Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Most of the speech was good. I would rate it an 8 out of 10, until the last 5 minutes or so, when Obama started sounding like the kickoff stump speech for his 2012 reelection campaign. I was amazed by how many of the same points — almost the same phrases — in the speech were made earlier in the day by Sarah Palin. But in truth we are a nation divided, and although I agreed with 95% of Palin’s video, I don’t believe we are capable of finding common ground anymore. There are two Americas (at least) — broadly speaking, two worldviews that are incompatible. One must defeat the other. There is no common ground between tiny, efficient government and a government that tells you what light bulbs you must use (full of mercury — Palin should call them “death bulbs”) and taxes your potato chips like they were cigarettes. There is no common ground, no compromise possible between pro-life and abortion on demand.
But I digress. The Obama speech (prior to the final “campaign rally” section) was not bad. The atmosphere in which it was delivered must have given many Americans a queasy feeling. The audience was indeed, as Rush Limbaugh suggested, like a cheering section at a pep rally. This was a memorial service devoid of solemnity and dignity. Yes, one can celebrate the lives of the victims, and even bring some warmth and humor to the proceedings when talking about the positive and human aspects of their individual characters. But the incessant applause and standing ovations were totally out of character, unless perhaps one was raised in a boisterous black church. (Was that why the Obama team orchestrated this incorrectly?)
But Obama finally USED these victims by telling America that we should be the good little cooperative, nice, compromising, people he wants us to be (now that he’s out-gunned in the House of Representatives) because that’s how the deceased victims wanted America to be. The gall. He does not know what those folks believed. The father of the little girl who was murdered said he believes we should not curtail our own freedoms because of this.
Chris Matthews’ leg must be tingling joyously over the speech, but although Obama said mostly the right things, the whole affair left me feeling odd, like a shot of lemon juice in your hot chocolate — an off-note. The attempt to use this tragedy for political ends is not going to fly. They tried to sell global warming propaganda to the people. It didn’t work. They tried to sell Obama to the American people, and after a brief taste of him, he’s fallen and he can’t get up. They can’t sell the idea that because of one violent kook in Arizona, our dangerously contentious nature has been revealed, and we must now repent and be “nice,” because we’ve forgotten how to love one another. Phooey.
Friday, December 24, 2010
...As Fiano writes, it’s a “massive insult to our military” to assume that soldiers can’t handle the challenge of integrating openly gay troops. True, this is a burden they might have been spared while fighting two wars. But they’ll deal with it. As General James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps and an opponent of repeal, said shortly after the legislation passed:
Fiano observes that Gen. Amos “is putting service before his own objections,” and comments, “Many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will likely do the exact same thing.”
President Obama said last week, speaking “to all Americans”: “Your country needs you, your country wants you, and we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known.” Our fine servicemen and women won’t quit, they won’t whine, they won’t fret, and they won’t cause a scene. Conservatives owe it to them to conduct ourselves with the same composure and dignity.
================================But Kristol misses the point. Just as with the integration of women in more areas of the military and numerous practical problems that has caused, this is one more proof that the elites are more interested in advancing their agendas than they are in defending the country, killing bad guys, blowing things up, and advancing the cause of freedom. You haven't seen Obama grinning like a hyena over any of our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ever. But repeal DADT, and it looks like Obama and the every liberal elite power-broker in Washington just had a toke of happy gas. They're positively giddy. America loses, they celebrate.
As such, I think Americans ought to refuse to serve in a service that increasingly sacrifices its primary purpose to secondary liberal shibboleths. And recent history is the greatest proof that such is the reality than anything I can think of.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Since there is a dogma, a party line, that vaccination will reduce death rates by 50%, no one will do proper scientific studies to test the truth of it. However, there are more than a few reasons to doubt that the rate of efficacy is anything near that number. Careful epidemiological studies that have been done certainly challenge the conventional wisdom.
The Atlantic Magazine did a landmark article last year on the subject, and it is long but worth reading.
Does The Vaccine Matter? by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer
"...The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge. Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased. "
If you dare to know the truth about this controversy, read the entire article at this link -- http://tinyurl.com/238c85y -- or do a Google search for "Atlantic Magazine Does The Vaccine Matter."
The average interest rate on the marketable portion of that debt is 2.36%, and the average interest rate on the non-marketable portion 4.13%.
I do not have the figures for the past two years in terms of average interest rate on all debt issuance. Much of it is short term, which must be rolled over frequently. But if the average interest rate of new debt the Obama Administration and Democrat Congress has taken on was only 2%, that would mean interest on the money Obama's Treasury has borrowed in the last 23 months will cost us $65 billion next year. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that.
I frankly don't know whether my guesstimate of 2% interest is correct, and of course as short term debt is rolled over that number will change as new bills will earn a new rate, whatever that is. (Every since Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke started Quantitative Easing, which he claimed would lower interest rates, interest rates on virtually all Treasury debt has risen!) But even if the interest on Obama's borrowing was as low as 1%, it would still represent a staggering sum, just to pay the interest on it in the next ten years.
Get the picture? The spending Obama has been responsible for in only two years will cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments, just for the next ten year period alone.
Sources: US Treasury website
Interest rates, see http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rates/pd/avg/2010/2010_11.htm
Total debt increase under Obama, see http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Thursday, December 16, 2010
From American Heritage magazine, December 1967, comes this short article:
Many a book, a magazine, a play, a movie, has been banned in Boston. But Christmas?
Yes, Virginia, Christmas was banned in Boston. On May 11, 1659, the legislature of the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted the following: “For preventing disorders arising in severall places within this jurisdiceon, by reason of some still observing such ffestivalls as were superstitiously kept in other countrys, to the great dishonnor of God & offence of others, it is therefore ordered … that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by for-bearing of labour, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.”You can read the rest of the history here, in the magazine's archives.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
But he is not printing money. So he said on 60 Minutes this month. Except on 60 Minutes in a previous appearance, he admitted he was, effectively, printing money.
Just cut the crap, OK?!
Jon Stewart catches him out.