Rabid leftie activism by MoveOn.org, others, betraying U.S.

Slightly idiotic, some pro-Obama nonprofit groups are trying to help encourage the Obama budget into passing, with mean advertising. Sometimes, it is like learning a relative unknowingly named their child after a disease, when groups like MoveOn.org try to "help". Big government, PACs, activist groups with no class, leaders like Pelosi and Clyburn: does Obama really need your kind of "help"?

Campaign for Obama's budget is widening - Los Angeles Times
Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said that the TV advertising would not influence his vote. And he questioned whether the ads were consistent with the president's promise of collaboration. Obama has told lawmakers that they should not be "potted plants" -- passing his budget intact without raising questions -- Bayh said.

The president echoed that point at his prime-time news conference Tuesday, telling a national audience: "We never expected when we printed out our budget that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it."

If that's the case, Bayh asked, why are Obama allies running ads that effectively direct members to vote for the president's budget?

"The president has said this is a cooperative process," Bayh said in an interview. "Some of these groups running ads are not in sync with the president."

Members of Congress are sensitive about ads in their districts, and some say the MoveOn commercials strike a counterproductive partisan note.

One MoveOn ad, for example, is running in Democratic Rep. Christopher Carney's northeast Pennsylvania district. The district voted for Republican John McCain over Obama, and for President Bush over Democrat John F. Kerry four years earlier.

The MoveOn ad is critical of "Bush tax cuts." It urges support for "the Obama budget." In a conservative district like Carney's, an ad with an overt anti-Bush message could alienate voters, the congressman's office contends.

A Carney aide said: "This type of ultra-partisan rhetoric is not productive. There is a way to frame the budget that would pressure us, but this frame does not pressure us at all."

Carney, a member of the House's fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, has not announced a position on Obama's budget.
Way to go, yet again, MoveOn.org. My, how pro-American, all-inclusive and progressive you are. Yet... again, showing your "caring" for the common good with your "forward-looking" (I think that's what I've seen them calling it before) ads.

It looks like smash and grab rather than giving a hand -- feel the love, America? Who's betrayed whom?

- jR aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

JustOneMinute blog: Frank cares less for frankness than winning

Oh, to hell with division of government!

Ironic that a leader of the legislature assaults a leader of the judiciary for NOT legislating from the bench. But then, there is very little about Barney "Rubble" Frank proclamations that aren't somehow ironic, more often than not. If he has any challenge, he is embittered by it, all too often.

I recall that this is the man who famously claimed (but, thanks to lack of perspective in media, given a reprieve for it) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaders and procedures were not at all in need of revision as recently as August 2008. Uhh, wrong!

JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Corruption Of Language
I don't find support for Frank's assertion that Scalia believes homosexuality "deserves" to be treated with disapproval; I find a stern reminder that the public deserves courts that wait until legislatures legislate before creating new rights.

Oh, well - Frank is not interested in a frank exchange of views. His goal is to shut down debate by branding everyone on the other side as a homophobe.
Barney Frank is an extreme example of one of the two types of office holders: there are, quite broadly, public servants and power seekers. They are all some mix of the two, right?

If someone listened to Frank's crude provocations and insisted that he was far more a public servant than the other, they must find professional wrestling a subtle form of entertainment.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Photo: credited to AP)

Powered by ScribeFire.

EU chief deems Obama economic moves the 'road to hell'

Moneynews - EU Chief: Obama Plan is Road to Hell
The head of the European Union slammed President Barack Obama's plan to spend nearly $2 trillion to push the U.S. economy out of recession as "the road to hell" that EU governments must avoid.

The blunt comments by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek to the European Parliament on Wednesday highlighted simmering European differences with Washington ahead of a key summit next week on fixing the world economy.

It was the strongest pushback yet from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

Shocked by the outburst, other European politicians went into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the United States. The leaders of EU's major nations -- France, Britain and Germany, among others -- largely ignored Topolanek and his remarks.
What can we expect? For every time he seems to show some rationale for the U.S. that is successful, he either does something, or someone reminds us in strong and blunt terms, just how obstinate BHO can be. In light of this, too, the Openness-in-Chief, the "TOTUS" isn't reproaching world currency ideas flaoted out there, is he? Not that I have heard. How very disappointing.

It irks me, the reserve to defend what's American on so many counts, by this president. Write off the U.S. dollars' once and future (if there is a future!) strength... it's untoward to act like we're still stronger on all counts than any other nation and able to be caretaker of freedom and capitalism and markets. Let's just give it all up now, while WE HAVE THE CHANCE, in light of the deep recession. Is that the thinking? I hope not.

It is too soon for the Earth of Star Trek, with a world-governing council, planetary "credits", etc. Too many ideologues with deep desires to kill innocents for their god or their power. In other words, to keep with the Star Trek theme, Earth has its own Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, who are interested in harming others, despite overtures to Iran and others by Ms. Clinton and friends.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Did Israel strike at Sudan to hit Gaza gun-runners?

BBC NEWS | Africa | Mystery over Sudan 'air strike'
Mystery over Sudan 'air strike'

map of Egypt, Sudan and Sinai
map of Egypt, Sudan and Sinai

A Sudanese government minister has confirmed reports of an air raid in eastern Sudan earlier this year.

The minister, Mabrook Mubarak Saleem, told an Arabic news channel that many people had been killed in the strike, said to have taken place last month.

Earlier reports suggested that those attacked were on their way to deliver weapons to Hamas fighters in Gaza.

Israeli officials have not commented publicly on reports that their planes may have been involved.

The CBS television network said it had been told by American officials that a strike by Israeli planes in January had succeeded in preventing weapons from Sudan reaching Gaza.

Mr Mabrook Mubarak Saleem said the air raid happened in February and that those killed or injured had been civilians from a number of African countries.
Another Middle East-linked mystery. Sudan, which has deep ties to China that might or might not be the pin that keeps everything from collapsing, is not exactly a place to be counted out of being a spot for gun runners who are working with not only Gazan terrorist or other aggressive groups, but Al-Qaeda and anyone else with cash.

This is after all the nation that has been killing, maiming, raping and keeping in misery countless thousands in the Darfur region. All primarily due to religious, ethnic and cultural intolerance. Their government there is trouble, or the ICC would not have issued an arrest warrant for the state's president, Hassan al-Bashir, in early March 2009.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Abortion 'pride' is encouraged by professional student

Opposing Views: OPINION: It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement - Jacob Appel
Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths.
The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term.
Because, you know, sex as the right of every horny kid and adult on the planet, with no consequences deserved for the realities of the act, is paramount. There is no reason for facing the consequences of being a loose-legged bimbo, being an oppressively horny and emotionally selfish boyfriend, getting sloppy about birth control, or no reason for taking responsibility for being otherwise stupid. That is not the easiest option, after all. Getting rid of the problem is the solution. No matter what that means. Reminds me of liberal concepts for everything. Insincerity, and personal rights -- those to the level of a vicious selfishness -- above logic, responsibility and everything else.

Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees Mr. Appel has, this author is a professional student. That must be a nice life.

Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.
Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies.
Furthering being the creepiest "ethicist" I have ever read, he goes to the extraordinary level of proclaiming -- without actually saying it, but effectively admitting -- his deep desire for a utopian world where guilt does not exist. I assume this author figures the whole world thinks as he does, that a baby out of the womb is a baby out of mind:
I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Nuanced: the new not making any sense

This piece is from 2007, and it is still irrelevant today.

FAIR, thanks to this sidebar and the connected article, is now on my list of "slobbering blogs", but only as a junior member.

Sidebar: Liberals Can’t Cut Talk Radio? - FAIR
Extra! January/February 2007

Sidebar: Liberals Can’t Cut Talk Radio?

By Steve Rendall

[Note: This piece is a sidebar to Rough Road to Liberal Talk Success.]

One talk radio talking point for conservatives and establishment observers alike is that progressive politics don’t “work” on talk radio because they are too nuanced and therefore not reducible to the sort of clear-cut moral terms that get talk radio audiences fired up. Anyone who believes this has never heard the likes of Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Molly Ivins or Michael Eric Dyson (himself a successful local talk radio host in Chicago).

While touring in support of FAIR’s book The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error in the mid-’90s, I was accosted by one talkshow host after another with another conservative talking point: Liberals can’t do talk radio because they’re too humorless to be entertaining.

My response was to ask them why they thought this was true of talk radio, since it was the only entertainment venue where liberals weren’t prominent. They usually accepted my point, but instead of explaining why talk radio was different from other entertainment settings, they would usually begin citing the short list of talk radio liberals who had failed over the years.

They were right in saying that liberal hosts like former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and former California Gov. Jerry Brown were not particularly adept at talk radio. But these and better liberal hosts who’ve been canceled over the years were generally given little time to succeed, assigned poor time slots, or had shows that were wedged in between conservative shows, where it is hard for a liberal to build an audience (and not particularly good for the conservative host who follows the liberal, either). Looking back on the brief and ungenerous tryouts offered to liberal hosts over the years, it’s important to remember that Rush Limbaugh failed at radio for more than a decade before developing his winning formula.—S.R.
Looks like a grand bit of whining, to me, which is of course the primary ingredient in too many liberal arguments about free speech, and other rights that let their opposition have some sway. It is also proclaiming, without proclaiming it outright, that liberals are simply better at everything than conservatives. I presume that this is the case only if they are given the chance to succeed by trouncing the vast right-wing conspiracy to keep them from succeeding on radio. If given that chance -- by the presumed right-wing-only owners of radio stations everywhere -- liberals would be far better at it than conservatives.

Funny, then, that liberal politicians, for instance, must spend twice as much money than conservatives in most elections, whether they win or lose, and even when they lose big. First bit of evidence for that is Obama's victory while spending more than twice as much as McCain (as I recall it) to win by roughly six percent of the vote. Seems to me, that's a recipe for confusion, not expertise.

So the point to the blabbering above is something like this: since Rush struggled for ten years before becoming a widely accepted radio (and even briefly, TV) talker, that liberals, too, can struggle and succeed in radio. But they don't, except a few shining examples. And why? Apparently because, like Steve Rendall, liberal writers are indeed "too nuanced" -- or some less euphemistic term for being scatter-brained. (Translation: liberals are too muddy in use of logic, when it comes down to it, and they would bore an audience without the gross preparation not allowed by two to four hours live on the radio.) Whether I was arguing for the conservative success on radio, or the liberal failure on radio, I would argue that this guy's argument is avoiding reality and pledging for your sypathy for those poor, poor liberals who were not given a chance on radio.

So the point is that there is no point to claiming a conspiracy for right-wing radio success, or to the Fairness Doctrine or something like it since it would change nothing (even by this guy's own words in the article). So what is the point to the argument? I guess it is just too nuanced for me, or it is too propagandist for me to accept.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Treasury Sec fills in reporters on toxic loans plan... aide tries to embargo all that

What stunt is that, then? An embargo was attempted on a chat, which was with reporters in closed quarters, by the Treasury Sec AFTER the chat was finished. Plausible deniability of some sort? Or was it just some dumb bureaucrat trying too hard to shove people around -- not the Sec, but the press aide? Political theater, or just stupidity?

Balance of Power - Geithner Fills In Blanks of Latest Bailout . . . Off Camera - CQ Politics
[Treasury Secretary] Geithner stayed on message and appeared Obamaesque in his cool, confident demeanor. His staff was a bit more antsy, though. As the hour-long briefing concluded, a press aide tried to retroactively put an embargo on the remarks, meaning journos would have to observe a delay before reporting Geithner's comments. Many in the crowd -- a bustantial number of whom had been live-blogging or Twittering -- simply laughed.

"Too late," said one attendee. "It is?" the flustered aide replied.
I guess that's because this current Administration is so attuned to current technology. Unlike Mr. McCain, who if you haven't heard, was not enamored with using keyboards or email (damaged bones from POW torture make it hard to use a PC, perhaps). Or, maybe they are not so aware of current technology. (After all, the Obama Twitter account has not been touched since Jan. 21, 2009, for instance. I guess that cool for a campaigner to attract the young, pliable ones, but not for a Campaigner-in-Chief.)

This, below, is essence of what Treas Sec said, as far as I'm concerned.
Geithner sat at an unadorned conference table in an upstairs conference room with a bottle of mineral water and explained to about 100 reporters how the administration hopes to reinvigorate the financial system without actually taking over any financial institutions. The key is offering private investors low-cost loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve. A fact sheet distributed by Treasury aides showed how a private investor could acquire $100 worth of bad assets by ponying up as little as $6. The government would match that initial investment, and the the FDIC would cover the remaining value.

Geithner predicted a wide array of investors -- including pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and even individual investors -- will flock to the program. He ruled out more dramatic steps, such as turning the government into an owner of the troubled institutions. "We are the United States of America. We are not Sweden," Geithner declared, referring to that country's response to its early 1990s banking crisis.
Well, all my respect to the good people and country of Sweden, but thank God for that piece of real hope from the Obama Administration. I think there is a lot of noise going on, people accusing Obama, across the board, of socialist tendancies. The fact remains that we have, by definition but not governmental model, socialized companies. Gov'ts owning companies equals socialism. That's kinda one huge part of it. That does not mean we are joining Sean Penn's friends in Cuba and Venezuela (but don't tell Penn that, he is liable to punch someone).

They tried to embargo the chat after the fact, so what the heck might that preempt? A bit paranoid, perhaps, to think the "ObamAdmin" might try to eject any words spoken, since they attempted to "post-embargo" the chat, but this is the group that keeps reminding us -- and less offensive from them but Congress tries to claim it, too -- that they inherited this mess.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crist no likee gogo juice wastee, say Sun-Sentinel

Charlie Crist is not being up front about spending for private flights, in full. He is also being tight-lipped about it. Unfortunately, while my guv jetting around on my tax dollars (everyone's, whatever) I find foul, I suspect we're simply going to discover that it is GOPers funding these quick trips, thus making this a bit of a distraction, and a bit of a NON-STORY. Time will tell!

Who pays the bill when Florida Governor Charlie Crist flies? -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Crist's office would not reveal who paid for specific flights or answer questions about them, despite the governor's vow of transparency when he took office. "Our constitution requires that our government be open and transparent," Crist said in his January 2007 inaugural address. "And under my administration it will be like never before."

Years ago, as a state senator, Crist took aim at then-Gov. Lawton Chiles for accepting about 30 flights on private jets to watch football games or go turkey hunting. Chiles later reimbursed the planes' owners more than $7,000. "The whole thing smells," Crist said at the time, calling for elected officials to fully disclose private flights.

Now, as governor, Crist is mum about his own extensive use of private planes.
The Sun-Sentinel is, of course, quite good at their jobs, so this must mean something. This related story, however, means one thing while the headline, well, I don't know what it means....

Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

What kind of headline is "Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint," the headline I found for the second article as part of the "print edition" version of the article? Was that translated, poorly, from the Spanish or something? Was this originally an El Sentinel article? Perhaps they meant any of the following:
  • Gov. Crist promotes police who curb gases from trips that leave big carbon footprint
  • Gov. Crist promotes police's curbing of gases, then trips leaving a big imprint
  • Gov. Crist promotes police, is to curb gases, trips and has to leave, offers big carbon footprint
I don't know understand how governor promotes polices to curb gases, but I am sure it for to mean somethings!
"We cannot afford to ignore that carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change that may put Florida's residents and 1,200 miles of coastline at risk," Crist said that day.While Crist has promoted policies to curb global warming, his own air travel has left a considerable carbon footprint. The governor has flown extensively on state and private planes since he took office two years ago.
Oh, so it was meant to be "policies" not "polices". I understands nows. Except for "gases". What did they mean there? Should that be "emissions", perhaps?

The Sun-Sentinel is not exactly a company that one can be proud of. The Sun-Sentinel Company refused, in a practice that they apparently were never castigated for -- for quite some time, according to people I know -- to pay underpaid salaried employees overtime. They did something so, foul, so greedily elitist, yet insist on accusing the governor of anything untoward regarding mere travel? That's rich!

The media hacks and that swath of willing managerial crooks at Tribune care about as much about anything but their own bottom line as Pelosi cares about getting average Americans jobs (if it costs her her precious "patriotic" illegals). Still, I want to know what Crist has to say about these expenses. And, historically, just how much tax money that could be going to schools, for instance, is spent on jet-setting by him and other state officials.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Economy: It's getting ugly out there... less neat than party division, says Rasmussen's Blankley

Getting Too Ugly Too Soon -  Tony Blankley
In the past few weeks, the language of national political debate has turned too ugly too soon. The temperature is rising, and I have felt it in the rising of my own political blood.
I am not alone on both sides of the political divide. In the past fortnight, the most high-toned, rarely partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning Brahmins of Washington print commentary have used the following phrases to describe the president or his words: "double talker," "opportunistic," "brazen deception," a "great pretender," practicing "deception at the core" of his plans, and a "fantasy."

On the president's side, a high-toned prizewinner called the GOP arguments "fraudulent," saying they [the GOP] intend to push the U.S. economy over "the edge of catastrophe." A prominent opponent of the president's was identified as having a history of drug dependency.

The White House itself ran a campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh. And according to Politico, President Obama's transition chief is coordinating a "left-wing conspiracy" that intends to go after the president's critics personally. Politico quotes one of the participants: "There's a coordination in terms of exposing the people who are trying to come out against reform -- they've all got backgrounds and histories and pasts, and it's not taking long to unearth that and to unleash that, because we're all working together."
The old joke that debates in academic lounges are so nasty because so little is at risk does not apply, in my opinion, to national politics right now. Rather, precisely because we stand on the edge of possible economic catastrophe in a world that seems more out of control than anytime since 1939, both sides feel more deeply about policy decisions soon to be made.

We earnestly believe -- on both sides -- that
decisions made in Washington in the next several months or few years may drastically reshape the very nature of our country forever. So policy argument easily slips into personal calumny in a desperate effort to win the debate.

But precisely because these fateful policy decisions may well be decided by a few votes in the Senate -- leaving almost half the country appalled at the decision -- it is vital to dial back the rhetoric of the debate to make acceptance of such decisions more manageable. At least I am going to try to dial back my rhetoric.

Don't construe the foregoing as an ode to goo-goo bipartisanship. I stand with Maggie Thatcher in believing in conviction politics, in which individuals and parties do not compromise their first principles in order to get along. It is better to lose a vote or an election on principle and let the public judge whose policy was the wiser than to stand for nothing -- and thus stand for anything.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Created in a heat of politically motivated outrage, right here on Blogger.