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.

So-called progressives' cry against AM radio: anti-free market rules are pro-free speech

The recent assault on talk radio by progressives (so-called) has also produced comments that moderate reporting, or non-biased to non-media people, is boring. That's just one of the little offshoots of this odd agenda being taken up right now.

I have a serious problem with this. This is the worst of what liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you call it, has to offer. It shows the broader goal they look toward: to run things without a care of free markets or consumer and market guided business. It's called overregulating. They are for it. I am against underregulating, but this is no better. Nooo better!

The playground rules of equal time at bat is now being pushed for radio. Have you ever listened to AirAmerica? I once listened to a ten-minute assault on Barbara Bush, back in January 2009, calling her mean and vicious and alleging all sorts of profane things about her. I think they actually referred to her as fat at one point. I mean, it was foul and just mean. Why? How appealing is it that these "radio personalities" go after the MOTHER of the current president! Little wonder this stuff dies in the free market! Crude, and more ironically juvenile than Pee Wee's Playhouse (or, for that matter, more juvenile than Glenn Beck's radio show some days, when he does the cynical, half-funny "America's favorite game show" segments)!

Since the free market does not exist for these pro-overregulation clowns, there's ongoing debate of 'conservative' radio vs. fairness doctrine for radio. Not papers & TV, but just radio! Would force far left liberal - oh wait, 'progressive' - radio on radio stations. For what? Their future economic success?!!

They call it a 'system' of companies. Bull. Air America not a company, then? It ignores the biz law of what sells ads, which certainly TRUMPS any 'BALANCE' LAW. Ask any struggling paper just how much ads determine their life or death! Or, any radio station! This smacks of collectivism, where the media would be controlled by the all-knowing, all-controlling hand of government. Period.

I would welcome more successful liberal radio, because the so-called progressives are being so oddly anti-business, anti-free market, and inferring communist ideals in their hassling of radio stations and their owners that it smacks of outright shameless envy and jealousy. They will apparently stop only short of cutting power sources to radio stations with this assault on AM radio. (I should avoid mentioning that some areas, such as Nashville, Tenn., have excellent FM talk stations.)

Think Progress » Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?
(First of all, HAAA! What a headline! Can you guess where that's going? Duh!)

ThinkProgress asked the authors of the original report to respond to Limbaugh. Two co-authors, CAP’s John Halpin and Free Press’s Josh Silver, gave us this response:

Dear Rush Limbaugh:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

Those of us at CAP, Free Press and other public interest organizations do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and we definitely do not want to limit free speech. We want more of it. You and other conservatives seem more interested in protecting a system that does the exact opposite.

If Limbaugh wants a debate, let’s have it.

Go ahead and call him, debate it! Please! There's only a few of you who could manage to handle it! But debate? Good luck with that. Rhetoric as what comes from ThinkProgess will not play for success on this issue. I think it would bore his listeners if he waited until these closeted big govt freaks had the nerve to call him and offer something remotely close to a civil, topical argument about this subject.

In the piece they at once call these "commercial stations", yet bluntly claim that they "push" an agenda? How is it that they are making any money, then? Somebody must be advertising on the stations! So all the advertisers are conservatives, too, and there's some secret handshake of advertisers and listeners who support those businesses?

Their presumption falls on its face, it seems, and they surely must know it. How can dashing free market ideals for their version of a "free" (wink) media possibly pass muster under authentic public debate? These pro-controlled airwaves (oh, but ONLY radio!) people are tossing rocks, and keeping their distance, they are not offering a debate.

Liberals have most of TV in their back pockets. Viewership of news on TV is lowering, for them. MSNBC is the laughed-at geek among all TV news entities, and steeply liberal. It is rising generally, we learned recently from viewership reports, but MSNBC is comparably rising far less than FOX News. Fox News is of course another media outlet despised by liberals. This one is disliked for simply not being liberal rather than for its being rampantly conservative -- but don't try to tell any of them that, they're too busy calling it racist, fascist and owned by "the Man". These same liberals pan PBS and NPR for being too moderate, too. Shame. I like both of those, and appreciate their reporting. Funny, I thought reporting was meant to be objective as possible, but plenty of progressives -- and a few blow-hard counterparts on the far right -- call objectivity boring. So much for news reporting and "boring" old journalism!

Liberals lay claim to the majority of large newspapers in the nation, and seem to be doing just fine with not forcing "balance" on those media. So, what gives? Not debate, that's for sure! Can you imagine if conservative talk radio hosts started insisting that such action be taken to level the playing field on television, or in major newspapers, what would happen? Can you imagine if someone allegedly legitimate tried -- seriously, not as a joke -- to petition HBO to have a counterbalance to the Bill Maher show?

How is it that AM radio, which is for some the mocked poster child for old technology, gets so much attention from these folks for abuse of free markets? Isn't this a bit like hilariously odd, like a liberal faction of our government demanding that we invade the Phillipines?

Perhaps they are doing this since they simply want to win the ubiquitous debate, not actually have one. You know, like Chavez holds elections, and supporters take control of gov't buildings while the election happens to show their support. They'll debate it, but only on their terms. "I'll debate you any time! Just submit the questions three days ahead of time, please!"

I really wish I could resist reacting to any particularly stupid fringe ideas for control, at either edge, but I cannot help it when they are conceptually bizarre and insincere as this is. Who'd have thought that AM radio was the chief threat to the First Amendment!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

(rev. Feb. 24, 2009)

GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times

The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.

While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.

Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com

From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.

What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.

Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).

I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.

The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:

Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.

Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.

Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!

Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.

In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.

As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.

Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.

- jR

All hail the Mexican billionaire: news media to plummet farther, NY Times goes first

The Times to get their own bailout. From Mexico. Is this a Peter Sellers film I've not yet seen, or what? 

New York Times may find benefactor in Slim | Reuters

The New York Times Co has heard more than its share of opinions on what it must do to survive. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim appears ready to let his cash do the talking.

The 68-year-old telecom tycoon, ranked by Forbes magazine as the world's second-richest man with $60 billion, may pump hundreds of millions of those dollars into the Times Co.

I SUPPOSE this is because his money, and plenty more of it, is not needed in Mexico, where everyone is wealthy and enjoys a good economy, reasonably safe neighborhood. Who knew? Well, I guess those stories of Mexico plummeting into a nether-world of battles of police versus drug gangs, especially near the U.S. border, were just propaganda. 

Slim is the second richest man on earth - ON EARTH! Indeed.  Glad to see his own country doesn't need the awesome usefulness of his huge bags of money. I had no idea how well the infrastructure improved in Mexico in the last week, and how economically stable Mexico was! On the other hand, I guess he's already applied his wealth where it is needed: keeping the impoverished where they belong, like a good crooked capitalist in a grandly crooked political system that poses -- far more laughably than most -- as a "democratic system."

Here's a fundamental question: how exactly would someone become the SECOND WEALTHIEST MAN in the WORLD in Mexico? Seriously, how? Mule sales? Earthquake insurance? Drugs? There's a lot of world out there, and this guy pulled off second place on the richer scale (grin) from creepy, dangerous, unkempt, corrupt little Mexico.

Go ahead, look the other way, NY Times. You're good at seeing one side of a story! Take that cash in one hand and proclaim appreciation for "progressive" policies on your pages. You get Slim's money to hang on like a bloated U.S. auto company, and the U.S. at-large gets Mexico's troubled citizens, for any reason, like a painfully trickling Mariel boatlift. 

Illegals are like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Once the plans are complete, the "progressive" plans, the U.S. will appreciate how crooked Mexico is, since for the lower and middle classes it will be in the same condition as Mexico by the end of Obama's first administration, if the far left has anything to do with it (such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). You go, NY Times! Let's hear it for the master of so-called "progressive" journalism.

This is the NY Times -- please turn off the irony -- which ran front page stories about a non-affair by John McCain back in 2008 which was based on totally unfounded rumors. Meanwhile, it buried news of completely strange and questionable issues about Obama as much as they could manage it. Regularly. Repetitively. Often!

This paper, once held at the top of journalistic high regard, not just a place for highly intelligent, nonobjective writers, and for politically wrongly categorized commentators such as David Brooks, is going to be bailed out by a proclaimed telecom tycoon? 

Wow. That just ... that really ... that simply underlines how sad news media is today. Sad. Very, very sad. We've gone from conscientious and overt, to TV reporting and the selective nonobjectiveness of Ed Murrow, to the knee-jerk, one-sided reporting that is pervasive in much media, to being bailed out by Mexican business cretins. What's next? Reporters simply shooting the people who disagree with their editorializing? 

What a waste of paper. 


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crazed 'Blago' got tough against the Tribune, got FBI visit in return

Was it simply "kill or be killed" for the Chi Trib against this crazed Democratic governor? CNN and others are getting further into the story -- more will surely come. How Obama fits into this ugly picture is yet to be made comfortable for the fresh prince of the Beltway. Stories do suggest that Obama is tied to this "Blago" kook through his buddy Tony Rezko. That's not good. Not good at all. What a year 2009 is going to be -- gag.

U.S. attorney: Blagojevich has taken us to 'new low' - CNN.com

The Obama transition team is aware that Blagojevich is in federal custody, but has no comment, according to a senior Democratic source.

The government also accuses Blagojevich and Harris of threatening to withhold state assistance to the Tribune Company -- the company that owns the Chicago Tribune -- in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field baseball stadium. The company also owns the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.

In exchange for assistance, the governor and his chief of staff wanted the newspaper to fire Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were sharply critical of the governor, the government said.

I guess the Tribune won that one. Will they win the business operations war? Bankruptcy was a second shoe dropping. Only time, and lots of turnover in management, will tell.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Wonder Boy from Illinois gets his: not Obama, not in a good way

At last, someone recognizes how crooked Chicago and Illinois politics is, this year. I think this comes up every year or so, but this was the first truly big story (only murmurs about it while Obama was running to be prez). Too bad this didn't occur before Obama was elected our president, it might have forced him to spend closer to five times more money to get elected, rather than merely four times as much as the GOP candidate. (Natch.)

Rod Blagojevich, Illinois governor arrest by FBI

The stunning, early morning visit by authorities to the governor's North Side home came amid revelations that federal investigators had recorded the governor with the cooperation of a longtime confidant and had begun to focus on the possibility that the process of choosing a Senate successor to President-elect Barack Obama could be tainted by pay-to-play politics.

It is nice to see that at least a few of the corrupt, self-serving and deceptive Democratic politicians are finally getting their due. Rep. Jefferson in Louisiana, who was storing $90,000 in cash in his freezer (you know, to keep it from going sour), lost to a conservative with a immigrant American Dream story; now, a crooked governor gets his. What's so stunning is that this guy is merely 52, this was his second term, and he racked up loads of crooked dealings yet got reelected. Not a finer abuser of power can one find than this dirtbag, it would appear. So now we have to ask: is this what Obama is bringing to America? I cannot believe that that is so. But this is likely to impact his presidency, but to what level, who knows.

Now if Sen. Chris -- the mortgage sweetheart -- Dodd and sociopathic -- there is nothing risky about CRA mortgages (grin) -- Barney Frank could be ejected, perhaps some balance will come in this government-led economic recovery effort. Until then, we are just feeding a still-devious pack of crooked and all too comfortable leaders.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Race and politics still taboo: NY Times' Friedman wrote this drivel... half-drivel

Isn't it a bit goofy that some crystal-clear white liberal guilt is the predominant reflection of one longtime NY Times columnist's upon Barack Obama's win? The regular NY Times nay-sayers would think not; it is clearly a liberal, politically correct (favoring not the poor white guy, but favoring everyone else except him and the slovenly rich) newspaper despite its other reputation, as a publication for superior journalism.

Thomas L. Friedman leads from some white liberal joy into a commentary on some real (in his mind) reasons for the Obama win. I am amazed at what this guy does not see, based on his insight for what he does see.

Finishing Our Work - NYTimes.com

This moment was necessary, for despite a century of civil rights legislation, judicial interventions and social activism — despite Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King’s I-have-a-dream crusade and the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president.

Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America.

How did Obama pull it off? To be sure, it probably took a once-in-a-century economic crisis to get enough white people to vote for a black man. And to be sure, Obama’s better organization, calm manner, mellifluous speaking style and unthreatening [sic] message of “change” all served him well.

But there also may have been something of a “Buffett effect” that countered the supposed “Bradley effect” — white voters
telling pollsters they’d vote for Obama but then voting for the white guy. The Buffett effect was just the opposite. It was white conservatives telling the guys in the men’s grill at the country club that they were voting for John McCain, but then quietly going into the booth and voting for Obama, even though they knew it would mean higher taxes.

I guess we ought to thank God, then, that we did not elect a woman, or an Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or someone else. Bobby Jindal, don't expect such a big deal should you be elected to a higher office, because you're just a damned Republican, first of all, and second, it's all about the blacks versus the whites here in the good ole US of A!

Friedman then noted the following, which I think is accurate, fair enough, and not nearly as myopic as his Obama win comments (that fact says soemthing about his perspective, indeed):

Somewhere they also knew that after the abysmal performance of the Bush team, there had to be consequences for the Republican Party. Electing McCain now would have, in some way, meant rewarding incompetence. It would have made a mockery of accountability in government and unleashed a wave of cynicism in America that would have been deeply corrosive.

What I find curious is that he, as everyone seems to, refers to Obama as our first black president. He is, by appearances, our first, indeed. However, Obama's mother and thus half his lineage and half his family is white. Why is this not something to be pointed out, and why do such great writers (though not great thinkers, zing). Is being of mixed race lineage still taboo for the liberals, for crying out loud? Not much to sing about for the white liberals who wish to relieve their racist guilt, then, is there? So where does Friedman fall on the scale of taboos -- pro-mixed race or still afraid of the idea? I suspect he has no issue with mixed race, it's just that liberals like to avoid talking about such things. (It's like seeing something in another's teeth at a Manhattan cocktail party -- best that you say nothing, and love them for the toothy grin they give you, spinach and all. Aw, love them! Take them off my invitation lists! Love them!)

I guess it is a good for a writer to see things through myopic glasses than to suspect the whole gamut of reasons why Obama won, why GOP congressmen lost out, and why people blame a president for all their problems. I would rather contemplate it all, but I guess you can't win Pulitzers if you work that hard.

Troubling.

As for Friedman's piece, be sure to read the last two paragraphs, for the ideas within them. He could have left all the other crap out of it.

I hope we see a new age of public service in the vein of what I saw in Israel. Americans, college-educated or not, around me in my little depressing world are quite selfish little turds. In Israel, they would be the ones getting low-end jobs, or scared shitless in the required military service, prompting change in their attitude. We could use a little scared-shitless in our youths these days that doesn't involve video games or misused firearms.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

A thought: 'Booby traps' are not limited to the Bush legacy

Upon reading the "Booby traps" piece by Rosa Brooks, one favoring left-wing ideology (read the whole thing here), I pondered thusly:

Were there any bothers by this well-educated (that is to say, learned so as not to accidentally write in a biased manner) author regarding the actual booby traps left by Clinton, the political John the Baptist to the Obama-Jesus? I don't have the time to waste, but maybe this is something worth looking at.

What was the viewpoint after 9/11 from her? That GW Bush asked for it? That GW Bush's policies in their infancy invited this inordinately bold move? Was it was his dad's fault, GHW Bush, for keeping Kuwait Saddam Hussein-free? Or was Clinton's lack of interest in the overall values to a solid military - for the country nut-job Islamic terrorists love to hate the most, the U.S. - the thing that most certainly hurt us and
practically invited 9/11? What is her view on that end of the Afghanistan-Iraq issues?

Was there a reflection on the, umm, REAL tripwires that Clinton left for Bush, and the U.S.? Like a smaller, softer and otherwise less-prepared military, and such welcome signs for the 9/11 terrorists? "According to the latest national intelligence estimate" might have fit as an introduction to some lop-sided opinion pieces back then, and immediately after we took Hussein out of control. What did you say in those instances? It was Bush's fault then, too? He intentionally got the NIE's to favor what he wanted, did he?



You will indeed deserve the candidate-in-Chief should he get what the media expects. You will deserve him, you and all Pelosi-type liberals who believe in do-nothing, blame politics above all else. You will so sorely deserve him. Of course, who knows? Obama may be an entirely different person come one year from now. Being a puppet for far-left faction of the Democratic Party might only have been the pass he used; he might run things altogether differently. Unlike Pelosi, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Reid ... he might actually DO SOMETHING aside from awaiting the explosion of poorly drawn mortgages by his buddies in Fannie Mae and elsewhere.

If I were to dream a little dream, an Obama presidency might involve not simply denying responsibility then pushing nearly socialist fixes to serious financial issues.


Sadly, one thing Ms. Brooks nailed accurately was the Bush Admin's lack of thorough, truly forward-looking proactive leadership in the wars:

We know from Iraq that countering insurgencies requires a long, hard slog -- success not guaranteed -- and that the presence of foreign troops can help fuel nationalist insurgencies. More troops in Afghanistan might have turned things around if those troops -- and a less stingy reconstruction package -- had arrived five years ago, when Afghan hopes were high. After years of Bush administration malfeasance, increasing U.S. troop levels without an accompanying dramatic shift in regional strategy risks turning Afghanistan into another Iraq.

However, since I think she uses her brains too little for solid argument or logic and too much for bias, I react as such: It is all too convenient to point these failings out, and be a Monday morning quarterback. She ought to know better. Policy, public opinion, and a need to dangle the carrot of self-reliance in front of these long-oppressed countries makes it quite hard to try to dress this up as an abject failure of leadership. It is not what I would have preferred, but are truly reliable experts saying this is indeed what is occurring, or is this simply one talking head firing yet again at an easy target?

One thing that is clear to me: Ms. Rosa Brooks is opinionated, but a thorough, and I would dare to say baseless, nay-sayer regarding U.S. chances in our current military actions and generally in the so-called war on terror. She is, without question, a liberal commentator. Why she is not billed as such by the L.A. Times, I do not understand. Perhaps, like was made evident in the finance crisis, denying your ideals and your role in anything is a common trait among liberal commentators and politicians. Hmm. I guess we'll just have to see about that, just like if those "booby traps" go off in Obama's, or McCain's face.

Booby traps, indeed. Placed by boobs, protected by boobs, and now blamed on some other boobs by the initial booby-trap-causing boobs. Excellent work, Congress. Excellent.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rosa Brooks: 'Bush's booby traps for Obama'

This is regarding an opinion written by Ms. Rosa Brooks, a well-educated woman in the thick of Washington D.C. and its university
community.

Bush's booby traps for Obama - L.A. Times
The Bush administration is leaving behind foreign policy tripwires that could blow up on the next president.

... every new president is "tested" by national security crises, some predictable, some not. And I'm a lot less worried about the tests "the world" may offer Obama than about the national security booby traps the Bush administration is leaving behind for him.

On Iraq: We can't leave behind a stable Iraq without the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors, but this week's cross-border raid by Iraq-based U.S. troops into Syrian territory led Syria to break off high-level diplomatic contacts with U.S. officials -- contacts that had only recently been resumed. Heated negotiations over the future status of U.S. forces in Iraq have further increased tensions with Syria, Iran and the Iraqi government, which fear permanent U.S. military activities in the region. The current impasse in status-of-forces negotiations also threatens to leave U.S. troops in Iraq with no legal basis for their presence when their United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31. Happy New Year, Barack!

On Afghanistan: The Bush administration... mostly ignored Afghanistan for... six years. Meanwhile, the Taliban reconstituted itself, Al Qaeda leaders slipped away into Pakistan's ungoverned tribal regions. According to the latest national intelligence estimate, Afghanistan is now in a possibly irreversible "downward spiral."

On Pakistan-Afghanistan: Increasingly, U.S. forces have sought to reduce violence inside Afghanistan by staging cross-border counterattacks against suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda targets based inside Pakistan. Tactically, there's some logic to this. Strategically, not so much.

Pakistan has never been a paragon of stability, and years of unconditional Bush administration military aid for Pervez Musharraf's repressive government made things worse. Now, with the Bush administration increasingly violating Pakistani sovereignty with cross-border strikes, relations between the United States and the new government of Asif Ali Zardari are more tense than ever.

Aside from the L.A. Times (again) giving the election to Obama a full five days prior to Election Day, this piece is full of one-eyed (that is, decidedly biased) commentary. Rosa Brooks is not impressing me with her intellegence. She disappoints me with it. She is terribly biased. And by terribly, I mean she's "called in" her opinion in this piece. Someone with her edu and credentials could actually write solid journalistically appealing pieces, but instead she wrote this. Gag.

Amazingly, this was written five days before Election Day (early voting exists, but it won't truly count until after Election
Day). She's among those getting their coronation gowns ready. As if there's a landslide afoot. Not sure a roughly 48-43% race is a
landslide. Not in this country, yet. (And the liberals wonder why the conservatives throw around terms like Socialist, when a fairly tight
race is still afoot and they are pretty much impatiently waiting to go to the parties. This couldn't be much closer to a Venezuelan election
unless the state controlled the media.)

Interesting that, seeing the NIE isn't even released yet, she can see it and even exaggerate from it: saying something is in an "irreversible 'downward spiral'" is apparently a favorite saying among those who live in cushy houses in very safe 'hoods with excellent health coverage (dental, eye, catastrophic, ...). Glass houses, those are not. Well protected, from reality and risk, it would appear.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Kool-Aid's good in Miami these days

I can't do this for all of the tasteless endorsements out there, but I can try to get through just one of these strange coming-out announcements by some one-sided newspapers. I've decided to pick on the Miami Herald. Actually, I think they forced me into it -- their endorsement of Obama is just so full of holes!

---

We are, as always, living in a time of mirrors which reflect the same facts to alternative opinions.

"Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans."

So "Change we can believe in" is not worn out? How about the "hope" slogan - that was used since 1992 by the Democrats alone! This is just more "Yay for the mouths that keep talking" -- even though they say so little and are condescending and smug and incapable of humility of most any kind - and do so with a big, cheery smile! SUCKERS. You leftists deserve Obama's childish blind ambition and the higher taxes he'll bring with him. JUST leave me out of it. I don't have any wealth to share.

---
Again with the alternative mirror! "McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story.... McCain was among the first to call for more troops [in Iraq]. He draws strength from the success of the 'surge.' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success."

The Herald - shocking, seeing its partial role as an international newspaper -- has an utter lack of a realistic world view. (That, or is this horrifically dumbed down for elementary-level reading?) We all know that entering Iraq was a mistake - in retrospect. You apologists (what else can I call it?) for America's strength and actions are beyond ignorant beyond the fact that intelligence was wrong (and you cannot leave it at bad intel, accusing Bush of outright crime). Obama's magic wand (lacking a record and saying ANYTHING to be elected) will be put to the test, day one! Will you be there to test him?

---

Wow. Shocking. A note for those "brave" enough to track facts: Barack Obama was not a U.S. senator in 2002-2003, though he was likely running for U.S. Senate at the time.

"Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage." That is some cheery wordplay by the Miami Herald. Since he was not a Florida state senator at the time, either, they ought to have been accurate. But why, when they can get by being half-accurate. Obama, however, was apparently running for U.S. Senate when he entered state senate in Illinois (1998?). He had political agents falling all over themselves to give him a boost, after all. A no-brainer.

"His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources." So, since we got in there, and we were wrong, it would be right to exit, and let them tear each other apart. Who cares if after 30 years of a terrorist regime they would fall into total anarchy and be overtaken by Iran? Go for it, Iran - that's the Herald's stand.

With 90 percent of Americans telling pollsters that the nation is heading in the wrong direction, it is no surprise that both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have staked their presidential candidacies on the promise of delivering change. Both have qualities that qualify them to lead the country, but they differ significantly in temperament and on many issues. Even the way they have run their campaigns is indicative of their judgment, decision-making and leadership styles.

When he began his campaign in February of 2007, Sen. Obama was viewed as an upstart. He built his candidacy one victory at a time, aided by an excellent campaign staff and fueled by an impressive ability to raise funds on the Internet. He displayed inspiring eloquence and a sure grasp of detail on issues. Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans.

Foreign policy differences

Sen. McCain also showed strength in the primaries. Deemed political roadkill at one time, he revived his fortunes with a strong showing in New Hampshire and clinched victory in Florida with straight talk and a surer feel for what voters wanted. A turning point came during the Republican convention, when he chose a long-shot for a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, out of an apparent need to appease the right wing of the party. For all of her rhetorical skills on the campaign trail -- particularly in the attack mode -- Gov. Palin appears to know little about the issues and simply is not qualified to be commander in chief.Much has been made of Sen. Obama's relative inexperience, particularly in foreign policy. His résumé is thin, but he surrounds himself with experienced advisors -- as evidenced in his choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be vice president -- and with people who offer differing points of view. His style is to build consensus and seek workable, pragmatic solutions -- a refreshing change from the last eight years.

Because of the current administration's incompetence, arrogance -- or both -- American prestige abroad has never been as low. The effusive response from audiences during Sen. Obama's recent tour of Europe suggests he could help restore our lost influence. Clearly, traditional U.S. allies are more than ready to work with an American president who replaces unilateral policies and preemptive wars with vigorous diplomacy on behalf of common interests.

Sen. McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story dating back to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. An avid supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. McCain was among the first to call for more troops. He draws strength from the success of the ''surge.'' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success.

Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage. It reflects a clear-eyed appreciation for the proper use of U.S firepower and a cool temperament that rejects employing military force except as a last, necessary resort. His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources.

Sen. McCain has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel, and so has Sen. Biden, whose selection as a running mate for Sen. Obama should erase any doubts about where the Illinois senator stands on this important issue.

Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba. On Latin America, the biggest concern with Mr. Obama's policies involves his failure to support the Colombia free-trade pact, which Sen. McCain champions. Anti-trade rhetoric and protectionist policies are not going to help the United States overcome the current economic crisis.

That crisis overshadows all other concerns, domestic and foreign. Sen. Obama deserves credit for supporting the administration's rescue package instead of siding with some Democrats who draped themselves in the mantle of Main Street populism and refused to go along. Well before this crisis developed, he called for regulatory reform and demonstrated a clear sense that the economy was headed over a cliff.

A clear choice

Indeed, the way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign ''on hold'' and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to ''name the names'' of those responsible for the financial crisis.

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates. That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.

And he smiles nice, too. If only presidencies were suitably made in Hollywood, this would be a good endorsement. But in the real world, this fawning over a professional candidate who is auditioning, at great expense, for world adoration, is worthy of campy fiction. I knew the Herald had liberal leanings, and not the good kind. This endorsement emphasizes it.


- jR

Economy of Scale in Change in the Country: Politics, political parties, media influence, 'popularity' opinion

Interregnum: a beautifully Latin term for "leadership vacancy" (see definition).

This first segment was written in the context of the market meltdown ...

'My final newspaper article' - Dan Connelly on Xark!

Shumaker, the real-life model for the comic-strip character Shu, was a walking indoctrination into a culture of journalism that once held sway in America: Confident, straight-talking, blue-collar, irreverent, abrasive — but also undeniably talented and privately idealistic.

That's good stuff. And exactly what journalism is NOT any longer, except with rarity, in local dailies or TV, or in national dailies ("national" meaning stuff like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, but of course that includes LA Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Washtingon Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the likes).

The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.

How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.

-----

The Future of The Republican Party « Jon Taplin’s Blog
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.

My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:

Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do.

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.

Powered by ScribeFire.