How... anticlimactic. Gary Johnson's got competition for the most forgettable presidential candidate (at this point) now. Jon Huntsman is a former governor of Utah, and was Obama's ambassador to China until recently. And he is SERIOUSLY trying to be our next president. As far as what he says, at least. I am not convinced. To announce his campaign's launch, he chose the spot where Ronald Reagan announced his campaign for the 1980 presidential election. The parity ends there. There is no similarity between Reagan and Huntsman in style or personality. In case you didn't notice that. The Huntsman announcement had been anticipated by many -- or the media was telling us we should be anticipating it. Curiosity about an unknown who gets buzz is natural, and it appears that Huntsman needed it. And now, lost it. Huntsman is a terrific person, it seems. But upon hearing his speech at a park overlooking the Statue of Liberty -- as Reagan had done! -- I cannot fathom WHO was waiting for this, without any ill will against the GOP's White House chances in 2012, aside from his family, friends and existing fans. His speech was distant, and his message was... vague. Unemotional. Drab. DRY. Oddly, and dryly, humorous. The actual statement that he was running, which he gave with a wisp of enthusiasm which was absent from the rest of the speech, seemed, on its own, like a scene from a Christopher Guest movie ("A Mighty Wind," "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best In Show" are a few of his comedies). His announcement was a real-life parody of a real presidential campaign announcement. It was "Waiting for Huntsman". So, who's anticipating his run NOW? - jR
Criminals 101: Don't discuss illegal activities on social media
Are you clever? If you are a clever person who was knowingly going to transport an illegal substance across the country in order to sell that substance, in your classic Piper Comanche airplane, how would you handle the preparations, such as notifying contacts that you were heading out? Once you've answered, see if it matches with the following, or if this would even remotely fit into your scenario.
Via timesherald.com (PA):
Though Handzus [the accused criminal] did not file flight plans before piloting the aircraft on the 2,400 mile trip, investigators had seen his Facebook page and learned of his travel plans. And on the day the two landed at Blue Bell airport, detectives spotted the vintage blue Piper airplane.
- jR
Obama's words and waters being tested, or stirred
So, how about POTUS Obama's Middle East foreign policy (was it?) speech? He was clumsy. He was lawyerly. He was testing the waters with rhetoric and tossing in a few ideas, one of which distracted from the fine, thoughtful comments that went before it.
Sadly, that seems to be what the take-away will be, due to Obama's, uhh, audacity (not of hope, sorry, but of typical arrogance).
He suggested that Israel accept a retreat to their pre-1967 borders as part of a peaceful transition to a Palestinian state, which made Israel 9 miles wide at the time, in its middle.
Curiously, the very next day Obama met with Israel's PM, which suggests an anterior motive for the entire speech. The meeting showed us, those watching, that, with due respect to both men, the "Leader of the Free World" might hold the greatest powers of man in his office, but he still needs a talking to now and then by a conscientious, time-tested professional.
Bibi Netanyahu offered Obama his clear, diplomatic view of Obama's idea during a joint media session in the Oval Office. It was a stunning scene of an unfettered leader teaching an unsettled, face-shielding, simmering lecturer (Pres. Obama) a thing or two about how to prevent the destruction of Israel (while Obama needs further advice on avoiding helping chaos to reign elsewhere in the tribally, religiously and ethnically tense Middle East).
God willing, our big leader will not make things worse for Arabs in other countries OR Israelis/Palestinians of any stripe.
Mostly, for someone who holds an interest in the Middle East as I do, his speech was just a position speech, with little new BUT the line that toyed with being serious about the 1967 lines. THEN, quite as a man attempting to inject cover into everything, he added wording about land swaps.
Don't tire yourselves on the word games, watch for the fallout from this speech. Obama made it clear that the USA is on the side of those seeking democracy, and cast dispersions on the despots in the region, from Libya to Syria. It didn't offer a lot on Iran.
Watch, as predictable as time passing, there will be more tests and nasty words to encourage American guilt, once again. Yes, if you are NOT supporting BHO's words, some will say it equates supporting a cursed plight for innocent Palestinians.
Shame that these overt supporters of Palestinian leaders and their tactics had no guilt about their views. Hamas was elected to rule in Gaza. So keep in mind that their partnership with the more sane (you decide by how much) Palestinian leadership may only be a way to control that other side.
I ask this question often, and you should, too. I would like journalists to ask this question, and get a legit answer: Why is it STILL only Israel's back with a target on it, where the Palestinian plight is concerned?
How have the Israeli government failed Palestinians, when their own brethren do not want to take them in? If peace is a goal, this would be happening. Palestinians are being used by some Arabs as pawns in the Arab Cold War against Israel. They were rejected in 1948, in 1967, in later years.
Somehow this cruddy treatment is always propped up as Israel's blight on another race. Really? Are enough of you so stupid to believe that, or is it simply a convenient distraction from the solid issue: A broad faction of Arabs do not want the conflict to end but one way, with the end of the Jewish State.
Did Obama's speech make THAT clear? No.
- jR
The Racist Bigots are Spreading! Or... not! Population policy 'risks wealth' in Oz
I envy the Australians, and many other nations, where the concept of a population policy is discussed, while we here in the United States are berated, accused of being racists, xenophobes, bigots, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-Mexican, etc., etc., with complete seriousness, when we are trying to address real issues and real solutions to border control, immigration policy, illegal border-crossings, and so-called illegal immigrants (they used to be called illegal aliens).
Epic failure on the part of America's left, liberals, the sway of the leading Democrats, for their lack of foresight in the thoroughly unreasonable assaults on the right, the conservatives, Republicans, the safe-borders and anti-illegal immigration proponents. (Note: anit-illegals are not, by definition, anti-human beings, despite what is so often repeated by the crass left, all the way to the top.)
In Australia, the fairly laid-back, neighborly nation that is not exactly assaulted for it's ingrained bigotry (not since the days of the Lost Generation, at least), they actually can have a discussion about population issues versus economic issues. Where is our discussion that doesn't parse it on such a horrendously juvenile level as calling others racists or bigots, and not just knee-jerk activists, but actual LEADERS?
Population policy 'risks wealth'
AUSTRALIA'S long-term prosperity is threatened by the Gillard government's failure to set a viable population policy, the nation's peak property body has warned.
But the nation's first population strategy, released by the government yesterday, won praise from low-population advocate Bob Carr for abandoning a "big Australia" approach.
Property Council of Australia chief executive Peter Verwer said the new strategy, Sustainable Australia, Sustainable Communities, was "political" in nature, and contained little more than "motherhood statements, previously announced initiatives and ongoing government programs".
"This is not a detailed plan for managing population growth and to describe it as a policy or a strategy would be stretching credibility," Mr Verwer said."
"We need to grow our population if we are to meet critical skills shortages and provide for an ageing population, which needs taxation revenue to fund vital services," he said. (More story)
- jR
(aka AirFarceOne on Twitter)
The Unwisdom of Elites - NYTimes.com
The former economist, PAUL KRUGMAN, is so good at getting so many things half correct. Here's an example, from May 9, 2011, column. All-too-predictably, he blames the Republicans for problems.
...These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?
The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.
So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn't the man in the street.
President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party's ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.
Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America's political and pundit elite.
Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that's who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.
So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America's deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis....
He forgot the other half of the problem, which includes his friends Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton (yes, even though he and the GOP Congress created a surplus), and so many others who touted the goodness of such things as giving loans to the underprivileged, for homes they could not afford. And other things.
-jR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)