms is guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights it's good to see the Us Supreme court recognizes that.
The supreme court also proved it's can often make idiotic decisions by saying that a Christian Legal society must allow gay members to serve as officers. Let me repeat a Christan Group can not set rules that only people that agree with the group can be part of that group. This is so the University can life up to it's so called non-discrimination policy's. So technically any club has to be open to anyone even if if it's are are repugnet to what the group believes in.
This desicion tramples on the right of association which is in the 1st admenment of the Constitution all because the Us. Supreme court says that the college has a right to say no to discriminatory rules because it's against the college rules as a whole. So every Jewish group can no longer be truly Jewish only or black organization be black only. I will review it further but this is the logical conclusion of this decision. Also the court says that's it's okay to establish these rights because there not just particular to this group and because of something called substantive due process which means the court must look at past discrimination for gays. So sex is now a civil right, and if the school doesn't like it they can shut you down. Which tells you a couple things, college is just like high school rights to some justices depend on public opinion and justice Kennady should not be on the court.
Michael Steele needs to go, his comments were so insanitary that even if was trying to make a philosophical even that point of afasaganestein vs Iraq makes it seems like the war is unwinnable, that's wrong as well as his attempt to use this War as a political tool. We need to be there and anyone that doesn't know that should be relieved of there position now.
he finally did it last week. President Barrack Obama rescinded the Terrence Jones act which allows other countries to come onto our shores to assist directly with the oil spill. I beg detractors of this blog to look it up and ask just What the heck took him so long, and perhaps concede the point that just like President bush and Katrina Obama was caught unaware of what to do about the spill. Better late then never Mr. President!
The Supreme Court rightly decided that the Second Admenment means what it says and by implication that the Secound Admenmanment is just as important as anything other right or privilege that we have as Americans. The Second admenment was not I repeat not for hunting it was one of our safeguards against a tyrannical government so that the average person could join a militia if needed. Now of coarse we know there are better ways to change government, but it's nice to know we still have that right guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers. Guns are a part of this country and can not be taken away to reduce crime, that gene is out of the bottle, they are things we can do around the margins but to limit gun violence but the 2nd Admement is alive and well both for good and bad. We adores the bad by enforcing laws against the criminals, but the Right to Bear Arms is guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights it's good to see the Us Supreme court recognizes that.
The supreme court also proved it's can often make idiotic decisions by saying that a Christian Legal society must allow gay members to serve as officers. Let me repeat a Christan Group can not set rules that only people that agree with the group can be part of that group. This is so the University can life up to it's so called non-discrimination policy's. So technically any club has to be open to anyone even if if it's are are repugnet to what the group believes in.
This desicion tramples on the right of association which is in the 1st admenment of the Constitution all because the Us. Supreme court says that the college has a right to say no to discriminatory rules because it's against the college rules as a whole. So every Jewish group can no longer be truly Jewish only or black organization be black only. I will review it further but this is the logical conclusion of this decision. Also the court says that's it's okay to establish these rights because there not just particular to this group and because of something called substantive due process which means the court must look at past discrimination for gays. So sex is now a civil right, and if the school doesn't like it they can shut you down. Which tells you a couple things, college is just like high school rights to some justices depend on public opinion and justice Kennady should not be on the court.
Michael Steele needs to go, his comments were so insanitary that even if was trying to make a philosophical even that point of afasaganestein vs Iraq makes it seems like the war is unwinnable, that's wrong as well as his attempt to use this War as a political tool. We need to be there and anyone that doesn't know that should be relieved of there position now.
he finally did it last week. President Barrack Obama rescinded the Terrence Jones act which allows other countries to come onto our shores to assist directly with the oil spill. I beg detractors of this blog to look it up and ask just What the heck took him so long, and perhaps concede the point that just like President bush and Katrina Obama was caught unaware of what to do about the spill. Better late then never Mr. President!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
good politics good policy
Hi guys, a little review of the resect shakeup millitery shakeup for you today. First and most importantly General Mcchrastial and the Rolling stone Article, I believe this is the first time I have ever read that publication but I read the entire article. Two things jump out the gerneral seems to come across as supremely igrogent and his advisers incredibly obnoxious. He seems very competident but more concerned with winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan then actually winning the war. An example is the paraphrase of the attitude you can't kill your way out of counter insurgency attituide that is what happens when generals play politics. the General thought that by agreeing to an interview with a liberal hipper audience he would ease liberal anxieties about the War. He learned an iron law of politics in War. Generals never win shouting matches with Presidents ever.
Now as to his actual firing, I am actually very surprised because none of the so called offensive remarks were made by General Mccristcal just his staff. The President himself said the change of leadership had nothing to do with differences in war policy. If that's true then it's all personal and makes the President look small.
However David Paterous is quite frankly better at what he does then Mccchristal ever was. He has more cache with the American people based on his performance in Iraq, he understands how to make the best of a bad situation. He will and should I believe modify the rules of engagement to focus more on winning and leave diplomacy to the politicians.
So the President made the right decision for the wrong reason. His approval ratings have gone up because people respect the commander and chief and regard General Paterous as the miracle man of Iraq. Sometimes good policy is good politics even when it's made for a bad reason.
Now as to his actual firing, I am actually very surprised because none of the so called offensive remarks were made by General Mccristcal just his staff. The President himself said the change of leadership had nothing to do with differences in war policy. If that's true then it's all personal and makes the President look small.
However David Paterous is quite frankly better at what he does then Mccchristal ever was. He has more cache with the American people based on his performance in Iraq, he understands how to make the best of a bad situation. He will and should I believe modify the rules of engagement to focus more on winning and leave diplomacy to the politicians.
So the President made the right decision for the wrong reason. His approval ratings have gone up because people respect the commander and chief and regard General Paterous as the miracle man of Iraq. Sometimes good policy is good politics even when it's made for a bad reason.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
is he a President or a lawyer on tv?
Any speech by any president requires analysis and this one is no exception.
The first part of the speech blaming Bp was certainly correct. If there is a villain in this it clearly is British Petroleum and I have absolutely no problem with them being made to clean it up. It was after all there rig and their fault. The president was a little self self serving when he says were going to make them pay they were going to help anyway and public opinion would have drove them out of business. However it is clearly not out of line that a company be made to compensate it's workers for negligence caused by the company.
It is laughable that the President would refer to anybody employed by the government as a third party overseeing those funds weather he is working in his governmental role or not. But that's just what the president want us to believe Yes that's right the person over seeking the fund works for the federal government. Third party indeed...
grade for that part c
Now the reaction to the spill was completely political The president should have excepted the help of the dutch government and should have given the go ahead to the Louisiana government to create those little barrier like islands much quicker then he did. There's no question that the rejection of the Dutch help proves that the Obama Administration could have helped with this problem in a much more competent manor. that part d-
The truly despicable part of this speech is the the President used to pivots to his push for alternative energy. The reason why this spill is so hard to fix is because it's so offshore to become with. The President has no clue as to how much oil there is left in America because so much of it especially in Alaska is unexplored. For the president to act like there is even a possibility of replacing oil as a fuel source in his lifetime is quite frankly a lie] Other energy sources have yet to show any long term ability to surpass any fossil fuels in terms of reliability or effeteness. They have been some promising research in solar power but to imply that oil is on it's way out is crazy. The larger point is that it was in bad taste to use such a crisis in the Gulf to push for a new energy plan. This energy plan's main focas was not alternative energy but pollution credits for your carbon foot print. Sen Dianne Feinstein said it best the Cap and Trade legislation has nothing to do with the oil spill. She's right and for the President to use the spill to try to advance his programs is the most despicable kind of politics. It takes back to the most outrageous claims made against Bush using 911 to attack Iraq. Hopefully like President Bush President Obama truly believes this program will benefit, if he is just trying to score political score points or to distract people from the oil spill. then he is doing something that represents the truly worst kind of politics, and makes him looker like an ambulance chaser rather then commander and chief! A few more speeches like Tuesday's and his likability will be down as low as his approval rating. Total speech grade 62% and that's to generous
The first part of the speech blaming Bp was certainly correct. If there is a villain in this it clearly is British Petroleum and I have absolutely no problem with them being made to clean it up. It was after all there rig and their fault. The president was a little self self serving when he says were going to make them pay they were going to help anyway and public opinion would have drove them out of business. However it is clearly not out of line that a company be made to compensate it's workers for negligence caused by the company.
It is laughable that the President would refer to anybody employed by the government as a third party overseeing those funds weather he is working in his governmental role or not. But that's just what the president want us to believe Yes that's right the person over seeking the fund works for the federal government. Third party indeed...
grade for that part c
Now the reaction to the spill was completely political The president should have excepted the help of the dutch government and should have given the go ahead to the Louisiana government to create those little barrier like islands much quicker then he did. There's no question that the rejection of the Dutch help proves that the Obama Administration could have helped with this problem in a much more competent manor. that part d-
The truly despicable part of this speech is the the President used to pivots to his push for alternative energy. The reason why this spill is so hard to fix is because it's so offshore to become with. The President has no clue as to how much oil there is left in America because so much of it especially in Alaska is unexplored. For the president to act like there is even a possibility of replacing oil as a fuel source in his lifetime is quite frankly a lie] Other energy sources have yet to show any long term ability to surpass any fossil fuels in terms of reliability or effeteness. They have been some promising research in solar power but to imply that oil is on it's way out is crazy. The larger point is that it was in bad taste to use such a crisis in the Gulf to push for a new energy plan. This energy plan's main focas was not alternative energy but pollution credits for your carbon foot print. Sen Dianne Feinstein said it best the Cap and Trade legislation has nothing to do with the oil spill. She's right and for the President to use the spill to try to advance his programs is the most despicable kind of politics. It takes back to the most outrageous claims made against Bush using 911 to attack Iraq. Hopefully like President Bush President Obama truly believes this program will benefit, if he is just trying to score political score points or to distract people from the oil spill. then he is doing something that represents the truly worst kind of politics, and makes him looker like an ambulance chaser rather then commander and chief! A few more speeches like Tuesday's and his likability will be down as low as his approval rating. Total speech grade 62% and that's to generous
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Professor Thomas
Hellen Thomas the so called Madam of the Washington Press core said something ricdiculas about the Jews getting out of "Palestine and go back home" to Poland and Germany and everywhere else. Not only is that outrageous Anti Semitic and Bigoted it's also a breach of journalistic ethics. Thomas (who's best journalistic days were behind her 10 years ago) was forced to retire.
What's interesting is not just what she said but the fact that she felt it was OK to offer an opinion on the issue in the first place. Thomas when she first started out as a journalist was told that her first job was to report the news and to try to do it is unbiasedly as possible.
As time went by though an she gets around the Washington scene and became famous she forgot those rules and went straight into issue shills. The truly sad thing is she was once a good reporter and trend setter in Washington, sure she was always liberal but the stories she told were interesting because she had interviewed so many presidents. Truth be told I got her book, which brings me to the point of this piece. Journalists have become like professors in the beginning most of them I am convinced try to be unbiased but then after being sucked in by there contemporaries think that they are really important. They then stop teaching and start indoctrinating, Journalists like most teachers including Thomas have no idea how liberal they are. Helen Thomas once said that no one ever has accused her of bias, that in her mind is probably true because she does not talk to anyone who doesn't share her own views. Many professors even the good ones are truly ignorant of how biased they are. The bad ones don't care I once had an academic adviser put up a cartoon of George W. bush being the next Strom Thurmond it's hard to respect such idiocy. I'm sure my advisor now retired did not care I'm sure Hellen Thomas did not care. that's why I call Her Professor Thomas. She like many other journalists and teachers and professors truly are the Roosters that take credit for the Dawn.
What's interesting is not just what she said but the fact that she felt it was OK to offer an opinion on the issue in the first place. Thomas when she first started out as a journalist was told that her first job was to report the news and to try to do it is unbiasedly as possible.
As time went by though an she gets around the Washington scene and became famous she forgot those rules and went straight into issue shills. The truly sad thing is she was once a good reporter and trend setter in Washington, sure she was always liberal but the stories she told were interesting because she had interviewed so many presidents. Truth be told I got her book, which brings me to the point of this piece. Journalists have become like professors in the beginning most of them I am convinced try to be unbiased but then after being sucked in by there contemporaries think that they are really important. They then stop teaching and start indoctrinating, Journalists like most teachers including Thomas have no idea how liberal they are. Helen Thomas once said that no one ever has accused her of bias, that in her mind is probably true because she does not talk to anyone who doesn't share her own views. Many professors even the good ones are truly ignorant of how biased they are. The bad ones don't care I once had an academic adviser put up a cartoon of George W. bush being the next Strom Thurmond it's hard to respect such idiocy. I'm sure my advisor now retired did not care I'm sure Hellen Thomas did not care. that's why I call Her Professor Thomas. She like many other journalists and teachers and professors truly are the Roosters that take credit for the Dawn.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Oil spill aftermath educational for all
Oil spill Educational for everyone
As a fan of all talk radio I often listen to Michael Medved. His resent article published at (Town Hall.com as well as Michael Medved.com) The main thesis of the Article discuses how the oil spill is worse then Katrina was for President Bush. That in itself is inaccurate, conservatives make a mistake when they equate a hurricane that affected the lives of thousands to an oil spill that apart from the people originally killed in the explosion affects people mainly in there pocketbooks.
However it does point out 2 basic truths, the media is hopelessly biased can anybody imagine how the media would have reacted if this spill had taken place during the Bush administration. It would not have taken three weeks for the media to notice. The more important lesson for the country to learn is that the government can't solve every problem. As Medved's article illustrates the so-called best and brightest in the government and Bp for more then a month had no idea how to stop the spill . The so-called top-kill method did not work and other methods that may have also hurt the environment The president looks detached but more then the he is flummoxed because he and more importantly the federal government has no idea how to fix it.
We have no greater proof then what was said by the White House We have been with BP since the beginning. That proves the point that conservatives have known for years, governments don't solve problems they get out of the way so others can. Now to fair the private sector could not solve it with well either, however when government gets involved it moves like the proverbial glacier. Like Gov Jendal said if the federal government does not have a plan get out of the way and let us implement our own. The problem with liberalism is it believes that the federal government is there to solve every problem or big Crisis, the aftermath of the oil spill is further proof that that belief is wrong. The problem for the President is now everybody know that Government doesn't solve problems in some cases they may prolong them.
As a fan of all talk radio I often listen to Michael Medved. His resent article published at (Town Hall.com as well as Michael Medved.com) The main thesis of the Article discuses how the oil spill is worse then Katrina was for President Bush. That in itself is inaccurate, conservatives make a mistake when they equate a hurricane that affected the lives of thousands to an oil spill that apart from the people originally killed in the explosion affects people mainly in there pocketbooks.
However it does point out 2 basic truths, the media is hopelessly biased can anybody imagine how the media would have reacted if this spill had taken place during the Bush administration. It would not have taken three weeks for the media to notice. The more important lesson for the country to learn is that the government can't solve every problem. As Medved's article illustrates the so-called best and brightest in the government and Bp for more then a month had no idea how to stop the spill . The so-called top-kill method did not work and other methods that may have also hurt the environment The president looks detached but more then the he is flummoxed because he and more importantly the federal government has no idea how to fix it.
We have no greater proof then what was said by the White House We have been with BP since the beginning. That proves the point that conservatives have known for years, governments don't solve problems they get out of the way so others can. Now to fair the private sector could not solve it with well either, however when government gets involved it moves like the proverbial glacier. Like Gov Jendal said if the federal government does not have a plan get out of the way and let us implement our own. The problem with liberalism is it believes that the federal government is there to solve every problem or big Crisis, the aftermath of the oil spill is further proof that that belief is wrong. The problem for the President is now everybody know that Government doesn't solve problems in some cases they may prolong them.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Elena Kagan theoretical justice?
The reason Elena Kagan should not sit on the high court is not just because she is unqualified or an ultra-liberal. Its because she has no experience as a Judge. A judge has reverence for the law. Judges realize the law should not be manipulated by to suit one's own idea of Justice. Judges even liberal ones understand their role as interpreters of the constitution. Academics see their role as a duty to fix or purge the Constitution of perceived inequalities. That's why Elena Kagan is the perfect choice for all left leaning academics but not a good choice to uphold the constitution.
Educators such as Ms. Kagan see their role as to point out wrongs to their students in hopes for a better society. That is fine in academia, (provided that the professor is unbiased). It is however terrible for a judge because the rule of law is then subject to one's personal preferences which of course is not law at all.
Educators such as Ms. Kagan see their role as to point out wrongs to their students in hopes for a better society. That is fine in academia, (provided that the professor is unbiased). It is however terrible for a judge because the rule of law is then subject to one's personal preferences which of course is not law at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)