Dog Brothers Public Forum

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: G M on March 19, 2011, 08:20:44 AM

Title: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on March 19, 2011, 08:20:44 AM

Wanting and Doing

posted at 10:55 am on March 19, 2011 by Steven Den Beste

    How many teleologists does it take to change a light bulb?

    None. The teleologist wants the light bulb to make light, so the light bulb never burns out.

Teleology is a world view that says that the world makes sense, and must work in a way which is intellectually and esthetically pleasing to humans. It assumes a mind-body duality and places the mind, the spiritual, above the body and the physical. If an idea is  pleasing then it must be true, for ultimate truth will always be pleasing.

That isn’t really how teleology began, but that’s what it’s become in the modern era. Modern transnational progressivism is, at its core, based on that rather warped and degenerate version of teleology at a deep, a priori level. It may seem strange to talk about the “spiritual” when talking about a movement which prides itself in being secular, but progressivism embraces many contradictions.

To a teleologist, the way you stop war is to put a sticker on your car that says “Imagine world peace”. If enough people just want it enough, it’ll happen. Indeed, anything is possible if you just want it enough. You can power modern industrial civilization exclusively using “green” energy, for instance. If it isn’t happening, it’s the fault of all the people who refuse to get on board to help with the wanting.

To a teleologist, socialism is obviously the way things should be. The ideal socialist utopia is such a pleasing image that it must be the way to go. Never mind that every time socialism has been tried, it has always failed badly; empirical results don’t matter to a teleologist.

As a true man of the left, our president is fundamentally teleological, and this is the explanation for a lot of things about him that people find puzzling. Again and again, Obama makes speeches about how important some thing is, but doesn’t seem to do anything about them. But that’s not puzzling if you realize that to a teleologist, wanting something is doing something.

Or take his behavior regarding Libya. John, at Powerline, writes:

    Despite the urgency, it appears that the Libyan insurrection likely will be over before the Obama administration makes any decision as to what to do about it. It may well be that the best course has always been to do nothing. But if that is the case, what was the point of Obama’s pronouncement that Qaddafi “must” go? If it is important that Qaddafi go, then why is the United States unwilling to lift a finger to bring about the event that “must” happen? And how can a situation simultaneously be urgent, but not worth doing anything about?

For a teleologist, expressing your desire is how you bring about the event. If enough people say that Qaddafi “must go”, he will vanish in a puff of smoke. That’s why you work for a world consensus, for it is that consensus which alters reality.

(A slightly less implausible way to put it is that if there is strong enough international disapproval, Qaddafi will bow to peer pressure and voluntarily go into exile. But clearly that isn’t going to work with him.)

To a teleologist, it isn’t necessary, and it is obviously wrong, to use military force to depose a corrupt and brutal dictator. Soft power is obviously better.

Except for the minor fact that it isn’t very effective. But as mentioned, to teleologists, empirical results are not persuasive.

The Obama administration, combined with two years of strong Democratic majority in Congress, has caused incalculable damage to this country and the world. But we’ve recovered from worse, and it will discredit the left for a generation. The left finally gained control for two years, and now Americans have seen what that truly means. In November of 2010 American voters gave the left a stinging rebuke, and it’s going to keep happening.
Title: Disgusting racists!
Post by: G M on March 21, 2011, 08:58:07 PM

Dennis Kucinich: Time to impeach Obama over Libya action.

Michael Moore: Obama no better than Bush.

Louis Farrakhan: “Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?”

Andrew Sullivan: Obama now the exact opposite of what I voted for.

This random DailyKos diarist sums up today’s zeigeist on the left:

    Barack Obama do you believe in anything or you just want to be in power at the expense of everybody? Shame on you, I cannot believe these words will ever come from my mouth. But you should be shame of yourself.

    Barack Obama has finally betrayed the last people that believed in him. . . . Africans…

    And all those Kossacks who are cheering you are nothing but Hypocrites because invasion is an Invasion being it Iraq or Afghanistan. When has the US ever followed the French?

    My God you are the President of the United States. Why do you let your own employees push you around? Libya is in a state of Civil war. It is unlike the even in Egypt or Tunisia.

    I was one those who headed your campaign here in Harris County, Texas. I supported you when you betrayed me on Health Care Public Option, Guantanamo Bay, Tax Cut for the Rich, as pragmatic but this, you have zero justification.

**Obviously they just hate having a black man in the white house. Straight up racism.


The left was able to put racial politics in the rear-view mirror for less than a year, which corresponds to the length of time that it took for the electorate’s honeymoon with President Obama to end. After that, the left decided that anybody who objected to the president’s policies was really upset about the color of skin, no matter how articulate their arguments might seem. New evidence suggests that Barack Obama himself, and Attorney General Eric Holder, agree with that assessment.

USA Today writer Kenneth T. Walsh’s recently released book, Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, is a study of the influence that African Americans have had in the Executive Branch throughout our history. His observations regarding the Obama administration are particularly revealing:

“In May 2010, he (President Obama) told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.”
Title: Sheriff Joe lays down the law
Post by: G M on March 23, 2011, 08:13:13 AM

Impeach now!
Title: Robert Wright=douche
Post by: G M on March 28, 2011, 02:17:18 PM

Still like Wright, Crafty?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2011, 05:59:52 PM
I've clicked on it and it comes it at minute 45 of 70.  Is there a reason for this?  Or are you asking me to go back to 00:00 and watch all 70 minutes?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on March 28, 2011, 07:15:26 PM
I doubt there is much that is useful in watching the whole thing. I think it is revealing of how false his protests of civility are.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2011, 06:09:11 AM
I watched for five minutes.  Thank you for saving me the remaining sixty-five minutes, and yes the clip is good evidence of the proposition for which you cite it. :lol:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on March 29, 2011, 06:29:51 AM
He never responded to my emails challenging his assertions about islam, BTW.
Title: POTH editorial on Libya
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 29, 2011, 06:36:19 AM
Pravda on the Hudson continues to fellate President Obama:

With nary a Congressional resolution in sight, nor mention of the need for one (let alone a declaration of war) The New Yor Times supports the President's decision to go in.

President Obama made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies and try to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from slaughtering thousands of Libyans. But he has been far too slow to explain that decision, or his long-term strategy, to Congress and the American people.

On Monday night, the president spoke to the nation and made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight — and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others.

Mr. Obama said that the United States had a moral responsibility to stop “violence on a horrific scale,” as well as a unique international mandate and a broad coalition to act with. He said that failure to intervene could also have threatened the peaceful transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, as thousands of Libyan refugees poured across their borders, while other dictators would conclude that “violence is the best strategy to cling to power.”

Mr. Obama could report encouraging early progress on the military and diplomatic fronts. Washington and its allies have crippled or destroyed Colonel Qaddafi’s anti-aircraft defenses, peeled his troops back from the city of Benghazi — saving potentially thousands of lives — and allowed rebel forces to retake the offensive.

Just as encouragingly, this military effort that was galvanized internationally — the United Nations Security Council authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya — will soon be run internationally. Last weekend, the United States handed over responsibility for enforcing the no-flight zone to NATO. And the alliance is now preparing to take command of the entire mission, with the support of (still too few) Arab nations.

To his credit, Mr. Obama did not sugarcoat the difficulties ahead. While he suggested that his goal, ultimately, is to see Colonel Qaddafi gone, he also said that the air war was unlikely to accomplish that by itself.

Most important, he vowed that there would be no American ground troops in this fight. “If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force,” he said, “our coalition would splinter.” He said “regime change” in Iraq took eight years and cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. “That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Instead, he said the United States and its allies would work to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Colonel Qaddafi and his cronies. A meeting on Tuesday with allies and members of the Libyan opposition is supposed to develop that strategy along with ways to help the rebels build alternate, and we hope humane and competent, governing structures. That needs to start quickly.

To hold their ground and protect endangered civilians, let alone advance, the rebels will likely need air support for quite some time. Mr. Obama was right not to promise a swift end to the air campaign. At the same time, he should not overestimate the patience of the American people or the weariness of the overstretched military.

And as Washington reduces its military role, others, inside and outside NATO, will need to increase theirs. Within NATO, unenthusiastic partners like Germany and Turkey need to at least stay out of the way even if they continue to stand aside from the fighting.

The president made the right choice to act, but this is a war of choice, not necessity. Presidents should not commit the military to battle without consulting Congress and explaining their reasons to the American people.

Fortunately, initial coalition military operations have gone well. Unfortunately, it is the nature of war that they will not always go well. Mr. Obama needs to work with Congress and keep the public fully informed. On Monday, he made an overdue start on that.

Title: Koch Bros Make the Sky Fall
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 29, 2011, 07:53:59 AM
Koch Kookery, Kon and Pro: A Roundup
from Hit & Run by Brian Doherty

We are now in the second, more illuminating meta-round of coverage of the recent staggeringly successful spasm of Kochhate launched by the New Yorker's expose on these wealthy, politically active industrial tycoon brothers Charles and David Koch (who give money to the foundation that owns this website, among many other causes).

At the center is Matthew Continetti's well-reported and thoughtful Weekly Standard story, which delivers a calm, sensible, detailed, and accurate picture of these guys' actual role in destroying/saving the country.

Continetti efficiently and thoroughly makes some important points about our public Koch crisis. That, for example, the David Koch prank phone call to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proves exactly the opposite of what proggy Kochhaters think it did--that is, that Walker had clearly never before in his life spoken to his alleged puppetmaster-on-the-cheap Koch, who allegedly bought him for less than half a percent of campaign contributions.

Also, that it's an extremely tendentious, not to say ignorant, interpretation of the facts and motivations behind the rise of the Tea Party movement to attribute it primarily to the paid-for machinations of Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity; that portraying the Kochs as pure trust fund babies who only have what their Bircher daddy Fred gave them shows little knowledge of the multipronged industrial giant the brothers made of the relatively small company they inherited; that their policy giving is tiny compared to their total charitable giving, unusual if they are conscious and deliberate puppet masters of American politics; and that it's simply absurd to claim that their long and peculiar history of ideological giving has some direct link to lining their own pockets:

[it was said that] the Kochs’ talk about free markets was merely cover for economic self-interest. But if that were true, why doesn’t every major corporation full-throatedly support limited government? Are we really to believe that Koch Industries is the only self-interested corporation in America? The reality, of course, is that an easier way to advance corporate self-interest is the one taken by most giant companies: securing monopolies, bailouts, tariffs, subsidies—the opposite of free enterprise. “It’d be much safer economically to sit on the sidelines or curry favor with the Obama administration,” said Richard Fink.

It was impossible for the liberal activists to acknowledge that libertarians might actually operate from conviction. Charles and David believed in low taxes, less spending, and limited regulation not because those policies helped them but because they helped everybody. “If I wanted to enhance my riches,” said David, “why do I give away almost all my money?”

Continetti is also good at contexualizing the real nature of Koch companies' environmental crimes (not so severe as far as enormous industrial processing concerns go) and OK on their libertarian intellectual background, although a long article on this that fails to mention the names Robert LeFevre (the eccentric pacifist anarchist educator who was one of the brothers first extended entrees to libertarian thinking at his Freedom School in Colorado in the mid-'60s) or Murray Rothbard (the anarchist libertarian economist and philosopher who was central to the Koch libertarian project in the late 1970s before a contentious break) isn't telling the whole story--not that any mere magazine feature could. (For more context on the Kochs as libertarian financiers, see my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.)

Continetti does start to sound almost like the people he's jousting against when he describes the supposed highly coordinated sinister proggy machine of hate and death that has taken on the Kochs; and he quotes David Koch getting a bit Glenn Beck-y with exaggerated assessments of exactly how much of a commie bastard President Obama is.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon found the Koch brothers' expressions of dismay over the way they've been demonized recently in the Continetti story to be laughable and offensive, an opinion I don't share, but can see that it's probably hard for anyone to feel so sorry for such successful men. Greenwald is good on data showing that David Koch's belief that Obama is a unique representative of Marxist egalitarianism forcing his will on America isn't well-founded.

In other reaction to the piece, Will Wilkinson, who frames himself a proudly former ideological ally and beneficiary of Koch money, in The Economist has some interesting thoughts on how and why progressives can't--and shouldn't--position themselves firmly against the sort of attempts to shift political and social opinions through ideological giving the Kochs represent, since they rely on it so much themselves.

Politico has a lengthy new piece on the Kochbeat up as well, which frames the Continetti piece as part of a sophisticated P.R. blowback from the Kochs. It also details the extent to which the anti-Koch campaign is a concerted effort, not to say conspiracy:

Back in Washington last month, representatives from Common Cause, Greenpeace, Public Citizen and Think Progress huddled with researchers from the Service Employees International Union at SEIU headquarters to figure out how to make the most of the sudden focus on the Kochs. And meeting participants have continued to trade research about the Kochs and strategize via a Koch-related email listserv and a rolling series of conference calls.

Politico also has some details on the big money behind the groups behind the Kochhate:

Since 1999, Common Cause, the Ruckus Society and the Center for American Progress have received a combined $7.2 million from foundations controlled by or linked to Soros, according to an analysis of grant information provided to POLITICO by Common Cause and data from the Internal Revenue Service provided by the Capital Research Center.

The data also show that those foundations have given another $4.6 million to Public Citizen, Brave New Foundation (a non-profit affiliated with Brave New Films) and a few other liberal groups that have been critical of the Kochs, including the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, and Public Campaign. Additionally, some of those groups are beneficiaries of a liberal donor network that meets in secret twice a year – very much like the Koch donor network – though it’s impossible to know how much the groups received from those donors.

As I've written before, to call public furor thus started "astroturf" or phony misses the point; people can try to make an idea catch fire, but it only does so if it genuinely meets the emotional or political needs of a mass; and the need to pretend that the only reason anyone is against public unions, taxes, and spending is that evil oil billionaires are paying them or manipulating them is mighty strong out in the rank and file as well as among progressive leadership, in government or the foundations.
Title: It's OK for Dems to Tak Koch Money
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 29, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Second post.

Dems Defend Taking Koch Money From Same PAC That Gave to Scott Walker

Michael Warren

March 25, 2011 12:24 PM

Another note on the Koch money funding Democratic campaigns. While Harry Reid and the DSCC try to raise money off the liberal animus against the Koch brothers, the DSCC and a handful of Democratic senators have given no indication that they are willing to give back the thousands of dollars their campaigns received from KOCHPAC, the political arm of Koch Industries. In fact, a spokesperson for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) justified the at least $10,000 the Landrieu campaign received from KOCHPAC last year because the money was not directly from the Koch brothers but comprised of donations from Koch Industries employees in Louisiana.

Why, then, is there so much outrage at Wisconsin governor Scott Walker for accepting donations from the same PAC? The nefarious connection between the Kochs and Walker that had so many Madison protesters up in arms and even prompted a liberal journalist to attempt a "gotcha job" on Walker by pretending to be David Koch is a $43,000 donation from...KOCHPAC. This $43,000 is the source of practically all the liberal animosity toward the Kochs in regards to Wisconsin's public-sector union battle.

So to keep this all straight: If Koch Industries' political action committee contribute money to Republicans, it's the end of our democracy. If the same political action committee contributes money to Democrats, it's all kosher. Got it?

Source URL:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left - Koch money
Post by: DougMacG on March 29, 2011, 10:49:03 PM
BBG.  The other half of the double standard was well documented here:  'The Anatomy of a Smear'  I posted it recently on media issues.  It is a long methodical read by the guys that brought down Dan Rather.  It really takes a slow walk through all the sorted details to grasp how unfair the attacks are, that come from people with an even greater bias and then get repeated all across the mainstream, if places like the NY Times and all its echo chambers can still be called that.  A Republican candidate takes a contribution from a Republican businessman and then pushes and votes for legislation that both of them happen to think is good for the district and for the economy. Its outrageous.  Now you post that Dems took their money too.  Who knew that businesses that congress and the administration keep threatening to shut down would want to get the ear of elected officials before that all is finalized.
Title: Quotas Go Full Circle
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 30, 2011, 07:27:16 AM
The Quotas Everyone Ignores

Why universities are quietly favoring white males once again.

Andrew Ferguson

March 28, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 27
Anyone who clings to a belief in the inevitability of human progress might want to contemplate the latest trend in college admissions. After a half-century of battles over racial and gender preferences for URMs (admissions-speak for “underrepresented minorities,” a term that has traditionally comprised nearly anyone who isn’t a white male), colleges and universities have boldly embarked on a policy of affirmative action preferences for .  .  . white males. It’s like old times.

Few admissions deans like to talk about their latest innovation in recruitment, understandably enough. Less understandably, the United States Commission on Civil Rights decided earlier this month it didn’t want to talk about it either. And even harder to figure, women’s rights organizations are staying mum too.

By a vote of four to three, the commission shelved a proposal by one of its Independent members, Gail Heriot, to analyze and publish data that might answer this question: “Are private and public liberal arts schools with somewhat selective admissions discriminating against women—and if so, how heavy a thumb is put on the scale against them?” With a Republican majority, commission members had initially voted to study the question in 2009, and since then staffers have been trying to gather admissions data from 19 schools in the Washington, D.C., area—Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Richmond, and others.

Recently, however, the commission has been in the hands of a de facto Democratic majority thanks to a Republican appointee, political scientist Abigail Thernstrom, who frequently votes with the Democrats. When the staff presented its admittedly provisional and incomplete figures to the commissioners, they shut down the project altogether and voted not to allow the admissions numbers to be made public.

The investigation was shuttered, said one of the Democratic commissioners, because the data were “inadequate or perhaps faulty.” Releasing the numbers, the commissioner said, might result in the public arriving at “misleading conclusions.”

For her part, Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego and a longtime critic of preferences in admissions, said the move was a “travesty.”

“This wasn’t about the data,” she said in an interview later. “There were problems with the data but they weren’t insurmountable. .  .  . This was about politics.”

But the politics are very odd. -Heriot, a congressional appointee to the commission whose views lean right, might be thought by the usual ideological taxonomy to be reluctant to press an investigation into wholesale discrimination against girls. On the other hand, the project should have been meat-and-’taters to the Democrats—a chance to expose a concerted effort by large, wealthy, unaccountable institutions to deny an education to qualified women purely on the basis of their sex.

Among college admissions professionals, it has been a barely concealed secret for several years that such an effort is underway at many, if not most, selective schools. The secret became public in 2006 when the admissions dean at Kenyon College, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, published an op-ed in the New York Times. Never underestimate the anger of a parent whose kid didn’t get into the right school. Britz’s daughter had just been wait-listed at a college that mom assumed she would glide into, and mom, being in the business herself, said she knew why.

“The fat acceptance envelope is simply more elusive for today’s accomplished young women,” Britz wrote. She offered an anecdote from her own experience, about a recent applicant to Kenyon. The girl was admirable in every respect but for her middling SAT scores. Britz finally decided to admit her, but it was a close thing. The kid should have been born a boy.

“Had she been a male applicant,” Britz wrote, “there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit.” The threshold for boys is lower than for girls, not only at Kenyon but at other schools too. Boys, she explained simply, are “more valued applicants.”

Britz’s op-ed loosed a flurry of journalism—editors never tire of college admissions stories—much of it summarized the following year in an excellent exposé by U.S. News and World Report’s Alex Kingsbury. A raft of prominent schools, including Pomona, Tufts, the College of William and Mary, and Boston College, were accepting boys at a far higher rate than female applicants—boys with lower test scores and lower grade point averages than their female rivals. William and Mary, for instance, accepted 40 percent of the boys who applied in 2006 and only 26 percent of the girls.

Since the early 1980s, when a brief period of parity was reached after generations of male dominance, more girls than boys have applied to college each year; in 2011, 60 percent of college applicants will be women. Girls—sorry, fellas—are by any objective measure more attractive applicants than boys, with higher average GPAs and test scores. They have fewer behavioral problems. They write better application essays. They have a wider range of extracurricular interests. They clean up better for interviews.

On any fairly balanced scale, the acceptance rate for women at selective colleges should be far higher than for men. Instead it’s the other way around. The reason is “affirmative action,” sometimes called preferences, sometimes called quotas—though never publicly. Admissions deans like Britz have placed a thumb on the scale.

This much is generally accepted practice among college admissions deans in the upper tiers of American higher education. But why? If girls are better suited to college, why not let them enter the better colleges at rates equal to their achievements?

Here is where the Legend of 60-40 enters in. Sixty-forty is the ratio of women to men at which, according to admissions lore, the “atmosphere” of a campus changes irreversibly and the school’s reputation passes a point of no return. It becomes known as a “girls’ school” and before you know it .  .  . there goes the neighborhood.

“Once you become decidedly female,” Britz wrote in her op-ed, “fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.” Or worse, it becomes attractive to the wrong kind of male. Hubba hubba, in other words. Predation can be a problem. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by the indispensable education writer Richard Whitmire offered anecdotes from the campus of James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. JMU refuses to institute gender quotas and as a result is now more than 60 percent female. “What can be seen [on campus] so far is not encouraging,” Whitmire wrote. “Stark gender imbalances appear to act as an accelerant on the hook-up culture”—a reference to the Bonobo-like mating patterns that have lately enlivened social life among America’s budding scholars.

For this reason, the admissions dean of the College of William and Mary has been unapologetic about that thumb of his, which he has firmly planted on the boy side of the scale. “We are, after all, the College of William and Mary,” he has often said, “not the College of Mary and Mary.”

The most selective of the private schools from which the Civil Rights Commission staff requested data, Johns Hopkins and Georgetown, adamantly refused to cooperate with the commission. Title IX of the education amendments to the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws sex discrimination in public colleges and universities, exempts private undergraduate nonprofessional schools—a loophole designed in 1972 to preserve traditionally single-sex colleges, nearly all of which have since become co-ed.

It’s fair to assume that the refusal of Georgetown and Hopkins was on grounds of self-incrimination. Boy quotas are the unofficial but undeniable means by which schools are staving off the dread 60-40, and even where sex discrimination is not explicitly illegal, a few beams of sunlight cast into the cloisters of college admissions offices might act as a disinfectant, as liberal activists like to put it.

Yet the activists have been utterly silent, for reasons we can only guess. There’s been not a peep even from the National Women’s Law Center, which routinely issues press releases with such headlines as “NWLC Files Brief in Supreme Court, Supporting the Women of Wal-Mart in their Class Action Lawsuit” and “House Republican Spending Cuts Devastating to Women, Families and the Economy.” Reached by U.S. News, a spokesman for the American Association of University Women ducked. “We need to help impoverished boys and girls to improve educational outcomes and have equal opportunity,” she said, with stubborn irrelevance.

Whitmire, the education writer, has offered theories of his own to account for the thunderous silence, based on his discussions with feminist lawyers. “Alerting the public that women increasingly dominate college campuses will make it appear women have ‘won’,” he wrote. “And if women have won, why are they still complaining about discrimination in higher education?” Public sentiments like this might endanger more important feminist projects like increasing the number of tenured female faculty and closing campus “wage gaps.” There again, the Democrats on the commission may have simply been responding to the interests of a precious political ally—the vast, impenetrable combine of American higher ed, which is no happier than any other industry to have the feds snooping into its files.

For her part, Heriot is stumped.

“I don’t get it, I really don’t,” she said. She vows to try once more to bring the matter of girl quotas before the commission. “It bothers me that no one is willing to shine a light on this,” she said. “And it bothers me if no one’s bothered that women might be denied admissions on the basis of sex. I’d at least like the commission to produce real facts, real evidence, so we can know for sure.”

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.

Correction: Abigail Thernstrom was originally mistakenly identitfied as a sociologist. She is a political scientist. We apologize for the error.
Title: Calls for Academic Integrity Lead to Consternation
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 30, 2011, 09:21:43 AM
2nd post.

March 9, 2011

A Double Shock to Liberal Professors

By  Russell K. Nieli

Social psychology has long been a haven for left-wing scholars. Jonathan Haidt, one of  the best known and most respected young social psychologists, has heaved two bombshells at his field—one indicting it for effectively excluding conservatives (he is a liberal) and the other for what he sees as a jaundiced and cult-like opposition to religion (he is an atheist).

Here he is on the treatment of conservatives:

I submit to you that the under-representation of conservatives in social psychology, by a factor of several hundred, is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering. … We should take our own rhetoric about the benefits of diversity seriously and apply it to ourselves. … Just imagine if we had a true diversity of perspectives in social psychology.  Imagine if conservative students felt free enough to challenge our dominant ideas, and bold enough to pull us out of our deepest ideological ruts. That is my vision for our bright  post-partisan future.

And here he is on religion:

Surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.  Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. …Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behavior -- giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need -- religious people appear to be morally superior.

Bombshell Number One fell four years ago in an unusually influential article. ("Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion") Haidt argued that the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, together with the secular psychology profession more generally, have failed to grasp the positive role that belief and religious ritual plays in the social life of religious people.  In their focus on religion's capacity to generate intolerance and other social harms, the psychology profession and the more outspoken religion critics of recent years, Haidt wrote, missed the all-important binding and community-forming role that traditional religious belief and religious practice frequently perform.

Haidt's earliest professional interest was in the psychology of moral systems and moral beliefs, and his interest in religion sprung from this early academic concern.  While he initially tended to view religion in a negative light, his reading of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim gave him greater appreciation for the community-forming and morality-reinforcing importance of shared religious beliefs. "If you want to describe human morality, rather than the morality of educated Western academics," Haidt said, "you've got to include the Durkheimian view that morality is in large part about binding people together."  Religion, Haidt said, has been misunderstood by many Western academics because they focus too often on its (often dubious) truth claims or on its (often negative) contributions to modern secular notions of fairness and justice.  But religion is a much more multi-faceted phenomenon than Western secularists attribute to it, Haidt wrote, and from the standpoint of moral psychology it must be acknowledged as one of the greatest forces there is in suppressing human selfishness and furthering cooperation and cohesion among its practitioners (though this cooperation and cohesion, Haidt readily admitted, is often purchased at the expense of hostility towards outsiders or internal dissidents).

Haidt backed up his claim about the social benefits of religion by summarizing some of the empirical evidence on the topic, drawing heavily from economist Arthur Brooks' important study, Who Really Cares:

If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.  … [Not only are religious people more charitable among themselves], religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors.  They give more of their time, too, and of their blood.

Haidt concluded his article on a Burkean note suggesting that such longstanding practices and ways of life as found in the world's religions are likely to contain at least "some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing."  Haidt's bottom line was that much of contemporary moral and social psychology had misunderstood religion, reduced it to only one of its dimensions, and failed to acknowledge its unquestionably positive role in furthering at least certain types of moral conduct.     

His Critics Respond

Haidt's article was republished on the website where several distinguished academic psychologists and intellectuals were asked to comment. Some respondents agreed with the claim that secular investigators of religion often miss its positive dimensions, but other respondents, including most vehemently Sam Harris, repeated their ongoing indictment of religion as an unmitigated disaster for humanity.  In response to these latter critics Haidt offered an account of his own change of heart on the subject.  "I want to make it clear that I am not an apologist for religion," he said. "I used to dislike all religions, back when I thought of them as systems of belief that helped individuals understand the world and cope with the unknown.  After reading Durkheim and D.S. Wilson I now think of religions first and foremost as coordination devices that bind people together into moral communities with effects that are mostly good for the members, although sometimes terrible for deviants and for neighboring groups.  Whether the net effects of religion for humanity are good or bad is a complex empirical question, the answer to which varies by religion, by era, and by what terms we include in our cost/benefit analysis.  I am motivated neither to convict nor to acquit [religion], but if religion is to be subject to trial by science, I want the trial to be fair.  Until we [social scientists] acknowledge a latent prejudice, however, we will have trouble understanding the accused."

Haidt compared religion and its social-binding role to that of college fraternities and college sports teams, and he related how his views on the social utility of these collegiate institutions had undergone the very same kind of change and development as his views on religion.  "I used to wish," he explained, "that all fraternities and major sports teams would disappear from my university -- I thought of them as tribal institutions that brought out the ugly and sometimes violent side of young people. But after talking with athletes, fraternity members, and fundraisers I realized that these institutions create powerful feelings of belonging which have enormous benefits for the participants while making them fiercely loyal and extraordinarily generous later on to the University of Virginia.  Fraternities and sports teams contribute greatly to the strong school spirit at UVA, and to our rapidly growing endowment." Haidt went on to explain that all students, not just the athletes and fraternity members, benefit from the externalities created by these communal ties.

The Second Bombshell

Needless to say, Haidt was hardly playing it safe among his fellow academics by coming up with good reasons to support religion, varsity sports, and college fraternities in America.  But his defense of currently out-of-favor groups and beliefs hardly prepared his social psychology colleagues for his second iconoclastic bombshell delivered this past January.  At the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology -- the leading professional organization in the discipline -- Haidt accused his fellow social psychologists of being "a tribal moral community" that acted in many ways like a narrow-minded religious cult bound together by a set of highly partisan political beliefs and "blind to any ideas or findings that threaten our sacred values." To an academic audience that prides itself on its open-mindedness, its tolerance of diversity, and its single-minded pursuit of truth, these were "fighting words" and Haidt made sure he backed up his assertion with strong evidence from a variety of domains.

Just look at the Larry Summers firing at Harvard, Haidt began.  The wider distribution curve for IQs among men than women may be one reason, Summers suggested, why women are underrepresented in the math and science intensive fields at the most competitive institutions like Harvard,  since greater variance means larger numbers of males at both the low and high end of the ability distribution.  Such a hypothesis is certainly worth exploring, Haidt said, yet for those within the tribal force field of left-liberal academia such "is not a permissible hypothesis." "It is a sacrilege. It blames the victim rather than the powerful."  The ensuing outrage over Summers' hypothesis, Haidt explained, forced the Harvard president to resign.  "[Yet] we psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage," Haidt complained.  "We should have defended his right to think freely."  The social psychologists, however, like most other academics, did nothing, kept quiet about the matter, and passively watched as Summers was forced to resign for his heretical suggestion.

Haidt then explained to his colleagues his strenuous efforts to find social psychologists who dissented from the prevailing left/liberal political perspective dominant in the field with publicly acknowledged political leanings of a conservative or right-of-center character.  But it proved a most difficult task.  A Google search under the phrase "liberal social psychologist" turned up 2740 hits, Haidt announced to his audience, while "conservative social psychologist" turned up a total of three hits.  And none of the three conservative hits turned out to produce the names of a single, real-life, conservative social psychologist.

But Haidt persisted.  After emailing 30 colleagues and friends in the social psychology field, and querying them if they knew of any conservatives in the field, one genuine conservative was found. That was Rick McCauley of Bryn Mawr College, a specialist on the psychology of terrorism.  Haidt had actually met McCauley years earlier during his student days at the University of Pennsylvania where McCauley was a friend of one of Haidt's academic advisors:  "When I first met Rick [as a student at Penn] I was wary of him," Haidt explained.  "I had heard that he was a conservative.  … I had never before met an actual conservative professor, and it took me a while to realize how valuable it was to hear from someone with a different perspective."  Haidt went on to explain that many of McCauley's later insights in the social psychology field were only made possible because "he stands outside of the liberal force field" of the contemporary psychology profession.  Without his dissenting political perspective, Haidt suggested, McCauley might not have come up with his particularly valuable angle on political terrorism.       

With a huge audience of social psychologists representing a reasonably good cross section of those in the field, Haidt had an ideal situation at the annual meeting to do some informal polling to confirm his claim of an ideological monopoly of the left.  He asked the assembled multitude which of four categories best described their political leanings:  1) liberal or left-of-center, 2) centrist or moderate, 3) libertarian, or 4) conservative or right- of-center.  By a show of hands, between 80 and 90 percent of the audience indicated they were "liberal or left- of-center," while in this enormous audience that Haidt estimated numbered about 1000, there were only 20 with "centrist or moderate" political views, 12 with "libertarian" views, and only three described their views as "conservative or right-of-center."   Conservatives thus made up less than 1 percent of the social psychologists assembled, in a country, Haidt reminded his audience, in which 40 percent of the public describe their political views in this manner.

This virtual absence of right-of-center voices, Haidt boldly proclaimed, "is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering."   He backed up this claim with two letters he had solicited from non-liberal graduate students who spoke of their reluctance to express their political views because they were middle-of-the-road in their politics and not liberal. "I consider myself very middle of the road politically," one wrote. "[I am] a social liberal but fiscal conservative.  Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work." Both of these graduate students, Haidt explained, "said they are not conservative, but neither are they liberal, and because they are not liberal, they feel pressure to keep quiet."  To back up his claim that social psychologists, knowingly or unknowingly, create a hostile and unwelcoming work environment for students or faculty with non-conforming political views Haidt cited the words of a previous speaker at the convention: "I'm a good liberal Democrat, just like every other social psychologist I know."

Haidt's indictment of the social psychology profession was devastating.  While cult-like or conformist tribal behavior may have its benefits for a religious group -- Haidt, had made just this point in his earlier writings -- it has no place in science, he declared.  "We social psychologists" said Haidt, think of ourselves as "super-tolerant free thinkers.  We celebrate diversity and non-conformity. We boldly follow our science wherever it takes us, and no matter whom it offends.  We care only about truth!"  In reality, however, Haidt went on to explain, "we are a tribal moral community. … We have sacred values other than truth; we have taboos that constrain our thinking; we have almost no moral/political diversity; and we have created a hostile climate for graduate students who don't share those sacred values."

Haidt concluded his address with a plea that social psychology develop a more welcoming attitude toward those who don't share the left-liberal viewpoint on moral and political issues.  Having a few conservatives within the profession would be a healthy development, he said, just as bringing women into the profession at an earlier period was healthy. "We should make it a priority," he said, "to find, nurture, and welcome a few dozen conservatives into our ranks."  Such a development, he explained, would bring fresh ideas into the profession and no doubt lead to new areas and topics of exploration.  Haidt also suggested that his colleagues try to familiarize themselves with viewpoints that they rarely hear from talking to one another.  He specifically recommended in this context that they read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions and read a conservative magazine like National Review. Haidt explained that he personally reads eight periodicals a month, seven of which have left-of-center viewpoints, "but I get more new ideas from reading National Review than from any of the others."

Haidt's Colleagues Respond

Like his earlier article on the treatment of religion by academic psychologists and the New Atheists, Haidt's address on the leftist bias of the social psychology profession was reproduced on the website where various colleagues were asked to respond.  Some of the responses did more than Haidt could ever have done to confirm his claim that a tribal or cult-like insularity and conformity informs many in the social psychology profession.  One distinguished psychologist, a Harvard professor, suggested that the near monopoly of people on the left among social psychologists might simply reflect the fact, not that there are barriers to entry for conservatives, but that "liberals may be more interested in new ideas, more willing to work for peanuts, or just more intelligent, all of which may push them to pursue the academic life while deterring their conservative peers."  Another professor from NYU suggested that the fact that so many ordinary Americans are conservative but almost all social psychologists are liberal may simply reflect the greater knowledge and expertise of the latter.  "We should ask honestly," he wrote, "whether social scientists are too liberal or society is too conservative."  "After all," he went on to explain, "when experts and laypersons disagree, we do not usually rush to the conclusion that the experts are biased."

Not all of the responses to Haidt's address were hostile, however -- or ideologically self-serving.  Lee Jussim, for instance, the chairman of Rutgers psychology department, had this to say: "I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to, and enthusiasm for, Jon Haidt's speech.  As he so refreshingly pointed out, liberal bias infects, distorts, and undermines the quality of our science. … If [Haidt's speech] leads even one researcher to be more sensitive to the extraordinary double standards and blindness that sometimes taint our field, it will have been a rousing success."

Another supporter of Haidt's speech was Paul Bloom, professor of psychology at Yale.  To get across Haidt's central idea of a hostile work environment confronting non-conformists, Bloom asked his fellow psychologists to imagine the following scenario:

Imagine that you are a beginning graduate student accepted into a top-ranked psychology department.  The first colloquium talk you go to is about deception, from a famous social psychologist.  In the middle of her talk, she makes a remark about how some people are simply incapable of ever telling the truth, and then she puts up a large picture of Barack Obama.  People roar with laughter, and there's a bit of applause.  You are a teaching fellow in a large Introduction to Psychology course, and the professor talks a bit about popular delusions, giving the example of liberals who believe in global warming.  Al Gore is mentioned in a lecture on clinical psychology, in the context of narcissistic personality disorder.  Everyone you know is a conservative Republican and assumes that you are one too, making off-hand jokes to you about brain-dead liberals.  But suppose you are, in fact, a liberal yourself.  How would you feel about this new life you have chosen?

Bloom then went on to state the obvious: "Nobody wants to be part of a community where their identity is the target of ridicule and malice."  This, he said, is obvious to social psychologists in dealing with all sorts of other biases involving gender, race, and sexual orientation.  It should be obvious, too, he said, for biases against those who hold political views outside the left-liberal mainstream.  For a community that proclaims the value of diversity, Bloom said, we should be much more sensitive to these issues of political bias. "Jon is right that we should do better."

A Model of Academic Self-Analysis

 It is almost impossible to overstate the courage, intellectual clarity, and simple wisdom involved in Jonathan Haidt's challenges to his social psychology colleagues.  His message is as uncompromising as it is uncomplicated: open up the discipline to viewpoints outside the narrow, left-liberal mainstream, learn from people who have political and moral views different than you own, treat religion more fairly, and stop acting like an insular tribal cult and act more like the open-minded science profession you claim to be.

That's a powerful message and one can only wish that it is heard not only by the social psychology profession but by almost all the other current disciplines within the social sciences and humanities.  Studies by economist Daniel Klein and others have documented the extreme ideological uniformity and insularity among a host of academic disciplines, psychology being just one.  Sociology, anthropology, and women's studies have been found to be even more ideologically skewed than psychology. People outside the left-liberal hegemony that reigns in these disciplines feel intimidated and unwelcomed, and even if a student may feel some attraction to academic life, those with conservative, libertarian, or other dissenting viewpoints will be turned away by an academic culture that they correctly perceive is hostile to their differing values and perspectives. Haidt's exploration of the social psychology profession is a model of constructive academic self-analysis and self-criticism -- and one we can only wish is duplicated by leaders in other disciplines.


Russell K. Nieli is a Senior Preceptor in the Executive Precept Program in Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.
Title: More on Koch Bros Hyperventilation
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 30, 2011, 12:23:20 PM
3rd post.

Jonathan Chait Completely Misses the Point
David Bernstein • March 16, 2011 2:54 pm

[Note to “The ExileD” readers: George Mason University is a state university, funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia. My paycheck comes from the Commonwealth [which in turn gets the money to fund the university from our students’ tuition dollars, as law school tuition is over 35K for the majority of our students], and that is my employer. I don’t receive any money from the Koch Brothers. I don’t know anything about this website, but if this is illustrative of its reliability, you’re wasting your time reading it. FURTHER: “The ExileD” falsely stated that the Koch brothers are my “employers.” Any halfway respectable media site would just admit its mistake and move on, instead of trying to obscure its errors with juvenile insults.]

Responding to a post of mine regarding “progressive” demonization of the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers, TNR’s Chait expresses bafflement at libertarians’ “hypersensitivity” regarding criticism of the Kochs’ “great deal of influence over the political system.”

The problem, dear Jonathan, is that while you and others consistently assert that the Kochs have such influence, you don’t ever demonstrate it. Let’s review: It seems undisputed that the Kochs total spending on political and ideological causes is somewhere around 10–15 million dollars per year. How big a role does this money play in the American political system?

Let’s start with ideological/intellectual causes. The liberal Ford Foundation spends over $400 million a year. The liberal MacArthur Foundation spends about $140 million a year. Liberal billionaire George Soros spends about $150 million a year. Liberals control the vast majority of academic positions in almost every humanities and social science department in every major university in the country, with total budges in the tens of billions.

Even in the libertarians’ tiny corner of the ideological universe, 10 million dollars would only keep the Cato Institute running from January to April this year, and leave nothing left for any other libertarian cause or organization. So the idea that the Kochs are having some huge influence on American politics through their ideological philanthropy is grossly exaggerated, at best.

Even more absurd is the notion that the Kochs’ political contributions are distorting American politics. The Obama campaign spent hundreds of million of dollars on the 2008 election. The 2010 midterm elections cost about $4 billion. The Koch’s relative spending is like pissing in an ocean. Such spending, of course, can under the right conditions win an interest group some narrow favors, but that’s a far cry from suggesting that it can buy “a great deal of influence over the political system” in general.

No, the reason that some liberals have latched on to the Kochs as their bogeymen is that this is what demagogic political propagandists due to win support from their base. They find a mysterious, ominous-sounding (billionaires! who sell oil!–what could raise greater suspicions on the Left?) villain on whom to blame their troubles, and rouse the passions of the partisans of their sides. As these things go, the Kochs are a more innocuous villain than, say, the “Likudnik” bogeymen of the mid-2000s, or Pat Robertson’s “secular humanists who support a New World Order” of the 1990s, but it’s all the same phenomenon.

Regardless, it’s not the sort of thing serious intellectuals take seriously, except as studies in the effectiveness of playing on the traditional paranoid streak in American politics. But if Chait wants to abjure seriousness, and instead be the number one propogandist on behalf of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration in the blogosphere, he’s welcome to the title.

Bonus foolishness from Chait: He defines liberaltarianism, the now almost defunct attempt to establish an intellectual coalition between liberals and libertarians, as an agreement “to emphasize social issues and foreign policy over economics, and to define economics as evidence based and less hostile to redistribution and the possibility of market failure.” That sounds to me an awful lot like standard college town liberalism.

In fact, during the Bush II administration, many liberal blogosphere voices could be heard swearing that having seen the administration’s abuses of power, they now understood the importance of decentralization and refusing to lodge too much power in Washington, D.C. In most cases, this realization lasted precisely one millisecond after the bloggers in question realized that the Democrats were likely to win a sweeping victory in the 2008 elections, to the extent that folks like Chait seem to have forgotten that a key to liberaltarianism was supposed to be a newfound liberal skepticism of Big Government.

As I’ve pointed out before, the attack on the Kochs, who are rather consistent libertarians of the left-libertarian stripe (e.g., are quite pacifistic on foreign policy issues) is a sign of the abject failure of liberaltarianism.
Title: Un-Greening Congressional Cafeterias
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on March 31, 2011, 10:30:42 AM
Stick a Fork in Capitol’s “Green” Utensils
Jonathan H. Adler • March 5, 2011 11:21 am

When Democrats retook the U.S. House of Representatives, they set out to “green” the Capitol.  One measure was the introduction of compostable eating utensils in the House cafeteria.  The corn-based cutlery may work for some things, but it was not popular on Capitol Hill.  As the Washington Post reports, the new utensils were more expensive, broke easily, and “warped when exposed to hot soup.” Worse, the adoption of greener foodware didn’t produce the promised environmental benefits. Much of the energy savings from switching to a corn-based product was offset by the need to haul the compostables away.

Did this kill green cutlery? Not until the GOP was back in charge: “Democratic leaders didn’t kill the program. Instead, they waited until Republicans took over, then suggested they do it. Republicans quickly obliged.” And so, the House cafeteria has returned to plastic forks, knives and spoons. In other words, Congress has eliminated a corn-based product mandate in favor of petroleum. If only they could do this with ethanol too.
Title: Progressive Failure
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 22, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Wal-Mart Goes ‘Back to Basics’: A Cautionary Tale for the Left
Posted By Richard Pollock On April 11, 2011 @ 10:16 am In Uncategorized | 236 Comments

After suffering seven straight quarters of losses, today the merchandise giant Wal-Mart will announce [1] that it is “going back to basics,” ending its era of high-end organic foods, going “green,” [2] and the remainder of its appeal to the upscale market. Next month the company will launch an “It’s Back” campaign to woo the millions of customers who have fled the store. They will be bringing back “heritage” products, like inexpensive jeans and sweatpants.

Few may recognize it as such, but this episode should be seen as a cautionary tale about “progressives” and social engineering experiments on low-income Americans. This morning’s Wall Street Journal [1] article is blunt:

That strategy failed, and the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant now is pursuing a back-to-basics strategy to reverse the company’s fortunes.

The failure, in large part, can be pinned to Leslie Dach: a well-known progressive and former senior aide to Vice President Al Gore. In July 2006, Dach was installed as the public relations chief for Wal-Mart. He drafted a number of other progressives into the company, seeking to change the company’s way of doing business: its culture, its politics, and most importantly its products.

Out went drab, inexpensive merchandise so dear to low-income Americans. In came upscale organic foods, “green” products, trendy jeans, and political correctness. In other words, Dach sought to expose poor working Americans to the “good life” of the wealthy, environmentally conscious Prius driver.

Dach’s failure should be a cautionary tale for President Obama: last week [3] he scolded a blue collar man in Pennsylvania for driving an SUV, and he has previously admonished Americans to get out of their gas-guzzlers and into electric cars. Dach’s failure should also put Michelle Obama on notice; she has been pushing her White House organic vegetable garden as a model for working Americans.

Like other real-world experiments, the Wal-Mart story exposes the failure of progressivism in the marketplace, as the Dach strategy has been a fiasco: the merchandising turned off low-income (and largely Democratic-leaning) customers. Says former Wal-Mart executive Jimmy Wright [4]:

The basic Wal-Mart customer didn’t leave Wal-Mart. What happened is that Wal-Mart left the customer.

Dach convinced the company to steer away from founder Sam Walton’s core values. At the core of Dach’s campaign was to prove that Wal-Mart was “going green.” He brought in Vice President Gore [5] to speak about environmental issues: they actually screened his global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, at a quarterly meeting of Wal-Mart empl0yees and invited environmental groups. Expensive organic foods [2] were showcased in their produce section. Trendy and pricey environmentally safe products were put on the shelves.

Richard Edelman of Edelman Public Relations — who had once hired Dach — noted that Dach constantly pushed Democratic Party health care and environmental agendas inside the giant company. Writes the New Yorker [6]:

Richard Edelman suggested that he is seeing Dach’s influence on the company. Edelman called Dach an “idealist” who has carried to Wal-Mart his fervor for such traditional Democratic causes as universal health care and environmentalism.

The Sierra Club’s Carl Pope seemed pleased that Dach was inside the enemy camp, confiding [7]to the New Yorker:

One of the remarkable things about the environmental movement is how rarely people from our side end up on the other side, and Leslie is on the other side.

But Dach’s fervor only sunk the company. Andy Barron, a Wal-Mart executive vice president, told an investor meeting [4]:

Clearly, we’ve lost some of our focus on what I would call the core customer. … You might say, in short, that we were trying to be something that maybe we’re not.

George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley — the nation’s largest organics cooperative — said to the WSJ [4]:

Is the Wal-Mart customer ready to embrace a full set of organics products? The answer is no, not yet.

This is probably not what Michelle Obama wants to hear.

For leading the failed experiment, Dach was awarded [8] three million dollars in stock and a hundred and sixty-eight thousand stock options, in addition to an undisclosed base salary.

Summing up the mess, mechanic Mike Craig told the WSJ [4]:

Wal-Mart just went and broke it.

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] will announce:
[2] going “green,”:
[3] last week:
[4] Jimmy Wright:
[5] brought in Vice President Gore:
[6] New Yorker:
[7] confiding :
[8] was awarded:
Title: So just show us the F' long form!
Post by: ccp on April 23, 2011, 08:55:30 AM
So just show us the long form.  Where is it.  Something is being hidden.  It is remarkable why the MSM continues to avoid an answer to this question.  Only Chris Matthews earlier came out and asked the obvious glaring question.  Why not just show us the long form?  Of course he was hushed up.   

Trump is the ONLY one who will ask this question.  Anyone with a quarter of a brain can see something is being hidden from the public.

****HONOLULU (AP) -- Lost in the renewed scrutiny into President Barack Obama's birth records is the fact that anyone can walk into a Hawaii vital records office, wait in line behind couples getting marriage licenses and open a baby-blue government binder containing basic information about his birth.

Highlighted in yellow on page 1,218 of the thick binder is the computer-generated listing for a boy named Barack Hussein Obama II born in Hawaii, surrounded by the alphabetized last names of all other children born in-state between 1960 and 1964. This is the only government birth information, called "index data," available to the public.

So far this month, only The Associated Press and one other person had looked at the binder, according to a sign-in sheet viewed Wednesday in the state Department of Health building. The sheet showed about 25 names of people who have seen the document since March 2010, when the sign-in sheet begins.

Those documents complement newspaper birth announcements published soon after Obama's Aug. 4, 1961 birth and a "certification of live birth" released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. Many of the skeptics suggest he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country, or Indonesia where he spent a few years of his childhood.

Possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly stoked the birther fires recently, and last month called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Trump said he has investigators in Hawaii searching for more information.

"Nobody has come in and said they're investigating for Donald Trump," said Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, who acknowledged they could've come in without identifying themselves as representing Trump.

What the would-be sleuths won't find is Obama's "long-form birth certificate," a confidential one-page document containing his original birth records kept on file in the first floor of the Department of Health.

Those original birth records typically include additional birth details, such as the hospital and delivering doctor, said Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state's former health director who twice looked at and publicly confirmed Obama's original long-form birth records.

But those documents are state government property that can't be released to anyone, even the president himself, said Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the state attorney general. Obama would be able to inspect his birth records if he visited the Health Department in person, but original records of live birth are never released, he said.

Fukino, who served as the state's health director until late last year under former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, said in an interview with The Associated Press she's convinced the long-form document is authentic. She issued public statements in 2008 and 2009 saying she had seen the original records.

"It is absolutely clear to me that he was born here in Hawaii," Fukino told the AP. "It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we're going to do about those things."

Before Obama's campaign released his certification of live birth in 2008, he or someone with a tangible interest had to make a written request and pay a $10 fee to receive it, Okubo said. Wisch also said Obama obtained a copy of his own certification of live birth and publicly released it.

State privacy laws prevent a certification of live birth from being released to anyone except those with a tangible interest, such as the person named by the birth record or a close family member.

The document is generated by computer, based on original birth records on file with the state, Fukino said.

New Health Director Loretta Fuddy, a Democratic appointee, declined to comment.

Last week, Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot - which was widely viewed as targeting Obama - calling it a "bridge too far."

But the birther conspiracy theory refuses to go away. The latest New York Times-CBS News poll found that 45 percent of adult Republicans said they believe Obama was born in another country, and 22 percent said they don't know. Only one-third of Republicans said they believe the president is native born. The same poll a year ago found that a plurality of Republicans believed the president was born in the U.S.

Obama said in an interview with ABC News this month that Republicans sowing doubts about whether he's American-born may gain politically in the short term by playing to their constituencies, but will have trouble when the general election rolls around.

"Just want to be clear - I was born in Hawaii," the president said at a fundraiser in his hometown of Chicago.

Newspaper birth announcements appeared in both The Honolulu Advertiser and The Honolulu Star-Bulletin in the weeks after he was born.

The Aug. 13, 1961 announcement in the Advertiser appears on page B-6 of the Sunday edition, next to classified ads for carpentry work and house repair.

It says, "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." The address belonged to the parents of Ann Dunham, Obama's mother.

A similar announcement appeared the following day on page 24 of the Star-Bulletin.



© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.****
Title: No Blood for . . . Oh Nevermind
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 25, 2011, 06:47:19 PM
Where Did All the Anti-War Protestors Go?

The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?

… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.

… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.

Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.

The protesters have remained silent over Libya.

And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.

Only a handful of Congressmen have remained principled on foreign intervention. One of them is Ron Paul. On my FBN show this week, I’ll talk with him about why he opposes our “aggressive foreign policy.” Thursday at 10pm EST.
Title: No right to representation for the right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2011, 07:28:05 AM

A major law firm has caved to pressure from militant homosexual activists, and one of America’s top Supreme Court lawyers resigned from that firm rather than abandon principle. That lawyer is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, and this is a story that everyone who values the rule of law needs to understand.

In 1996, a bipartisan majority of the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The law specifies that for purposes of federal law, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The law also provides that if any state breaks with 2,000 years of Western civilization by redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, no other state need recognize those unions.

Then some people started redefining marriage. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to do the same through an egregious instance of judicial activism. Today, a total of five states out of fifty have same-sex marriage.

Predictably, some activists challenged DOMA in federal court.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a duty to defend every federal law in court. The only exceptions are for laws that undermine the president’s power (and even then, DOJ sometimes defends it) or for laws where no reasonable argument can be made defending that law.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that DOJ would no longer defend DOMA because he and President Barack Obama believe that there is no rational basis for the law. This is shocking, because President Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying that he still believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Let’s make sure we have this right: Marriage is between a man and a woman, but any law saying that is so irrational that it cannot be defended in court. It seems President Obama is either schizophrenic or disingenuous.

Thankfully, the U.S. House of Representatives took up the defense of DOMA. To do so, they retained former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—now a partner at King & Spalding—to defend the law in court.

In response, a militant homosexual-agenda group, the Human Rights Campaign, took the disgraceful action of organizing a nationwide boycott of King & Spalding and tried to discourage graduating law students from working there.

Everyone should have access to a lawyer. The U.S. Constitution empowers the courts to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, but also requires that a court only do so if arguments are presented on both sides. Our constitutional system of government calls for both parties putting their best arguments on the table, so that a judge has everything necessary to arrive at the correct decision.

But leftist zealots evidently don’t care about a court reaching the right decision, calling for punishing anyone who has enough faith in the American legal system to wage an honorable contest in court.

When Ted Olson decided to take a case arguing that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage which mysteriously went unnoticed by anyone in the country for over 200 years, no reputable group called for boycotting his firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Nor should they. Gibson Dunn argues for many causes and clients, many of them right.

Yet in an instance of craven cowardice, King & Spalding caved to pressure and has withdrawn from the case. Rather than stand by the principle that every issue—especially one unpopular to some—deserves fair consideration in court, the firm’s chairman, Robert Hays, said that the firm was quitting.

Clement—a top Supreme Court lawyer with over fifty cases before the Court—would not cave. Rather than abandon his client, he resigned from King & Spalding. He has now joined Bancroft PLLC, a law firm and policy organization featuring well-respected conservative lawyers and analysts.

And no one can lose sight of his client’s identity: the U.S. House of Representatives. This isn’t some traitor, or depraved serial murderer of children, or terrorist regime. This is the House representing the American people, chosen by We the People.

I don’t even know if Clement is personally pro-marriage. Maybe he’s not. But he took it as his duty to represent our Congress in court. He’s a patriot for answering that call.

People should remember this episode as showing the oppressive nature of some leftists. They scream about freedom when it suits their purpose, only to deny others freedom to even be heard. On this issue, pro-marriage advocates—especially churches and ministries faithful to biblical teaching on marriage—had better take heed. You will be next.

The truth is never afraid of a good debate. At the core of the First Amendment is the idea that people must be free to speak, because the best ideas should win in the end. The Federalist Society was founded upon that premise in hosting debates at law schools, reasoning that on a level playing field, the best ideas should prevail.

Those who oppose debate do so because they fear that they cannot overcome opposition. Those who try to prevent an opponent from having a good lawyer in court fears that the law may not be on their side.

A nation under the rule of law requires top lawyers to take up both sides of legal issues going to court. Solicitor General Paul Clement shows great courage by upholding that principle. Every solicitor general and deputy solicitor general alive today—both Republican and Democrat—should express their support for the brave stand taken by Paul Clement.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on April 26, 2011, 10:18:32 AM
Obama and Holder are doing epic damage to this nation.
Title: Desacralising Damnfoolishness
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on April 26, 2011, 06:35:10 PM
Diagnosing Krugman
Apr 25th 2011, 19:48 by W.W. | IOWA CITY

SOMETIMES people believe something so patently ridiculous, so detached from evidence and good sense, that it is more useful to diagnose it than to debate it. For example, the New York Times' "Room for Debate" forum has been featuring an interesting discussion of the psychological principles underlying the widespread conviction that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, despite ample evidence to the contrary. While "birthers" are in my opinion richly deserving of such treatment, this sort of psychologising diagnosis of strong political conviction often serves as a cheap, supremely condescending trick for pathologising and thus dismissing those with whom we disagree. A good deal of work on the psychology of conservatism is like this. The motivating question, "What the hell is wrong with these people?" takes it for granted that there is something wrong with "these people", and thus that disagreement with them is based not on a reasonable difference of opinions among intelligent people of good will, but rather on some sort of deep-seated defect of character or cognition in the "other" insusceptible to correction through civilised discourse.

It is in this dismissively diagnostic spirit that I would like to approach Paul Krugman's latest column. He writes:

Here’s my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as “consumers”? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car—and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.What has gone wrong with us?

Let us ask this, instead: What has gone wrong with this celebrated economist such that he has come to believe that something "has gone wrong with us" if we have come to conceive of those who buy medical services from those who sell them as "consumers", which is what they are? 

Now, I'm sceptical of the idea that the business of "receiving care" is now more commercial than ever. As many economists are glad to tell you, the astronomical American level of health-care spending is largely a function of "price insulation"—of the fact that, um, "care receivers" are, by dint of the nature of typical health plans, prevented from taking costs much into account. We have arrived at our present unsustainable situation because we have moved health care into a liminal zone away from the market discipline of the cash nexus, but not all the way toward the bureaucratic discipline of socialism, such as it is. The most curious thing about Mr Krugman's quasi-religious squeamishness about the "commercial transaction" is that it is normally the economist's lot to explain to the superstitious public the humanitarian benefits of bringing human life ever more within the cash nexus. Yet Mr Krugman has chosen to reinforce rather than fight taboos against trade as if he were a benighted, harrumphing scold, or a sociologist.

In any case, let's examine Mr Krugman's implicit premises. First, that "special, almost sacred" relationships cannot be "commercial". This is a familiar canard, but not as interesting as Mr Krugman's further implied assumption: that a transaction thoroughly mediated by the state is not desacralising. That is to say, whatever is crass and profane about patients exchanging money directly for doctors' services is avoided if the patient-doctor relationship is brought within the matrix of politics. This seems odd to me, but then I am odd, as recent work on the moral psychology of market exchange has helped me see.

In an important paper on "Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges", Peter McGraw and Philip Tetlock, psychologists at the Universities of Colorado and California, Berkeley, find that:

Ideology...has a moderating influence on the perceived appropriateness of transactions. Whereas liberals and conservatives find efforts to monetize babies, body parts, and basic rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship abhorrent, we find that among libertarians the objections to these types of transactions wane. Moving left on the political spectrum toward socialism increases the tendency to find not only surrogate motherhood unacceptable but also the buying and selling of borderline controversial commodities such as medical care and legal representation as well as currently uncontroversial commodities such as houses and food. Devout egalitarians tend to see such exchanges as inherently inequitable because they put the poor at a profound disadvantage (and because they seem to carry the implication that the lives and rights of the poor are worth less than those who can pay large sums for doctors and lawyers).

I am one of the libertarian types to whom few transactions seem especially problematical. Anything that's peaceful! In contrast, Mr Krugman would appear to be one of those "devout egalitarians" to whom it seems wrong to leave the protection of basic rights, such as the right to health care, to the vagaries of the market. But there's more to it than this. It's not just that buying and selling certain things is creepy or gross; it's that there is something inherently ennobling and honourable about government providing or assuring the provision of these same things. Messrs McGraw and Tetlock suggest to me an egalitarian mental model that helps make sense of Mr Krugman's complaint about health care as a merely commercial concern. It goes a little something like this.

Market exchange is fine, in it's place. But there are some things to which we are entitled as human beings and/or citizens, and putting those things on the market dishonours our rights and diminishes our dignity as persons and Americans (or whatever nationality you may be). In contrast, government guarantees elevate and sacralise the goods and relationships implied by our entitlements. But why? Because the state is the institutional embodiment of our unity and solidarity as a people. One function of government is to deliver the goods, sure. But it is also an expressive institution that affirms and embodies ideals of equality and mutual respect by delivering the goods as a mandate of the collective will. If patients are not consumers, what are they? Free and equal citizens getting their due.

This is a pretty picture, but it's also a problem—a problem economists generally help us to see through. The policies that publicly express good will and mutual respect—that successfully broadcast that we care about one another—often are not the policies that would actually deliver the goods—the policies you'd favour if you cared more about people than signaling that you care about people. The policies that would actually deliver often would do so by enabling and encouraging consumer choice and entrepreneurial discovery and innovation in competitive markets. If the deep worry about certain forms of market exchange is that they put the poor at a disadvantage, we can address the worry by making certain that means-tested transfers are generous enough to ensure sufficient market power for all. But we can't address concerns about market inequity in this way if market-based policy is preemptively ruled out of bounds by a misguided public theology of markets and politics. Widespread public commitment to a vocabulary of moral and political symbolism according to which "merely commercial" transactions and relationships are seen to be profane, while political transactions and relationships are seen to be sacred, is a significant impediment to improving human welfare with policy that harnesses the power of markets. One task of the liberal intellectual is to chip away at taboos that cause preventable suffering by limiting the range of politically-feasible policy. Isn't this the opposite of what Mr Krugman is doing?
Title: Compassion and kindness of the left
Post by: G M on April 29, 2011, 08:57:31 AM

ThinkProgress: Storm victims kind of had it coming, didn’t they?
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Obama is "integratively complex"
Post by: DougMacG on April 29, 2011, 10:36:07 AM
Give me a break, pure drivel IMO, but I post this for what passes for journalism and serious analysis.  He is too smart and honest for this job, according to experts.   

He is a political hack exposed by his tactless assault on the Supreme Court at the SOTU and the same on Paul Ryan at his budget hawk debut.  To locate the bias in the writing, just notice they refer the senate's purist liberal as 'center-left'. He is complex only in that he single-mindedly wants to destroy capitalism from within (starve it of energy and burden it with costs) and move us to socialist utopia but needs to hold onto power in a center-right nation in order to do that.  He isn't complex, he is deceitful and duplicitous.  But that isn't the story going at the top of Washington media and academia.

If he is so smart, show me the grades and test scores.  Show me original writings.  Show me solutions to problems that come uniquely from him that others hadn't thought of.
Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Obama, lost in thought

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking...” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”  Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously.  (read it all if you want)
Title: Sudden, amazing transformation!
Post by: G M on May 03, 2011, 08:15:57 AM


Comment, JDN?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 03, 2011, 09:21:18 AM
“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking...” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”  Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously."

Well this social psychologist needs his own head examined.

The BS is truly mind boggling and frustrating too.
Title: The cognitive dissonance of the left: then and now
Post by: DougMacG on May 05, 2011, 09:44:47 AM
Here’s Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:

    [E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

And here’s Nancy Pelosi yesterday:

    The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

This devastating then-and-now comparison comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker of Power Line.
 - Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 05, 2011, 01:55:55 PM

Well Lawrence of MSLSD played tapes of W saying roughly the same thing in 2002. 
I wonder if they were simply downplaying the embarrassment of not being able to find or catch him till now.

While it is certainly great to be rid of him I can't say I suddenly feel safe from Jihadists.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on May 06, 2011, 06:57:00 AM
CCP,  Everybody has an agenda I suppose.  At the time Bush said what he said, we had put OBL into hiding and largely cut off his finances, communications and ability to operate.  I doubt if his view is any different about that today.  I notice that he didn't want to go to ground zero and celebrate.

At the time Pelosi made her first statement, she was following up on the John Kerry story that we let him get away, incompetent administration was her point, even if they find him now they are still a complete failure, etc. talking America's efforts down while troops are in harm's way for political advantage.  In her current statement the message is the opposite, it is all about the greatness of President Obama, his team, a mention to other nations but not to his predecessors who made this possible. 

The truth I think is that the demise of bin Laden is symbolic of American strength but not strategic.  His own ability to operate had already been mostly cut off, and as you point out, the threat we face is still out there.  The flip side of the symbolism is that our inability to get him was a symbol of American weakness/impotence and that perception in terms of our military was proven to be wrong.

Obama has one advantage in foreign policy over any Republican: his administration has people who put country before politics in the opposition party.
Title: Colin Powell has lost me
Post by: ccp on May 07, 2011, 10:12:07 AM
I still don't get it that Obama couldn't just release his birth certificate.  Questions absolutely were legitimate and he did not blow anyone away.  He again proved he put his own political agenda and cynicism and disdain for anyone who disagrees with him above the legitimate concerns of many Americans.  Powell who I have much less respect for is speaking to the choir here so I guess I expect too much...

Associated Press Susanne M. Schafer, Associated Press – Fri May 6, 10:32 pm ET
ORANGEBURG, S.C. – Colin Powell told graduates of South Carolina's premier historically black university that they were graduating during a tumultuous time that saw a royal wedding, a pope's beatification and a U.S. military assault that killed Osama bin Laden, "the worst person on earth."

But the former secretary of state and Joint Chiefs chairman told South Carolina State University's 400 graduates on Friday that he particularly enjoyed another recent event: "That was when President Obama took out his birth certificate and blew away Donald Trump and all the birthers!"

The stadium roared in approval of Powell's comments on the president's move last week to quell the doubts of those who don't believe he was born in Hawaii. The retired Army four-star general endorsed Obama's 2008 presidential bid.

Earlier Friday, Powell was made an honorary member of the school's ROTC hall of fame.

Title: legitimate
Post by: ccp on May 09, 2011, 07:43:45 AM
""I think the point of the editorial was that the Indian American governor of Louisiana should not be worried about people's origins and birthplaces. That's one of the great things about this country."

Bobby Jindal's parents were at least here legally. 

Now it is no longer legitimate to question someone's birth place?  At least Jindal didn't cynically withold the information.  He immediately released the birth certificate when the issue was brought up.  Unlike the coniver in chief.

****Louisiana governor Jindal caught in birther flap
 Sat May 7, 8:24 pm ET
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – A photo of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's birth certificate was published by a newspaper on Saturday even though there is no doubt the Indian American Republican was born in the United States.

Jindal, who is not running for president in 2012 but is mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate, released the certificate to prove a newspaper editorial wrong.

Jindal was born in the United States to Indian immigrant parents who held green cards at the time.

The flap started when Jindal said last month that he would sign a state bill, if it reached his desk, that would require candidates for federal office on the Louisiana ballot to show proof of birth in the U.S.

The bill was a response to doubts about President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth raised by possible Republican presidential candidates such as businessman Donald Trump. Obama recently released his full birth certificate to squelch the doubts.

After Jindal endorsed the Louisiana "birther" bill, the Baton Rouge daily newspaper, The Advocate, on April 22 published a critical editorial.

"Piyush Amrit Jindal is the last man in America who should give his blessing to a birther bill," the editorial said.

Jindal's office angrily responded that the newspaper had got the governor's middle name wrong. "Amrit," was the name of an ancient Middle East city, Jindal's office said, and not his middle name.

Jindal offered to release his birth certificate to prove it. The Advocate received the birth certificate, apologized for use of an "incorrect middle name" and removed "Amrit" from the online version of the editorial.

Asked about the incident, The Advocate Executive Editor Carl Redman told Reuters, "I think the point of the editorial was that the Indian American governor of Louisiana should not be worried about people's origins and birthplaces. That's one of the great things about this country."

But the incident lived on when the New Orleans Times-Picayune on Saturday ran a photo of the birth certificate and a long article about the details of his parents' entry into the United States.

The birth certificate shows his name as only "Piyush Jindal" with no middle name. Jindal has long used the first name "Bobby."

Jindal's spokesman confirmed on Saturday the details in the article of his parents' arrival in the United States. They came on green cards secured by Jindal's engineer father, Amar Jindal, based on a 1965 law that allowed people with "exceptional ability in the sciences or arts" to enter the U.S. Jindal's mother Raj got a spouse green card.

Amar Jindal now works for a large engineering firm that has offices in Louisiana and around the country. Raj Jindal, who hold masters degrees in physics and nuclear engineering from Louisiana State University, is director of information technology in the Louisiana Department of Labor.

Bernie Pinsonat, a Baton Rouge political analyst and pollster, said the whole saga could confuse some people.

"I have no idea why he did this (release the certificate) except maybe he thinks he'll get some popularity points nationally," Pinsonat said. "Nobody in Louisiana doubts that he was born in the United States."

(Editing by Greg McCune)****

Title: Miraculous cure!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2011, 11:41:20 AM
In March 2008, David Mamet was outed in the Village Voice. The Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright had a comedy about an American president running on Broadway, and—perhaps to help with ticket sales—decided to write an article about the election season. The headline was subtle: "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal.'"

"They mistitled it," he insists. Mr. Mamet had given the piece the far more staid title, "Political Civility." But the Voice's headline was truth in advertising. "I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind," Mr. Mamet wrote, referring to his prior self as, yes, a "brain-dead liberal."

The article was the most popular ever published on the Voice's website. But was the acclaimed Mr. Mamet really a conservative?

For a few years, he played it coy. In a 2008 interview with New York Magazine, he sloughed off a question about who he was voting for: "I'm not the guy to ask about politics. I'm a gag writer." In 2010, he told PBS's Charlie Rose he'd only offer his opinion about President Obama off-camera.  But spend five minutes with Mr. Mamet and you realize that coy can only last so long. "Being a rather pugnacious sort of fellow I thought, as Albert Finney says in 'Two for the Road': 'As I said to the duchess, 'If you want to be a duchess, be a duchess. If you want to make love, it's hats off.'"

Hats off, indeed. Now Mr. Mamet has written a book-length, raucous coming-out party: "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture." (If only the Voice editors had been around to supply a snappier title.)

Hear him take on the left's sacred cows. Diversity is a "commodity." College is nothing more than "Socialist Camp." Liberalism is like roulette addiction. Toyota's Prius, he tells me, is an "anti-chick magnet" and "ugly as a dogcatcher's butt." Hollywood liberals—his former crowd—once embraced Communism "because they hadn't invented Pilates yet." Oh, and good radio isn't NPR ("National Palestinian Radio") but Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.

The book is blunt, at times funny, and often over the top. When I meet the apostate in a loft in Manhattan's Greenwich Village, he's wrapping up a production meeting. "Bye, bye, Bette!" he calls to the actress walking toward the elevator. That'd be Bette Midler. Al Pacino gets a bear hug. The two are starring in an upcoming HBO film about Phil Spector's murder trial. Mr. Mamet is directing and he looks the part in a scarf, black beret and round yellow-framed glasses. Looking out the window at NYU film school, where he used to teach, I ask him to tell me his conversion story.

He starts, naturally, with the most famous political convert in modern American history: Whittaker Chambers, whose 1952 book, "Witness," documented his turn from Communism. "I read it. It was miraculous. Extraordinary hero-journey of this fellow that had to examine everything he believed in at the great, great cost—which is a cost I'm not subject to—of abandoning his life, his sustenance, his friends, his associations, and his past. And I said, 'Oh my God. . . . Perhaps it might be incumbent upon me to see if I could get my thought and my actions into line too."

There were other books. Most were given to him by his rabbi in L.A., Mordecai Finley. Mr. Mamet rattles off the works that affected him most: "White Guilt" by Shelby Steele, "Ethnic America" by Thomas Sowell, "The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War" by Wilfred Trotter, "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek, "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman, and "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill.

Before he moved to California, Mr. Mamet had never met a self-described conservative or read one's writings. He'd never heard of Messrs. Sowell or Steele. "No one on the left has," he tells me. "I realized I lived in this bubble."

When it popped, it was rough. "I did what I thought was, if not a legitimate, then at least a usual, thing—I took it out on those around me," Mr. Mamet says wryly. It took "a long, long, long time and a lot of difficult thinking first to analyze, then change, some of my ideas."

Then comes one of Mr. Mamet's many Hollywood fables. "It's like Orson Welles," he begins.

"It's his first day on the set of Citizen Kane, and he's never directed a movie, he's the greatest stage director of his time. Gregg Toland is his cinematographer, and Toland's the greatest cinematographer of his day. And Orson says, 'Ok, this next shot we're gonna put the camera over here. And Gregg says, 'You can't put the camera there, Orson.' So Orson says, 'Well why not? The director can put it wherever.' Gregg says, 'No. Because you're crossing the line.' So Orson says, 'What does it mean crossing the line? So Gregg explains to him that there's a line of action." (Mr. Mamet attempts to demonstrate the principle to me by indicating the line of sight between our noses.)

"Orson says, 'I don't understand.'" (Neither did I.) "So Gregg explains it again. And Orson says, 'I still don't understand'—'cause sometimes it can get very, very complicated. So Orson says, 'Stop! Stop filming! I have to go home.' He went home and he stayed up all night with sheets of paper and a ruler and he came back next day and said: 'Now I understand, now we can go on.'"

And so it was with Mr. Mamet and politics. He couldn't move on, so to speak, before he understood "what the nature of government is, just sufficient so that I as a citizen can actually vote without being a member of a herd." Same for taxes: "I pay them, so I think I should be responsible for what actually happens to them." As for the history of the country itself, he wanted to understand "the vision of the Founding Fathers. . . . How does holding to it keep people safe and prosperous?"

Reading and reflecting got him to some basics. Real diversity is intellectual. Whatever its flaws, America is the greatest country in the history of the world. The free market always solves problems better than government. It's the job of the state to be just, not to render social justice. And, most sobering, Mr. Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge," there are no perfect solutions to inequality, only trade-offs.

It's a wonder he didn't explicitly adopt this tragic view of reality earlier on. The play "Glengarry Glen Ross," for example, for which Mr. Mamet won the 1984 Pulitzer Prize, is about a group of desperate men competing with each other in a Chicago real estate office. At stake: a Cadillac for the top seller. Second place: a set of steak knives. Third prize: you're fired.

Needless to say, no one ends up getting the Caddie. "That's the essence of drama," Mr. Mamet says. "Anyone can write: And then we realized that Lithuanians are people too and we're all happier now. Who cares?" Tragedy is devastating, he says, precisely because it's about "people trying to do the best they can and ending up destroying each other.

"So it wasn't a great shift to adopt the tragic view, and it's much healthier," he says. "Rather than saying, as the liberals do, 'Everything's always wrong, there's nothing that's not wrong, there's something bad bad bad—there's a bad thing in the world and it's probably called the Jews,'" he says sardonically. "And if it's not called the Jews for the moment, it's their fiendish slave second-hand smoke. Or transfats. Or global warming. Or the Y2K. Or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. And something must be done!'"

It's the last part—the temptation to believe that everything can be fixed—that Mr. Mamet thinks is the fatal error. "That's such a f— bore," he says. "I mean, have you ever tried to get a pipe fixed in your bathroom on a Saturday? It's not going to happen. It's gonna happen wrong, and the guy's gonna be late because his dog got run over, and he's going to fix the wrong pipe, and when he takes it apart he's gonna say, 'Oops, the whole plumbing system's gonna have to go and dah dah dah and etc. etc. etc. And your daughter's Bat Mitzvah's gonna be ruined. It's interesting—it's the tragic view of life."

As Mr. Mamet quotes his son, Noah, in "The Secret Knowledge," "it's the difference between the Heavenly Dream and the God-Awful Reality."

On the left, Mr. Mamet is accused of having ulterior motives for his political shift. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait writes that the story is a familiar, Zionist one: "An increasingly religious Jew with strong loyalty to Israel, he became aware of a tension between the illiberal nationalism of his right-wing views on the Middle East and the liberalism of his views on everything else, and resolved the tension by abandoning the latter." Mr. Mamet calls this a "crock of s—."

The Slate website has run with the "Rich Person Discovers He Is a Republican" narrative. And then there's the jiu-jitsu theory offered by a film blogger: "Mamet's escalating interest in martial arts—traditionally the domain of right-wing nutjobs like Chuck Norris—has pointed toward this new stance for some time." Obviously.

None of these responses comes as a surprise. And, being a contrarian and a dramatist, Mr. Mamet doubtless relishes the attention for his heresy. What will be more interesting is to see how critics respond to his two new plays.

The first, playing now in Manhattan, is called "The Linguistics Class." Only 10 minutes long, it's part of a festival of 25 short plays at the Atlantic Theater Company, running alongside works by Ethan Coen and Sam Shepard. It's a coming home for Mr. Mamet: He founded the company with his friend, the actor William H. Macey, 25 years ago.

The play is about a teacher and a student who don't see eye to eye, and Mr. Mamet assures me "it has nothing to do with Noam Chomsky."

"The Anarchist," on the other hand, sounds like it will be red meat for conservatives. The two-woman show, which opens this fall in London, is about a prisoner, a former member of a Weather Underground-type group, and her parole officer. The play's themes have been developing since Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Mamet was in Toronto that day for a film festival. "I read an article, I think it was in that day's Toronto Star, that had been a reprint from the Chicago Tribune," he says. It was an interview with Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dorne, two former leaders of the Weather Underground. "They were talking about the bombings in the '60s. And the guy says to Bill Ayers: 'Are you regretful?' And he said: 'No, no, no.' . . . And I read it, and I thought, this is appalling and immoral," recalls Mr. Mamet.

"Then I got on a plane. And while I was on the plane they blew up New York City. The combination of the two things just started me thinking what have we—meaning my generation—done?" Mr. Mamet knows these characters intimately. They went to school with him at Goddard College in Vermont, or they passed through. "Some of the people I knew actually were involved in blowing up the building on 11th Street [in Manhattan by members of the Weather Underground in 1970]. . . . And I thought: how does this happen?"

Is it a coincidence that this play is arriving at the same time as Mr. Mamet's public conservatism? Does he worry that critics will see it as polemical? "I don't know," he contends, insistent that his job as a writer is not to worry about politics but to entertain and surprise his audience. "The question is can you put the asses in the seats and can you keep the asses in the seats. That's not me, that's Aristotle. I've forgotten the Greek for it."

Ms. Weiss is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal. A review of Mr. Mamet's book, "The Secret Knowledge," can be found on page C13 in today's Review section.

Title: The new Pelosi
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2011, 11:38:09 AM
Not speaker of house but DNC chair.  I guess saying moron things is a prerequisite for Dem party leaders:

DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime'
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
By Fred Lucas
( – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.”

“I think the president was clearly articulating that his position--the Democratic position--is that we need comprehensive immigration reform,” said Wasserman Schultz at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast on May 26.

“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

The comment has drawn attention among conservative commentators and bloggers. During the comments, the chairwoman referred to legislation in 2006 by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that would increase border enforcement and make illegal immigration a criminal offense instead of a civil matter.

However, the Senate bill immunized illegal aliens from being prosecuted for document fraud, a felony, and did not stop the practice of allowing illegal aliens eventually granted legal residency to go back and claim credit with the Social Security Administration for work they did as an illegal. These provisions were in sections 601 and 614 of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill.

At the same Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Wasserman Schultz said, “If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.”

The Hill newspaper quickly reported that Wasserman Schultz owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan. The newspaper cited Florida motor vehicle records.

Further during the breakfast, she stressed that support for Israel should not become a partisan issue, and believed that Republicans were trying to make it one. But she referenced President Barack Obama as “probably” being pro-Israel.

“One of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first Jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And another tremendous source of pride is that I am a pro-Israel Jewish member of Congress and I probably support a president that is pro-Israel,” Wasserman Schultz said.

“What I think is unfortunate and what I suggested along with others, including members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that are not the executive director of that organization, that we need to make sure that like AIPAC pushes for, like Jewish Federation pushes for, like ADL [Anti-Defamation League] and every major Jewish organization pushes for in this country, we need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue,” she said.

The new chairwoman has made a number of attention grabbing comments. In an April 6 interview on MSNBC, Wasserman Shultz voiced her opposition to the proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion in 10 years.

“This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors,” Wasserman Schultz said.

The word literally is defined as meaning actual or not figuratively speaking.

Last week she said on MSNBC, that the passage of the health care law has strengthened Medicare.

“In fact, we added 12 years of solvency to Medicare and ensure that it would be better for senior,” she said on Andrea Mitchell Reports on May 25.

That’s contrary to the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan accounting arm of Congress that predicted the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted by 2020 at the current path, almost a decade sooner than the last year’s forecast. is not funded by the government like NPR. is not funded by the government like PBS.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 10, 2011, 10:25:33 AM
How did we get to the point where it is acceptable for politicians to lie because "they all do it" let alone reckless sexual activities, outright pulbic lying coverups, and the rest?  This country really is in big decline culturally and morally and that bodes poorly for everything else IMHO.

It seems anything is acceptable as long as the pol in office will keep the money spigget flowing doles to their constituents.  What twisted logic can be dreamed of next:

****Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because His Behavior Offends 'Culturally Backward' Christian Conservatives
By Geoffrey Dickens | June 10, 2011 | 11:40

On Thursday's Hardball, Chris Matthews determined that Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner could be in danger of being forced out of Congress by Blue Dog Dems who face uphill battles in red states because, as he put it, "people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want...don't like this kind of stuff."

During a discussion about Weiner's chances of survival, after being caught sending lewd pictures to women via Twitter, the MSNBCer claimed the liberal congressman didn't have to worry about his, according to Matthews, culturally superior constituents in New York - the "56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens" who "can live with this guy." Instead he had to be concerned with his Democratic colleagues fearful about re-election in the "conservative culturally part of the country."

The following excerpt was aired on the June 9 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: If you're a Blue Dog Democrat from a conservative culturally part of the country, where you're fighting out every election with two or three points to spare, if you're a -- if you're are [Jim] Matheson from Utah or you're from Oklahoma and you're a [Dan] Boren -- and he's leaving Congress - your life's getting difficult enough defending the East Coast and the left coast Democratic Party. They're too far left. Look at what happened in Arkansas last year. It's getting very, very hard to defend the behavior, politically, of the party. Now you throw on top of that immoral behavior, indiscrete behavior, embarrassing behavior, gross behavior like this, and you still have him in your midst. And that's my question to you. If you're Steny Hoyer, who does speak for the Blue Dogs, if you're Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker, who has to deal with them, don't you have to deal with the fact - you're losing any chance of getting back a 218 majority?

I want you to pick this up, Ben. This is, to me, the stakes here. If he stays, they never get the leadership back. They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want - but they don't like this kind of stuff at all. They're not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, "okay, we can live with this guy." Your thoughts, Ben? Isn't that the cutting edge of this?****

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 10, 2011, 10:32:22 AM
And then there were the various responses to Bill stuffing Monica with a cigar and getting blown in the Oval Office , , , and forcing himself on Paula Jones and the insults tow which she was subjected (ugly, trailer park and the like) and what was her name, the woman who came to him to plead for her husband's job only to get groped or something like that?

Well maybe we can say that Mrs. Weiner is rather attractive and Hillary could give a man frostbite?  :lol:

Meanwhile, the country heads off a fg cliff. 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on June 10, 2011, 10:47:16 AM

On Saturday, Former President Bill Clinton will officiate the wedding of Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner (pictured), according to anonymous sources who spoke to the Associated Press

Read more:

Boy, if having Bill Clinton perform your wedding ceremony doesn't bespeak a serious commitment to monogamy and fidelity, I don't know what does.....
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 10, 2011, 12:25:40 PM
"On Saturday, Former President Bill Clinton will officiate the wedding of Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner"

Unbelievable.  Reports were that Weiner called BJ Clinton to apologize.

With leaders like these guys....

They will probably all be getting bjs from the bride's maids.

Of course, so what.  :roll: That is their "personal" not "professional" behavior which is another 'distinction' the libs are all coming out with now.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on June 10, 2011, 12:39:51 PM
Morality and ethics are tired old concepts like America as a military and economic superpower. Vote dem!
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 10, 2011, 12:45:42 PM
"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"

I am certainly no scholar on the downfall of "empires" but isn't this one theory as to why Rome and other empires fell?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on June 10, 2011, 12:57:04 PM

Bill Clinton Anthony Weiner must resign?

by Datechguy | June 8th, 2011

Interesting stuff from Kirsten Powers:

This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power.
Let’s go into the wayback machine and re-write that sentence:

This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a President of the United States doing that to them because he holds so much power.
So my question to Kristin Powers and every other democrat calling on him to resign is this:
How come a congressman who never even had physical contact with these woman MUST resign but a President of the United states with a longer history, and actual oral sex with a woman in the White House not only didn’t have to resign but was defended by many of the same democrats expressing outrage now?
I think the question should be asked of every democrat who releases a statement on this case.
Update: We can start by asking Tim Kaine

“Lying is unforgivable. Lying publicly about something like this is unforgivable, and he should resign,” former DNC chief Tim Kaine said.
However apparently it’s ok if done by a sitting president under oath.
And then Harry Reid next:

“I know Congressman Weiner. I wish I could defend him, but I cannot,”
But you could defend Bill Clinton.
I suspect we could play this game all day.
Update: Ace of Spades picks up my theme

Yesterday, or the day before, I heard Kristen Powers claim for those who allege “it’s not about the sex, it’s about the lying,” it really is about the sex.
This is a Clinton-era go-to defense, that, as she says (and was said 100x in 1998-99), if you’re going to have illicit sex, of course you will also lie about it; the two things are bundled, a package deal. Few people have illicit sex and then tell the truth about it.
Hell, we’ve accepted this idea so much that Presidents are permitted to lie under oath about it.
So her point is that this is just about sex, then — the lying being a necessary consequence of the sex — and that this is nobody’s business, except his wife and family’s.
I haven’t hit the moral card very hard because I don’t know how I feel about this. I know David Vitter had all the holes punched in his Subway Frequent Whoremonger Card (get a free girl sandwich!), and he stood for reelection, and won, and I’m not terribly upset by that.
So I guess maybe the liberals are right — honestly, who knows, maybe the only thing that matters is, as Amanda Marcotte avers, whether they vote the right way.

Ace gets more hits in a week then I’ve picked up all time so perhaps people will start asking the Clinton Question.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2011, 08:16:21 AM
A crat is a crat is a crat is a crat.  Not surprising.  Weiner puts himself above all else.  The Dems put party above the country.
And the crats who vote all want the free benefits confiscated from taxpayers.  I don't know hwy people like my nephew bother to fight for our country.  Even our leaders are a bunch of selfish pigs.

Pelosi declines to call for Weiner's resignation
 ShareretweetEmailPrint– Fri Jun 10, 7:07 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Amid increasing calls for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says the decision should be up to the congressman and his New York constituents.

The former speaker said in San Francisco that she believes the decision should be made by "the individual member" and the people in his district.

Weiner, a seven-term Democrat, has admitted sending sexually explicit photos and messages over the Internet to a half dozen women over the past three years. Pelosi has asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate whether Weiner used any government resources.

Weiner told a newspaper Thursday he would not resign. At least nine House members and three senators said he should quit.

Two former Democratic Party chairmen also said he should resign.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Weiner did pick up support from Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who was censured by the House last year for ethics violations.

Rangel suggested that other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner.

Rangel said Weiner "wasn't going with prostitutes. He wasn't going out with little boys."

In a recent poll of registered voters in Weiner's district, 56 percent said he should stay in office while 33 percent said he should leave.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2011, 02:15:24 PM
I see Pelosi came out today with her opinion Weiner should resign.

FWIW whether or not it was a political desicion it really is the right thing to do.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on June 11, 2011, 02:23:00 PM
I see Pelosi came out today with her opinion Weiner should resign.

FWIW whether or not it was a political desicion it really is the right thing to do.

I hope he digs in and refuses to quit. He just might.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 11, 2011, 02:42:08 PM

You mean ala Charles Rangel or Bill Clinton?

There is a history of Democratic voters supporting these people.

They don't seem to care.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on June 11, 2011, 02:46:43 PM
No, they don't, but everyday he stays in office, he damages the dem brand for swing voters.
Title: Better than you
Post by: G M on June 13, 2011, 10:39:05 AM

Laws, like taxes are for the little people.
Title: Socialism!
Post by: G M on June 27, 2011, 09:45:42 AM

Laughing at the Contradictions of Socialism in America

Old Soviet-era jokes have become disturbingly applicable to the U.S.

March 5, 2009 - 12:35 am - by Oleg Atbashian

There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn’t work in translation — not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I still remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America “advances” back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become. Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have four more glorious years to make it happen.
One of my favorite political jokes is this:
The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:
 •There is full employment — yet no one is working.
 •No one is working — yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
 •The factory quotas are fulfilled — yet the stores have nothing to sell.
 •The stores have nothing to sell — yet people got all the stuff at home.
 •People got all the stuff at home — yet everyone is complaining.
 •Everyone is complaining — yet the voting is always unanimous.
It reads like a poem — only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it’s the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of “contradictory six-liners.” It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I’ll try anyway.
Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient “scientific” excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable — unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.
Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:
Economic justice:
 •America is capitalist and greedy — yet half of the population is subsidized.
 •Half of the population is subsidized — yet they think they are victims.
 •They think they are victims — yet their representatives run the government.
 •Their representatives run the government — yet the poor keep getting poorer.
 •The poor keep getting poorer — yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
 •They have things that people in other countries only dream about — yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Hollywood cliches:
 •Without capitalism there’d be no Hollywood — yet filmmakers hate capitalism.
 •Filmmakers hate capitalism — yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies.
 •They sue for unauthorized copying — yet on screen they teach us to share.
 •On screen they teach us to share — yet they keep their millions to themselves.
 •They keep their millions to themselves — yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
 •They revel in stories of American misery and depravity — yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism.
 •They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism — yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.
I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to “progressive” principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where “progressives” have assumed positions of leadership — education, news media, or the entertainment industry — contradictions become “historically inevitable.”
If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the “progressive” narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven’t there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why, if George W. Bush had removed our freedom of speech, was nobody ever arrested for saying anything? And if Obama has returned us our freedoms, why was a man harassed by police in Oklahoma for having an anti-Obama sign in his car? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the “Fairness Doctrine”?
After the number of “caring,” bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers. Which resulted in a bigger demand, which resulted in rising prices, which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans, which resulted in more pressure on the banks, which resulted in repackaging of bad loans, which resulted in a collapse of the banks, which resulted in a recession, which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs, which resulted in no further mortgage payments, which resulted in a financial disaster, which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas — who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan — becoming even poorer than they had been before the “progressives” in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.
As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they’re planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.
If that doesn’t fix the problem, there’s always the last resort of a liberal: blame capitalism. It’s always a win-win. Today government regulators may be blaming capitalism for the crisis caused by their dilettantish tampering with the economy, but who do you think they will credit after market forces resuscitate the economy?
Years ago, living in America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent “revolutionary” changes have turned reality on its head — which is what “revolution” literally means — I’m getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.

As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don’t become a nation of cowards — but watch who might be listening.
Let’s start with these few.
People’s power:
 •Liberals believe they’re advancing people’s power — yet they don’t believe people can do anything right without their guidance.
 •People can’t do anything right — yet the government bureaucracy can do everything.
 •The government bureaucracy can do everything — yet liberals don’t like it when the government takes control of their lives.
 •Liberals don’t like it when the government takes control of their lives — yet they vote for programs that increase people’s dependency on the government.
 •They vote for programs that increase people’s dependency on the government — yet they believe they’re advancing people’s power.
Bush and the media:
 •The media said Bush was dumb — yet he won over two intelligent Democrats.
 •He won over two intelligent Democrats — yet the media said his ratings were hopeless.
 •The media said his ratings were hopeless — yet the 2004 electoral map was red.
 •The 2004 electoral map was red — yet the media said his policies failed.
 •The media said his policies failed — yet the economy grew and the war was won.
 •The economy grew and the war was won — yet the media said we needed “change.”
Public education:
 •Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years — yet education is out of control.
 •Education is out of control — yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
 •Liberal teaching methods prevail — yet public schools are failing.
 •Public schools are failing — yet their funding keeps growing.
 •Their funding keeps growing — yet public schools are always underfunded.
 •Public schools are always underfunded — yet private schools yield better results for less.
 •Private schools yield better results for less — yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.
Foreign radicals*:
 •Foreign radicals hate America — yet they’re all wearing American blue jeans.
 •They’re all wearing American blue jeans — yet they disdain American culture.
 •They disdain American culture — yet they play American music, movies, and video games.
 •They play American music, movies, and video games — yet they call Americans uncivilized.
 •They call Americans uncivilized — yet they expect Americans to defend their civilization.
 •They expect Americans to defend their civilization — yet they think American capitalism is outdated.
 •They think American capitalism is outdated — yet most of their countries require American handouts.
(* Some Democrat politicians have similar opinions about their redneck constituents — yet they won’t shut up about how proud they are to have their mandate.)
Liberals and taxes:
 •Liberals want to help the poor — yet they won’t give money to charities.
 •They won’t give money to charities — yet they’d like the government to become a gigantic charity.
 •They’d like the government to become a gigantic charity — yet the money has to be taken from people by force.
 •The money has to be taken from people by force — yet they call it welfare.
 •They call it welfare — yet higher taxes make everyone poorer.
 •Higher taxes make everyone poorer — yet liberals find ways not to pay taxes.
 •Liberals find ways not to pay taxes — yet they get to be chosen to run the government.
Liberals and the CIA:
 •The CIA is a reactionary institution — yet its agents always leak information that helps liberals politically.
 •CIA agents always leak information that helps liberals politically — yet liberals say the CIA is clueless.
 •Liberals say the CIA is clueless — yet in their movies the CIA is running the world.
 •In their movies the CIA is running the world — yet they tell us that better intelligence could have prevented the war.
 •Better intelligence could have prevented the war — yet “enhanced interrogations” of captured terrorists must not be allowed.
Love and marriage:
 •Sex differences are the result of social conditioning — yet homosexuality is biological.
 •Homosexuality is biological — yet everybody is encouraged to experiment with it.
 •Everybody is encouraged to experiment with it — yet venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers’ expense.
 •Venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers’ expense — yet taxpayers have no right to impose standards since there are no moral absolutes.
 •There are no moral absolutes — yet gay marriage is an absolute must.
 •Gay marriage is an absolute must — yet family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression.
Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from Ukraine, currently lives in New York. He is the creator of, a satirical website where he writes under the name of Red Square. He is the author of recently published Shakedown Socialism.
Title: Amnesty International and Prince: Time to Party Like It’s 1999 BC!
Post by: G M on June 28, 2011, 06:45:06 AM

Amnesty International and Prince: Time to Party Like It’s 1999 BC!

June 27, 2011 - 2:48 pm - by Ed Driscoll

What it is about the Middle East that causes self-styled “Progressives” to suddenly mumble, “Nevermind,” ala Emily Litella?
First up, you’d think that Prince, who debuted on the national scene in the late 1970s as an androgynous, pushing the boundaries kind of guy, would want his fans in the Middle East to have the same freedom to experiment. So much for that idea:

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian’s Film&Music, Prince said: “It’s fun being in Islamic countries, to know there’s only one religion. There’s order. You wear a burqa. There’s no choice. People are happy with that.” When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied: “There are people who are unhappy with everything. There’s a dark side to everything.”
Prince embraced religion in 2001, when he became a Jehovah’s Witness. “I was anti-authoritarian but at the same time I was a loving tyrant,” he told the Guardian. “You can’t be both. I had to learn what authority was. That’s what the Bible teaches. The Bible is a study guide for social interaction.
“If I go to a place where I don’t feel stressed and there’s no car alarms and airplanes overhead, then you understand what noise pollution is. Noise is a society that has no God, that has no glue. [And thus the 53-year old musician sounds like every 53-year old parent within earshot of a sports arena that's booked Prince for a concert -- Ed] We can’t do what we want to do all the time. If you don’t have boundaries, what then?”
He’s got his. Those of you in the Middle East, you’re on your own. Rand Simberg notes how immediately appalling Prince’s language would sound if it were applied to the American South rather than the Islamic Middle East.
Next up, there’s Amnesty International, which in the mid-1980s, ran commercials full of Hollywood celebrities and rock stars offering toasts to “freedom.” I’m pretty sure I watched this one on MTV more than a few times back then, including during Live Aid, if I’m not mistaken. Look fast for the late Ron Silver halfway through the ad, 20 years before becoming a PJM contributor:
Freedom? Dude, put the collar back down on your polo shirt, take off the Wayfarers, and get your mind out of the 1980s:

If you need a refresher, Hamas conducted a raid (probably illegal, as terrorists never wear uniforms) and snuck across the border, attacked an Israeli outpost, and kidnapped Gilad Shalit.Wikipedia uses the word “capture.” Um, yeah. Like Bruno Hauptman “captured” the Lindbergh Baby.
He has been held illegally for five years.
Those who “captured” him are making threats and demands, like legal armies always do.

Shalit’s captors issued another demand to the Israelis, demanding that Israel release an additional 1,000 Palestinian prisoners (in addition to all female and young prisoners, as previously demanded) and end Israel’s incursions into Gaza.[38] Two days later, the captors issued a 24-hour ultimatum for meeting their demands, threatening unspecified consequences if Israel refused.[39] Hours after the ultimatum was issued, Israel officially rejected the demands, stating that: “there will be no negotiations to release prisoners”
So, of course Amnesty International must protest this and demand his release, right?

If a better example of the utter moral collapse of the human rights community exists, it would be hard to find. The statement is one of passionless brevity — just a few sentences long — and expresses no opinion on the standing of Hamas, or on its 2006 raid into Israel, or on the legitimacy of its goals and methods. Remarkably, it doesn’t even demand the release of Gilad Shalit. The most that this allegedly courageous and principled human rights community could bring itself to say to the terrorists of Hamas is that they should improve the conditions of Shalit’s imprisonment.

As Ace concludes, “If donating directly to Al Qaeda and Hamas feels too risky and too dirty to you, try us! We have Bono.”
Back in 2003, Steven Den Beste noted that Amnesty International “is demonstrating that when the cards are down, its soul is for sale.”
I’d say that for both AI and Prince, those transactions have now been concluded.
Title: But the left cares about the poor.....
Post by: G M on June 28, 2011, 01:35:27 PM
Title: Revenge?
Post by: G M on June 30, 2011, 04:34:31 PM
Title: Another feminist dem
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 09:10:51 AM

Report: Democrat Rep. David Wu admits sexual encounter with donor’s young daughter



By Michelle Malkin  •  July 23, 2011 12:13 AM

Wu-hoo! Hey, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi, I’m over here!
When last I wrote about the bizarre behavior of Democrat Rep. David Wu of Oregon, it was February of this year.
I said he needed a Democrat leadership intervention after he freaked out his staff, posed in the above costume obtained by Willamette Week, and engaged in other inexplicable antics. As I noted, Wu’s behavior has caused Capitol Hill concern dating back to 2003. But none of the swamp-draining Democrat leaders bothered to do anything about it. And Wu went on a national media tour asserting he can continue to hold office.
Now, this from the Oregonian:
Sources: Young woman accuses Oregon Rep. David Wu of aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.
When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.
The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.
One person who heard the voice mail described the woman as upset, breathing heavily and “distraught.”
In the voice mail, the young woman accused Wu of aggressive and unwanted sexual behavior, according to sources with direct knowledge of the message and its contents.
Reporters could not verify the young woman’s age. Notes on Facebook over the past 18 months indicate she graduated from high school in 2010. California records show she registered to vote in August.

RedState reviewed Wu’s unseemly history here, including this:

Allegation of assault on woman in 1970s in college shadow U.S. Rep. David Wu
This is an actual headline from an article in The Oregonian in October, 2004, on the eve of his reelection to a fourth term in Congress.
From the article:
David Wu, future Oregon congressman, and the woman later dated in their junior year. But that spring, in 1976, she broke things off. A few months later, an encounter occurred that neither wants to discuss.
That summer, the 21-year-old Wu was brought to the campus police annex after his ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex, according to Raoul K. Niemeyer, then a patrol commander who questioned him.
Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and his T-shirt was stretched out of shape, Niemeyer said.
Earlier, someone had interrupted a scuffle in the woman’s dorm room. A Stanford professor said the woman told him the next day that Wu had angrily attacked her. An assistant dean who counseled the woman for two months said that the woman called it attempted rape and that Wu used a pillow to muffle her screams.
Wu told police that what happened was consensual. “He said, ‘We just, I was with my girlfriend, and we just got a little carried away,’ ” Niemeyer remembered. After that, he said, Wu “clammed up.”
The woman declined to press charges. However, this episode has apparently been well known for a long while…
Geez. Does he need to get caught Tweeting lurid photos of his un-costumed package before Democrat leaders — in particular, Democrat women — step up and do something?
Hello, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Nancy Pelosi? Bueller? Bueller?
Update….You won’t believe this. Never mind. You will. News media misidentified Wu as a Republican.
On a related note: Anthony Weiner says he is cured.
Title: Re: Another feminist dem
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 09:20:42 AM

Report: Democrat Rep. David Wu admits sexual encounter with donor’s young daughter


**Good news! The Nat'l Organization for Women endorsed him!

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on July 24, 2011, 11:01:23 AM
A crat is a crat is a crat is a crat.  Not surprising.  Weiner puts himself above all else.  The Dems put party above the country.
And the crats who vote all want the free benefits confiscated from taxpayers.  I don't know hwy people like my nephew bother to fight for our country.  Even our leaders are a bunch of selfish pigs.

In my opinion, all this crap about Anthony Weiner being immoral for sending naked photos is a joke. These people treat US soldiers as political pawns. The level and degree of the politician's immorality is of biblical proportions. These people, in my opinion, republican and democrat, are as good as murderers. Weiner's photos are the least of their crimes.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 12:40:46 PM
Weiner wasn't criminally charged.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2011, 01:46:54 PM
CW:  Going after hypocritical leaders is a good thing.  So too is noting the hypocrisy of those who absolve them :wink:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on July 24, 2011, 01:49:58 PM
CW:  Going after hypocritical leaders is a good thing.  So too is noting the hypocrisy of those who absolve them :wink:

Haha, true.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on July 24, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
I'm no Obama basher. I didn't vote for him (or McCain) but now that he is in I really like his foreign policy and domestic terrorism policies when compared to Bush. I think he has done a lot of good when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence with them (as much as possible). I like that he bows to kings and doesn't target Arabs for searches in the airports. I get that most people prefer to honor the right hand over the left hand, to use a Taoist expression, but I think the way he is doing it seems wise.

Still, the whole Afghanistan thing really has me bothered. I wish that he would listen to his generals more rather than try to keep political promises over the use of troops.

Didn't they call Afghanistan the unconquerable land? Those people have whipped the crap out of everyone that has gone in there, and after having endured 10 years of our space age fire power, they held it together, wore us out, and we are in negotiations with them now. To make matters worse, Obama is pulling out a ton of men while leaving the rest in. Its crazy. I have friends that get deployed there periodically and it pisses me off that they are acting like half measures are good enough at this point.

The only thing I can guess is that this whole exercise in foreign war has just been to make certain people money. I'd sound like a conspiracy nut if I talked too much about who, but its the only explanation for how they did this.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 03:51:44 PM
"I'm no Obama basher. I didn't vote for him (or McCain) but now that he is in I really like his foreign policy and domestic terrorism policies when compared to Bush. I think he has done a lot of good when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence with them (as much as possible). I like that he bows to kings and doesn't target Arabs for searches in the airports. I get that most people prefer to honor the right hand over the left hand, to use a Taoist expression, but I think the way he is doing it seems wise."

Ok, I must admit I don't know how you parse the difference between Bush's and Obama's terrorism policies, except that Obama has been more aggressive targeting AQ with drone strikes in Pock-ee-stahn.You do know that the racial profiling policy for the USG came out under the Bush administration, right?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 (202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888

"It's wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing,  we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.''  -- President George W. Bush, Feb.  27, 2001

"This administration… has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history.  The President said it's wrong and we'll end it in America, and I subscribe to that.  Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement."  -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, Feb. 28, 2002

Defining the Problem: Racial Profiling Is Wrong and Will Not Be Tolerated Racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to our citizens that they are judged by the color of their skin and harms the criminal justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to effectively protect our communities.

America Has a Moral Obligation to Prohibit Racial Profiling.  Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our diverse democracy,  and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.   As Attorney General John Ashcroft said, racial profiling creates a "lose-lose" situation because it destroys the potential for underlying trust that "should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective. " The Overwhelming Majority of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Perform Their Jobs with Dedication, Fairness and Honor,  But Any Instance of Racial Profiling by a Few Damages Our Criminal Justice System.  The vast majority of federal law enforcement officers are hard-working public servants who perform a dangerous job with dedication, fairness and honor.  However, when law enforcement practices are perceived to be biased or unfair,  the general public, and especially minority communities, are less willing to trust and confide in officers, report crimes, be witnesses at trials, or serve on juries. Racial Profiling Is Discrimination, and It Taints the Entire Criminal Justice System. Racial profiling rests on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of other races or ethnicities. 2 Taking Steps to Ban Racial Profiling: Due to the Seriousness of Racial Profiling, the Justice Department Has Developed Guidelines to Make Clear that It Is Prohibited in Federal Law Enforcement President Bush Has Directed that Racial Profiling Be Formally Banned.  In his February 27, 2001, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared that racial profiling is Awrong and we will end it in America. @  He directed the Attorney General to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.  The Attorney General, in turn, instructed the Civil Rights Division to develop guidance for federal officials to ensure an end to racial profiling in federal law enforcement. The Bush Administration Is the First to Take Action to Ban Racial Profiling in Federal Law Enforcement.  The guidance has been sent to all federal law enforcement agencies and is effective immediately.  Federal agencies will review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance. The Guidance Requires More Restrictions on the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement than Does the Constitution.  The guidance in many cases imposes more restrictions on the use of race and ethnicity in federal law enforcement than the Constitution requires.  This guidance prohibits racial profiling in federal law enforcement practices without hindering the important work of our nation=s public safety officials, particularly the intensified anti-terrorism efforts precipitated by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Prohibiting Racial Profiling in Routine or Spontaneous Activities in Domestic Law Enforcement:  In making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on race and ethnicity if a specific suspect description exists.  This prohibition applies even where the use of race or ethnicity might otherwise be lawful. Routine Patrol Duties Must Be Carried Out Without Consideration of Race.  Federal law enforcement agencies and officers sometimes engage in law enforcement activities, such as traffic and foot patrols, that generally do not involve either the ongoing investigation of specific criminal activities or the prevention of catastrophic events or harm to the national security.  Rather, their activities are typified by spontaneous action in response to the activities of individuals whom they happen to encounter in the course of their patrols and about whom they have no information other than their observations.  These general enforcement responsibilities should be carried out without any consideration of race or ethnicity. Example :  While parked by the side of the highway, a federal officer notices that nearly all vehicles on the road are exceeding the posted speed limit.  Although each
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on July 24, 2011, 04:22:20 PM
Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard.

As far as the racial profiling thing, it was passed in 2001 I guess.

I don't have anything to quote you but I don't think they stopped racially profiling people then. I can't find anything about it quickly now, but Obama has definitly supported Bush's policy despite heavy right wing anger over it. That, and they were definately still racially profiling in airports just a few years ago.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 04:24:21 PM
"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on July 24, 2011, 05:21:42 PM
"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 

I was referring to your comment that he has been bombing the heck out of Pakistan.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on July 24, 2011, 05:33:06 PM
"Yeah, I now Obama has been more aggressive in that regard."

What makes you think that? 

I was referring to your comment that he has been bombing the heck out of Pakistan.

Ok, understood.
Title: another wealthy liberal who thinks taxes too low
Post by: ccp on August 01, 2011, 02:54:48 PM
Add this guy to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates who instead of writing a check of their own money to the treasury have felt it better to call for higher taxes for the "wealthy":

August 01, 2011
Matt Damon weighs in on the debt ceiling
Last week, Ben Affleck briefly became part of the conversation about the debt ceiling. And now his longtime buddy and fellow actor Matt Damon has weighed in on the debate.

“I’m so disgusted man. … I don’t know what you do in the face of that kind of intransigence. You know, so my heart does go out to the president. He is dealing with a lot,” Damon told video journalist Nicholas Ballasy on Saturday. The actor, who’s rocking a shaved head these days, was in Washington to take part in the Save Our Schools March.

Asked is he supports tax increases for the wealthy, Damon said, “Yes, the wealthy are paying less than they’ve paid in any time else, certainly in my lifetime. …It’s criminal that like, you know, so little is asked of people who are getting so much, I mean, I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes.”

Damon went on to call the tea party “completely intransigent" in the debt negotiations, explaining: "They are absolutely willing to drive it all off a cliff."

Posted by Caitlin McDevitt 05:32 PM
Title: Where have all the anti-war activists gone?
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 07:00:45 AM
**It's almost like it was a cynical partisan movement.

Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War

Record numbers of U.S. troops are dying under Obama, but the anti-war movement is nowhere to be found.

Ira Stoll | August 8, 2011


The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.
Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.
Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.
It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?
In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.
“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”
Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.
As for the press, a New York Times article on the helicopter downed over the weekend in Afghanistan included the sentence, “Although the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has steadily risen in the past year, with a 15 percent increase in the first half of 2011 over the same period last year, NATO deaths had been declining — decreasing nearly 20 percent in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2010.” Why compare it to 2010? Why not to 2009, or to 2008? A Chicago Tribune news article, by contrast, declared that the helicopter downing “comes at a time of growing unease about the increasingly unpopular and costly war.”
By the standards of American history, the deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, a mere fraction of those suffered in World War II or the Civil War or even Vietnam or Korea. And there are measures of success or failure in war other than American casualties. It doesn’t only matter how many Americans die; it also matters how many enemy soldiers die, and whether America is achieving its war aims.
The approaching tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a sober time to weigh these issues for those of us New Yorkers and other Americans who supported the wars in part out of hope that they would decrease the chances of major terrorist attacks here at home. Mr. Obama can make the case here, as he does with the economy, that he is merely cleaning up and winding down the bad situation he was left by his predecessor. With the war as with the economy though, eventually even Mr. Obama will have to take ownership, or have it assigned to him by the voters.
Mr. Stoll is editor of and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2011, 07:48:35 AM
To be precise here, Baraq did run and get elected on Afpakia being "the right war"-- which was a major strand in the line of thoughts against Bush.  Yes his concept of how to wage it is incoherent (Vital we win, but we are going to start leaving in 18 months) but the logic of his mini-Surge inherently is to bring it to the enemy much more than the also not very coherent strategy from Bush.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 08:19:17 AM
Just pointing out the "anti-war" movement is really the "Anti-American/Pro-America's enemies" movement.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2011, 08:28:17 AM
We agree!
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on August 10, 2011, 09:49:24 AM
Why, if one opposes a particular war, or the foreign policy of our President,  believing that it's not in America's best interest, is
that being "Anti-American"?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2011, 10:01:23 AM
That's not the point being made.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on August 10, 2011, 10:12:07 AM
What is the point?  Or maybe this is a new point/question.  It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 10:35:02 AM
What is the point?  Or maybe this is a new point/question.  It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?

You might be able to make that argument if the "anti-war" movement was active now, but it's not.

It's just like the "anti-war" activists that claimed to care so much for the Vietnamese people, until the communists overran the south (After the dems cut all support to them) and the mass graves and re-education camps went into action without so much as a whimper of protest from the left.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on August 10, 2011, 10:47:46 AM
I concede your point, why the anit-war movement is not active now I don't know, although the fact we are winding down both wars and pulling out troops
probably has a lot to do with it.

But my question is a generic one.  Not only pertinent to this week or even this war.

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"

For example I would argue that we never should have gone into Afghanistan and now that we are there, it's time to get out.  History shows us this is a losing battle.  Now you can disagree, but my point is that we are both Pro-American's we just have a different opinion.  Nothing wrong with that.

The same argument or question can be applied to economic matters.  You strongly disagree with Obama's policies.  Me? I'm not sure.  Good people in Congress disagree on both sides.  But I don't think anyone in the discussion is any less Pro-American; they just have different opinions on how to solve the problem.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 10:48:50 AM

Where were the protests?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on August 10, 2011, 10:53:43 AM
You seem to be getting off topic.  It's a simple question; can you answer it?

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
Again JDN, you can see who drapes themselves in "anti-war" guises that then drop them when it's no longer useful.

Remember when we had to pull out of Iraq ASAP? Remember when Harry Reid stated that the war was lost? Remember the undercutting of the war effort from president Downgrade when he was running for office? Remember how president Downgrade decried the airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Remember how crucial it was that Gitmo be closed down? Where are the lefty protesters in orange jumpsuits now?

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
You seem to be getting off topic.  It's a simple question; can you answer it?

"It seems to me that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American.  Agreed?"

Theoretically? Sure. In reality, no.

Just like the "Anti-war" movement in the 60's/70's was really just pro-communist. Once the communists won, the "anti-war" mission was accomplished.
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 11:05:40 AM

The Vietnam War had a profound and lasting impact on the American psyche. Beginning in the 1960s, the New Left (and the anti-war movement that it led) seized upon U.S. involvement in the war as a justification for smearing the country as an imperialist, racist aggressor. The left's relentless assault upon American traditions, values, and motives imbued the nation's consciousness with a deep sense of guilt and shame that ultimately became manifest in the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome," whose hallmark was America's subsequent reluctance to intervene militarily in foreign affairs -- particularly where the conflict was likely to be protracted and hard-fought.

New Leftists organized the first "anti-war" demonstration in the U.S. in 1962. One prominent New Leftist reflects on the objectives that he and his ideological comrades pursued at that time:

"Let me make this perfectly clear: those of us who inspired and then led the anti-war movement did not want merely to stop the killing, as so many veterans of those domestic battles now claim. We wanted the communists to win. It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Many of these New Leftists were communists and socialists who believed that Marxist economic planning was the most rational means of bringing prosperity to the world. At the same time, they were convinced that America, however amenable to reform in the past, was set on a course that would make it increasingly rigid, repressive, and ultimately fascist; that the United States was the leviathan of a global imperialist system; and that its ruling class could only grow more reactionary and repressive. This expectation was the basis of the New Left's political view of the world generally and of its strategy of opposition to America's war in Vietnam in particular.

As leftists' opposition to the war grew more passionate (and violent) and their prophecies of impending fascism more intense, they deliberately crossed the line of legitimate dissent and abused every First Amendment privilege and right granted them as Americans. They spat on the flag, broke the law, denigrated and disrupted the institutions of government and education, and gave comfort and aid (even revealing classified secrets) to the enemy. Some of them provided a protective propaganda shield for Hanoi's communist regime while it tortured American servicemen; others engaged in violent sabotage against the war effort. The erosion of American pride and self-confidence continued inexorably.

The leftist agitators began as a peripheral minority, but as the war dragged on without an end in sight, other people joined them: first in thousands and then in tens of thousands, swelling their ranks until finally they reached the conscience of the nation. This trend was propelled,in large measure, by the media. For example, after the 1968 Tet Offensive -- a decisive American victory militarily -- major figures in the American press depicted Tet instead as an emblem of a military quagmire from which the U.S. needed to extract itself as quickly as possible. "It seems now more certain than ever," the revered newsman Walter Cronkite told his audience in a de facto editorial, "that the bloody experience of Vietnam is a stalemate" and that the war was "unwinnable." Cronkite's statement, and his call for U.S. withdrawal, helped turn public opinion against the war. It also demoralized American troops and President Johnson. The nation simply lost its will to continue the war and withdrew.

America not only withdrew its forces from Vietnam, as the left had said it would never do, but also from Laos and Cambodia and, ultimately, from its role as guardian of the international status quo. But far from increasing the freedom and well-being of Third World nations, as the left had predicted, America's withdrawal resulted in an international power vacuum that was quickly filled by the armies of Russia, Cuba, and the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. After U.S. funding to Vietnam and Cambodia was terminated in January 1975, the regimes of both countries were quickly overrun by the Communists, who would go on to slaughter some 2.5 million Indochinese peasants.

These events confronted leftists with a supreme irony: the nation they had believed to be governed by corporate interests, a fountainhead of world reaction, was halted in mid-course by its conscience-stricken and morally aroused populace. Meanwhile, the forces the left had identified with progress, once freed from the grip of U.S. "imperialism," revealed themselves to be oppressive, predatory, and unspeakably ruthless. But the left failed to acknowledge or learn from these Marxist atrocities, adhering instead to the narrative of a racist, imperialist America intruding on the internal affairs of other nations. Thus did the Vietnam Syndrome gain its foothold in the American psyche.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. was involved in a handful of military incursions (including, most famously, the Gulf War of 1991), but none of these ever threatened to drag on interminably or to cause large numbers of American casualties.

The Vietnam Syndrome reasserted itself post-9/11, however, when the U.S., in its first protracted battle since Vietnam, engaged a bloodthirsty Islamist enemy in the Middle East. Once again, the left, as it had done in the Sixties, placed the blame for the conflict squarely on America's shoulders. Once again, the left impugned America's motives for waging the war -- claiming that the nation was chiefly interested in establishing worldwide hegemony and usurping the lucrative oil fields of Iraq. Once again, the left spotlighted, and greatly exaggerated, instances of U.S. transgressions in the war -- most notable were the charges of abuse and torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and the charge of mass murder in Haditha. Once again, the media was complicit in misrepresenting, overstating, and even fabricating the nature of these alleged transgressions. Once again, the U.S. fought this war with self-imposed restraint, as evidenced by the restrictive rules-of-engagement to which its troops were required to adhere. And once again, the constant drumbeat of negativity by leftists in politics and the press steadily eroded the American people's support for the war.

Parts of this summary are adapted from "My Vietnam Lessons," by David Horowitz (1985). 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on August 10, 2011, 11:18:07 AM
"It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Substitute Afganistan if you like; of course the other side "wins".  But what do they "win"?

Is America truly worse off because we ended the Vietnam war?  I don't think so.  We never should have been there in the first place.

Did atrocities happen.  Probably.  But then atrocities happen world wide every year.  Are we as a nation to always get involved?  Send troops? 
I suggest no.  We have enough problems here at home to worry about.

But you answered my question, you agreed, albeit theoretically, "that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American."

Thank you.  That was my point.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 11:27:22 AM
"It is true that some of us may have said we only wanted the United States to get out of Vietnam, but we understood that this meant the communists would win. 'Bring the troops home' was our slogan; the fall of Saigon was the result."

Substitute Afganistan if you like; of course the other side "wins".  But what do they "win"?

Is America truly worse off because we ended the Vietnam war?  I don't think so.  We never should have been there in the first place.

**You might have heard of this thing called the "Cold War", where we were in a global struggle to preserve human freedom? Should we have prevented Stalin from invading Japan? Should we have been there? Should we have preserved South Korea, or should all of Korea enjoy the benevolent leadership of the Kim dynasty? Should we defend Japan now from China? Why is that our problem?

Did atrocities happen.  Probably.  But then atrocities happen world wide every year.  Are we as a nation to always get involved?  Send troops? 
I suggest no.  We have enough problems here at home to worry about.

**Yeah, if China wants to invade Japan, it's not our problem. Time to end the defense treaty and pull out our troops. We can use them to secure our border w/ Mexico.

But you answered my question, you agreed, albeit theoretically, "that one can be a member of the anti-war movement, i.e. strongly oppose and protest our involvement in a particular war, for example Iraq or Afghanistan and/or the President's foreign policy, yet at the same time be considered very Pro-American."

Thank you.  That was my point.

Title: Let China "Finland-ize" Japan
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 11:35:01 AM
Why is that our problem? We've got our own problems here at home, right JDN.

Without our protection, Japan will have no choice but adjust to the growing power of China and make the appropriate agreements. They didn't need all those territorial waters anyway. Not my problem, right?
Title: Remember when the left cared about the Nat'l debt?
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 12:09:19 PM

Title: A short history of the Vietnam era anti-war movement
Post by: G M on August 10, 2011, 07:51:45 PM
Baby boomer anti-war movement: "War is bad for children and other living things. We care about the Vietnamese people.

Narrator: The US has withdrawn it's troops and cut off aid to South Vietnam. Saigon falls and America's allies are killed and tortured by the victorious communists.

Baby boomer anti-war movement: Oh look, Disco, leisure suits and cocaine!

The End
Title: Left can't run against Obama because of race - Eleanor Clift
Post by: DougMacG on August 12, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Jimmy Carter faced a challenge from within his own party from Teddy Kennedy.

Eleanor Clift: "The difference now there is no Kennedy heir apparent figure on the horizon, and we’re talking about the first African-American occupant of the White House in a party identified with civil rights."

African-descendant perhaps, but I thought we just determined that he was a Hawaiian-American, more recently an Illinoisan-American.  What does any of that have to do with dissatisfied Democrats not running against him in primaries?

Assume for a second that Obama wins in 2012, but loses the House again and the Senate too this time, and governs about like he is now.  What kind of shape does he leave his party in (much less his country) coming into the next cycle?  His VP will be 74, Hillary 69.
Title: Four. More. Wars!
Post by: G M on August 20, 2011, 01:52:01 PM

President McCain is clearly a warmonger
posted at 4:00 pm on August 20, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

I sure wish we had elected that Obama guy back in 2008. If we had, we wouldn’t be looking at staying in Iraq even longer. Obama would have – at a minimum – gotten out of Iraq on the same schedule that the warmonger Bush had set up.
Of course, there’s still the matter of Afghanistan. If we had elected Barack Obama, I can assure you that he would have set up a firm plan to begin a major draw-down of our forces by this year and gotten the rest out in short order. But not President McCain! Oh, no! We just found out this weekend that he’s close to signing an agreement to keep not only training details, but special forces and air power in country until… are you ready for this? Until 2024.
And as far as the rest of the world goes, I still fondly recall candidate Obama’s spot on criticism of the way President Bush launched wars in a willy-nilly fashion, ignored the War Powers Act and ignored the powers of Congress, as well as the wishes of the American people. Why couldn’t we have elected that guy? Instead, we watched as President McCain launched an attack on yet another nation – Libya – sneering out of one side of his face that we would only be there for days. Right, Mr. President. It’s been nearly 200 of them so far.
Meanwhile, the warmonger McCain is already looking at the possibility of even further commitment of American troops in places ranging from Somalia to who-knows-where next? If we keep going at this rate we’re going to be in five or six wars by the time McCain is up for a second term. Are you going to stand for this? I know I’m not.
That’s why I’m calling on all good Democrats and progressives to continue the efforts which have been underway since 2003. Take to the streets with your signs and your bullhorns! In 2004 there were more than a million of you in Manhattan shaking the very pavement with your cries for peace. And this is no time to slack off in your efforts.
So I’ll meet you all in Times Square tomorrow morning for the massive protest march against President McCain and his endless wars. And I’ll bring the donuts. See you there!
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left - Ezra Klein, Clueless
Post by: DougMacG on August 23, 2011, 12:46:56 PM
This could fall under media but the question posed is perplexing the left.  Ezra Klein, a 20-something year old 'whiz kid' is the Washington Post's answer to the demand for more leftists in main media opinion writing.  His column yesterday: "What could Obama have done?"  His answer is basically, I have no clue.

"But I’ve never been able to come up with a realistic scenario in which a lot more got done, the economy is in much better shape, and the president is dramatically more popular today. Anything that even comes close is really a counterfactual of what the chairman of the Federal Reserve could have done, and I’m not confident that I understand Bernanke’s constraints nor that a more massive intervention on the part of the Fed would have been the cure-all some suggest.

Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done. But the administration hasn’t able to get unemployment under control — perhaps it couldn’t have gotten unemployment under control — and so all of that has not been nearly enough.

But perhaps I’m missing something obvious." - Ezra Klein, Washington Post 8/22/2011
Yes you are missing something (plural) obvious, namely how a private economy works.  First, your timeframe is wrong.  Obama burst on the scene as a surprise star speaker at the Dem convention, Aug 2004  When he said, "Harry, I have a gift", he meant a pied piper like gift of oratory and being able to say nearly nothing and sound like oceans have been moved.  He did not purport to know any special knowledge about how to turn around in a positive way an economy that was already running on all cylinders.  The question is, with all his rising star influence in the new majority congress, what policies should he have advocating and leading with as they campaigned for and took the majority in Nov 2006/Jan 2007.  They cam in promising anti-growth economics - and got it.

The answer is something like what just came out of an Arthur Laffer advice column to him just posted recently:

 “Reaganomics would fix any economy that’s in the doldrums,” Laffer said. “It’s not a magic sauce, it’s common sense.

“You’ve got to get rid of all federal taxes in the extreme and replace them with a low-rate flat tax on business net sales, and on personal unadjusted gross income. That’s number one.

“Number two, you have to have spending restraint. Government spending causes unemployment, it does not cure unemployment.

“Number three, you need sound money. Ben Bernanke is running the least sound monetary policy I’ve ever heard of," Laffer said.

“Number four you need regulations, but you don’t need those regulations to go beyond the purpose at hand and create collateral damage. The regulatory policies are really way off here.

“And lastly you need free trade," Laffer said. "Foreigners produce some things better than we do and we produce some things better than foreigners. It would be foolish in the extreme if we didn’t sell them those things we produce better than they do in exchange for those things they produce better than we do.”

He moved in the opposite direction instead and got the opposite results.  Now would be another time that he could try what has already been proven to work.

All the components need to be done at once.  Instead, none of the ideas are even on the table for the after Labor Day speech.
Title: Erza Klein started the Jornolist
Post by: ccp on August 24, 2011, 10:32:30 AM

This is the guy who according to Wikepedia started the Journolist which according to Wikepedia he reports to have disbanded (though we know that is obviously not true and they just keep a lower profile).  See the portion I have highlighted between the stars below:

Ezra Klein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ezra Klein

Klein on Halloween, 2008
Born May 9, 1984 (1984-05-09) (age 27)
Irvine, California
Nationality American
Education B.A., Political Science
Alma mater UCLA
Occupation Journalist and Political pundit
Employer Washington Post, MSNBC, Bloomberg
Ezra Klein - Washington Post
Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, columnist for Bloomberg, a columnist for Newsweek, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Career
2.1 Health care debate
2.2 JournoList
3 Personal life
4 Awards
5 Notes
6 External links

[edit] Early life
Klein was born and raised in Irvine, California, and went to school at University High School. He attended the University of California, Santa Cruz but later transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, from which he graduated in 2005 with a B.A. in political science. While at UCLA, he applied to write for the Daily Bruin but was rejected.[2]

Klein is a middle child,[2] raised in a Jewish family, though today, he identifies as a devout agnostic.[3] His father is a math professor, his mother an artist.[2]

[edit] Career
Klein started his first blog in February 2003.[4] He soon joined with Matt Singer, and the name was changed to "Klein/Singer: Political Consulting on the Cheap." In June 2003, he moved to the blog "Not Geniuses" along with Matt Singer, Ryan J. Davis, and Joe Rospars.[5]

Following "Not Geniuses," Klein partnered with Jesse Taylor at Pandagon. This partnership helped Klein gain even more visibility, leading to his eventual founding of his blog "Ezra Klein."[6]

Besides his online contributions, Klein worked on Howard Dean's primary campaign in Vermont in 2003, and interned for the Washington Monthly in Washington, D.C. in 2004. "I used to have political aspirations," said Klein. " the sense of getting my name on a ballot and promising Iowans more ethanol subsidies than they could handle. But over time, I found that I enjoy writing far more. More to the point, I think that the creation of a media environment that can sustain and propel progressivism is more important than any single elected official. I'd trade a liberal O'Reilly (or Limbaugh!) for 5, 10 congressmen. The media is as effective and important an agent for change as the legislative bodies, and I think it's where I'm happiest and most effective."[7]

In 2003, he and Markos Moulitsas were two of the earliest bloggers to report from a political convention, that of the California State Democratic Party.[8] In 2006, Klein was one of several writers pseudonymously flamed by The New Republic writer Lee Siegel (posting as a sock puppet called sprezzatura).[9]

On December 10, 2007, Klein moved his blog full time to the American Prospect.[10]

Klein's prolific blogging caught the attention of Steve Pearlstein, the Washington Post's veteran business columnist. A friend referred him to Klein's work in the American Prospect. "I was blown away by how good he was—how much the kid wrote—on so many subjects," Pearlstein said. Pearlstein sent samples of Klein's work to managing editor Raju Narisetti. A few weeks after he heard from Pearlstein, Post foreign correspondent John Pomfret asked Klein to have lunch with him and financial editor Sandy Sugawara. Narisetti quickly hired Klein to be the Post’s first pure blogger on politics and economics.[2] On May 18, 2009, he began writing at the newspaper.[11]

His writing interests include health policy, the labor movement, electoral politics and food.[12] He writes a primer on policy called "Wonkbook," which is delivered by e-mail and on his blog each morning.

Klein frequently provides political commentary on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show and Hardball with Chris Matthews. He is a former contributor to the now-cancelled Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

In May 2011 when it launched, Klein became a columnist for Bloomberg View in addition to his work at The Washington Post and MSNBC.[13]

[edit] Health care debate
In December 2009, Klein wrote an article in the Washington Post that because Senator Joe Lieberman was motivated to oppose health care legislation in part out of resentment at liberals for being defeated in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Primary, it meant that Lieberman was "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score".[14] Klein based his estimate off of an Urban Institute report that estimated that 22,000 people died in 2006 because they lacked health-care insurance.[15] This article was criticized by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, who called it a "silly claim."[16] Charles Lane, also of the Washington Post, described Klein's article as an "outrageous smear". But EJ Dionne, also of the Washington Post, agreed with Klein's claim, saying that "Klein is right that there is not a shred of principle in Lieberman's opposition."[17] Klein later said he regretted the phrasing[18] and his position is that despite universal coverage, the social determinants of health are still powerful predictors that, on average, ensure the lower socioeconomic classes die sooner than those with more income and education.[19][20]

[edit] JournoList
Main article: JournoList

******In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called "JournoList" for discussing politics and the news media. The forum's membership was controlled by Klein and limited to "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics."[21] Posts within JournoList were intended only to be made and read by its members.[22] Klein defended the forum saying that it "[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions". JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein added that the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.[21]

The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus.[23] However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article was published on Politico that detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership.[21] The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its overall purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.[24]

Members of JournoList included, among others: Ezra Klein, Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein (no relation to Ezra Klein), Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.

On June 25, 2010, Ezra Klein announced in his Washington Post blog that he would be terminating the Journolist group. This decision was instigated by fellow blogger Dave Weigel's resignation from the Post following the public exposure of several of his Journolist emails about conservative media figures.[25][26]*****

Klein had justified excluding conservative Republicans from participation as "not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology".[27]

[edit] Personal life
Klein is engaged to Annie Lowrey, an economics reporter at Slate.[28]

[edit] Awards
2007 The Hillman Prize, for "Tapped", The American Prospect.
[edit] Notes
^ The American Prospect political magazine.
^ a b c d Jaffe, Harry (2010-03-04). "Post Watch: Whiz Kid on the block". The Washingtonian. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ "Ezra Klein: Religion Archives". Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
^ Ezra K blog.
^ Not Geniuses blog.
^ Ezra Klein blog.
^ "A Conversation With Political Blogger Ezra Klein of Pandagon". 2004-11-02. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ Weiss, Joanna (May 10, 2004). "Blogs colliding with traditional media: Convention credentials expected for Web logs". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-01-12. [dead link]
^ Carr, David (2006-09-11). "A Comeback Overshadowed by a Blog". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-12. 
^ Goodbye post at Klein's old blog
^ Introductory post at the Washington Post
^ "Down with the GVP!". Washington Post. 2010-04-07. Retrieved 2011-01-30. 
^ Hagey, Keach (April 29, 2011). "Bloomberg View reveals columnists, editorial board". Retrieved August 6, 2011. 
^ "Joe Lieberman: Let's not make a deal!". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-03. 
^ Dorn, Stan. Uninsured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality. Urban Institute.
^ Jonah Goldberg (2009-12-15). "Lieberman Loves Death More than Ezra Klein Loves Life". The Corner. National Review Online. Retrieved 2010-07-29. 
^ "The public option died last summer". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-03. 
^ "Washington's Brat Pack Masters Media". The New York Times. 2010-03-25. Retrieved 2011-03-31. 
^ Carney, Timothy (2011-02-28) Turns out ObamaCare might not save hundreds of thousands of lives, Washington Examiner
^ Ezra Klein (February 28, 2011). "Health care doesn't keep people healthy -- even in Canada" The Washington Post Accessed July 14, 2011.
^ a b c Michael Calderone (2009-03-17). "JournoList: Inside the echo chamber". The Politico. Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ JournoList Google Groups.
^ Mickey Kaus (2007-07-27). "Educating Ezra Klein". Slate (magazine). Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ Mickey Kaus (2009-03-26). "JournoList Revealed! Inside the Secret Liberal Media Email Cabal". Slate (magazine). Retrieved 2009-03-30. 
^ Klein, Ezra (June 25, 2010). "On Journolist, and Dave Weigel". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 25, 2010. 
^ Keach Hagey, "David Weigel quits – and a debate begins,, June 25, 2010. Retrieved 6-27-2010.
^ "EzraKlein Archive". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2010-07-29. 
^ Klein, Ezra (2010-11-03). "Reconciliation -- and more". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-11-04. 
[edit] External links
 Biography portal
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein's blog at
The American Prospect Ezra Klein page and writings
Ezra Klein's old blog at The American Prospect magazine
Ezra Klein's articles and essays published in various media
Video conversations and debates involving Ezra Klein on
Name Klein, Ezra
Alternative names 
Short description 
Date of birth 1984-05-09
Place of birth Irvine, California
Date of death 
Place of death 

Retrieved from ""
View page ratingsRate this pageRate this page
Page ratings
What's this?Current average ratings.Trustworthy
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
I have a relevant college/university degreeIt is part of my professionIt is a deep personal passionThe source of my knowledge is not listed here I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)
We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your address with anyone. (Privacy policy)Submit ratings
 Saved successfullyYour ratings have not been submitted yetYour ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occured. Please try again later.Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
Start survey
Maybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.
Create an account
orLog in
Maybe later
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
Edit this page
Maybe later
Categories: 1984 births | American bloggers | Video bloggers | American journalists | American political writers | American Jews | Jewish agnostics | American agnostics | The Washington Post people | Newsweek people | Living people | Biography articles of living people | People from Irvine, California | University of California, Los Angeles alumni
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from October 2010 | Articles with hCards | Persondata templates without short description parameter
Title: congnitive dissonance of the left: Jonathon Alter - clueless
Post by: DougMacG on August 26, 2011, 08:31:00 AM
Jonathon Alters writes, in essence, what more could he have done, with a school kid title of "You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It".

In a nutshell, all that he did was is the wrong direction.  Question is, what less (harm) could he have done?

The right answer IMHO is (again) streamline the tax system to remove as much of the disincentives to produce as possible while funding essential government functions, restrain public spending, open up the production of abundant energy, more progress across the globe on free trade and protect the US$.  Hard to think of one Obama initiative that wasn't in the opposite direction.

Title: Doug: Narcissism is the key
Post by: ccp on August 26, 2011, 09:03:58 AM
"clueless" is not the only word.

Alter is one of the Jewish progressives who sit in their little narcisstic world thinking they are better, smarter, more all knowing than those that cling to guns and religion.  They think because they come out publically to champion the poor this somehow makes them better.  It is not just a religious thing wherein Judaism teaches to help the poor.  It is as had been clued to me by a post on this board - NARCISSM.   These sort of Jews (and non-Jewish liberals as well) really do think they are better, smarter and more clever because they are for the Democrat party.  Yet many if not most spend their entire lives working to get better of financially.

Apart from their outrageous hypocracy, they refuse to admit their political theories of redistribution, equal wealth to all, government enforcement of this, socialism, communism and the rest of it is actually going to make things worse.  History proves it makes things worse.  They think they are levelling the playing field for all when instead they are creating power for those few elites who pretend to know what is best for all.

It is more precisely this all knowing all paternalitstic attitude and condescention that turns the world off to Jews IMHO.  For all their pretending to lose sleep over the poor (until their pocketbooks are threatened - not the "taxpayers") - just to the contrary - intead of us being appreciated and loved for our (Jewish) concern for the downtrodden, the underdog if you will - Jews are the most despised disliked and beaten down group in history.  Look at Soros.  He himself stated he has "inadvertantly" served to propogate the idea that Jews run the world.  Well, he has certainly used every ounce of his financial power and political connections that confers to do just that.

So Jonathan ALter thinks because he votes as a Democrat we/he will be loved?

He certainly loves himself.  Narcissim IS the word that explains it to me.  It hit me like a club a few weeks ago.  That is the key that unlocks the mystery behind why Jews are so liberal.  It makes them think they are therefore better than everyone else.  That is it.   The answer. 

Quite the contrary.  We are resented.  Who the hell do we think we are telling what is best for everyone and forcing it all on us with big government!

I am proud of being Jewish yet I am disgusted by this narcissistic group within our ranks. 
Title: cognitive dissonance of the left - Krugman blames Perry for today's Fed desicion
Post by: DougMacG on August 26, 2011, 09:17:41 AM
Krugman with his Nobel peace prize doesn't need to use the logic or charts of Grannis to predict no new 'help' from the Fed.  He blames it on political intimidation from Rick Perry.
"Why don’t I expect much from Mr. Bernanke? In two words: Rick Perry.
O.K., I don’t mean that Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, is personally standing in the way of effective monetary policy. Not yet, anyway. Instead, I’m using Mr. Perry — who has famously threatened Mr. Bernanke with dire personal consequences if he pursues expansionary monetary policy before the 2012 election — as a symbol of the political intimidation that is killing our last remaining hope for economic recovery. "
"...our last remaining hope for economic recovery" - is to destroy our currency?  This is from the lead economic opinion maker on the left?  Does the Nobel committee have no recall procedure??

If you are out of new ideas after two and half years and everything you tried failed, how about just give back the keys.
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Tax vs. Charity
Post by: DougMacG on August 26, 2011, 10:01:56 AM
CCP, Interesting points.  I would add that line of liberal thinking is not limited to Jewish opinion leaders.  I'm out of my area to talk religion but it seems to me that the foundations of Christianity are the same.  Helping the poor is a wonderful theme - always on display in church.  We are merely arguing politically over which system helps them best.  I have not yet found in the Bible where they measure the good you do in terms of coercive measures you impose on other people's work and money, or anything that supports the erosion of responsible personal freedoms.  More specifically I believe it warns (commands) against the worship of these other Gods, like sacred govt entitlement programs.

1 in 2 children in America are born into food stamps.  The real needy among us, those families who truly are incapable of providing life's basics for themselves in a benevolent, free society, are an important but very small proportion.  Not 50% or anywhere near that.  We are doing a myriad of things to ourselves on all fronts to make basic, safe, healthy living so enormously and unnecessarily expensive that half the people can't afford it.  (Stop doing those things!) For those who are truly in need of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, transportation, energy assistance etc etc, are they really best helped by totally blind, unaccountable government programs run from the furthest point away, based on coercive, baseline-expansion-based, runaway funding, or are they better administered on a personal level in the neighborhoods where people might actually know them and know the families, and funded by good and generous people living closer to them, on a voluntary, help your neighbor basis.

Even if you come down on the government side of that argument, why have it run from the furthest away point and why not get it completely out of the tax code and over to the spending side of the ledger.

Like CCP says, whether we see them as elitist or narscissist, decentralized solutions closer to home do not meet their needs for attention and accomplishment.  OTOH, the failures of their programs may leave us broke but more importantly (to the elitists/narsisscists) failure leaves them clueless and frustrated.  Still saying blame George Bush ("it was worse than we thought") at this 3rd/5th year point is really starting to sound like needing therapy.  George Bush has had no new domestic policy initiatives since the election of November 2006 and the left had all the legislative votes they needed for long enough to repeal anything at all that they wanted. 

The only thing they accomplished was answering their own question, what could be worse than George Bush and the reckless spending Republicans of the last decade.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on August 26, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
Thanks for your response.

"the foundations of Christianity are the same.  Helping the poor is a wonderful theme - always on display in church.  We are merely arguing politically over which system helps them best.  I have not yet found in the Bible where they measure the good you do in terms of coercive measures you impose on other people's work and money, or anything that supports the erosion of responsible personal freedoms.  More specifically I believe it warns (commands) against the worship of these other Gods, like sacred govt entitlement programs.

Excellent points.  What is moral about forcing some to pay for others or for those others to sit back and demand that the some pay for them?

It seems it is no longer hallowed to speak about God.  We can no longer sing the national enthem.  The pedge of allegence is banned.  No prayer in school.  God and anything public must be banned.  No clergy at 9/11.  Yet say anything bad about Social Security or Medicare and those on those doles howl like warewolves.  These have become the (false) Gods/idols as you suggest.

They are now the hollowed framework or ground of America.

Everyone is entitled to not just  health care whether they can or will pay for it or not, but school, education, food, housing, retirement, pensions, vacation, travel time, unemployment, disability for anything, free internet. 

But it doesn't work when the numbers of people footing the bills for all this are becoming less and less.

Liberals will never give in.  I  am guessing it is too late for change without a real disaster.  The disaster may not be around the corner but it is inevitable because of the malignant growth and persistance of progressive ideology. 

For example, do away with mother or father and use only "parent".  Why not get do away with male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, muslim, jew, christian, hindu, rich poor, american french, arab, indian, chinese.  We should all be the same.  Not fat, not skinny, not tall.  Just people.  "individual" - my point is there can be no end to this.

Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Paul Krugman falsehoods continued
Post by: DougMacG on August 26, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
CCP, Step one in helping the poor should be to not let yourself be poor, and step two should be to go out personally and help someone in true need.
Krugman this week repeats the mantra that WWII was the jobs program that ended the Great Depression.  Strange then that economic growth was 17% the year BEFORE spending US government money on the war effort.

a) Hoover was an economic meddler, Hoover increased federal spending by 50%, far from his revised legacy of a laissez faire administration, b) FDR's big programs worsened our problems in the 30s.  WPA funding peaked in 1938 - unemployment was 19% in 1939.   c) It was actually the winding down of New Deal programs and regulations*, significant WPA direction, funding and rules changes in 1940, that led to 17% growth in the year PRIOR to America being attacked in Pearl Harbor.


Other views?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2011, 12:24:49 PM
The economic history of FDR's liberal fascism is very important.  May I suggest taking it to the Economics thread in the SCH forum?
Title: What? Cut the Arts!!!
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 02:36:05 AM
 Alderman: Target police, fire contracts to reduce budget deficit
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter September 2, 2011 1:02AM
Anthony Beale
Updated: September 2, 2011 2:14AM

  Mayor Rahm Emanuel could wring $300 million from the combined $1.8 billion budgets of Chicago’s Police and Fire Departments, in part by dramatically altering union contracts that expire June 30, an influential alderman said Thursday.

“There’s no more sacred cows when the taxpayers are hurting like they are,” said Ald. Anthony Beale (9th), former chairman of the City Council’s Police and Fire Committee.

Beale has already infuriated the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) by targeting the $1,800-a-year uniform allowance officers receive as well as duty-availability pay, a $2,800-a-year lump sum that essentially compensates officers for being on call at any time.

Now, he’s going even further.

Instead of having the same number of police officers assigned to every watch and district, Beale is talking about putting officers when and where the crime is. That would allow Emanuel to eliminate 1,400 police vacancies and shrink the police force through attrition.

“I know it’s an unpopular thing to say. ... But if you put the officers where they’re needed vs. where they’re wanted, you could see a reduction,” he said.

“It has to be a conscious effort to make the unpopular decision to say, ‘We’re gonna move officers around to where they’re most needed — not where they’re most wanted.’ If we’re gonna make the entire city safe, we can do it with less officers.”

Instead of doling out annual uniform checks, Beale wants to switch to a voucher system to save as much as $50 million a year. Officers who need shirts, pants and jackets would get reimbursed. Those who don’t would get nothing.

Arguing that overtime is normally tacked on to an officers shift, Beale is also talking about eliminating duty availability pay, reducing disability claims and about eliminating a virtually unheard of policy that allows officers to take as many as 365 sick days every two years.

In the Chicago Fire Department, Beale wants to permanently reduce the minimum staffing requirements for fire apparatus and switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift — and away from the cherished 24-hours-on, 48-hours-off schedule that allows them to work second and third jobs.

Many of the changes proposed by the aldermen would have to be negotiated when police and fire union contracts expire on June 30.

Former Mayor Richard M. Daley threatened repeatedly to switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift in response to a sharp decline in the number of fires, only to back off the demand.

Daley was similarly thwarted in his efforts to relax the requirement that there be five employees on every piece of fire apparatus — the issue that triggered the bitter 1980 firefighters strike. He only managed to increase to 35 the number of times each day when the city is allowed to dip below that requirement.

Tom Ryan, president of the Chicago Firefighters Union Local 2, could not be reached for comment on Beale’s suggestions.

But FOP president Mike Shields ripped the alderman’s proposal.

“The Chicago Police Department today is stretched to the limit. We have had seven police officers killed in the line of duty over the past two years. Now, Ald. Beale wants to give us a pay cut? That is a real insult,” Shields said.

“If the mayor and the city are really serious about saving money, they can save tens of millions per year by cutting the number of aldermen in half and ending all of their ridiculous perks. The mayor asked for suggestions from citizens. That is what the citizens want. They do not want a demoralized and underpaid police force.”

Shields further noted that Beale raised the same concerns about uniforms and duty pay during the last round of contract talks that dragged on for years.

“His positions were soundly rejected,” Shields said.

Emanuel’s communications director, Chris Mather, did not dismiss Beale’s suggestions.

“We have to be honest about the fiscal challenges our city faces and any ideas — be it from the City Council, the FOP or the public — that will help close the budget gap without impacting the safety on streets and in our neighborhoods should be considered,” Mather said.

Police Supt. Garry McCarthy told the Chicago Sun-Times earlier week that he’s been asked to cut $190 million from the Police Department’s $1.3 billion-a-year budget and would only get halfway there by eliminating 1,400 police vacancies.

Beyond the vacancies, there are 730 officers on medical rolls each day and 641 officers on limited desk duty. Emanuel campaigned on a promise to change the sick leave policy.

  Then in a totally unrelated story....
 6 killed in holiday weekend violence
SUN-TIMES MEDIA WIRE September 4, 2011 2:42AM
ReprintsShareTweetUpdated: September 4, 2011 2:42AM

 Six men have been killed in acts of violence on the city’s streets this Labor Day weekend. Since Friday night five men have been fatally shot and one stabbed to death in Chicago.

A man walking on a Southwest Side street was killed in a Saturday afternoon drive-by shooting.

The man — identified by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as 38-year-old David Lucas — was shot about 2:50 p.m. in the 6500 block of South California Avenue, police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala said.

Police said the man was walking when a light-colored four-door vehicle approached, a gunman exited and began shooting then fled in the vehicle.

Lucas, of the 6900 block of South Mozart St., was pronounced dead at 4:01 p.m. at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, the medical examiner’s office said.

Police said he was shot in the chest.

Two men standing on a Garfield Park street were killed in a Saturday afternoon drive-by shooting on the West Side.

The men were standing in the 2900 block of West Adams Street when the driver of a passing car pulled a gun about 12:45 p.m. and shot the men, Zala, citing preliminary information, said.

The medical examiner’s office identified the men as 18-year-old Deandre Boatman and 34-year-old Devonne Polk.

Boatman, of an unidentified home address, was pronounced dead at 1:25 p.m. at John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County. Polk, of the 5300 block of West Harrison St., was also taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:22 p.m.

Police described the vehicle as a light-colored two-door car of an unidentified make and model.

Police said both men suffered multiple gunshot wounds.

A gunman walked up to a 32-year-old man in a wheelchair on the West Side early Saturday and opened fire, killing him.

The victim, identified by the medical examiner’s office as Martez Benton, was in a wheelchair when he was shot, according to police News Affairs Officer Michael Sullivan.

About 1:45 a.m., Benton was on the sidewalk in the 5400 block of West Division Street when a male approached him on foot and fired at him, striking him in the neck, head and back, a report from police News Affairs said.

Benton, of in Maywood, was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:10 a.m., according to the medical examiner’s office.

One man died and another was injured after they were stabbed in the North Side Lincoln Park neighborhood early Saturday.

The two were stabbed during a fight about 12:50 a.m. in the 1100 block of West Wrightwood Avenue, police said. A 19-year-old man was stabbed in the chest and abdomen and was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center where he later died.

Rodney Kyles Jr. of the 5100 block of Roberta Lane in Richton Park was pronounced dead at 1:23 a.m. after being stabbed in the street at 1132 W. Wrightwood Ave., according to the medical examiner’s Office.

An 18-year-old man was stabbed in the buttocks and was taken in good condition to Illinois Masonic.

A man was shot and killed Friday night while he sat on a park bench on the South Side, police said.

Tyrone Robertson, 20, of the 10000 block of South Wentworth Ave., was pronounced dead at Saint Bernard Hospital at 9:36 p.m. after being shot at 449 W. 72nd St., according to the medical examiner’s Office.

He was sitting on a park bench at Hamilton Park about 8:50 p.m., when shots rang out from behind the fieldhouse and struck him, police News Affairs Officer Laura Kubiak said.

No one was in custody for any of these homicides as of early Sunday.

 And yet another totally unrelated story...

 The Worst and Best Public Art in Chicago This Year (so far)

 It’s already been quite the year for public art in Chicago, even if the year is little more than half over by now.  Unfortunately, “quite the year” in this case means a year I would already rather forget.

Millennium Park is undoubtedly the single most important and visible site for public art in Chicago with both permanent and temporary pieces.  Opened in 2004, four years behind its slated opening on the millennium, the park hosts two permanent public art works, Anish Kapoor’s Cloud Gate and Jaume Plensa’s Crown Fountain, as well as exhibitions of temporary sculpture.

There should be high expectations for the exhibitions in Millennium Park. It’s in the heart of downtown, attracts volumes of foot traffic, and has become quite popular, all of which are good things. This year saw an exhibition from sculptor Yvonne Domenge, following exhibitions from Mark di Suvero in Millennium Park and a group exhibition of contemporary sculpture from China, curated by University of Chicago Art History professor Wu Hung. 

Installation view of Yvonne Domenge in Millennium Park, April 2011. Black metal barriers now ring each work.

Domenge’s exhibition presents swirling globes of color and a sinuous abstracted tree, all fabricated out of metal, all painted bright colors.  All utterly boring.  As I wrote for my review of the exhibition, the aesthetic is as interchangeable as the titles of the work. To top it off, the sculpture is now surrounded by eye-gougingly ugly black metal barriers. Wu Hung’s sculpture show had personality and di Suvero is pretty important, but what we received this year was art that’s boring and lacking ambition. Regrettably this misfire will remain on view through most of 2012 as well.

And then J. Seward Johnson returned with a monstrosity. Now it could rightly be pointed out that this isn't public art; it sits on private land, was privately funded and was privately selected.  But that ignores the highly public location, at the beginning of Chicago's über-shopping stretch, the Magnificent Mile, and in the Pioneer Court, nestled next to the Neo-Gothic glory of the Tribune Tower, across from the beaux-arts beauty of the Wrigley Building.  Needless to say, like Millennium Park, this location gets a lot of traffic. 

Public art doesn’t necessarily have to be on city land or paid for by public money for it to be public, but it does need the public itself, and these locations get the public in droves.

The high-visibility location made the installation of J. Seward Johnson’s Forever Marilyn, a giant statue of Marilyn Monroe holding down her skirt lifted from the iconic pose from The Seven Year Itch (1955), impossible to ignore.  Well that, and the fact that you can see her panties if you move around to the rear.  This fact has not been lost on many male viewers, causing middle-aged men to act like prepubescent boys.  Thanks to Johnson we now have an opportunity close to home for what was dubbed on Twitter as “group perving.” I like the Flickr guy who decided to rate the reactions.

Johnson is a master of kitsch. It’s like he read Clement Greenberg’s definition of it and mistook it for a good thing: “Kitsch is mechanical and it operates by formulas.  Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations...Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times.” Yes, Johnson’s sculpture is all of those.  At least Jeff Koons attempts to rescue kitsch, or elevate it.  Again I find myself deeply looking forward to the end date of this exhibition, no pun intended.

Chicago is really in debt -- next year's budget already predicts a shortfall of over $600 million.  The Mayor is taking suggestions.  Literally, that is -- there's a website.  I suggest imposing a heavy tariff on all cross-state importing of J. Seward Johnson's work.

There was a bright spot in this year’s public art so far, and it wasn’t big or expensive, in fact, it was dirt-cheap.  For the opening night of Chicago’s newest art fair, MDW Fair, artist duo Dutes Miller and Stan Shellabarger quietly made outlines of their bodies with dirt on the grounds around the fair building.  Discovered by groups walking to the fair itself, the outlines were quiet moments of encounter, like the way we experience art in museums, the mere trace of a one-time human presence, now gone. The outlines also wore their impermanence on their sleeve, subject to not only the elements, but also vulnerable to an unsympathetic viewer who could destroy the figures with a mere kick of the foot.  They were mortal.

It's unfortunate that two of the best locations in Chicago will be occupied by sculpture that's both bad and not indicative of artists and art in the city. Not everything has to be gigantic and in steel for it to have a big impact; I will remember Miller and Shellabarger’s pieces for far longer than Domenge’s or Johnson’s.  It is ironic that in times of tight budgets and penny-pinching, curators and the powers-that-be are bringing in startlingly lackluster artists when they could easily find better ones in their own city if they only looked.

--Abraham Ritchie, Senior Editor ArtSlant living and working in Chicago.


Buddy, Buddy, Buddy.... :-P                            P.C.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2011, 06:54:48 AM
Frankly, did you read the proposed police/fire changes.  They all seem VERY reasonable to me.  It's high time...

"Instead of having the same number of police officers assigned to every watch and district, Beale is talking about putting officers when and where the crime is. That would allow Emanuel to eliminate 1,400 police vacancies and shrink the police force through attrition.

“I know it’s an unpopular thing to say. ... But if you put the officers where they’re needed vs. where they’re wanted, you could see a reduction,” he said.

“It has to be a conscious effort to make the unpopular decision to say, ‘We’re gonna move officers around to where they’re most needed — not where they’re most wanted.’ If we’re gonna make the entire city safe, we can do it with less officers.”

Instead of doling out annual uniform checks ($1800.00 to every officer every year), Beale wants to switch to a voucher system to save as much as $50 million a year. Officers who need shirts, pants and jackets would get reimbursed. Those who don’t would get nothing.

Arguing that overtime is normally tacked on to an officers shift, Beale is also talking about eliminating duty availability pay (pay for doing nothing), reducing disability claims and about eliminating a virtually unheard of policy that allows officers to take as many as 365 sick days every two years.

In the Chicago Fire Department, Beale wants to permanently reduce the minimum staffing requirements for fire apparatus and switch firefighters to an eight-hour shift — and away from the cherished 24-hours-on, 48-hours-off schedule that allows them to work second and third jobs."

As for the art being objected to, did you notice:

"Now it could rightly be pointed out that this isn't public art; it sits on private land, was privately funded and was privately selected."

So what's the problem?

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 03:32:54 PM
 And does it dawn on you that crime will increase in the areas that cops are moved out from and the areas that have a lot of crime, already have twice the officers now? My thought is maybe policing isn't the problem but maybe Liberal policies are. What they've basically done is created open block, "dependant's of the State" prisons with cops as guards. In the mean time the greater community is concerned with installing swank sculpture downtown, while dropout rates, teen pregnancy, single parent households, unemployment, drug addiction, crime and murder rates soar just a couple of blocks away. :-P :x :cry:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2011, 05:08:30 PM
Prentice, did you read your post?

Did you disagree that only those who need a new uniform should get $1800.00 extra per year?  Not everyone every year? For nothing?

Instead of assigning officers evenly, they are suggesting assigning more officers to the trouble areas; make sense?

Take away a $3000.00 "duty pay" for doing nothing; pay just being available for working overtime for which you also of course get paid.

Now officers are allowed 365 sick days in two years!  You must be kidding.  Who gets that?

As for the Fire Department, don't most people work an 8 hour shift?  Then go home?  No one else has 24 shifts; who "works"  24 hours on, 48 hours off.  I know Fireman in LA who all have second jobs paying them double because of so much time off.  That's ridiculous.

Times are tight; there is no reason the Police and Fire Department can't do their share as well.

As for "installing swank sculpture downtown, while dropout rates, teen pregnancy, single parent households, drug addiction, crime and murder rates soar just a couple of blocks away." AGAIN did you read your own post?  It sits on PRIVATE land and is PRIVATELY FUNDED and privately selected.  If McDonalds for example wants to put an ugly Ronald McDonald statue in front of their restaurant, on their land, what does that have to do with teen pregnancy, single parent households, drug addition, crime ad murder rates" or anything else?  YOUR POINT?   :?

What "liberal policies" are we talking about   :?  The city is trying to cut union contracts!  Save money! Isn't that a conservative Republican idea?

Well, whose ever idea it is, it's a pretty good idea   :-D

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 06:15:26 PM
 My point is they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if they didn't do the Lib thing and get in bed with the unions to begin with. Police unions, Fire unions, Teacher unions. And if the Lib community that's tired of paying taxes on all of this would turn their attention to actually helping the people in these crime ridden hell holes that they created with their nanny state Lib idealogogy and put people to work instead of handing them a check, instilling personal and moral responsibility, teaching basic math instead of social justice and handing out condoms in schools then maybe just maybe they wouldn't need the police much at all, but no, they're worried about art projects. :-P
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on September 04, 2011, 06:17:30 PM
Lots of police departments are cutting to the bone. CPD needs to embrace the suck like everyone else.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2011, 06:23:33 PM
Ahhh, then we agree.   :-)   Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you posted because you were criticizing the suggested cuts.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 06:31:24 PM
Woof, :-D
 My point, (that I didn't do so good a job of making), was that there shouldn't have been anything to cut to begin with.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on September 04, 2011, 06:37:24 PM
 And does it dawn on you that crime will increase in the areas that cops are moved out from and the areas that have a lot of crime, already have twice the officers now? My thought is maybe policing isn't the problem but maybe Liberal policies are.

If you can get the latest issue of Scientific America, they do an article about how New York's crime rate dropped through the floor without addressing poverty, drugs, or anything else. The main thing that made NYC different than other areas with smaller drops in crime was the 9000 or so officers it added, I think in the late 80's. I don't have it in front of me right now.

Anyway, they pointed out that uniformed police targeting hot spots makes a big difference in crime.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on September 04, 2011, 07:06:18 PM

Anyway, they pointed out that uniformed police targeting hot spots makes a big difference in crime.

I agree.  But in Chicago, that is what they are trying to do; focus on hot spots. 

PC posted his piece in "The cognitive dissonance of the left" but I don't think cutting costs, reigning in unions, focusing on hot spots
is a "leftest" idea.  It's just common sense whichever party you belong to.

And sure, 9000 more police is nice, but who has the money... 

Cost/benefit analysis. 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on September 04, 2011, 07:13:25 PM
Like anything, there is a point of diminishing returns. A well trained, well led police dept. can use the "Compstat" model to great effect, but there must be jails for pre-trial detention, prosecutors, judges, courtrooms, forensic support and prison cells, otherwise targeted enforcement means nothing when the perps just rotate back onto the street because the rest of the system chokes.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 09:36:10 PM
 And how about making an effort to keep these folks from becoming perps in the first place.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on September 04, 2011, 10:12:33 PM
 And how about making an effort to keep these folks from becoming perps in the first place.

Like a "War on poverty"? We tried that, poverty won.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 04, 2011, 10:37:28 PM
 No, like a family values, moral up bringing and responsible citizenship training. So doing more to support families instead of gangs, churches instead of raves and making every 18 year old serve in the military instead of doing time in prison.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on September 05, 2011, 06:03:40 AM
I'm not saying that's impossible, but we'd have to get awful authoritarian to pull this off.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2011, 07:10:01 AM
Well, maybe it should be done as it used to be done-- by parents, communities, churches, and so forth.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on September 05, 2011, 07:12:40 AM

Parents? The ones that dress their kids in "prosti-tot" fashions? Been to a mall lately?

Title: Soros
Post by: ccp on September 07, 2011, 09:51:26 AM
I am sure he is invested appropriately:

****Jorge Silva/Reuters; Tom White for the New York Times
“This crisis has the potential to be a lot worse than Lehman Brothers,” said George Soros, the hedge fund investor, citing the lack of a pan-European body to handle an extreme banking crisis.
Read All Comments (72) »
As Europe struggles to contain its government debt crisis, the greatest fear is that one of the Continent’s major banks may fail, setting off a financial panic like the one sparked by Lehman’s bankruptcy in September 2008.

European policy makers, determined to avoid such a catastrophe, are prepared to use hundreds of billions of euros of bailout money to prevent any major bank from failing.

But questions continue to mount about the ability of Europe’s banks to ride out the crisis, as some are having a harder time securing loans needed for daily operations.

American financial institutions, seeking to inoculate themselves from the growing risks, are increasingly wary of making new short-term loans in some cases and are pulling back from doing business with their European counterparts — moves that could exacerbate the funding problems of European banks.

Similar withdrawals, on a much larger scale, forced Lehman into bankruptcy, as banks, hedge funds and others took steps to shield their own interests even though it helped set in motion the broader market crisis.

Turmoil in Europe could quickly spread across the Atlantic because of the intertwined nature of the global financial system. In addition, it could further damage the already struggling economies elsewhere.

“This crisis has the potential to be a lot worse than Lehman Brothers,” said George Soros, the hedge fund investor, citing the lack of an authoritative pan-European body to handle a banking crisis of this severity. “That is why the problem is so serious. You need a crisis to create the political will for Europe to create such an authority, but there is still no understanding as to what the authority will do.”

The growing nervousness was reflected in financial markets Tuesday, with stocks in the United States and Europe falling 1 percent and European bank stocks falling 5 percent or more after steep drops in recent weeks.

European bank shares are now at their lowest point since March 2009, when the global banking system was still shaky following Lehman’s collapse.

Investors also continued to seek the safety of United States Treasury bonds, as yields on 10-year bonds briefly touched 1.90 percent, the lowest ever, before closing at 1.98 percent.

Adding to the anxiety, several immediate challenges face European officials as they try to calm markets worried about the debt crisis spreading.

In the coming weeks, the 17 countries of the euro currency zone each could agree to a July deal brokered to bail out Greece again and possibly the region’s ailing banks. Along with getting unanimity, more immediate obstacles could trip up the agreement.

On Wednesday, Germany’s top court upheld the legality of Berlin’s rescue packages, but said any future bailouts for debt-stricken euro zone countries must be approved by a parliamentary panel. On Thursday, officials in Finland are to express their conditions for approving the deal, and other countries may follow with their own demands to ensure their loans will be paid back. 

Though they have not succeeded in calming the markets, European leaders have taken a series of steps to avert a Lehman-like failure. New credit lines have been opened by the European Central Bank for institutions that need funds, while the proposed Greek bailout would provide loans to countries that need to recapitalize their banks. In addition, the central bank has been buying up bonds from Italy and Spain, among other countries, to keep interest rates from spiking. Many of these have been bought from European banks, effectively allowing them to shed troubled assets for cash.

While the problems in smaller countries like Greece and Ireland are not new, in recent weeks the concerns have spread to banking giants in countries like Germany and France that are crucial to the functioning of the global financial system and are closely linked with their American counterparts. What is more, worries have surfaced about the outlook for Italy, whose debt dwarfs that of other smaller troubled borrowers like Greece.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that two-year Treasury bonds briefly touched a record low yield of 1.90 percent. It was actually 10-year Treasuries that hit this record.****
Title: Fonda's fantasy: to have fuct Che Guevara
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 08, 2011, 08:31:33 AM
Not a very good piece of writing in my opinion, but , , ,

Humberto Fontova   
Jane Fonda's Crush on Che Guevara
9/7/2011 | Email Humberto Fontova | Columnist's Archive Sign-Up  A new biography of Jane Fonda by Patricia Bosworth reveals a lifelong lament by the famous actress: “My biggest regret” Fonda is quoted during a “feminist consciousness-raising session,” according to the book’s account, “is I never got to f*** Che Guevara.”

In case you read Townhall, Ms Fonda, here’s some consolation, honey: “I used to call him El Gallo (the rooster)” recalled Carlos Figueroa who was Ernesto Guevara’s adolescent friend in Alta Gracia, Argentina. “I’d be visiting him and eating in his family’s dining room and whenever the poor servant girls would enter Ernesto would promptly grab her and force her to lay on the dining room table where he’d have rapid intercourse with her. Immediately afterwards he’d throw her out and continue eating as if nothing had happened.”

“Es un gallo—un gallo! (He’s a rooster!—rooster”) complained a scowling Berta Gonzalez a few years later upon emerging from her Mexico City bedroom summer of 1955. This was shortly after his Motorcycle Diary trip, when the hobo Ernesto Guevara was scribbling unreadable poetry and mooching off women in Mexico City, where he met Fidel and Raul Castro. Berta Gonzalez was a Cuban exile in Mexico at the time.

Gallo, as you might have guessed, is a common pejorative by Spanish-speaking women against men who terminate carnal encounters prematurely.

Alas, how the feminist sessionists reacted to Ms Fonda’s above-mentioned confession, and thus, the “raising of their consciousness,” is not mentioned in the book. But we can guess. After all, feminist swooning over Cuban Stalinism started early, and by the feminist movement’s very founders.

“Not only is (the Cuban Revolution) a great success but an example for the rest of the world!” gushed Simon De Beauvoir in March 1960. Her bellhop, Jean Paul Sartre, was not to be outdone. He crowned Che Guevara “the era’s most perfect man.” These “intellectual” hyperventilations 1960 set the tone for future ones of everyone from Maxine Waters’ to Jimmy Carter and from Ted Turner’s to George Mc Govern’s, and from Barbara Walters’ to Andrea Mitchell’s.

“Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

Alas, Cuban feminists view the Cuban Revolution somewhat differently from Hollywood, Georgetown and Manhattan feminists. When feminist icon Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel Castro in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful!” dozens of Cuban feminists suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the hyperventilating Ms Barbara Walters.

“They started by beating us with twisted coils of wire recalls former political prisoner Ezperanza Pena from exile today. “I remember Teresita on the ground with all her lower ribs broken. Gladys had both her arms broken. Doris had her face cut up so badly from the beatings that when she tried to drink, water would pour out of her lacerated cheeks.”

“On Mother’s Day they allowed family visits,” recalls, Manuela Calvo from exile today.” But as our mothers and sons and daughters were watching, we were beaten with rubber hoses and high-pressure hoses were turned on us, knocking all of us the ground floor and rolling us around as the guards laughed and our loved-ones screamed helplessly.”

“When female guards couldn’t handle us male guards were called in for more brutal beatings. I saw teen-aged girls beaten savagely their bones broken their mouths bleeding,” recalls prisoner Polita Grau.

The gallant regime co-founded by Che Guevara jailed 35,150 Cuban women for political crimes, a totalitarian horror utterly unknown—not only in Cuba—but in the Western Hemisphere until the regime so “magnetic” to Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Diane Sawyer, Jane Fonda, etc. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.

Their prison conditions were described by former political prisoner Maritza Lugo. “The punishment cells measure 3 feet wide by 6 feet long. The toilet consists of an 8 inch hole in the ground through which cockroaches and rats enter, especially in cool temperatures the rat come inside to seek the warmth of our bodies and we were often bitten. The suicide rate among women prisoners was very high.”

Upon the death of Raul Castro’s wife Vilma Espin in 2006 the Washington Post gushed that: “she was a champion of women’s rights and greatly improved the status of women in Cuba, a society known for its history of machismo.” Actually, in 1958 Cuba had more female college graduates as a percentage of population than the U.S.

This Castroite “improvement of status” and “good life “for Cuban women also somehow tripled Cuban women’s pre-revolution suicide rate, making Cuban women the most suicidal on earth. This according to a 1998 study by scholar Maida Donate-Armada that uses some of the Cuban regime’s own figures.

On Christmas Eve of 1961 a Cuban woman named Juana Diaz spat in the face of the executioners who were binding and gagging her. Castro and Che’s Russian-trained secret police had found her guilty of feeding and hiding “bandits” (Cuban rednecks who took up arms to fight the Stalinist theft of their land to build Soviet –style Kolkhozes.) When the blast from Castroite firing squad demolished her face and torso Juana was six months pregnant.

Thousands upon thousands of Cuban women have drowned, died of thirst or have been eaten alive by sharks attempting to flee the Washington Post’s dutifully transcribed “improvement of status.” This from a nation formerly richer than half the nations of Europe and deluged by immigrants from same.

In 1962, a Cuban Catholic nun named Aida Rosa Perez was overheard in a private conversation saying things about Fidel Castro and Che Guevara similar (but milder) than those Jane Fonda and Joy Behar trumpet about Republicans. Sister Rosa Perez was sentenced to 12 years at hard labor. Two years into her, while toiling in the sun inside Castro's Gulag and surrounded by leering guards, Sister Rosa collapsed from a heart attack.

The Cuban Archive project headed Mrs Maria Werlau has fully documented the firing squad executions of 11 Cuban women in the early days of the regime. Another 219 women died from various brutalities and tortures while in prison. The Taliban has nothing on the regime co-founded by Che Guevara. So I trust you’ll excuse these Cuban ladies if they regard the “struggles” of Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda as a trifle overblown. And for many of them, though it’s utterly ignored by the MSM, the feminist struggle continues.
Title: Re: Fonda's fantasy: to have fuct Che Guevara
Post by: G M on September 08, 2011, 08:34:53 AM
Jane Fonda's Crush on Che Guevara

Just more evidence that leftism is a mental disorder.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on September 12, 2011, 09:46:48 AM
Regarding the Krugman post on the 911 forum, must love Crafty's title, 'Krugman is Scum' and Krugman's own ending punchline: "I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Title: Britain: 1984; on the way here to the US
Post by: ccp on September 16, 2011, 09:53:42 AM
Enough is enough.  Personally I am fed up:

***3-Year-Olds Branded “Racist,” “Homophobic” Put In Government Database

Kids’ future careers jeopardized by committing hate crime of saying the word “gay”

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, September 15, 2011

Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers.

The shocking figures were disclosed after civil liberties group the Manifesto Club made a Freedom of Information Act request which betrayed the fact that kids who used petty jibes are now being treated as thought criminals by education authorities.

34,000 incidents of “racism” in total were reported for the year 2009-2010, with nursery school toddlers as young as three being put on a state database for using the words “gay” and “lesbian”. One child who called another “broccoli head” was also reported to authorities. Other cases included a child who used the word “gaylord,” while another who told a teacher “this work is gay,” was also added to the thought crime database.

The majority of the reported cases involved primary school children.

“The record can be passed from primaries to secondaries or when a pupil moves between schools,” reports the Daily Mail.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“And if schools are asked for a pupil reference by a future employer or a university, the record could be used as the basis for it, meaning the pettiest of incidents has the potential to blight a child for life.”

Schools are being pressured to report such incidents to authorities and face punishments for not doing so under anti-bullying policies.

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.

Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on September 17, 2011, 06:21:54 PM
Protesters begin 'Day of Rage' against capitalism
Demonstration plans to 'occupy' Wall Street, camp out for months if necessary

Posted: September 17, 2011
2:13 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND

Protesters at "Occupy Wall Street" event

Social media networks fomenting a nationwide "Day of Rage" protest are reporting that hundreds have gathered in New York City's financial district to protest "Wall Street's corporate plunder."

According to a Bloomberg report, organizers had originally hoped as many as 20,000 would gather in the financial district and "occupy" it through tent cities and civil disobedience, if necessary, for months.

As a loosely formed conglomerate of Twitter, Facebook and online activists – similar to the Arab spring protesters that have been toppling governments in Africa – clearly identifying the goals and tactics of the protests is nearly impossible.

According to the website Adbusters, a group promoting the demonstration, the goal of "#OccupyWallStreet" is to get President Barack Obama to establish a commission to end "the influence money has over our representatives in Washington." The group advocates camping out in Manhattan for months if needed to get the message across.

But the website warns against setting up tents and describes the purpose of the protest this way: "Wall Street is a huge contributor to the political machine, which in turns enables Wall Street's corporate plunder of our nation. Both the Democratic and Republican parties set the bankster agenda because of the money.

"Bought by hard and soft dollars, disloyal, incompetent and wasteful interests have usurped our nation's civil and military power, spawning a host of threats to liberty and national security," the website continues. "We demand satisfaction for the wrongs done to our nation and its people."

New York City's cable news network NY1 spoke with a trio of protesters about the purpose of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations:

"CEOs, the biggest corporations and the wealthy are taking too much from our country, and I think it's time for us to take back," said one protester.

"What I hope to accomplish is that people who have gotten in trouble on Wall Street actually pay an equal share for what they've done," said another.

"The difference between this and other protests of the past is that we're not leaving, and we're going to stay as long as it takes to accomplish something," said a third.

The protest aims to take root around the world.

Activists are advertising on social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter for the "Day of Rage" to begin with the "occupation" of Wall Street and continue with protests across the nation in Portland, Ore., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Austin, Texas.

The Department of Homeland Security further issued a bulletin expecting related protests in the financial districts of Madrid, Milan, London and Paris, as well.

As WND reported, advertisements claim the protests at Wall Street and nationwide will be "non-violent." However, the official website provides resources, including videos and detailed written instructions, for protesters to engage in "civil disobedience."

The resources provided include instructions on how to resist police arrest and disrupt court hearings.

This week, the 'Day of Rage' Twitter feed posted links to what it called "nonviolent civil disobedience training talks."

Similar instructions are provided on the website of an affiliated organization, which calls itself "Occupy Wall Street" and is also involved in planning the Sept. 17 protests.

Live Twitter feeds from protesters indicate police presence in Manhattan has been heavy, but no violence has yet been reported.

"Lots of police and barricades," reports Twitter user Ethar El-Katatney, "but strangely quiet."

The use of the term "Day of Rage" recalls the "Days of Rage" organized in the 1960s by the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization co-founded by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, close associates for years of President Obama.

Numerous radicals, many with direct ties to Obama, are linked to planned protests and other activism scheduled for the coming months.

In March, ACORN founder Wade Rathke announced what he called "days of rage in 10 cities around JP Morgan Chase." Rathke was president of an SEIU local in New Orleans.

The planned Sept. 17 protest appears to be the culmination of Rathke's efforts.

Those efforts are being organized by Stephen Lerner, an SEIU board member who reportedly visited the Obama White House at least four times.

Lerner is considered one of the most capable organizers of the radical left. He recently organized the SEIU's so-called Justice for Janitors campaign.

As part of his planned protests, Lerner called for "a week of civil disobedience, direct action all over the city."

His stated aim is to "destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement."

In an interview about the planned protests, Lerner outlined his goals: "How do we bring down the stock market? How do we bring down their bonuses? How do we interfere with their ability to, to be rich?"

----------------------------------------     P.C.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 19, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
I would add though it is occasionally right, WND is IMHO a frequently irresponsible site.  As a general rule, anything there should be crosss-checked.
Title: demcrat party is now the "marxist party"
Post by: ccp on September 22, 2011, 12:20:55 PM
Rush L was pointing this out today.  The woman running for Senate in Mass. against Brown.  When did the Democrat party get hyjacked by total Marxists?  This truly is unbelievable that we have a candidate with the Democrat party with these views.  This used to be the stuff of socialist party candidates who no one ever hears about.  Now it is mainstream.   While FDR, JFK, and LBJ were big on social programs I don't think they were anything like this:
Title: Courtesy of Glenn Beck: Law Student chokes on Silver Spoon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2011, 03:18:03 PM

First, catch the guy's performance here.


The Blog
US Video: Liberal law student chokes on silver spoon in (false) protest
The latest anti-business viral video burning up the liberal blogosphere today seems heart-wrenching… that is, until you do your homework.
Robert Stephens graduated from Carleton College (average cost: $42,942/year) in 2010 and now studies law at The George Washington University Law School (average cost: $70,449/year).  His father has a Ph.D. and two master’s degrees; his mother also has a master’s degree.  Only in America could a kid have been blessed with so much… and only in America could he still claim to be a victim. America’s capitalist society has apparently leveled a grave injustice against his family and Robert will not stand for it.
Robert, right, with a friend on the GWU campus (Image: Facebook)
Stephens — who identifies his personal political philosophy as Bolivian socialism — made a trip to New York City this weekend to participate in the “Days of Rage” march on Wall Street.  He was arrested Saturday when he refused police requests to get up and out of the way of traffic in the street.
In his emotional “rage,” Stephens told the sympathetic Socialist/Marxist/Anarchist crowd how an eeeeeevil Wall Street bank had taken his parents’ home away from them:
Attempts to contact Robert to find out exactly what grave injustices he and his family have suffered have gone unanswered.  In the meantime, sympathetic comments on both Robert’s Facebook page and the YouTube video are also… unsettling:
(Full disclosure: I attended GWU as an undergrad and, to help make sure my mortgage gets paid every month, I continue to work at the law school as a part-time employee on the weekends.)
Our friend Robert and his woeful tale have quickly become darlings of the liberal blogosphere and the mainstream media (and Iran’s Tehran Times!).  Here he is in a picture posted at Buzzfeed — an image that perfectly captures him utilizing the biggest tool in the left-wing’s arsenal: the media.
Caption on this photo: “Protested (sic) falls to his knees in tears in front of Chase Bank crying – this is the bank that took my parents’ home.”
According to the Daily Kos, Robert should be commended as “a patriot” for spelling out the reason people are protesting.  “If you can watch it without being affected, you are as heartless as Dick Cheney,” the site notes.
There’s just one problem: Robert Stephens’ story is (surprise!) completely bogus.
Phone inquiries into the county property records & taxpayer services office reveal that the Stephens family home is not and never has been in foreclosure, that property taxes had been paid in full this year and the remaining balance on their mortgage for the half-million dollar home is less than one year’s worth of tuition+fees at their son’s law school.
The nail in this empty protest‘s coffin is a delightful phone conversation I just had with Robert’s mother, Marquita, where she admitted Chase Bank indeed was not “taking” their home from them. Instead, due to a recent “reduction in income,” they’ve decided to hold a “short sale.”
When I asked Mrs. Stephens if she and her husband planned to stay in their suburban St. Paul, Minn., surroundings after the sale, she told me they weren’t too keen on the idea.  The area is “a bit too conservative,” she said.
Title: Re: Courtesy of Glenn Beck: Law Student chokes on Silver Spoon
Post by: G M on September 27, 2011, 03:24:22 PM

First, catch the guy's performance here.


The Blog
US Video: Liberal law student chokes on silver spoon in (false) protest

**What a douche! As to be expected, it doesn't have to be true for the left, as long as it feeeeeels true to them. Facts are just a construct they choose to ignore.
Title: ‘Soft’ Nation
Post by: G M on October 01, 2011, 06:40:25 PM
October 1, 2011 7:00 A.M.
‘Soft’ Nation
There’s nothing soft about a dead-parrot economy, a flatline jobs market, and regulatory sclerosis.

‘The way I think about it,” Barack Obama told a TV station in Orlando, “is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft.”

He has a point. This is a great, great country that got so soft that 53 percent of electors voted for a ludicrously unqualified chief executive who would be regarded as a joke candidate in any serious nation. One should not begrudge a man who seizes his opportunity. But one should certainly hold in contempt those who allow him to seize it on the basis of such flaccid generalities as “hope” and “change”: That’s more than “a little” soft. “He’s probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” declared presidential historian Michael Beschloss the day after the 2008 election. But you don’t have to be that smart to put one over on all the smart guys. “I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap. I’m an Obama Sap,” admits David Brooks, the softest touch at the New York Times. Tina Brown, editor of Newsweek, now says of the president: “He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.”

If you’re a tenured columnist at the New York Times, you can just about afford the consequences of your sappiness. But out there among the hundreds of thousands of your readers who didn’t know you were a sap until you told them three years later, soft choices have hard consequences. If you’re one of Obama’s core constituencies, the ones who looked so photogenic at all the hopeychangey rallies, things are really hard: “Young Becoming ‘Lost Generation’    Amid Recession” (CBS News). Tough luck, rubes. You got a bumper sticker; he got to make things worse.

 But don’t worry, it’s not much better at the other end of the spectrum: “Obama’s Wall Street Donors Look Elsewhere” (UPI). Gee, aren’t you the fellows who, when you buy a company, do something called “due diligence”? But you sunk everything into stock in Obamania Inc. on the basis of his “perfectly creased pant leg” or whatever David Brooks was drooling about that day? You handed a multi-trillion-dollar economy to a community organizer and you’re surprised that it led to more taxes, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more barnacles on an already rusting hulk?

 Hard statism is usually murmured in soft, soothing, beguiling terms: Regulation is about cleaner air, healthier restaurants, safer children’s toys. Sounds so nice. But federal regulation alone sucks up 10 percent of GDP. That’s to say, Americans take the equivalent of the Canadian economy and toss it down the toilet just in complying with federal paperwork. Obama and the great toxic alphabet soup of federal regulation — EPA, OSHA, SEC, DHSS — want to take that 10 percent and crank it up to 12, 14, 15 percent.

 Who could have foreseen that? The most dismal thing about that David Brooks column conceding that “yes, I’m a sap . . . remember, I’m a sap . . . as you know, I’m a sap” was the headline his New York Times editors chose to append to it: “Obama Rejects Obamaism.”

In other words, even in a column remorselessly cataloguing how one of its smartest smart guys had been repeatedly suckered by Obama on jobs, on Medicare, on deficits, on tax reform, etc., the New York Times chose to insist that there is still something called “Obamaism” — prudent, centrist, responsible — that for some perverse reason the man for whom this political philosophy is named insists on betraying, 24/7, week in, month out, spring, summer, autumn, tax season. You can set your clock by Obama’s rejection of “Obamaism.”

That’s because there’s no such thing. There never was. “Obamaism” was the Emperor’s new centrism: To a fool such as your average talk-radio host, His Majesty appears to be a man of minimal accomplishments other than self-promotion marinated in a radical faculty-lounge view of the world and the role of government. But, to a wise man such as your average presidential historian or New York Times columnist, he is the smartest guy ever to become president.

 In part, this is a natural extension of an ever more conformist and unrepresentative establishment’s view of where “the center” is. On issues from abortion to climate change, a Times man or Hollywood activist or media professor’s notion of “centrism” is well to the left of where American opinion is. That’s one reason why a supposedly “center-right” nation has wound up regulated into sclerosis, drowning in debt, and embarking on its last decade as the world’s leading economy. But in the case of Obama the chasm between soft, seductive, politico-media “centrism” and hard, grim reality is too big to bridge, and getting wider all the time.

 You would think this might prompt some sober reflection from an American mainstream press dying in part because of its dreary ideological conformity. After all, a key reason why 53 percent voted for a man who was not, in Tina Brown’s word, “ready” is that Tina and all her pals assured us he was. Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law, a little light community organizing, a couple of years timeserving in a state legislature: That’s what America’s elites regard as an impressive resume rather than a bleak indictment of contemporary notions of “accomplishment.” Obama would not have withstood scrutiny in any society with a healthy, skeptical press. Yet, like the high-rolling Wall Street moneybags, they failed to do due diligence.

 Three years on, nothing has changed. Obama is proposing to raise taxes because of some cockamamie yarn Warren Buffett has been peddling about his allegedly overtaxed secretary. Yet the court eunuchs of the media persist in taking Buffett seriously as an archetypal exemplar of the “American business community” rather than as an especially well-connected crony. Sometimes, Obama cronyism is merely fiscally wasteful, as in the still-underreported Solyndra “green jobs” scandal. One sympathizes with reporters assigned to the story: It’s hard to get all the public monies and Solyndra-exec White House visit logs lined up in digestible form for the casual reader. But sometimes Obama cronyism is murderous: Eric Holder, a man unfit to be attorney general of the United States, continues to stonewall the “Fast and Furious” investigation into taxpayer-funded government gun-running to Mexican drug cartels. It is alleged that the administration chose to facilitate the sale of American weapons to crime kingpins south of the border in order to support a case for gun control north of the border. Evidence keeps piling up: The other day, a letter emerged from ATF supervisor David Voth authorizing Special Agent John Dodson to buy Draco pistols to sell directly to known criminals. Over 200 Mexicans are believed to have been killed by “Fast and Furious” weapons — that’s to say, they were killed by a U.S.-government program.

 Doesn’t the New York Times care about dead Mexicans? Doesn’t Newsweek or CBS News? Isn’t Obamaism with a body count sufficiently eye-catching even for the U.S. press? Or, three years in, are the enablers of Obama still so cynical that they accept it as a necessary price to pay for “change you can believe in”? You can’t make a hopenchange omelette without breaking a couple hundred Mexican eggs?

 Obama says America has “gotten a little soft.” But there’s nothing soft about a dead-parrot economy, a flatline jobs market, regulatory sclerosis, “green jobs” multi-billion-dollar squandering — and a mountain of dead Mexicans. In a soft nation, “centrist” government is hard and cruel. Only the media coverage is soft-focus.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 02, 2011, 09:33:05 AM
All true, but also worth noting is how bad the Republican offering was.  For example, just what do you think McCain would have done for/to the economy?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on October 02, 2011, 10:00:21 AM
"All true, but also worth noting is how bad the Republican offering was.  For example, just what do you think McCain would have done for/to the economy?"

I am no McCain fan, but he would have been less than half as bad on economics.  He would not obviously have pursued Pelosi-ObamaCare which is the number one tax and regulatory burden sitting out there killing off hiring and growth.  He would floundered through half of a stimulus, he would have taken half this long to get good economic advice. 

His approval rating would be worse now than Obama because of the pounding of stories about a bad economy and 3 wars even though unemployment might be at 7% instead of 9% and it would now be the Republicans losing seats and facing a bad election cycle for an economy half as bad.

Ironically, things would be better but our prospects for the future would be worse.  Obama would have an 80% approval as opposition leader if he had lost to McCain and Palin, would be a shoe-in for 2012 and we would still have this train wreck coming.

As it happened for the last 4 Presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, bad leadership strengthened their opposition more than their own agenda.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on October 02, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
Very good points Doug. I'd add that Obama, like Carter helps to remind people why giving the left power is such a bad idea.
Title: The cognitive dissonance of the left, why didn't they regulate (Steve) Jobs
Post by: DougMacG on October 06, 2011, 08:25:52 AM
God Bless Steve Jobs.  He was a hero to people from all political stripes who love the innovations and value his company and products brought to their lives.  Curious, what leftist government program made all that he accomplished possible?  Certainly not the pro-abortion agenda.  Jobs was born an unwanted child to an unmarried couple and was successfully adopted.

State-centric economies never make creative advances like the ones Jobs pioneered to market.  The profits that Jobs drove were a measure of the enterprising  impact he had on our civilization, not a subtraction from it. 

Personal computers, sound systems and cellphones have amazing, how important are those?  Someone over at central planning must have thought those products and industries were not crucial and just allowed them to run free.  What was the result?  Consistent declines in prices year after year over decades combined with unfathomable advances in performance, quality, features, usability and value.  Meanwhile over at all industries we designate as crucial such as healthcare, transportation, agriculture, education, housing, banking, you name it,  we take the opposite, failed approach.  Staffers of subcommittees in Washington are meeting as we speak to regulate out the next potential innovation.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on October 06, 2011, 10:47:39 AM
I think we should have the US Post Office take over Apple. Save the USPS unions and make Apple even better!
Title: 6 Years Since 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison Still Thinks Regulations Increase Hiring
Post by: DougMacG on October 09, 2011, 01:13:36 PM

US Unemployment was at 4.4% in between Nov 2006 when the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Hillary-Biden congress was elected to take the majorty and Jan. 2007 when Catholic-raised Keith Ellison from North Minneapolis first solemnly put his hand on the Koran and swore to hold up the constitution to the best of his ability so help him Allah. 

Neither Jack Webb nor Johnny Carson, both trained professionals, could keep a straight face through the Copper Clapper Caper, but Ellison signed on with an agenda of economic destruction, watched unemployment more than double under his policies of unprecedented increases in business strangulating regulation and then look the camera in the eye today to a very well framed question about regulations killing jobs and say... no, he thinks regulations get companies moving with even more hiring because regulations inspire companies to get going with compliance efforts.  I swear to God, that is what he said - it's on the video - and that is what he believes.  The saddest part of it is that there is a 100% chance he will be reelected in 2012 no matter the unemployment rate.

The video:

The BLS data and chart:

Title: Grassroots activists
Post by: G M on October 10, 2011, 08:35:02 AM

FAR LEFT Advertises on Craig’s List for Paid Activists to Fight Wall Street

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 10, 2011, 5:06 AM

We all knew this was happening. We just didn’t think they’d be so open about it.
In case you had any doubt that these Wall Street protests were being manufactured by the far left, there’s this–
The pro-Obama Working Families Party of New York posted this advertisement on Craig’s list. They are looking for energetic progressives to help them to fight to hold Wall Street accountable. And the pay is $350-$650 a week depending on the responsibility and length of time of staff.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2011, 09:18:37 AM
"And the pay is $350-$650 a week depending on the responsibility and length of time of staff."

I keep wondering every time I see these losers on TV how they can afford to sit around for weeks on end yet they claim poverty.

Lets see.  They are already getting unemployment, they are sponging off their parents, they are selling drugs, on federal disability,
stealing, or are independently wealthy, retired.

I don't know.  You tell me.

I agree with the point (of some of them) about some unfairness in our system.  The rest are just there for the "experience", its "coolness", to meet girls and guys, push for free doles.

This is the group of people who no matter what no matter when or forever will always vote Democrat.

You see them at all Democratic political rallies.  I remember going to a Bill Clinton rally in Florida.  I was probably one of a handful of Republicans.  The rest looked similar to this crowd.

It is the handout you owe me entitlement "nation".

Title: It's just like the TEA party!
Post by: G M on October 10, 2011, 12:02:59 PM
**"It's just like the TEA party!" (Insert leftist talking head here)

Sex, drugs and hiding from the law at Wall Street protests
Last Updated: 11:18 AM, October 10, 2011
Posted: 3:28 AM, October 10, 2011

The criminals are crashing the party.
Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park for Occupy Wall Street, The Post has learned.
“I got warrants. I’m running from the law,” boasted Dave, 24, a scrawny, unshaven miscreant in filthy clothes from Stamford, Conn. “I’m not even supposed to be here, but it’s as good a spot as any to hide.”
Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted and crash.

Lachlan Cartwright

IN PLAIN SIGHT: A protest attendee named Dave (above) relaxes in Zuccotti Park, where he said he’s been getting high while running from warrants.

Riyad Hasan
Meanwhile, a crowd yesterday learns to pick open handcuffs.

“I’ve been smoking and drinking in here for eight days now,” said Dave, booze on his breath and his eyes bloodshot as he lay sprawled on a tattered sheet of cardboard. “I need to get some methadone. Every day, I wake up, and I’m f--ked up.”
Drugs can be easy to score -- a Post reporter was offered pot for $15 and heroin for $10.
They’ve already fueled at least one violent incident, when a wasted nut job socked a medical volunteer in the face before others hauled the attacker away.
“We are trying to keep everything calm and work with the police, but there are some crazies in here,” said Paul, a security volunteer.

“The other day, there was a guy charging people $5 to use the McDonald’s bathroom. He was on LSD or high on something.”
But the creeps can’t give a bad name to the group’s overall anti-greed message, protesters said.

A coalition of religious leaders and their followers yesterday marched from Washington Square Park to the encampment with a makeshift golden calf in the shape of the Wall Street bull, leading protesters in such spirituals as “We Shall Overcome” and “Down by the Riverside.”
The crowd chanted, “We are the 99 percent!” -- referring to the millions of Americans not among the top 1 percent of the country’s earners -- along with priests, rabbis and imams.
“You are fulfilling the words of the prophet Isaiah. You have thrown off the yoke. Occupy, occupy, occupy!” shouted Warren Goldstein, chair of the history department at the University of Hartford in Connecticut.
The golden calf sat atop a brown platform that marchers carried on their shoulders. On the platform were the words “false idol.”
The clerics -- some holding signs that read, “Jesus is with the 99%” -- said they were there to support the movement.

“You have woken up all of us ... We will stand with you in every city, every state and every country across this globe,” said Michael Ellick, minister at Judson Memorial Church near Washington Square.
Hundreds gathered around philosopher Slavoj Zizek as he gave a speech and answered questions.
“They tell us we are dreamers. The true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are,” he said. “We are not destroying anything. We are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself.”
Some protesters have said that in addition to being against Wall Street greed, they also are for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq and more help for Haiti.
But as the protest ground on for a 23rd day, it was evident that there were challenges.
Zuccotti Park smelled like an open sewer -- with people urinating and defecating in public.
And some couples have taken advantage of the free condoms distributed by organizers to do the nasty in full view of other protesters.
“It kinda makes me think of what Woodstock must have been like,” said one protester, Sarah, 19 from the Upper West Side.

“I haven’t hooked up with any guys ... but one of my friends did have sex in a tarp with a guy last night.”

The free chow offered to protesters was boosting the crowd.
“People say they are here for the cause, but the real reason is the free food,” quipped Cameron, 26, of Jersey City.
“On my third day, they had smoked salmon with cream cheese. You know how much smoked salmon is a pound? Sixteen dollars. I eat better here than I do with my parents!”

Many of the protesters said they are here for the long haul -- and predicted trouble if cops try to clear the park.
“When the weather starts getting cold, we’re already talking about bringing tents in here,” said Robert, 47, of Pennsylvania. “I’m not going anywhere.

“I lost my job of 22 years, and someone has gotta pay,’’ he said. “Civil disobedience is something we may need to keep this site occupied. If everyone does it at once, the cops won’t be able to do anything.”
Three protesters took their sleeping bags and tried to camp out on Wall Street near Nassau Street last night. When police told them to move, one demonstrator, Zachary Miller, 20, from California, was arrested for disorderly conduct, cops said.
At one point yesterday, a speaker from Washington, DC, told protesters how to break out of zip ties and handcuffs in case they get collared.
The protest vet, Ryan Clayton, 30, demonstrated how use a bobby pin to spring the cuffs open -- while claiming he was “not encouraging people to break out of restraints.”
Additional reporting by Hannah Rappleye and Andy Campbell

Read more:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2011, 12:59:01 PM
"Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped"

Well, what were drugs doing there to start with?  Who is giving the "free" food.  Nothing is free.  Who is paying for this?

As though the people who began this noble, just, righteous, cause were all just a bunch of saints and then some bad elements just happen to show up later.  Oh I get it.

As usual the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for this mess and not to say anything about the overtime for city employees.

I assume the ones who can ring the register up top increase their pay just before they retire.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on October 11, 2011, 07:49:57 PM
"Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped"

Well, what were drugs doing there to start with?  Who is giving the "free" food.  Nothing is free.  Who is paying for this?

As though the people who began this noble, just, righteous, cause were all just a bunch of saints and then some bad elements just happen to show up later.  Oh I get it.

As usual the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for this mess and not to say anything about the overtime for city employees.

I assume the ones who can ring the register up top increase their pay just before they retire.

Drugs must be a gateway to generators!
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on October 11, 2011, 09:50:51 PM
"Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped"

Well, what were drugs doing there to start with?  Who is giving the "free" food.  Nothing is free.  Who is paying for this?

As though the people who began this noble, just, righteous, cause were all just a bunch of saints and then some bad elements just happen to show up later.  Oh I get it.

As usual the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for this mess and not to say anything about the overtime for city employees.

I assume the ones who can ring the register up top increase their pay just before they retire.

Drugs must be a gateway to generators!

Typical leftist trustafarians. "I hate capitalism, where do I charge my Ipad"?
Title: WW2 vets are turning over in their graves
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2011, 01:02:16 PM
God I only hope we run this guy out of office for good.  It just keeps getting worse:

Apologies Not Accepted
Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET
In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. View Enlarged Image
Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.

Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.

One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on October 12, 2011, 02:23:25 PM
CCP, That is an amazing story.  The USA under Obama wanted to apologize to Japan for using force to end WWII - and Japan wouldn't allow it.  Unbelievable!

I wonder if the Obamites regret using force against Hitler as well.  Maybe my dad will still be charged aiding and abetting the American military effort in Germany during WWII.

Did we even try to sit down and talk with them first?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2011, 02:51:23 PM
Is there a URL for that?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on October 12, 2011, 03:33:55 PM

Actual cable:
Title: psychiatry eval of OBrock
Post by: ccp on October 14, 2011, 02:38:47 PM
This psychiatrist calls W Bush "distrubed" but Obama "troubled".   The choice of words right there exposes him.  Of course this guy did his psych training at Harvard.  He states Brock is seeking a father figure calling Rev Wright and that.  Rev. Wright "disappointed him".  Does he mention that he only "disappointed" him when he had to throw him under the bus for selfish political gain.  He didn't seem disappointed for the twenty plus years he sat in his church.  And, LOL he claims Brock picked Biden because he is still seeking that father figure.

I lke this one, "Take for example Obama's earlier willingness to compromise with Republicans, upsetting his liberal base".
I don't know what planet this guy lives on but I never heard any real offers of compromise.  The Dems love to promote him as a compromiser when the rest of us know that is false.

Or this statement, "The result is that he is overly protective of his own nuclear family, desires greatly to see national unity, and yet harbors anger that he took out on bin Laden."

What does he mean "overly protective of his family"?  I don't see any difference from any other President.  "Desires to see national unity"?  What planet is this guy on?  This is the most devisive President in my lifetime.
And, "anger he took out on Bin Laden"?  What?  I think this shrink needs a shrink.  The only anger this guy takes out is on America.

I would love to see a far brighter Harvard psychiatrist tear this analysis apart:  Charles Krauthammer.  I wonder how Charles survived Harvard and is still so normal.  Well I guess a few grads are.  W graduated from Harvard Business and OReilly graduated from there. 

*******US News & World Report  Shrink: Obama Suffers 'Father Hunger'

October 14, 2011 RSS Feed Print The abandonment by his father when he was an infant and by his stepfather at age 10 has left President Obama with a "father hunger" that influences everything from why he distances himself from pushy supporters, to his strong desire to compromise and bring people together, to his aggressive campaign to kill Osama bin Laden, says a psychoanalytic book out next week. In Obama on the Couch, George Washington University professor Justin Frank also reveals that Obama has spent much of his life seeking out father figures, but most, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Vice President Biden, have disappointed him. "Obama searched for a father, for someone to relate to who could help him—a strong man who knew what to do," Frank writes.

This is Frank's second psychoanalytical book about a president. While a sympathetic look at Obama, it follows Bush on the Couch, a sharply critical analysis that suggested then President George W. Bush was disturbed. In that book, he predicted that someone like Obama—"completely different," "someone not ... white"—would succeed Bush. What the nation ended up with, however, is "an almost tragic figure," Frank writes.

The general theme is that Obama has been affected both by being biracial and by the abandonment of his two dads during his childhood. The result is that he is overly protective of his own nuclear family, desires greatly to see national unity, and yet harbors anger that he took out on bin Laden.

Take for example Obama's earlier willingness to compromise with Republicans, upsetting his liberal base. Here Frank cites the negative influence of his parents, especially his mom, who often pressed him to do better in school. "He hates being pushed by supporters who want him to make good on his promises of universal healthcare and care for the poor, something that represents his mother and how she pushed him to study harder," Frank writes. And when he ignores his base, he is emulating his father, expressing annoyance but not worried they will desert him.

As for bin Laden, Frank writes that Obama's inner anger emerged: "He was able to pursue his action against bin Laden in part because bin Laden offered a displacement figure for Obama's rage toward his own parents."

Frank also calls Obama scared of the type of radical change he advocated in 2008. "He wants to be the father who makes change safe, the person he has waited for his entire life."

Check out: our editorial cartoons on President Obama.******
Title: The inconvenient truth
Post by: G M on October 15, 2011, 06:54:30 AM

President Goldman Sachs
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on October 15, 2011, 11:06:07 PM
"Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped"

Well, what were drugs doing there to start with?  Who is giving the "free" food.  Nothing is free.  Who is paying for this?

As though the people who began this noble, just, righteous, cause were all just a bunch of saints and then some bad elements just happen to show up later.  Oh I get it.

As usual the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for this mess and not to say anything about the overtime for city employees.

I assume the ones who can ring the register up top increase their pay just before they retire.

Drugs must be a gateway to generators!


Putting those generators to use, I guess.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left: Robert Reich
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2011, 11:24:23 AM
(note to moderator, we need spelling/typo correction to the topic title)

I wonder who others think are the opinion leaders of the left.  I have identified Paul Krugman and Robert Reich but both are so easily discredited.  Today Reich writes:
"Flat tax a flat-out fraud

Robert Reich, Sunday, October 30, 2011
"The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich." [Straw.  He throws all plans into one pile and then criticizes all for defects of one.  I normally stop reading and quoting at the first lie, but there is so much more.]

"The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Cain's flat-tax plan (the only one that's been set out in any detail) would lower the after-tax incomes of poor households (incomes below $30,000) by 16 to 20 percent."  [That is, if you have no knowledge or understanding of embedded taxes.]

"Meanwhile, 95 percent of households with more than $1 million of income would get an average tax cut of $487,300." [Complete drivel.  It measures in dollars while assuming no change in economic behavior whatsoever to a drastic change in the marginal rate.  No one is that dumb. Plus he seamlessly and deceptively changed from calling a tax rate a tax back to measuring in it n dollars.  If we measure in dollars and admit lower rates bring more income, then that figure is bunk.  The rich will actually pay more dollars by any measure of previous similar rate cuts.]  "And capital gains (a major source of income for the very rich) would be tax-free." [An honest person might say: that income would only get overtaxed once under the proposed plan.]

All flat-tax proposals benefit the rich more than the poor for one simple reason: Today's tax code is still at least moderately progressive. The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. [Is he intentionally calling President Obama and Warren Buffets bald faced liars?]

"The truth is, the current tax code treats everyone the same." [How come anything that starts 'the truth is - is a lie? Robert Reich, Have you READ the current tax code; it doesn't take 72,000 pages to treat people and different sources of income the same! Even if you settle for 3 brackets or 5. This could have gone under Tax Policy but I am really writing about leftist dishonesty and wondering if someone could point out an honest liberal for me to read.]
Question to Rbt Reich, is everything in your world really all 'us vs. them', lie at all costs to win more, or should we also be trying to grow our economy and raise revenues to pay our massive spending?

Perry's plan puts ZERO tax on a family of four up to $50,000!! while the same people mostly support spending almost 4 trillion a year.  What in God's name would you need to call it fair?

Here is a flat tax: 200 million adults spend almost 4 trillion dollars.  Send in $20,000 per adult American, or face prison for tax evasion,  or spend less and pay your share of that, and  private business matters remain private from government audit. That is a flat tax and everything else is a progressive compromise.  If everyone paid their share, that would cure our spending problem, our wall street bailout problem and most other problems in a big f'ing hurry.
Title: A unified theory of left-wing causes
Post by: G M on October 30, 2011, 02:19:39 PM

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Scott Johnson in Liberals

A unified theory of left-wing causes

Steven Den Beste comments on Steve Hayward’s population bomb post:

Isn’t it interesting that no matter what the current global crisis is, according to leftists, the solution is always the same: a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite, and mass transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.

That’s what they want to do about global warming. It’s what they wanted to do about overpopulation. It’s what they wanted to do about endangered species.

Yeah, I think Jonah Goldberg wrote a good book with this thesis.

JOHN adds: Bear in mind, too, that the remedy for global cooling, when that was feared during the 1970s, was the same as for global warming, overpopulation, etc.
Title: Aesop predicted Unified Theory of Liberal Solutions in 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2011, 05:34:06 PM
Even the solution for government programs gone bad is yet another government program.  Over-regulate auto manufacturing to the point of bankruptcy -> nationalize it.  Fannie and Freddie and CRAprogram -> No problem: order a foreclosure moratorium and pass Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) .  Health care costs gone mad over govt mandates -> Affordable Health Care Act.  TARP-1 failed -> Tarp-2.  No new jobs with Stimulus I -> Stimulus II.  (I could go on!)

My question is this:

What if the solution to next thing to go horribly wrong in this country really is a government program?

Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Obama’s Flunking Economy: The Real Cause
Post by: DougMacG on November 08, 2011, 10:28:18 AM
Long story at the link.  Short answers from the left: the stimulus was too small - and Bernancke was too cautious.

In my attempt to add balance to economic coverage on the forum, I try to link some deep thoughts from the left.  This is the young superstar left blogger/columnist for the Washington Post reviewing and critiquing the Ron Suskind Book on Obama and Wall Street, offering both his own views and those of the author.  It makes no sense to me, but have a try at it if you want:  Excerpts:

Suskind’s story goes something like this: in 2008, Obama was presented with an economic crisis of astonishing severity and complexity. In the beginning, he showed himself to be unexpectedly prepared to deal with it, both intellectually and temperamentally. His self-assurance and personal magnetism attracted a variety of impressive and able advisers, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, UBS America chief Robert Wolf, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and former SEC Chairman William Donaldson.

But as “the severity of the crisis bore down on him,” Obama found himself leaning toward a different sort of adviser—safer, more predictable. He wanted people who knew Washington, and knew how to get things done. The “bold visions of the campaign season had meanwhile resolved into the serious, often risk-averse business of actually governing,” writes Suskind. “In the midst of a battering economic storm, it no longer seemed like the right time to be making waves.”

And no single adviser better encapsulates Suskind’s criticisms, and the contradictions in his argument, than Larry Summers. Even more than Geithner, Summers is the villain of the book. Suskind describes him as “brilliant at cultivating the sense of control, even as events spun far beyond what could be managed with any certainty.” He calls that talent “an illusionist’s trick calling for a certain true genius.”

It’s that trick that gives the book its title. Merriam-Webster defines a “confidence man” as “a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim.” Suskind’s definition is more subtle. “Confidence is the public face of competence,” Suskind writes. “Separating the two—gaining the trust without earning it—is the age-old work of confidence men.” To Suskind, Summers was the ultimate confidence man, and Obama the ultimate mark. Summers offered what Obama wanted—certainty—and Obama was just terrified enough to take it. But the certainties Summers offered were not, in Suskind’s view, the certainties the moment required.
The great counterfactual of Suskind’s book is “What if Obama had chosen a different team of advisers?” But by the end of his book, the counterfactual was coming true. Emanuel was out. Summers, too. Romer had left, and so had Orszag. Even David Axelrod, Obama’s longtime political adviser, was decamping back to Chicago. Only Geithner remains.
“Everyone shut the fuck up,” Suskind quotes the profane chief of staff [Rahm] as saying. “Let me be clear—taking down the banking system in a program that could cost $700 billion is a fantasy. With all the money that already went to TARP, no one is getting that kind of money through Congress.”

The same goes for stimulus. When Obama angrily dismisses Romer’s umpteenth argument for more stimulus, it’s not because he disagrees. It’s because he can’t get it passed. “Enough!” Suskind quotes him as shouting. “I said it before, I’ll say it again. It’s not going to happen. We can’t go back to Congress again. We just can’t!”

The truth of the matter is this: every member of the White House’s economic and political team was closer to every other member than any of them were to the swing votes in the Senate. Tim Geithner and Christina Romer have their differences, but they’re mostly talking the same language. Put them in a room with Senators Ben Nelson, Scott Brown, and Susan Collins—all of whom would have rejected a strong new stimulus—and they may as well be Martians.
The reality is more troubling. The initial stimulus was too small, but there’s no plausible case that Congress would have been willing to make it much bigger just because the Obama administration had a theory that the financial crisis would lead to a worse recession than most forecasters expected. The trouble was that attacking a financial crisis with a too-small stimulus was a bit like attacking pneumonia with too-few antibiotics: you feel better for awhile, and then it comes back. And this time, it’s harder to kill.
the greatest confidence man of the last few years, at least going by Suskind’s definition, was not Larry Summers or Timothy Geithner, but Barack Obama. Being a confidence man is almost in the job description of the insurgent presidential candidate. Having not been president before, you must, by definition, ask the American people for a trust you have not earned.

And Obama was better at this than most. He gave America hope. He made America believe he could deliver change. And, by the standards of Washington, he has probably done more than anyone could rightly have expected. Stimulus, health care reform, the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the payroll tax cut, new tobacco regulation—this is much more than your average first-term president achieves. But by the standards of the speeches and spirit that animated Obama’s campaign, he has not done nearly enough.
Title: Hobbesian Hipsters
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on November 09, 2011, 03:22:07 PM
Post reporter spends an in‘tents’ night amid anarchy in Zuccotti Park
Last Updated: 12:02 PM, November 6, 2011
Posted: 1:46 AM, November 6, 2011
The cheap walkie-talkie crackles inside a crowded downtown McDonald’s, stopping the gathered mass mid-sip from their Kombucha bottles and cups of corporate coffee.

“There’s a situation,” a vagabond gumshoe dubbed “Conscience” tells me after the static-filled communique arrives over the air at around 3 a.m.

Cornered on the other side of the fast-food joint is Fisika Bezabeh, 27, a Zuccotti squatter who inexplicably returned to the eatery after allegedly clobbering a manager with a credit-card reader earlier in the night.

“We can’t take him in by ourselves,” yells another OWS security-force member.

The Zuccotti “cops” had just spent an hour and a half tracking Bezabeh through goat paths in the park armed with a description from the manager.

“We cannot take him in by ourselves, the cops have to come!” reiterates the OWS security force member.

They call the NYPD -- and it becomes abundantly clear that the cops down there are sick of the antics.

“Every single night it’s the same thing. I mean, some guy was a victim of rape!” an officer snarls. “There comes a time when it’s over. This is a disaster. It’s all we’re doing, every two seconds, is locking somebody up every time. It’s done.

“It’s done,” he repeats. “Occupy Wall Street is no longer a protest.”

Scenes like this -- and far worse -- have been playing out since the Zuccotti Park “occupation” began on Sept. 17.

The parcel is now a sliver of madness, rife with sex attacks, robberies and vigilante justice.

It’s a leaderless bazaar that’s been divided into state-like camps -- with tents packed together so densely that the only way to add more would be to stack them.

And despite an NYPD watchtower overhead and the entire north side of Zuccotti lined with police vehicles, it is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous places in New York City.

I arrive in the Financial District after dark on Thursday lugging a backpack, a sleeping bag and layers upon layers of clothes.

It’s 8 p.m., and the suits and ties fill the bars. They glare at my overstuffed bag as I walk from the E train to a 7-Eleven for a few last-minute items for my night in Zuccotti Park.

The anti-bacterial soap and powder are nearly out. Naturally, the condoms are fully stocked.

Outside, an old-man Occupier in a plaid earflap hat is screaming at people in the crosswalk at Church and Barclay.

“Why are you afraid of bunny rabbits? Whyyyyy?”

As I cautiously walk the Zuccotti perimeter, picking up photocopied literature on anarchy, there is a poster on a tent bearing a set of park rules that includes: “If you want to hook up, go to a singles bar.”

There is literally no space to unfold my sleeping bag. I ask around for help.

Out of nowhere, a man pushing a shopping cart with his friend inside rammed the thing “Jackass”-style into a police barrier and walked off laughing like a hyena.

A woman emerges from a makeshift tent that looks more like a layer cake -- a clear tarp draped over a sleeping bag that is on top of a filthy mattress. It even has a welcome mat missing the “m” and the stench of a vagrant.

“There’s not much space left,” she said and walked off into the darkness.

Every camp tent is like its own state. There is “Camp Anonymous,” the group best known for anti-Scientology protests.

It’s neighbored by a tent full of vampires, the “Class War” tent and the “Occupy Paw Street” tent, whose residents hand out treats to occupying pets.

There’s also “Camp France” and the “Nic at Night” tent, which supplies the protest with smokes.

I settle on a sliver near Broadway by an OWS library -- which frighteningly has a children’s section. On a bulletin board, there are personal messages like, “Call your sister!”

I’m wedged between a newbie from Brooklyn and some guy from Toronto, who preferred the experience of urban camping to his buddy’s couch or a hotel.

“My knees will crush you,” a hulking squatter shouts. “I don’t want to hurt you.

“You’re in my doorway. I’m going to crush you.”

Someone takes offense and yells, “Manners!”

He’s much kinder when he emerges later from his green tent and hands me a shiny Mylar blanket for extra warmth. “It’s going to get cold,” he said.

This spirit of generosity and the naivete of the original OWS protesters is devolving into a state of distrust and paranoia, however.

They speak of theft, about government infiltrators and tales of Rikers Island castoffs being dropped off to roam and ravage the site.

From underneath my blanket, I hear allegations of financial corruption and intimidation over sexual orientation.

“I’m in a tent that keeps getting flooded, ransacked and robbed,” fumes a transgender group leader -- a female who identifies as a male.

He said that the transgender group would create its own police force for transgender protesters and females, since an immense distrust loomed over the OWS-created authority.

That group is also demanding financial transparency amid growing concern over the use of the $750,000 war chest.

They have a point. I notice supply-station cupboards are dangerously lacking any blankets, tents, tarps or Mylar.

“Someone forgot to get that stuff out of storage,” an attendant claimed.

“We have three-quarters of a million dollars in the bank and all these f--king people are not doing financial accounting while we’re calling for it from the larger corporations,” says the transgender leader. “A lot of good people are quitting.”

A day later, a female-only “safety tent” would be erected to shield women from predators.

Organizers plan to add a medical tent, as well as others designed to provide safe sleeping for gay, transgender and co-ed groups.

The threat of rape is very real here -- for women and men.

Sitting in the McDonald’s just moments after Bezabeh was hauled off in cuffs, Lauren DiGioia, 26, tells me about how she became one of the growing number of victims on her very first night in the park.

“I was forced into a very tight space,” she says. “He kind of moved up against me.

“ ‘Oh, let me warm you up. It’s cold out here,’ ” the creep told her, she said. “He kept pursuing me, and he started becoming aroused, and I could tell that he was becoming aroused,” she said. “I just tried to shield myself.”

He allegedly groped her, pulled her and tried to get on top of her.

“I kept thinking to myself, ‘In the morning, I am going to get this guy arrested,’ but in the morning, he was gone,” she said.

DiGioia, who is from Clifton, NJ, was shocked to see her alleged attacker’s image in The Post about a week later -- and she identified him to the police.

She is now offering counsel to other victims, as new ones crop up every day.

“I just talked to two gentlemen who were raped last night, and they don’t want to press charges because [authorities] wanted to take them in an ambulance and . . . do a rape kit,” she said.

She passed on their account to the security force, while encouraging them to press charges.

“There was another girl raped by the same man,” she said from a table in the McDonald’s, which has become the headquarters of the revolution.

It’s a place to meet, to get warm, to scarf down dollar-menu grub and to use the bathroom that becomes increasingly vile as the night goes on.

I’m ultimately invited to spend the night in a Camp Anonymous tent instead of solo in a sleeping bag.

I spend the rest of the night awake against the wall of a tent built for four -- but packed with six.

My bunkmates include an anarchist, a sexual-assault victim, two security-force members, a girl dressed like the devil and her kitten -- the “Anarkitty.”

“We are a microcosm of all of society’s defects and the failing economy,” DiGioia said. “Just because we’re here under a microscope, everybody’s going to come and throw up their arms and say we have to shut this place down.”
Title: The awesome hypocrisy of the left
Post by: G M on November 11, 2011, 09:18:00 AM

Exclusive Photos: Michael Moore’s Massive Michigan Vacation Mansion Beyond 99 Percent’s Wildest Dreams
by Andrew Breitbart

Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore has been touring Occupy Wall Street demonstrations across the country–including some of the most violent, such as Occupy Oakland–urging activists to continue their fight against the wealthy “one percent” of Americans.
Initially, Moore tried to deny that his massive wealth made him a member of that one percent. Even when forced to admit the obvious, Moore suggested that he was not always among the one percent, based on his income: “Other years, like last year, I don’t have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less.”
The fact is that Moore is so wealthy that he does not need to worry about his income. According to public tax records, Moore owns a massive vacation home on Torch Lake, Michigan–one of the most elite communities in the United States–in addition to his posh Manhattan residence.
Through an independent source, Big Hollywood has obtained exclusive photographs of the house matching the address of Moore’s waterfront mansion. It is the kind of luxurious summer home that 99 percent of Americans can only dream of owning.

Moore’s vacation property is located on the southeastern shore of Torch Lake itself, which locals tout as the “third most beautiful lake in the world.” Here is an aerial view of the house, situated on the turquoise blue waters for which Torch Lake is famous:
Property values on Torch Lake, according to one real estate website, range “from $400,000 to plus $3 million.”
Moore’s property has been officially assessed at close to $1 million (see below; we have redacted Moore’s addresses and parcel number). That is likely a gross underestimate, but nevertheless places Moore’s vacation home near the top one percent of home values in affluent Forest Home Township, and among the upper crust of residential properties in the state of Michigan.
In addition, according to statistics from 2009, Forest Home Township has no black residents. The township is roughly 98 percent white. Call that 99 percent, and Moore’s claim to be among “the 99 percent” begins to have some basis in reality.
No one begrudges Moore his wealth, but it is deceitful for him to claim poverty while encouraging class warfare among other Americans. It is also purely narcissistic and selfish for Moore to back radical and destructive socialist policies that would deny other Americans the opportunity to become as rich as he is.
Below are some additional photographs of Moore’s vacation home in Torch Lake. The first shows the front entrance to the property; we have decided not to include a photograph of Moore’s mailbox, which features an address matching the one on the property assessment. The second and third photographs show alternate perspectives of Moore’s home and property when viewed from Torch Lake.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 11, 2011, 10:55:06 AM
No blacks, but how many welders out of Flint Michigan have a piece of lakeshore like that?  Maybe none, but they all helped to pay for it.  I find the footprint to be different than the view and both different from what value should be.  I would say he is still building and adding on.  Like Gore and Edwards, quite a bit of forest clear cutting is going on there. 

I will regret suggesting this, but how about Occupy Torch Lake?  How about tying up some some rotten pontoons and house boats to fill the public space in front all summer and then demanding access to the private restrooms - like they do at his protests.  Interest in private property rights begins with having something to protect.

There is no doubt that Michael Moore is a wealthy man.  How did he get his start: 'Moore sued for wrongful dismissal (from 4 months as editor of Mother Jones magazine), and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.  Capitalism is a beautiful thing.
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the Left
Post by: DougMacG on November 14, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keeping up with the leftists in the spirit of balance on the board.  If any real leftist can come forward with better political and economic analysis, please do so.

1) A commenter at Politico with a view into their mindset: "The OWS are the younger, smarter, unemployed version of the Tea Party with the same grievances except the OWS know the evils dwells on Wall Street and the TeaParty wrongly believe that the evil is in Washington."

2) Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (biased blogger at the NY Times) says the failure of welfare states did not cause Europe’s problems nor is fiscal austerity here any way to avoid their mess.  Oh really?  

3) Complete that 3 legged stool of liberalism with intellectual giant Robert Reich who says: "Don’t even think about cutting the deficit...budget reduction shouldn't be part of the conversation"

4) Over at The Nation they still think the battle is on between capitalism and climate.  No recognition from the last few decades that the anti-capitalist nations were always the filthiest.

Meanwhile over on the right, all 8 candidates have been clear on how to grow the economy of of this malaise.  The one with the least bold plan, Romney,  the one most vague and cautious that would grow us out of this at the very slowest rate is the one (surprisingly) most acceptable and comfortable to the establishment.
Title: They Are the One Percent… and We Should Be Worried
Post by: G M on November 14, 2011, 10:06:04 AM

They Are the One Percent… and We Should Be Worried
by Dr. Brian Baugus

To the extent that the Occupy Wall Street crowd has a core cause, it is an economic one.  However, its title and location are the only real clues, because when it comes to demonstrating their vast economic knowledge, these people cannot.
They claim to be among the 99% of Americans who are victims of various legal and moral crimes committed by the financial sector, and that has risked their futures.   But, what sort of future do they have?

Does Che know how well off he is?
What they are truly demonstrating is the vast failure of the education system.  They have no global perspective or understanding of their historical position.  They fail to understand THEY are the 1%.  My Che Guevara looking friend to the left here stands to earn $1.6 million more in his lifetime than his high school party buddies who did not go to college.    This means, on average he will earn $35,500 more a year than his high school counterpart will, and this is just the American part of the story.  The average world citizen earns $7,000 a year right now and that is highly skewed, the median income is much lower.  Only 19 percent of the global population lives in a country with mean per capita earnings greater than $7,000.  Che is among the 20 to 25 percent of Americans that attend college and, assuming he graduates, will be in the upper income strata, likely the upper 20 percent.  So, Che here is in the upper 20 percent of the upper 19 percent, which means, globally speaking, he will be among the wealthiest 4 percent in the world.  Just like his Woodstock grandparents who became the BMW driving yuppies, he will protest and rail against the man or rage against the machine or whatever and then go earn a very good living over his lifetime and all of it brought to him by capitalism.
Historically, his case is worse.  The fact that he has the time to go and camp out and not have to hunt, forage or farm speaks volumes that his twenty years of schooling do not seem to have prepared him to realize.  While he is standing on the pavement thinking about the government and what it owes him, he does not realize that his urban camping trip is costing more than most people who have ever lived earned in a lifetime.  As Deidre McCloskey points out in her book Bourgeois Dignity, Americans spend on average $120 a day, if this were 200 years ago the figure would be lucky to be $3 a day in current dollars.  Living before the advent of wide spread free market capitalism would be like trying to live in the current economy on $3 a day, Che’s visit to Starbucks cost more than $3.
The sad aspect is not so much that Che is protesting but that he does not know any of this.  His teachers and professors either do not know it or do not believe it.

Other than some solid points on the bailout issue, the OWS crowd is exhibit A on the massive deficiencies of the American education system.  Che’s prospects are as good as anyone who has ever lived, he would not trade places with the richest person in the world of 200 years ago.  That person had no modern medicines, lived in a drafty house with no temperature control other than fireplaces,  spent most of his life within a few miles of his house, probably saw at least one child die before he did.  He had no internet, no lights, no phones, no motor cars, and was frequently infested with lice…ok maybe that one is still an issue for the OWS crowd.
If Che spends his entire life on welfare he will still live better than most people who are living right now or who have ever lived, but he does not know this.  Economic progress is not inevitable; it is the product of free market capitalism.  The irony in all of this is that true capitalism is about serving others.  Wealthy people in a market system do not rob and pillage the poor they find more efficient ways to serve and attract consumers.
Entrepreneurs are people who have a vision for what could be, many fail but those that succeed make our lives easier and better in many ways, they save us time and effort and for that we reward them with a small percentage of the total value we derive from what they have done.  Steve Jobs, whom OWS reveres, and Bill Gates and so forth have provided us with billions, maybe trillions of dollars in value, and in exchange, we voluntarily give them a little bit of it in the form of the monetary prices we pay.
Go watch the show Mad Men and see what life was like before Gates et. al. came along.  The other side of this is that the socialist system, which Che here wants, encourages greed and exaggerated selfishness as each person has the incentive to get as much of the common resources as he can before someone else beats him to it.  Without property, prices and profits there is no progress.  The failure of American education to teach these truths is a crime and will have long range impact, as we are already seeing.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: prentice crawford on November 14, 2011, 02:44:31 PM
 It's only wrong if Republicans alone are doing it. :-P

J. Scott Applewhite  /  AP
Print Font:
A television report that questioned whether members of Congress are making investment decisions based on insider information drew a heated response from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of those highlighted.
A report on CBS' "60 minutes" on Sunday said Pelosi was among several lawmakers — including Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner — who had profited from transactions that raised the possibility of conflicts of interest.
The report said Pelosi and her husband participated in a 2008 IPO involving Visa even as legislation that would have hurt credit card companies was being considered in the House. Pelosi was speaker at the time and the legislation failed to pass in that session.
In an exchange with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft, Pelosi denied that the transaction was a conflict of interest. And in a statement on Sunday, after the show aired, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the report failed to note her work for the rights of credit cardholders.
"Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi," Hammill said.
It is not illegal for members of Congress to buy stocks or make land deals based on information they're privy to through their positions. And the profits are often substantial.
A recent study of House members' stock transactions showed them beating the markets' return by about 6 percentage points annually from 1985 to 2001. A 2004 study involving the same authors showed senators beating the market by 12 percentage points annually.
Advertise | AdChoices

Those results "are way outside the boundaries of random luck," said the studies' lead author, Alan Ziobrowski, a business professor at Georgia State University.
Ziobrowski said Congress is preoccupied with three things: regulation, taxes and the federal budget.
"If you know a piece of legislation is coming down the line and you can trade in that, you can make a lot of money," he told
The "60 Minutes" piece was all the buzz on Capitol Hill on Monday, where House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) declined to say whether he would support a law making it illegal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading.
Other political news of note
Supreme Court to take up Obama health care law
Taking up its most important case in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the legal challenges to the Obama health care law.
Congress poised to create new tax break
Gingrich: 'this is most volatile race in my lifetime'
Pelosi fires back at report on 'insider trading'
The golden age of opposition research
"I'm not familiar with the details of the Stock Act, but I know it was mentioned in the program last night. My sense is that it requires more disclosure, I'm for increased disclosure, if there is any sense of impropriety or any appearance of that, we should take extra steps that the public's cynicism is addressed. We are not here to be hiding anything. I've always been very supportive of full disclosure," he said at a pen-and-pad discussion with reporters.
Cantor also dodged a question about whether members of Congress should be subject to the same insider trading laws as the ones restricting the finance professionals.
"I'm not as familiar with what triggers insider trading and the specifics of the laws. What I can tell you is that we are accountable to our constituents and we should be providing the kinds of information that would satisfy any kind of perception of impropriet," he said. "Many members don't actively trade in their portfolios, I don't. Full disclosure though can satisfy some of the questions; we should put that in place."
Pelosi's spokesman, Hammill, said the CBS report left out critical information. He said the legislation in question was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 3, 2008, the last day the House was in session before the election break that year and a time when the House was grappling with TARP. He noted that the next Congress passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights along with the Dodd-Frank legislation, which he called "a  stronger, more direct approach to addressing swipe fees."
Hammill also criticized CBS' use of one source for the report, conservative author and editor Peter Schweizer.
"It is very troubling that '60 Minutes' would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career of out attacking Democrats," Hammill said.
Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and is the editor of, a website focused on national security founded by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.
In a follow-up story on Monday, CBS News said they had verified every piece of information included in the report.
CBS noted that the "60 Minutes" report also discussed transactions of Boehner and another Republican, Rep. Spencer Bachus, who denied any impropriety.
Boehner said he leaves daily transactions to a broker. "I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account," Boehner told "60 Minutes."
NBC News' Luke Russert and Frank Thorp contributed to this report.
Title: OWS: demogagocrats
Post by: ccp on November 14, 2011, 05:18:22 PM
This corruption is just so incredible.  This is only one more reason OWS should be in Washington not Wall St.
Yet because the are ALL selfish what can America do for me crats they avoid anything that would harm the Brockster.  They are demogagocrats.

In any case the corruption of both crats and cans in the Houses is just so blantant.  And anyone wonders why people are fed up with both?  I don't see how the "mature" or "grown up" Cans as Scarborough and like Cans calls themselves are not simply protecting their turf.

The real Conservatives are correct in wanting to clean house.  Unfortunately that will never happen.  I have actually gotten to like Bachmann more and more each debate since the vaccine fiasco.  Her appeal is not broad among the populace but hopefully with more experience and fine tuning she will one day catch on.  Her political future looks bright.   Just not this time around.

Title: Occupy movement deteriorates
Post by: G M on November 15, 2011, 05:47:35 AM

Posted at 08:00 AM ET, 11/15/2011
Occupy movement deteriorates

By Jennifer Rubin

The left-wing punditiocracy’s fascination with the Occupy Wall Street and its progeny movements has declined in inverse proportion to the upswing in violence, mayhem and public filth stemming from those about whom the left was cooing only a couple weeks ago.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier posted this:
While the Occupy DC movement has been here since October 6, 2011 and the Metropolitan Police Department supports an individual’s right to assemble, we do not condone nor will we tolerate violence or aggression. Prior demonstrations had been peaceful. However, the aggressive nature of Friday’s demonstration prompted the Metropolitan Police Department to adjust tactics as needed to ensure safety.

MPD will continue to protect life (residents, visitors, protestors — everyone) and property as warranted. The administration will do what’s necessary to maintain order in the city and to ensure that everyone is safe.

Five people that we are aware of were injured. That is no longer a peaceful protest. Demonstrators have become increasingly confrontational and violent toward uninvolved bystanders and motorists. Demonstrators have also jeopardized the safety of their own children by using them in blockades. The following videos highlight such actions by demonstrators:
Intentionally Blocking Traffic/putting little children in the street

Using little children to blockade the door

Demonstrators blockade doors and injure attendees

Blockading people from leaving the Convention Center

Regarding the traffic incident and allegations of hit and run, MPD is investigating and is seeking any evidence and witness statements.

Hmm. Doesn’t sound like a bunch of Jeffersonian democrats seeking political redress.
No more are the liberal pundits interesting in measuring the level of support for what they only weeks ago characterized as a genuine political movement. Ignored are the reports of sexual assaults. No mention is made among the OWS cheerleaders of the latest effort to re-establish order in Oakland, Calif., and Burlington, Vt. Huffington Post at least reported the facts:
Police clad in riot gear and armed with tear gas cleared out Oakland’s anti-Wall Street encampment early Monday, the latest law enforcement crackdown amid complaints around the country of health and safety hazards at protest camps.
The raid at the Occupy Oakland camp, one of the largest and most active sites in the movement, came a day after police in Portland, Ore., arrested more than 50 people while shutting down its camp amid complaints of drug use and sanitation issues.
Police in Burlington, Vt., also evicted protesters after a man fatally shot himself last week inside a tent.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the left blogosphere, which cheered the Occupy encampments and chided conservatives who had the temerity to point out their disagreeable elements.
Funny how the left’s assertion that this was a grand political awakening has now gone down the memory hole. In their frenzy to find a grassroots movement on the left and in their insistence that the public really did support these people, the left-leaning elites tried mightily to ignore the instances of anti-Semitism, violence and fouling of public places. When that became impossible, they simply chose to ignore the whole disgusting mess. Had they been candid from the start about what the Occupy protesters looked like, sounded like and believed, the liberal punditocracy might not be embarrassed (is that possible?), or, at the very least, anxious that someone might call its members out for their immensely dishonest portrayal of the Occupy phenomenon.

 By Jennifer Rubin  |  08:00 AM ET, 11/15/2011

Title: The 1% Occupation
Post by: G M on November 20, 2011, 02:39:05 PM

The 1% Occupation

posted at 4:00 pm on November 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

It’s getting pretty cold in New York City these days, and with the courts ruling that protesters can no longer pitch tents in Zuccotti Park, the Occupiers are in for considerable discomfort if they continue.  Actually, that’s only true for, er, 99% of the Occupiers.  The 1% that comprise their leadership apparently have other ideas about what form a protest against The Man should take (via JWF):

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.
The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.
“Tents are not for me,” he confessed, when confronted in the sleek black lobby of the Washington Street hotel where sources described him as a “repeat” guest.
Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.
Dutro decided to check into the hotel because he heard that he might have a little trouble on Thursday getting to the protest.  Why?  Because of, um, the protesters:

“I knew everything was going to be a clusterf–k in the morning,” he told The Post, alluding to Occupy’s own disruption plans. “How would I get over the bridge when they were shutting it down?”
And Dutro isn’t just one of the rank and file out on the street, either.  Guess what his job at OWS happens to be?

Meanwhile, Dutro, 35, one of only a handful of OWS leaders in charge of the movement’s $500,000 in donations, checked in on Wednesday, the night after police emptied Zuccotti Park.
While hundreds of his rebel brethren scrambled to find shelter in church basements, Dutro chose the five-star, 58-story hotel, with its lush rooms and 350-count Egyptian cotton sheets. He lives only a short taxi ride away in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
Two weeks ago, Fritz Tucker warned about the hijacking of OWS by the Spokes Council, a small group that plotted to seize control of the funds and usurp the General Assembly.  Dutro claims that the money came out of his own pocket for the expensive hotel room, but it’s at least curious that one of the few money men of the movement turns up at one of the swankier downtown hotels.  It’s even more curious, given the Huffington Post description of Dutro four weeks ago:

“The vast majority of the people here don’t understand how money works,” said Pete Dutro, a core member of the finance group who spends five hours a day in Zuccotti Park handling petty cash requests and handing out money for General Assembly- approved expenditures. “But we have real financial needs. Not everyone wants to barter and trade.” …
Dutro, a 36-year-old finance student at New York University currently on leave from classes and the former manager of a tattoo parlor, didn’t want to get involved with the finance group, but he saw that his experience handling money and running a business could be useful.
Does that sound like a man who can throw away $500 on a hotel room when he could just go across the bridge to sleep in his own bed?  Perhaps — those student loans come in pretty handy at times — but maybe the GA should give a few up twinkles to an audit.
The best irony of all?  The Occupiers have thrown a great deal of vitriol at the economic policies of the Bush administration.  Landing in the lap of luxury at the W Hotel doesn’t exactly sound like a protest, though.  It sounds an awful lot like a further extension of OWS as a practical demonstration of George Orwell’s fears in Animal Farm.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 20, 2011, 07:29:54 PM
The park bench sounds good but the guy prefers the honeymoon suite with the Jacuzzi for the occupation.  I'm waiting for Occupy Vail, and the powder in the trees at Steamboat.  What can you really protest when the cameras aren't running anyway.  The rich guy has every right to sympathize with the movement, oppose special treatment for the connected.  Jump right in.  It should not be an us vs. them question, it is right vs wrong.  Is money legitimately earned? Is it treated the same as everyone else?  Let's quit the blind attacks on wealth, let's quit the religious attacks on wealth, let's get off the equal outcomes fantasy, end the favors trading business and focus on equal treatment under the law. 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 20, 2011, 09:18:28 PM

That would clash with the actual intent behind OWS.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 21, 2011, 05:48:10 AM
"That would clash with the actual intent behind OWS."

Yes but his situation calls the question perfectly.  Are you against the special treatment and bailouts of wallstreeters or are you against the freedoms inherent in capitalistic wealth?  Without the freedoms of capitalism, the $700 room would never have been built, cleaned or available to him.  The right to charge more, to make more money and to pay more for quality are all part of the capitalistic principle of allocating scarce resources based on price. Those shivering outside should take notice. 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 21, 2011, 06:08:48 AM
"Those shivering outside should take notice."

That would require a degree of intelligence not in evidence amongst the OWS masses. Useful idiots for Soros and others.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 21, 2011, 08:02:39 AM
The passive aggressive I am going to get in your face nature of OWS is typical of the types of people who crowd it.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to take control over public or private areas and stop usual course of freedom for everyone else.

Does freedom of speech mean not just opening one's big mouth and saying wahtever one wants is okay if you sit in the middle of the road and block everyone else and then when the police come, just dare them to do anything which when they do use any physical means than turn around and call it police burtality, ham it up for MSNBC cameras.

Did any one see CNN calling it police brutality when an officer maced such a group of passive aggressive personality disordered types sitting in a row doing exactly this?

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 21, 2011, 11:29:19 AM
What is the other side of the story?  Were these people blocking something?  Were they asked to not block the sidewalk?

"their right to peaceful protest".   MSM is flaming this.

police chief on leave after pepper spraying
By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press – 1 hour ago 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The president of the University of California system said he was "appalled" at images of protesters being doused with pepper spray and plans an assessment of law enforcement procedures on all 10 campuses, as the police chief and two officers were placed on administrative leave.

"Free speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history," UC President Mark G. Yudof said in a statement Sunday in response to the spraying of students sitting passively at UC Davis. "It is a value we must protect with vigilance."

Yudof said it was not his intention to "micromanage our campus police forces," but he said all 10 chancellors would convene soon for a discussion "about how to ensure proportional law enforcement response to non-violent protest."

Protesters from Occupy Sacramento planned to travel to nearby Davis on Monday for a noon rally in solidarity with the students, the group said in a statement.

UC Davis said early Monday in a news release that it was necessary to place police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave to restore trust and calm tensions. The school refused to identify the two officers who were place on administrative leave but one was a veteran of many years on the force and the other "fairly new" to the department, Spicuzza earlier told The Associated Press. She would not elaborate further because of the pending
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 21, 2011, 03:07:48 PM
This is why I am done with working patrol. Perhaps with law enforcement altogether.
Title: "This is why I am done with working patrol. Perhaps with law enforcement altoget
Post by: ccp on November 21, 2011, 03:50:58 PM
Police officers are damned either way.  They enforce the law with people who are not cooperating then they are accused of "brutality".  They don't do anything then they are blamed for not doing anything.

CNN was all over that picture with the Democrat anchors asking the parade of guests "isn't that police brutality?'

The MSM is out of control.  THEY are trying to set the agenda and make news of non news.   I hope most people who see this see it for what it is - a Democrat party ploy.
Title: Re: The Cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 21, 2011, 06:02:53 PM
"This is why I am done with working patrol. Perhaps with law enforcement altogether."

Their loss, our gain.  )
Title: Were the UC Davis Police Justified in Pepper-Spraying Students?
Post by: G M on November 21, 2011, 08:39:51 PM

Monday, November 21, 2011
Were the UC Davis Police Justified in Pepper-Spraying Students?
That's the query from Wordsmith, at Flopping Aces.

Wordsmith has a 15-minute video, which includes almost 5 minutes of footage leading up to the pepper spray incident. The students were not violent, but they were being told to leave. And when police tell you to leave you leave. All of the progressive outrage is pretty overblown. But hey, no doubt it helps the cause to have police crack down. It's a "police state," dontcha know? And the university earns itself a public relations nightmare. Investigations are coming, which drags out the drama. See New York Times, "California University Puts Officers Who Used Pepper Spray on Leave." And at KCRA-TV Sacramento, "Statewide Investigation After Officers Pepper Spray Student Protesters: Two Officers Placed On Administrative Leave, University Police Say." And from the comments there:
Why are they asking for police presence if they are going to nail the police officers on every move they make?
That's a good question. It's not like UC officials were indifferent to possible outbreaks of violence. See last week at Los Angeles Times, for example, "UC regents cancel meeting, cite security threats":
Fearing potentially violent disruptions, University of California regents on Monday canceled a meeting scheduled for this week in San Francisco, while UC and Cal State students prepared for demonstrations Tuesday at campuses across the state.

The UC board had planned to hold its regular bi-monthly meeting Wednesday and Thursday at UC San Francisco's Mission Bay campus but postponed the session after what officials termed credible threats.

University police had received reports that "rogue elements intent on violence and confrontation with UC public safety officers" were planning to join otherwise peaceful protests at the meeting, according to a statement by regents Chairwoman Sherry Lansing, Vice Chairman Bruce Varner and UC President Mark G. Yudof. "Ensuring public safety must be a top priority."

And recall that the concerns are not new. It's been a state of siege at the UC for the past few years: "Berkeley Chancellor's Home Attacked by Torch-Bearing Mob: Governor Decries 'Terrorism'; Activists Pledge, 'Burn Every Rich Man's House to the Ground'!"

Posted by Donald Douglas at 9:00 AM
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: OWS needs more Cowbell !!
Post by: DougMacG on November 21, 2011, 09:22:09 PM
Forget about finding a message.  We need more Cowbell.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 21, 2011, 09:36:20 PM
While I agree it's a bit overblown, the post acknowledges that "the students were not violent".  Being told to leave, and not leaving is not necessarily grounds for pepper spraying students on campus.  It was a huge mistake. Obviously.

Perhaps more important, this is (we have discussed before) just Campus Police not the City of Davis Police Department.  Campus Police work for and are to obey the University's Policies and it's Management's direction on campus - period.  They are employees of the Campus.  The Campus Police Chief's Boss, the Davis University President, and her UC boss, both determined that the Campus Police exceeded their authority given the circumstances.  The officer's were suspended (probably with full pay unlike if they worked for a private company). 

And probably they will be reinstated.  If it was a private company, and they were private employees, and disobeyed corporate policy (they disobey the Davis and UC Administration Policy using Pepper Spray without authority) they would be probably be fired and given nothing.  They exceeded their authority; it is not their position as a staff employee of the campus to make policy or to use force unless authorized or necessary to protect themselves.  Only Management can make that call.  Just like a clerk at hamburger place who is fired for bringing a gun to work. That's management's (UC) job to make those rules and decisions.  It's management's choice, not the campus employee's decision.

I usually agree with you CCP, but I'm a little surprised.  Imagine if your receptionist asked a patient and his family to leave your lobby, but the patient refused, however the patient was non violent. non threatening, just annoying and uncooperative.  He and his family just sat there.  What would you say if your receptionist, without being threatened in any way, then pulled out her Pepper Spray and attacked the entire family just to clear your lobby?  Causing damage to the individuals.  Wouldn't you feel a little guilty given the circumstances?  Was Pepper Spray appropriate?  As Management, wouldn't you like to have know before your receptionist Pepper Spayed Patients without justifiable cause and if appropriate, require your approval in advance excluding the employee being physically threatened? 

They exceeded their authority and are being appropriately chastised.  It's embarrassing for the campus and the entire UC System.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2011, 07:54:20 AM
JDN I hear you.

But I disagree with everything you say.

This is a set up.

"Being told to leave, and not leaving is not necessarily grounds for pepper spraying students on campus.  It was a huge mistake. Obviously."

They were warned.  I am not sympathetic.  But the University is going to be passive and not back the campus police.  So we will not likely get the whole story.  Just the liberal side of it.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 22, 2011, 08:09:13 AM
The President of Davis clearly stated that the Campus Police did not have authority to use Pepper Spray without her consent and it was not given.
They disobeyed causing problems for the University, the UC University System, and the University President.

CCP; I think my analogy in your office was good.  If a receptionist took violent action without your authority, (remember she wasn't threatened) causing harm to non violent individuals and because of her actions your business is threatened your morals and ethics are questioned, etc. what would you think of that receptionist?  I bet you would fire her on the spot.

Mind you, I am not deeply sympathetic to the protestors.  I'm focusing on the inappropriate and unauthorized use of force.  That's not a liberal story, that's just wrong.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 22, 2011, 08:22:26 AM
I'm willing to bet that UC-Davis PD has a use of force policy that does not require the permission of the UC Davis president.

Again, California University Police Officers are CA POST certfied peace officers with the same training, powers and authority as any other California Police Officer.

In the commonly used continuum of force, OC spray is on the low end, sometimes before the use of soft empty hand on non-compliant subjects.

Failure to obey a lawful command of a peace officer isn't just "irritating", it's illegal and an arrestable offense.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 22, 2011, 08:36:03 AM
**An example of a continuum of force policy


1. Level 1 - Officer Presence:
Sublevels = Standing, Walking, Running, Canine, and/or Equine.
Compliant subjects are those individuals who offer no verbal or physical
resistance to the deputy’s commands and demonstrate their cooperation by
immediately responding to directions.

2. Level 2 - Verbal Commands:
Sublevels = Whisper, Conversation, Shout, and/or Canine.
Passive resistant subjects are those individuals that refuse to comply with
commands but are not attempting to physically prevent or defeat the deputy’s
commands or contact controls.

3. Level 3 - Control and Restraint:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, Restraints, OC Spray, Canine, Equine, and/or
Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others.

4. Level 4 - Chemical Agents: (normally used by SWAT and SRT)
Sublevels = Hand Held, Thrown, and/or Propelled.

5. Level 5- Temporary Incapacitation:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, Electronics, Canine, Equine.
Combative subjects are those individuals who attempt to defeat a deputy’s
compliance techniques in that they are resistant, combative and overtly
attempting to overpower the deputy.

6. Level 6 - Deadly Force:
Sublevels = Empty Hands, Impact Tools, and/or Firearms (warning shots are not allowed).
Deadly force assaults are any assaults where the deputy has reason to believe the
subject’s actions are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 22, 2011, 08:55:23 AM
Actually, the University President was quite clear; the officers did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

And while they may well be "certified" police officers (I have no interest in returning to that discussion) they report to and serve the School.  They are employees of the School.
It would seem to me that disobeying a campus police officer to disburse is only "illegal" and an "arrestable offense" on Campus if the School President and School Policy says it is;
the President sets the policy and rules; not staff.  However, whether it is an arrestable offense or not, my point is that campus police did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

In response to your most recent post which may or may not be applicable to a campus situation.  Probably it doesn't apply since the President clearly said the Campus Police did not
have authority to use Pepper Spray....  The students did not resort to any physical violence nor were the officers in danger.

Level 3.   "Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands
and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others."

The students neither physically resisted a deputy's control techniques nor were they a physical threat to others.  Even you previous post focuses on "non violent" protest.
Use of Pepper Spray against passive resistance on a campus is simply inappropriate especially when not authorized.

Further, I am willing to guess that on a school campus the range of forceful response against students is more limited than your general post.  And it should be more limited.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 22, 2011, 09:22:13 AM
Actually, the University President was quite clear; the officers did NOT have authority to use Pepper Spray.

**The prez is in butt-covering mode and it's doubtful she anymore of a legal grasp of the topic than you do.

And while they may well be "certified" police officers (I have no interest in returning to that discussion)

**Because you are wrong, as usual when you opine on anything related to law enforcement.

they report to and serve the School.  They are employees of the School.

**They are law enforcement officers employed by the State of California, just as CHP Officers and California DOJ Special Agents are, as an example.

It would seem to me that disobeying a campus police officer to disburse is only "illegal" and an "arrestable offense" on Campus if the School President and School Policy says it is;

**You would be wrong. California's Penal Code determines what the law is.

the President sets the policy and rules; not staff.  However, whether it is an arrestable offense or not, my point is that they did NOT have authority to use force.

**Again, Peace Officers enforce the laws as made by the state legislature and signed by the governor, in doing so, they are empowered to use force to enforce those laws. That's why it's called Law EnFORCEment.

In response to your most recent post which may or may not be applicable to a campus situation.  Probably it doesn't apply since the President clearly said the Campus Police did not
have authority to use Pepper Spray....  Nor did the students resort to any physical violence.

**If you start at the low end of the continuum of force, you move upwards until you gain compliance. If the officer's presence and verbal commands are ignored, then you move to the next level. In addition, the officer uses the force needed to address the situation. If going directly into a gunfight, a officer is not required to try verbal de-escalation first before shooting an armed assailant. You are not going to reach into a non-compliant crowd to go hands on for tactical/officer safety reasons.

Level 3.  "Active resistant subjects are those individuals who refuse to comply with the
deputy’s commands
and are physically resisting a deputy’s control techniques, or
individuals whose combination of words and actions may present a physical
threat to others."

The students neither physically resisted a deputy's control techniques nor were they a physical threat to others. 

**If they were refusing an order to disperse, that's a crime. In order to enforce those laws, force can be used, including spraying the crowd with OC.

Even you previous post focuses on "non violent" protest.

**And as we've seen, they can get violent quite quickly. The job of law enforcement isn't to fight fair, it's to win.

Further, I am willing to guess that on a school campus the range of forceful response against students is more limited than your post..

**Feel free to get UC-Davis PD's use of force policy and post it here.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2011, 09:44:14 AM
***Imagine if your receptionist asked a patient and his family to leave your lobby, but the patient refused, however the patient was non violent. non threatening, just annoying and uncooperative.  He and his family just sat there.  What would you say if your receptionist, without being threatened in any way, then pulled out her Pepper Spray and attacked the entire family just to clear your lobby?  Causing damage to the individuals.  Wouldn't you feel a little guilty given the circumstances?  Was Pepper Spray appropriate?  As Management, wouldn't you like to have know before your receptionist Pepper Spayed Patients without justifiable cause and if appropriate, require your approval in advance excluding the employee being physically threatened?****

Your analogy is a bit ridiculous but OK.  I'll give a go.  Suppose a group of students walk in my office and sit with arms locked accross the floor and refuse to vacate the premises.  I would then call the police and hope they would have these people removed.  Suppose they refuse to leave based on verbal commands.  Then what?  Since they are not violent I should just throw up my arms and agree it is their right to freedom of speech and let it go?

A receptionist is not the same as a police officer and might be subject to arrest in NJ for using pepper spray. 

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 22, 2011, 09:55:06 AM
I'll again point out that depending on Dept. policy, OC spray can be before going hands on, because there is a lesser risk of injury to both the officer and the offender from OC.

Unlike CN or CS gas, OC is actually legally classified as a food additive. It's the same compound that makes salsa or curry hot.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 22, 2011, 10:10:36 AM
I'm not avoiding the valid points made, I'm just tied up for the
rest of the day. I'll try to get back tonight or tomorrow.     :-)
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 22, 2011, 10:26:26 AM
CCP's answer make sense.  If they block your business and you report it to authorities you would expect them to be removed at some through a series of negotiations and/or increasingly stronger actions taken by LE.

GM:  "Unlike CN or CS gas, OC is actually legally classified as a food additive. It's the same compound that makes salsa or curry hot."

Like a waiter, they could just say they got their order wrong. ) 

Waterboarding is done only with a healthy, all-natural product as well.   :wink:

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 22, 2011, 10:31:52 AM
"Waterboarding is done only with a healthy, all-natural product as well."

Hell, with the right marketing, it might become a hot new trend for spas!
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
* I'm just tied up for the
rest of the day*

I cannot resist this one:

You mean you are on Wall Street with fellow "revolutionaries" elbow to elbow in front of Rupert Murdoch's NY office avoiding a bath?

Sound like a lot of fun.  Oh its so great to be part of history and of 'something'.  And the chicks are freebirds too  :-D
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2011, 03:16:31 PM
As best as I can tell in this case the question presented if whether the Campus Police needed to get permission from the President to follow the standard posted by GM.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 22, 2011, 07:12:42 PM
As best as I can tell in this case the question presented if whether the Campus Police needed to get permission from the President to follow the standard posted by GM.

I don't think that is the question.  The question is whether it was an appropriate response.

I'm not sure this subject is worthy of a lot of time, but.....

The standard posted by GM was typical of police departments; for example the LAPD.  Schools are different.

While GM may say campus police are employed by the State of CA and are similar to CHP, that's not quite true.  I'ld say they are more like meter maids at best in most cases.
Oh yeah, they too are employed by the State and are similar to the CHP.

Also, did you notice that the Chancellor herself on her own volition decided to suspend the Chief and other Officers?  It looks like they work directly for her.  Nor are they part of the Police Union.
They may well be fired without much recourse.

As far as following the Penal Code, well again the Chancellor makes the decisions (and she did) otherwise the campus police would not have moved against the students.
Campus police exist to serve the School.  They enforce the laws as directed by the Administration.  The students could have stayed there for the rest of the year unless the
Chancellor gave the nod to evict them.

It was an absolute debacle.  I think everyone agrees.

The Police Chief's BOSS, the Chancellor as I pointed out put the Chief and other Officers on Administrative leave.  That says something.  The Chancellor apologized.
That too says something.  the Chancellor is worried about her job because of the inappropriate actions of one of her employees.  That too says something is wrong.

If that's not enough, even the UC Board of Regents apologized.  Does ANYONE who matters think these Officers made the right decision?

As for CCP, what can I say but I wish.  :-)  I can only imagine being "tied up" in Rupert Murdoch's office (it probably does have a bath) and freebirds are always nice.   :-D

As for my receptionist example, I understand your point, it's valid, but my point is that Campus Police exist to serve the School Administration.  They are not LAPD.  Campus Police break up parties,
a little stealing, minor car accidents, and a lot of parking tickets.   Like a meter maid, they are much different than your receptionist.   In this case perhaps they should have called the Davis PD.  It would have been handled more professionally with less blowback.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 02:07:41 AM
"The standard posted by GM was typical of police departments; for example the LAPD.  Schools are different."

**Says the guy with no training, experience or background in law enforcement. Can you point to any statute, caselaw or policy to support that claim?
"Campus Police break up parties,
a little stealing, minor car accidents, and a lot of parking tickets.   Like a meter maid, they are much different than your receptionist.   In this case perhaps they should have called the Davis PD.  It would have been handled more professionally with less blowback."

**Davis PD may not have jurisdiction on the campus, though I'd bet money they have a mutual aid agreement with the University PD. Some agencies, such as the one my wife works for cross-deputizes University Officers with the City PD and County Sheriff's Dept. They respond to calls in those jurisdictions and vice-versa.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Who could forget the Virginia Tech and Columbine school shootings? Certainly not the UNCC Campus Police Department, which is why they say they're doing everything they can to prepare for the worst. UNCC Police Department formed a 13-member SWAT team with special training, special gear, and special tools and weapons.
"You can't just sit and wait for something to happen. You have to be ready at a moment's notice," said Lt. Josh Huffman of the UNCC Campus Police and SWAT team. "We can mobilize quickly. We have swat members on each squad, dayshift night shift.” "I think it's very possible something like that could happen on campus," said sophomore Corbin Peters. Most of these students weren't in college yet when the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting happened, but it's something they remember. "It was kind of scary. I wasn't even there and I can only imagine how scary it was for the students," said sophomore Calinda Burrus. So learning their college campus has a SWAT team is very comforting. "A lot can happen in a short period of time. For them to be able to react faster makes me feel safer," said senior Jacob Deaton. Officer Jerry Leocomte patrols the campus every day. "I think it's an essential part of a police department even though you hope it's something you'll never need," Leocomte said. The team trains in campus buildings and dorms to learn the layout so if an incident were to occur, they'd know exactly what to do. "We hope that we never have to be activated. It's not something we look forward to or want to happen, but in the event it does happen, we're ready," said Lt. Huffman.

Read more:

Police have arrested a member of the Vagos gang in San Francisco on charges that he killed the president of the San Jose chapter of the Hells Angels.

A University of California San Francisco police sergeant spotted Ernesto Manuel Gonzalez, 53, of San Jose at 8:20 p.m. Thursday and took him into custody. Sparks, Nev., police will come to retrieve him, according to UCSF Police Chief Pamela Roskowski.

Gonzalez is wanted in connection with the killing of Jeffrey "Jethro" Pettigrew, 51, the iconic president of the motorcycle club in San Jose, who also worked for the city's Department of Transportation. Pettigrew was shot in the back four times last Friday at John Ascuaga's Nugget casino in Sparks.

Roskowski said Gonzalez was spotted in a rented 2011 Chevrolet Malibu parked near Treat Street, a block away from Mission Center's campus police headquarters.

Sgt. John Gutierrez of the campus police department was on routine patrol when he saw Gonzalez acting "suspiciously," Roskowski said. Apparently, Gonzalez was leaning over the steering wheel and "shuffling around" in the driver's seat of a car with Washington state license plates.

The sergeant asked for identification, and when he ran Gonzalez's name, realized he was wanted in connection with the Hells Angels homicide.

"We're extremely proud of our actions," Roskowski said. "Sgt. Gutierrez is an outstanding police officer."
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 07:03:52 AM
Schools ARE different.  The school sets the rules.  The President/Chancellor is their boss - notice on her authority alone she put the Chief of Police on Administrative Leave plus a few others. Student's safety is paramount.  The Chancellor AND the UC Board of Regents APOLOGIZED for the Campus Police.  Doesn't that tell you something is wrong?  Of course Campus Police are different than the LAPD.  Catching the bad guys is barely on their list although it does happen.  The local college (30,000 students) campus police here don't even carry guns; the priority is giving out parking tickets and traffic control.  Sounds like a Meter Maid, walks like a Meter Maid, must be.....  UNCC has a SWAT team; now that is scary.  Or a joke.  I hope it's a joke.  If something that serious happens I don't want meter maids I want professionals.  Do you really think the UNCC's SWAT team is even close to LAPD's SWAT team?  Make a phone call to the local PD's SWAT team.

As to mutual aid agreements, i.e. responding to emergency calls, well Meter Maids respond too if it's an emergency.  All hands on deck including the cook.  That doesn't make them equal to LAPD.

All that said, campus police do a good job taking care of the school and the students.  But they should never have used Pepper Spray without management direction and authority - they may well lose their jobs for doing so.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 07:56:26 AM
a) I have seen apparently substantiated reports that the students had the police SURROUNDED and refused to budge.  Pepper spray seems like a pretty fg reasonable response to me!

b) As for the school president apologizing, , ,  any chance politics and cowardice played a role there?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 08:21:31 AM
There is absolutely no indication of any student violence, physical threats, or physical resistance on the part of the students to justify use of force.

As for allowing themselves to be surrounded (if they were) by peaceful non violent students, well that says a lot for the supposedly well trained campus police's tactics.    :-D

Cowardice?  Police resorting to use of force when not needed or authorized is cowardice in my opinion.  If you know UC Davis (very good school) this is a quiet idillic college campus; it's not South or East Los Angeles.  These are students, not violent gang members.  From their ivory tower, for the Board of Regents to apologize means something is very wrong.  They don't apologize very often.  As for politics, the Chancellor is not a political appointee nor is she running for office.  I don't know or care if she is republican or democrat. I do think her apology should be accepted, the officers chastised for their actions, and everyone else move on.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 09:03:43 AM
"UC Davis' embattled chancellor said campus police officers defied her orders when they used pepper spray on peaceful Occupy protesters last week."

In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Katehi said her office told the school's police department that officers needed to be peaceful when removing protesters.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it.

So the campus police disobeyed a direct order.  Maybe they/should bel be fired. 
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 09:18:01 AM
Surrounding police and blocking their free movement is a big no no.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 09:24:29 AM
The campus police disobeyed a direct order.  THAT'S a big no no.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 09:29:35 AM
As usual, JDN, you weren't there and don't have the background or experience to make an informed judgement on this.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 12:09:28 PM
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

 The Eureka Police Department defines “active resistance” as occurring when the “subject is attempting to interfere with the officer's actions by inflicting pain or physical injury to the officer without the use of a weapon or object.” 240 F.3d at 1202-3.   Characterizing the protestors' activities as “active resistance” is contrary to the facts of the case, viewing them, as we must, in the light most favorable to the protestors:  the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances.

"In addition, regional and state-wide police practice and protocol clearly suggest that using pepper spray against nonviolent protestors is excessive. "

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 02:50:16 PM

Those of us in the law enforcement community
know them by many names, such as Use of Force
Continuum, Use of Force Model, Use of Force Ladder,
or Use of Force Matrix. Regardless of what they are
called, visual models depicting progressive escalation
and de-escalation of force have become a mainstay in
the law enforcement community. There is a legitimate
debate among police trainers, administrators and
attorneys as to whether Use of Force continuums still
serve a vital function in the modern law enforcement
agency. The purpose of this article is not to take sides
on the issue, but rather to examine the facts, and allow
the reader to make an informed decision as to whether
continuums still serve a purpose in their agency.
Use of Force Continuums have been used in law
enforcement training for many years. According to
Bruce Siddle, founder of PPCT Management Systems
and author of “Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge”, the
first Use of Force models were based on early models
found in U.S. Army Military Police Manuals from the
early 1960’s.1 Siddle also indicated that those models
may have been based
on models developed by
France in the mid 1940’s.
According to police
defense expert George
Williams, “in the late
1960s, law enforcement
trainers who sincerely
desired to assist officers
in properly employing
force developed force continuums.”2 The Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) first developed
its own Use of Force Model as a result of the Use
of Force project which began in September 1990.
Regardless of when they were developed, Use of Force
Continuums have been a foundational element of law
enforcement training for the past twenty years.
Whether one is for or against the use of continuums
in training, an objective look at most continuums
will reveal a number of pitfalls that may limit their
usefulness. The most obvious pitfall is that Use of Force
Continuums are not typically based upon the standard
established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham vs.
Connor3. The Graham court established the standard
for Use of Force that applies to all American police
officers, regardless of jurisdiction.
The Graham court
held that Use of Force used by police officers is judged
upon the “objective reasonableness” standard of the
Fourth Amendment and incorporates the concept of
the totality of the circumstances.
In Graham the court
specifically stated “the test of reasonableness under the
Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition
or mechanical application”4, but that is exactly what
Use of Force Continuums attempt to do. Additionally,
most Use of Force Continuums do not address the
concept of the totality
of circumstances.
Most continuums are
structured in such a
way that a specific
subject action equates
to a specific officer
response, regardless
of the totality of
circumstances known to
the officer at the moment force was used. Experienced
law enforcement officers know that Use of Force
incidents do not occur in a vacuum. There are factors
such as known violent history of the suspect, duration
of the action, officer/subject variables, and other facts
that make up the totality of circumstances. Rather than
a specific response to a subject’s actions, there may be
a wide range of reasonable responses from which an
officer may choose.
Another problem is there is no consensus on the
definitions used in the various models. Passive
resistance may mean many different things to many
different officers. One officer may view passive
resistance as a protestor who refuses to stand up, while
another officer perceives that same protestor as actively
resistant. Who is right? Active resistance is generally
defined as threatening an officer;5 shoving, striking,
wrestling with, and even biting an
officer.6 In contrast, passive
resistance is described
by the following
suspect actions: (1)
remaining seated,
refusing to move,
and refusing to bear
weight;7 (2) protestors going
limp, or persons chaining themselves
together and covering their hands with maple syrup
to impede the use of handcuffs;8 (3) protestors
employing lock-down devices that immobilize their
arms and prevent their separation by police, although
the protestors could disengage themselves from the
devices.9 In many instances, continuums define actions
as active resistance which the courts have defined as
passive resistance. These inconsistencies only add to
the confusion an officer may experience when trying
to apply concepts taught by a model in a dynamic Use
of Force incident.
Finally, most Use of Force continuums are just not
practical from an application standpoint. While they
may certainly have benefit in explaining Use of Force
to juries in a sterile, quiet courtroom environment,
they hardly represent the “tense, uncertain and rapidly
evolving”10 circumstances faced by police officers in the
Linear models, progressive models, or whatever
name one may call them, encourage the officer to
try to find the minimal amount of force necessary to
control a subject’s actions. What happens when that
minimal amount of force fails to control the subject?
The officer now has to use even more force to control
the subject, which is likely to lead to more injuries to
both the officer and the subject who is resisting arrest.

At a recent law enforcement trainer’s conference this
analogy was used:
“If there was a fire at your home, would you want
the responding firefighters to attempt to calculate
the minimal amount of water that is necessary to
put out the flames, or would you prefer them to
use the reasonable amount it would take to get
the fire out? If they attempt to use the minimum
amount of water, and it doesn’t work, the fire
will most certainly get worse”11
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 02:55:44 PM
**This is who you want to smear, JDN. I know who I want watching my back in a bad situation.
 Southern California -- this just in
UC Davis officer in pepper-spraying was honored for past feats
 November 21, 2011 | 11:48 am

 Lt. John Pike
A UC Davis police officer who reportedly pepper-sprayed student protesters Friday is a former U.S. Marine who has been honored for his campus police work.
Lt. John Pike, identified by the UC Davis student newspaper as the officer at the center of the pepper-spray incident, was credited by the university for subduing a UC Davis Medical Center patient in 2006 as she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical, according to a UC Davis news release issued in June 2007.
Pike was in a hallway when he saw the patient try to assault one of two officers who were trying to prevent her from leaving the hospital against the advice of doctors and her mother, according to the release. He "went flying" to assist the officers and "landed a body block, powering his left shoulder into the patient" just as she was about to stab one of the officers, the release said.

Pike was 5-foot-10 and weighed 245 pounds. "I hit her hard," Pike said, according to the release, which said he weighed 245 pounds. He decided against using pepper spray, a baton or a sidearm because he did not want to injure his partners, the release said. One of officers credited Pike with helping to save his life.
"You've got all these tools on your belt," Pike said, "but sometimes they're not the best tools."
Pike received a meritorious service award from the university, his second such award for exceptional police work, the release said.
The patient later pleaded no contest to a single charge of assault on an officer.
"For me it was just a normal day at the office," the release quoted Pike as saying. "She posed a threat, and I had to handle it. I didn't want her to hurt either of my partners."
Pike's first award stemmed from a 2003 chase in which Pike used his patrol car to bump the vehicle of a person who was about to enter a highway going in the wrong direction of traffic.
The release said Pike had worked in law enforcement for 12 years as of 2007 and had divided his time between the UC Davis police and the Sacramento Police Department.
On Monday, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza was placed on administrative leave in the wake of the controversy over Friday's pepper-spraying. Two campus police officers earlier were put on leave.
The president of the University of California system has called for a review of police procedures on all campuses.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 03:20:25 PM
That's a lot of meter maid! :lol:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 04:18:05 PM
While I may want Lt. Pike watching my back, I wouldn't want him on my college campus.  It's different.  He's too Gung Ho, maybe his behavior is appropriate for Iraq or Afghanistan, but not a college campus.  Further, he disobeyed a direct order.  Even in the military that would get him in trouble.  In this case, his action will cost the school in more than one way.  All because of his gross incompetence. 

As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs.  The woman was how big?  And she was a patient in the hospital.  Indicative, the woman plead out to a misdemeanor.  It is sort of like getting a medal for arresting a guy with a single joint.  I mean that's cool, but...

An anti-gay slur by Pike in 2008 resulted in a racial and sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a former police officer against the department, ending in a $240,000 settlement. Officer Calvin Chang’s 2003 discrimination complaint against the university’s police chief and the UC Board of Regents claimed he was systematically ‘marginalized’ as the result of anti-gay and racist attitudes on the force. Chang specifically alleged Pike used profane anti-gay slurs describing him.

This guy is a liability.  He's archaic.  He does not belong on a school campus.

I think enough on this subject; let's see how the investigation plays out.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 04:19:56 PM
"Further, he disobeyed a direct order."

Please cite your evidence of this claim.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
See above.  But I'll repeat the post.  It's important.

"UC Davis' embattled chancellor said campus police officers defied her orders when they used pepper spray on peaceful Occupy protesters last week."

In an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Katehi said her office told the school's police department that officers needed to be peaceful when removing protesters.

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it."

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 04:28:23 PM

It appears you and she share the same ignorance of policing and general reality.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 04:29:50 PM
"As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs.  The woman was how big?  And she was a patient in the hospital.  Indicative, the woman plead out to a misdemeanor.  It is sort of like getting a medal for arresting a guy with a single joint.  I mean that's cool, but..."

You say this as a man with a long history of brave acts under dangerous conditions, right?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2011, 04:39:31 PM
"As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs."

"she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical,"

Some of you may remember Carl James from the tape six of the RCSFg series.  He was what we then regarded as an ancient 41 years old.  Carl served two tours of combat infantry in 'Nam, was a body guard and sparring partner to world boxing champion Alexis Arguello, and was the body guard who saved Larry Flynt's life when his psycho wife went after him with a knife.  Also, he worked the door in some of the more dangerous clubs of East Saint Louis.  In short, he was a man who had seen something of this world.

I remember that he told me the scariest thing for him was to break up two women fighting.  He said they were a combination of pyschol and feline eye scratching/gouging frenzy.  I wasn't there, but then neither were you JDN; put scissors in one's hands and a spray bottle with a caustic chemical, and a good hearty tackle seems well within the bounds of reason to me.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 04:43:45 PM
And, facing someone armed with an edged weapon is commonly considered a deadly force scenario.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 23, 2011, 08:07:14 PM
"As for his medal, it seems a bit melodramatic.  He's 5'10" and 245lbs."

"she threatened a fellow officer with scissors and a spray bottle containing a caustic chemical,"

Some of you may remember Carl James from the tape six of the RCSFg series.  He was what we then regarded as an ancient 41 years old.  Carl served two tours of combat infantry in 'Nam, was a body guard and sparring partner to world boxing champion Alexis Arguello, and was the body guard who saved Larry Flynt's life when his psycho wife went after him with a knife.  Also, he worked the door in some of the more dangerous clubs of East Saint Louis.  In short, he was a man who had seen something of this world.

I remember that he told me the scariest thing for him was to break up two women fighting.  He said they were a combination of pyschol and feline eye scratching/gouging frenzy.  I wasn't there, but then neither were you JDN; put scissors in one's hands and a spray bottle with a caustic chemical, and a good hearty tackle seems well within the bounds of reason to me.

It's true, I wasn't there and neither were you or anyone else here.  But I'm entitled to my opinion, just like the DA and Judge who weren't there either, nor have they been a police officer nor have they necessarily experienced "dangerous conditions"; but somehow they still make judgments based upon the facts provided.  In this matter, their conclusion was no big deal; she pleaded to a misdemeanor (probably she did community service only) - a DUI is far worse.  So I truly doubt if Carl James would have called this hospital patient "scary".  That said, I have no problem with a "good hearty tackle".  It's the medal I was making fun of.  Many LAPD Police on a weekly basis face danger far more severe than than an inpatient sick woman who is half their size and still they don't get a medal; they are just doing their job.  LAPD, unlike most campus police are professionals. 

This guy messed up, big time.  Worse, he had a direct order from his superior NOT to use force which he obviously disobeyed and which is even on Video.  There is simply no excuse for this guy. He's already cost the school money because of his racist red neck attitude, further this incident will and has already cost the school far more because of his ignorance and incompetence.  A private company would have fired him by now.  Instead he's home collecting his six figure+ salary PLUS huge benefits watching soaps on TV.  God bless government jobs, right?   :-D :-o :-o
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 23, 2011, 11:39:29 PM
Yes, you have the right to your opinion, as you enjoy the protection of the men and women you condemn.
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Van Jones reappears
Post by: DougMacG on November 25, 2011, 06:19:30 PM
Van Jones left the administration because of past extremist affiliations?  Or did he leave to form new ones??


Does this look like a ground level up movement to you?  Repeat after me...

I wonder what the early national socialist rallies in Germany looked like.
Title: Expert opinion
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 05:45:04 PM

Many students, lawmakers and even the university's chancellor have called the officers' actions a horrific example of unnecessary force. But some experts on police tactics say, depending on the circumstances, pepper spray can be more effective to de-escalate a tense situation than dragging off protesters or swinging at them with truncheons.

"Between verbalized commands and knock-down, drag-out fights, there's quite a bit of wiggle room," said David Klinger, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer and instructor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who reviewed the pepper spray footage.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 06:37:36 PM

Many students, lawmakers and even the university's chancellor have called the officers' actions a horrific example of unnecessary force. But some experts on police tactics say, depending on the circumstances, pepper spray can be more effective to de-escalate a tense situation than dragging off protesters or swinging at them with truncheons.

"Between verbalized commands and knock-down, drag-out fights, there's quite a bit of wiggle room," said David Klinger, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer and instructor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who reviewed the pepper spray footage.

That may well be true, often, if not usually, there is quite a bit of "wiggle room".  Frankly, if they met resistance and were told to "drag off the protesters" I can understand the point.

However, in UC Davis situation, a DIRECT ORDER was given to do it peacefully. 

"We told the police to remove the tents or the equipment," she told the paper. "We told them very specifically to do it peacefully, and if there were too many of them, not to do it, if the students were aggressive, not to do it."  That seems pretty clear; if you meet resistance, you back off, you do not escalate.  Further, I think a college campus is different; kid gloves is the norm, not use of force.

I'm interested to see how the LAPD handles the problem this week.  It is my understanding that unlike UC Davis, orders are different.  They are to clear
the area - period.  In general, I am a big fan of LAPD so I anticipate they will handle it professionally and if force is necessary to carry out the mandate to clear the area they will use the minimum force necessary to do so.  That may include Pepper Spray.

Circumstances are different.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 07:34:21 PM
"I'm interested to see how the LAPD handles the problem this week."

Hmmmm. I'm not impressed. What's a little lawlessness, so long as it distract from Obozo's failings.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 08:01:12 PM
I understand your point, but LA has a long history of protest tolerance.  The causes seem to vary.....  Two months ago it was some protest against Thailand.  Before that the Philippines.  Mexico of course.  It's always something.  I support free speech, but I wish they would announce it in advance;  I could avoid going downtown and the traffic jam.   :-)

That said, when given a direct order to clear the area, LAPD CLEARS the area.  By whatever means are necessary.  Stay tuned...

PS  Obviously LAPD in this video was not told to use any force or to take action to clear the intersection (typical in a protest in LA).  Unlike some (UC Davis), at least LAPD rank and file know how to obey orders.....   :-)

They know that's a management call; way above their pay grade.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 08:06:08 PM
I wish these asshats would block the intersection of Florence and Normandie.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 08:11:44 PM
They are crazy, but not stupid...       :-D
Title: LAPD clears a protest
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 08:17:19 PM
"I understand your point, but LA has a long history of protest tolerance."

Oh really?


Not OC spray.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 08:34:58 PM
As I said, when LAPD is given a direct order to "clear the area", they CLEAR the area.  Nothing ambiguous about it.  Their only mistake at MacArthur Park is that they thumped a few Newscasters. 
They like to think they are exempt.   :-)

That said, that was not the order given to UC Davis Campus Police.  In fact, the opposite order was given, yet disobeyed. Disciple is important.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 08:41:25 PM
"That said, that was not the order given to UC Davis Campus Police."

That's the claim from the butt-covering educrat. We shall see.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 08:51:58 PM
I agree; but if she gave the order (see her quote) not to use force then the officer should be toast.

Then again, if it's all BS, and she said "clear them out" period, then frankly, the President should be toast.  The officer was just doing his job.

Emails and witnesses should be able to verify the facts.

I look forward to hear how it plays out.  I understand former LAPD Chief Bratton (whom I respect very highly) has been retained to do the investigation.
It should be fair.  If anything, being a former police officer, he is biased in favor of the officer (faculty and students are complaining), but then again, I respect Bratton's objectivity, competency, and honesty.
Let the chips fall as they may.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 26, 2011, 08:56:39 PM
There was a study some time back that found that civillian review boards tended to rule in a more favorable manner towards officers over police administrators.

As I've posted before, Graham v. Connor is the national standard for use of force for law enforcement.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 26, 2011, 09:18:45 PM
I understand Graham v. Connor, but please remember this is a college campus.  I still say that's different.  A "soft touch" is the norm.
Being "surrounded" even if they were, doesn't count as being "threatened".  Just bad tactics; note, no one physically threatened the officer at any time.
No one disputes that fact.

I think Bratton will be fair. 
More important, did the UC Davis President say what she said or didn't she?  That is the key. 
If she did, the officer should be toast.  He disobeyed an order.  It wasn't his call. 
If she is lying well, she's out of a job.  And should be. 

Hopefully, the truth can be found.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2011, 06:23:25 AM
We shall see.
Title: The great uniter, post partisan post racial leader
Post by: ccp on November 28, 2011, 11:47:35 AM
President Obama praised Frank's work on the financial reform legislation.

"This country has never had a Congressman like Barney Frank, and the House of Representatives will not be the same without him," Obama said in a statement. "It is only thanks to his leadership that we were able to pass the most sweeping financial reform in history designed to protect consumers and prevent the kind of excessive risk-taking that led to the financial crisis from ever happening again."


Title: The cognitive dissonance of the left: Barney Frank
Post by: DougMacG on November 29, 2011, 07:58:14 PM
Continuing from media issues, Crafty wrote: "It goes far deeper and far worser than missing the call.  He [Rep. Barney Frank] actively drove the disaster [Housing Freddie Fannie crisis]."


CRA and everything about affordable housing means making decisions on criteria other than creditworthiness and likelihood of paying the loan back.

"Beginning in 1992 and continuing through 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to meet affordable housing goals established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For most of these years, Frank was the staunchest defender of this policy."

That is what is was and he is who was driving it.

But Frank blames Republicans who controlled the house from 1995 through 2006.  Also true.  That is what we call RINOs, the go-along crowd.  These are liberal policies, but a coalition of Dems and RINOs is a governing majority even when Republicans in name control the House.

Flashback, here is Barney Frank at the end, chair of the committee, hellbent on cutting off Michele Bachmann's questioning of Geithner and Bernancke March 2009 (Rep. Bachmann and the 3 stooges):
Title: LAPD
Post by: JDN on November 30, 2011, 08:50:44 AM
The LAPD did a first class professional job.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2011, 03:26:32 PM
Umm, glad to hear it, but why is that in this thread?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 30, 2011, 07:31:32 PM
Umm, glad to hear it, but why is that in this thread?

There is foundation.  If you look above GM and I had a long discussion on the proper role of force and police action at UC Davis.  Among other issues, I questioned the professionalism and actions of
the Campus Police (GM defended them) and I commented that I thought/hoped the LAPD would handle the situation here better.  In fact the LAPD did handle IMHO the LA situation superbly;
a situation much more volatile, dangerous and politically hot than the student protest at UC Davis.  Unlike UC Davis campus police, LAPD followed orders; then when ordered to clear the area, solved the problem
with minimal use of force.  That's how it should be done.  That's why I said LAPD did a first class job and linked the LA Times article.

Then again you could argue this belongs Citizen-Police Interactions.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2011, 08:47:22 PM
Which could restart the conversation on a fresher note :-)
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on November 30, 2011, 09:22:30 PM
I think GM (although I can't answer for him) and I will both wait until further developments happen in the UC Davis matter before
we take up this conversation again.  Stay tuned!   :-)  I am glad though the LA situation turned out reasonably well.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2011, 10:36:01 AM

Photo of Occupy poster - obese woman - protesting for more food and welfare rights.  Good grief.
Welfare Rights Committee, St. Paul, MN.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on December 01, 2011, 11:25:09 AM

Photo of Occupy poster - obese woman - protesting for more food and welfare rights.  Good grief.
Welfare Rights Committee, St. Paul, MN.

Because uncaring capitalists like you won't shell out for a personal trainer and chef for this poor woman. Shame!
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2011, 02:19:14 PM
"Because uncaring capitalists like you won't shell out for a personal trainer and chef for this poor woman."

GM, You must write from a red state.  In the blue states we don't joke about new entitlements.  She is already entitled to a free cab ride to her taxpayer paid sex change operation.

A tornado ran through that town this year still needing cleanup.  If she had worked off some of that welfare she would be a much thinner, healthier version of ugly.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2011, 04:04:52 PM
Hey how come Sharpton Jackson and the rest of the race baiters are no where to be seen or heard when the media is assasinating a conservative Black?

Bottom line - it ain't about race - its about reparations.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on December 01, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
"Because uncaring capitalists like you won't shell out for a personal trainer and chef for this poor woman."

GM, You must write from a red state.  In the blue states we don't joke about new entitlements.  She is already entitled to a free cab ride to her taxpayer paid sex change operation.

**It's more purple now. It's red in the rural areas where people actually do productive things and maintain civilization, where the metro area is filled with illegals and other members of the leech class as cultivated by the dems.

A tornado ran through that town this year still needing cleanup.  If she had worked off some of that welfare she would be a much thinner, healthier version of ugly.
**You want people to work for money? OUTRAGE!
Title: Another one of Doug's victims
Post by: G M on December 01, 2011, 04:13:00 PM

Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2011, 04:49:55 PM
GM,  Welcome to my world.  The court's goal after taking them away is to keep re-uniting them with their mother, 'the best interest of the child' and start it over again.

"I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GONNA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!"

Fiance and father of 10 of them arrested. No!  They didn't say what he did for a living before the arrest, lol.

"Somebody needs to pay for all my children"  "Somebody needs to be held accountable"  - Yes!

Cute kids.  Adopt them out early.  And take her to a humane society to be 'fixed' - voluntarily in a plea agreement.

What is a leftist solution to correcting no-consequences behavior?
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left- Krugman: Not enough government spending
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2011, 10:43:00 AM
Today's column is that Europe is spending too little, but his argument is the same here.  A Nobel Laureate (aren't they all?), I don't know what it would take to call him a discredited economist/pundit.
... And here, too, we desperately need expansionary fiscal and monetary policies to support the economy as these debtors struggle back to financial health. Yet, as in Europe, public discourse is dominated by deficit scolds and inflation obsessives.

So the next time you hear someone claiming that if we don’t slash spending we’ll turn into Greece, your answer should be that if we do slash spending while the economy is still in a depression, we’ll turn into Europe. In fact, we’re well on our way.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on December 02, 2011, 10:55:13 AM
"A Nobel Laureate (aren't they all?)"

Every time I drive through Princeton all I can think of is "stinking liberal university professors".  All the same.  Columbia Hahvood, Yale Princeton.

I cannot think Ivy league without the thought of American hating professors teaching the propaganda.

To think this guy Krugman was given a noble prize is just as big a joke as Brock getting one for peace.

They belong in the same boat as Arafat.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on December 02, 2011, 04:23:51 PM
I don't understand why people disrespect the work that most Nobel laureates do.

And I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is impossible to imagine conservatives teaching at top flight universities.  For example, I was taught by a economics faculty member with strong ties to the Institute for Humane Studies.  
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on December 02, 2011, 04:47:23 PM
I don't understand why people disrespect the work that most Nobel laureates do.

**Because Buraq the Bloodthirsty and Krugman damage the brand.

And I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is impossible to imagine conservatives teaching at top flight universities.  For example, I was taught by a economics faculty member with strong ties to the Institute for Humane Studies.  

**Probably because of this:

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
Published: February 7, 2011

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”

Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.

“Thus,” they conclude, “the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.” Instead of presuming discrimination in science or expecting the sexes to show equal interest in every discipline, the Cornell researchers say, universities should make it easier for women in any field to combine scholarship with family responsibilities.

Can social scientists open up to outsiders’ ideas? Dr. Haidt was optimistic enough to title his speech “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” urging his colleagues to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values. To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

For a tribal-moral community, the social psychologists in Dr. Haidt’s audience seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument. Some said he overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020. The society’s executive committee didn’t endorse Dr. Haidt’s numerical goal, but it did vote to put a statement on the group’s home page welcoming psychologists with “diverse perspectives.” It also made a change on the “Diversity Initiatives” page — a two-letter correction of what it called a grammatical glitch, although others might see it as more of a Freudian slip.

In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”

As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 10, 2011

Because of an editing error, the Findings column on Tuesday, about political bias among social scientists, omitted the last four words of a sentence that countered the notion that female scientists face discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. The sentence should have read: But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams.
Title: A left-wing monopoly on campuses
Post by: G M on December 02, 2011, 04:53:12 PM

A left-wing monopoly on campuses
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  December 2, 2004

THE LEFT-WING takeover of American universities is an old story. In 1951, William F. Buckley Jr. created a sensation with "God and Man at Yale," which documented the socialist and atheist worldview that even then prevailed in the classrooms of the Ivy League institution he had just graduated from.

Today campus leftism is not merely prevalent. It is radical, aggressive, and deeply intolerant, as another newly minted graduate of another prominent university -- Ben Shapiro of UCLA -- shows in "Brainwashed," a recent bestseller. "Under higher education's facade of objectivity," Shapiro writes, "lies a grave and overpowering bias" -- a charge he backs up with example after freakish example of academics going to ideological extremes.

No surprise, then, that when researchers checked the voter registration of humanities and social science instructors at 19 universities, they discovered a whopping political imbalance. The results, published in The American Enterprise in 2002, made it clear that for all the talk of diversity in higher education, ideological diversity in the modern college faculty is mostly nonexistent.

So, for example, at Cornell, of the 172 faculty members whose party affiliation was recorded, 166 were liberal (Democrats or Greens) and six were conservative (Republicans or Libertarians). At Stanford the liberal-conservative ratio was 151-17. At San Diego State it was 80-11. At SUNY Binghamton, 35-1. At UCLA, 141-9. At the University of Colorado-Boulder, 116-5. Reflecting on these gross disparities, The American Enterprise's editor, Karl Zinsmeister, remarked: "Today's colleges and universities . . . do not, when it comes to political and cultural ideas, look like America."

At about the same time, a poll of Ivy League professors commissioned by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture found that more than 80 percent of those who voted in 2000 had cast their ballots for Democrat Al Gore while just 9 percent backed Republican George W. Bush. While 64 percent said they were "liberal" or "somewhat liberal," only 6 percent described themselves as "somewhat conservative' -- and none at all as "conservative."

And the evidence continues to mount.

The New York Times reports that a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics shows Democratic professors outnumbering Republicans by at least 7 to 1 in the humanities and social sciences. At Berkeley and Stanford, according to a separate study that included professors of engineering and the hard sciences, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is even more lopsided: 9 to 1.

Such one-party domination of any major institution is problematic in a nation where Republicans and Democrats can be found in roughly equal numbers. In academia it is scandalous. It strangles dissent, suppresses debate, and causes minorities to be discriminated against. It is certainly antithetical to good scholarship. "Any political position that dominates an institution without dissent," writes Mark Bauerlein, an English professor at Emory and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts, "deteriorates into smugness, complacency, and blindness. ... Groupthink is an anti-intellectual condition."

Worse yet, it leads faculty members to abuse their authority. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has just released the results of the first survey to measure student perceptions of faculty partisanship. The ACTA findings are striking. Of 658 students polled at the top 50 US colleges, 49 percent said professors "frequently comment on politics in class even though it has nothing to do with the course," 48 percent said some "presentations on political issues seem totally one-sided," and 46 percent said that "professors use the classroom to present their personal political views."

Academic freedom is not only meant to protect professors; it is also supposed to ensure students' right to learn without being molested. When instructors use their classrooms to indoctrinate and propagandize, they cheat those students and betray the academic mission they are entrusted with. That should be intolerable to honest men and women of every stripe -- liberals and conservatives alike.

"If this were a survey of students reporting widespread sexual harassment," says ACTA's president, Anne Neal, "there would be an uproar." That is because universities take sexual harassment seriously. Intellectual harassment, on the other hand -- like the one-party conformity it flows from -- they ignore. Until that changes, the scandal of the campuses will only grow worse.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left - Nobel
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2011, 05:00:18 PM
Bigdog,  I am sorry for my ad hominem attack on Nobel prize winners.  In the context of all my previous posts, I was only referring to:
 a) I cannot connect Paul Krugman the columnist with the scholarly work he did previously,
 b) Al Gore and the IPCC who made wild inflammatory claims not even following their cherry picked data, and
 c) Pres. Barack Obama after a partial term in the Senate and a minute or two in his job.

These examples devalue IMHO the international gold standard for scholarly work.  I appreciate being held to account for my statements that go over the top.

FWIW, I was taught economics by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson who was also economic adviser to Presidential candidate Sen. Kennedy.  He taught us that his answer is the answer.  I envy those who had the prominent conservative professors, or those who present more than one viewpoint well, as I assume you strive for in your teaching.  I never personally met one.  
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on December 02, 2011, 05:56:14 PM
Thank you Doug.

And for what is worth, I used to ride the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner and a different economist who was an architect of the Reagan economic policy, neither of whom I would call "liberal."  Oh, and the professor I took Price Theory with who is an IHS fellow.  Damn my liberal, Ivy League-quality education.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on December 02, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Thank you Doug.

And for what is worth, I used to ride the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner and a different economist who was an architect of the Reagan economic policy, neither of whom I would call "liberal."  Oh, and the professor I took Price Theory with who is an IHS fellow.  Damn my liberal, Ivy League-quality education.

Did they cover what statistical outliers are in that liberal, Ivy League-quality education?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 02, 2011, 07:16:27 PM
 :lol:  FWIW, my undergrad degree was from U PA and my JD from Columbia.

I remember with great fondness my International Relations Prof. William Quandt in 1975, who headed up the mid-east desk at the NSC under Henry Kissinger.  I remember him as a man of intellectual integrity.  He gave me an A+ for a paper that strongly criticized the then liberal progressive outrage against multinational corporations.  Generally he was a great teacher.

I also remember Professor Mansfield.  I was the star of the class in the semester on micro-economics.  The second semester, using the textbook that the Prof wrote, we covered Macro.  The book was strongly Keynesian.  In the late 60s due to my strong opposition to the Vietnam War, I imagined myself a leftist, but when confronted with the specious reasoning of Prof. Mansfield's Keynesianism, I realized I was a free marketeer.  I sealed my fate with Prof M. one day in class when I doubted his prosletyzation for government guidance of the economy because it would require "sustained intelligence on the part of the government".  The wave of snickering across the class had 80-100 people discomfitted him and somehow I went from an "A" in the first semester to a "C" in the second semester.

I also liked my prof for my senior thesis class.  We spent a goodly amount of time on Samuel Huntington and Barrington Moore (The Social Origins of dictatorship and democracy)  I liked this a lot and found the class stimulating.

OTOH there was Columbia.  More tomorrow (if I remember to) including my Con Law class with Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Title: The left and the right.
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2011, 11:27:32 PM
Robert Mundell (just taking a stab at it) is one I greatly admire. 

Looking forward to any memorable stories from Prof. Ginsburg. 

Walter Heller, who I mentioned, was a Keynesian with quite an interesting bio.  Later a Ted Kennedy adviser working on national health care and gas rationing in the late 1970s, but I believe he was noticeably to the right of the current writings of Prof. Krugman:  (1915–1987) was a leading American economist of the 1960s, and an influential advisor to President John F. Kennedy as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, 1961-64.

He was a Keynesian who promoted cuts in the marginal federal income tax rates. This tax cut, which was passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress after Kennedy's death, was credited for boosting the U.S. economy. Heller developed the first "voluntary" wage-price guidelines. When the steel industry failed to follow them, it was publicly attacked by Kennedy and quickly complied. Heller was one of the first to emphasize that tax deductions and tax preferences narrowed the income tax base, thus requiring, for a given amount of revenue, higher marginal tax rates. The historic tax cut and its positive effect on the economy has often been cited as motivation for more recent tax cuts by Republicans.

The day after Kennedy was assassinated, Heller met with President Johnson in the Oval Office. To get the country going again, Heller suggested a major initiative he called the "War on Poverty", which Johnson adopted enthusiastically. Later, when Johnson insisted on escalating the Vietnam War without raising taxes, setting the stage for an inflationary spiral, Heller resigned.

In the early phases of his career, Heller contributed to the creation of the Marshall Plan of 1947, and was instrumental in re-establishing the German currency following World War II, which helped usher an economic boom in West Germany.

Heller was critical of Milton Friedman's followers and labelled them cultish: "Some of them are Friedmanly, some Friedmanian, some Friedmanesque, some Friedmanic and some Friedmaniacs."[1]

Heller joined the University of Minnesota faculty as an associate professor of economics in 1945, left to serve in government, and returned in the 1960s, eventually serving as chair of the Department of Economics. He built it into a top-ranked department with spectacular hires, including Nobel Prize winners Leonid Hurwicz (2008) and Edward C. Prescott (2004).
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on December 03, 2011, 12:16:10 AM
Thank you Doug.

And for what is worth, I used to ride the elevator with a Nobel Prize winner and a different economist who was an architect of the Reagan economic policy, neither of whom I would call "liberal."  Oh, and the professor I took Price Theory with who is an IHS fellow.  Damn my liberal, Ivy League-quality education.

Did they cover what statistical outliers are in that liberal, Ivy League-quality education?

Of course they did, GM.  If you read closely, I was responding to a particular post that was discussing the absolute absence of conservatives in higher education.  I then went on to say "...I can't, for the life of me, understand why it is impossible to imagine conservatives teaching at top flight universities."  There was nothing in either of my posts that should indicate to you that I was suggesting a 3-1 conservative to liberal ratio.  But, I did illustrate that there is NOT an absolute absence of conservatives teaching in the nation's finest universities. 

And, there are conservatives who teach at the nation's finest law schools.  The University of Chicago, which is consistently ranked in the top five in the nation, is considered to be a conservative legal education.  And John Yoo, who most of have heard of, teaches at UC-Berkeley. 
Title: Arrestees traumatized
Post by: JDN on December 03, 2011, 09:41:05 AM
GM - Even from here, I can hear you crying in sympathy!   :-) :-) :-)

Title: Re: Arrestees traumatized
Post by: G M on December 03, 2011, 09:52:12 AM
GM - Even from here, I can hear you crying in sympathy!   :-) :-) :-)

Title: JDN's ignorance vs. reality
Post by: G M on December 08, 2011, 01:24:36 PM

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Cranewings on December 09, 2011, 02:13:29 AM
 I sealed my fate with Prof M. one day in class when I doubted his prosletyzation for government guidance of the economy because it would require "sustained intelligence on the part of the government".

That is really funny.
Title: Why progressive policies always fail
Post by: G M on December 09, 2011, 02:59:10 PM

Why progressive policies always fail

By:Richard A. Epstein | 12/07/11 8:05 PM
Op-Ed Contributor.
Much has been made lately of those whose income is in the top 1 percent, who supposedly don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. They have been denounced as close to common thieves.
But think of the gains that they generate for others. We have rigged our tax policies so that, depending on the year, close to 40 percent of the income tax revenue comes from the 1 percent of the population that controls 20 percent of the wealth.
Close to half the population pays no federal income tax at all. This is a political disaster in the making.
The American economy is currently stagnating for two main reasons. At the top of the system, a relentless program of redistributive taxation undermines incentives for long-term investment and growth.
Yet from this vain pursuit of economic equality, we get declining standards of living for all. Simultaneously on the ground, excessive regulation of labor and real estate markets chokes off growth -- employer by employer and house by house.

Our lopsided structure cannot last. Stock market losses cut the total income of so-called "one percenters" by around 30 percent between 2007 and 2009, with the greatest losses in the top 0.1 percent.
Higher tax rates will drive that overall level of wealth lower still, given that so little government revenue comes from the bottom half of the income distribution. Low tax revenues plus shiny new entitlements create an unsustainable situation where 40 percent of current expenditures are funded by long term debt, on which principal and interest payments will soon come due.
The correct policy flattens the tax rates to boost growth to the top, by leaving more wealth in private hands for intelligent wealth creation. Short-term tax horizons make it difficult for intelligent investors to implement long-term planning, which drives foreign capital from our shores, and sends American capital abroad.
The problem at the top is compounded by a similar paralysis at the bottom. Job creation best occurs in competitive markets. It is hampered when a purported jobs bill starts with "buy American" and "prevailing wage" provisions that pay homage to protectionism and monopoly unions.
Job creation is not helped when the Obama administration takes after Boeing for refusing to build new plants for the benefit of its intransigent unions, and proposes endless changes of national labor law in order to strengthen the hands of unions in organizing drives.
Still more jobs are destroyed by stiffer enforcement of overtime, minimum wage and antidiscrimination laws, all of which nix hiring by cautious employers. The prospect of heavy, but uncertain levies, to fund Obamacare injects yet further caution.

Housing policy is no better. Constant delays on foreclosure keep people in possession of their homes after chronic default imposes a permanent pall over housing markets.
Borrowers with no equity in their home, are more concerned with staving off foreclosure than maintaining their premises. Existing housing stock does not get resold in the market at prices that reflect its present value. Yet further subsidies are channeled via the Federal Housing Administration to perpetuate the cycle of high-risk lending.
All of this must stop if American government hopes to avert the rapid dissipation of human and physical capital. Deregulation has advantages that no system of government subsidies can hope to match.
Dial back on the full-court press against job creation and mortgage foreclosure, and jobs and new construction will follow. But the stagflation will continue so long as unsound regimes of taxation, public expenditure and market regulation place a hobnail boot on the throat of the American economy.

Richard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch professor of law, New York University Law School, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. This piece was adapted from his broadside, "Why Progressive Institutions Are Unsustainable," available from Encounter Books.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Sustainable Capitalism by Al Gore et al, WSJ
Post by: DougMacG on December 17, 2011, 09:51:09 AM
Al Gore is giving voice to researchers: "Rob Bauer and Daniel Hann of Maastricht University, and Beiting Cheng, Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim of Harvard" and others who found that: "sustainable businesses realize financial benefits such as lower cost of debt and lower capital constraints".

The assumption is that corporate managers otherwise only look to next quarter's earning, all are really Enrons imploding without a new focus.  But the great corporations of today already are the ones who perform well year after year and decade after decade by looking our for long term interests.

Get ready for ESG Metrics to be a required MBA course and a fast growing major across the fruited, liberal academic plain.  Who is your company's Chief ESG Officer?

A Manifesto for Sustainable Capitalism
How businesses can embrace environmental, social and governance metrics.


In the immediate aftermath of World War II, when the United States was preparing its visionary plan for nurturing democratic capitalism abroad, Gen. Omar Bradley said, "It is time to steer by the stars, and not by the lights of each passing ship." Today, more than 60 years later, that means abandoning short-term economic thinking for "sustainable capitalism."

We are once again facing one of those rare turning points in history when dangerous challenges and limitless opportunities cry out for clear, long-term thinking. The disruptive threats now facing the planet are extraordinary: climate change, water scarcity, poverty, disease, growing income inequality, urbanization, massive economic volatility and more. Businesses cannot be asked to do the job of governments, but companies and investors will ultimately mobilize most of the capital needed to overcome the unprecedented challenges we now face.

Before the crisis and since, we and others have called for a more responsible form of capitalism, what we call sustainable capitalism: a framework that seeks to maximize long-term economic value by reforming markets to address real needs while integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics throughout the decision-making process.

Such sustainable capitalism applies to the entire investment value chain—from entrepreneurial ventures to large public companies, seed-capital providers to institutional investors, employees to CEOs, activists to policy makers. It transcends borders, industries, asset classes and stakeholders.

Those who advocate sustainable capitalism are often challenged to spell out why sustainability adds value. Yet the question that should be asked instead is: "Why does an absence of sustainability not damage companies, investors and society at large?" From BP to Lehman Brothers, there is a long list of examples proving that it does.

Moreover, companies and investors that integrate sustainability into their business practices are finding that it enhances profitability over the longer term. Experience and research show that embracing sustainable capitalism yields four kinds of important benefits for companies:

• Developing sustainable products and services can increase a company's profits, enhance its brand, and improve its competitive positioning, as the market increasingly rewards this behavior.

• Sustainable capitalism can also help companies save money by reducing waste and increasing energy efficiency in the supply chain, and by improving human-capital practices so that retention rates rise and the costs of training new employees decline.

• Third, focusing on ESG metrics allows companies to achieve higher compliance standards and better manage risk since they have a more holistic understanding of the material issues affecting their business.

• Researchers (including Rob Bauer and Daniel Hann of Maastricht University, and Beiting Cheng, Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim of Harvard) have found that sustainable businesses realize financial benefits such as lower cost of debt and lower capital constraints.

Sustainable capitalism is also important for investors. Mr. Serafeim and his colleague Robert G. Eccles have shown that sustainable companies outperform their unsustainable peers in the long term. Therefore, investors who identify companies that embed sustainability into their strategies can earn substantial returns, while experiencing low volatility.

Because ESG metrics directly affect companies' long-term value, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, foundations and the like—investors with long-term liabilities—should include these metrics as an essential aspect of valuation and investment strategy. Sustainable capitalism requires investors to be good investors, to fully understand the companies they invest in and to believe in their long-term value and potential.

We recommend five key actions for immediate adoption by companies, investors and others to accelerate the current incremental pace of change to one that matches the urgency of the situation:

• Identify and incorporate risk from stranded assets. "Stranded assets" are those whose value would dramatically change, either positively or negatively, when large externalities are taken into account—for example, by attributing a reasonable price to carbon or water. So long as their true value is ignored, stranded assets have the potential to trigger significant reductions in the long-term value of not just particular companies but entire sectors.

That's exactly what occurred when the true value of subprime mortgages was belatedly recognized and mortgage-backed assets were suddenly repriced. Until there are policies requiring the establishment of a fair price on widely understood externalities, academics and financial professionals should strive to quantify the impact of stranded assets and analyze the subsequent implications for investment opportunities.

• Mandate integrated reporting. Despite an increase in the volume and frequency of information made available by companies, access to more data for public equity investors has not necessarily translated into more comprehensive insight into companies. Integrated reporting addresses this problem by encouraging companies to integrate both their financial and ESG performance into one report that includes only the most salient or material metrics.

This enables companies and investors to make better resource-allocation decisions by seeing how ESG performance contributes to sustainable, long-term value creation. While voluntary integrated reporting is gaining momentum, it must be mandated by appropriate agencies such as stock exchanges and securities regulators in order to ensure swift and broad adoption.

• End the default practice of issuing quarterly earnings guidance. The quarterly calendar frequently incentivizes executives to manage for the short-term. It also encourages some investors to overemphasize the significance of these measures at the expense of longer-term, more meaningful measures of sustainable value creation. Ending this practice in favor of companies' issuing guidance only as they deem appropriate (if at all) would encourage a longer-term view of the business.

• Align compensation structures with long-term sustainable performance. Most existing compensation schemes emphasize short-term actions and fail to hold asset managers and corporate executives accountable for the ramifications of their decisions over the long-term. Instead, financial rewards should be paid out over the period during which these results are realized and compensation should be linked to fundamental drivers of long-term value, employing rolling multiyear milestones for performance evaluation.

• Incentivize long-term investing with loyalty-driven securities. The dominance of short-termism in the market fosters general market instability and undermines the efforts of executives seeking long-term value creation. The common argument that more liquidity is always better for markets is based on long-discredited elements of the now-obsolete "standard model" of economics, including the illusion of perfect information and the assumption that markets tend toward equilibrium.

To push against this short-termism, companies could issue securities that offer investors financial rewards for holding onto shares for a certain number of years. This would attract long-term investors with patient capital and would facilitate both long-term value creation in companies and stability in financial markets.

Ben Franklin famously said, "You may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again." Today we have an opportunity to steer by the stars and once again rebuild for the long-term. Sustainable capitalism will create opportunities and rewards, but it will also mean challenging the pernicious orthodoxy of short-termism. As we face an inflection point in the global economy and the global environment, the imperative for change has never been greater.

Mr. Gore, chairman of Generation Investment Management, is a former vice president of the United States. Mr. Blood is managing partner of Generation Investment Management.
Title: Vaclav Havel Crushed Communism By Speaking The Truth
Post by: G M on December 20, 2011, 05:18:27 AM

Vaclav Havel Crushed Communism By Speaking The Truth

  Posted 12/19/2011 06:57 PM ET

Leadership: Europe's outpouring of grief over the death of Vaclav Havel, hero of Czechoslovakia's great Velvet Revolution, says much about its longing for more like him. His honesty and courage liberated Europe.
Some 75,000 Czechs bearing roses and candles lined up in Wenceslas Square beginning Sunday, as they once did in 1989, to pay tribute to one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 20th century. Havel died Sunday at age 75 after liberating his country, leading his nation as president from 1989-2003, and voicing his moral authority to scourge lingering tyrants in Cuba, Burma and China.
Havel, a playwright whose health had been weakened by years spent in communist dungeons, was an unlikely and yet perfect leader for leading Eastern Europe's liberation from communism. He unshackled Europe with the only weapon in his arsenal — words, which he animated and empowered by expressing them truthfully.
In the former Czechoslovakia, the nightmare of communism imposed after World War II was employed with a Nazi-like oppressive intensity, leaving a bleak society whose citizens got by on lies, collaboration, mediocrity and ratlike survival ethics.
"We live in a contaminated moral environment. We fell morally ill because we became used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore each other, to care only about ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility, or forgiveness lost their depth and dimensions. ... Only a few of us were able to cry out loud that the powers that be should not be all-powerful," Havel told his nation after being elected the first president of the restored democracy in December 1989.
Condemned from birth as a "bourgeois element," Havel was always an outsider who could never become a "new communist man" or a cog in the machine of "progress." Denied admission to university, denied jobs, denied permission to leave the country, spied on by secret police and refused liberty in prison beginning in 1979, he managed to free his country by standing up for freedom against all odds.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

It was an incredible dream then — because right up until the end, no one believed communism would ever fall. Havel's Velvet Revolution changed that, as first a few thousand, and then a few hundred thousand flooded the streets calling for the regime's end — and the move spread like wildfire through Europe and eventually hit the gates of Moscow.
Havel's peaceful revolution, unlike almost any other, left all oppressive regimes — to this very day — uncertain about their self-declared permanence.
All the same, the sorry imitations now seen in Egypt and Libya and other places leave people skeptical. That's because they aren't animated by the classical concepts of liberty and human rights that Havel's truth was.
First, his plays pointed out the rampant dishonesty, collaboration and conformity of society under communism and enraged the regime for that alone. Then in 1976, motivated by the regime's arrest of a psychedelic rock band called "Plastic People of the Universe," he initiated the first call for political freedom through his Charter 77, a manifesto for liberty on classical principles. He got 242 others to sign it — only a few years after Soviet tanks crushed Czechoslovakia's freedom fighters in a bloody 1968 invasion.
And yet, Havel himself said that standing up for freedom was the only choice.
"Humanity will pay the price for communism until such a time as we learn to stand up to it with all political responsibility and decisiveness," he said, encouraging a group of Cuban civil society organizers in 2006.
Havel not only articulated the corrosive effect of communism on the human soul as few others did, he also warned the West to defend its liberties and free markets.
Title: Nice rack Barney Frank!
Post by: G M on December 20, 2011, 05:56:21 AM

Too bad there isn't a vomiting icon....  :x
Title: Re: Barney Frank
Post by: DougMacG on December 20, 2011, 08:31:14 AM
Guys all think they are experts on discerning real from fake.  Those for sure are enhanced;  some kind of hormone treatment.  I hesitate to ponder whether the package came with the plumbing conversion.  I never understood why 'ordinary' gays want to be associated with all the iterations of the LGBT movement.  Are they still a gay couple if his lover really wants him to be a woman? 

I wonder what the media attacks would be if Sarah Palin wore that blouse in congressional testimony with breasts exposed while everyone else was in a business suit.
Title: Apologists For Communist Totalitarianism: I Hate Those Guys
Post by: G M on December 24, 2011, 09:09:20 AM

Apologists For Communist Totalitarianism: I Hate Those Guys

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on December 23, 2011

One would think that the deaths of Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il would prompt universal condemnation for the dictatorial communist regimes the former so bravely fought against, and the latter used for self-aggrandizement at the expense of his own citizens. One would be wrong; the condemnation of dictatorial communist regimes is blessedly widespread, but it is by no means universal.
Consider first Neil Clark, who informs us of the following regarding Havel’s struggle:

No one questions that Havel, who went to prison twice, was a brave man who had the courage to stand up for his views. Yet the question which needs to be asked is whether his political campaigning made his country, and the world, a better place. Havel’s anti-communist critique contained little if any acknowledgement of the positive achievements of the regimes of eastern Europe in the fields of employment, welfare provision, education and women’s rights. Or the fact that communism, for all its faults, was still a system which put the economic needs of the majority first.
These comments are, of course, repulsive beyond belief, in addition to being historically illiterate, but as far as Clark is concerned, no good will come of Havel’s death if people like Clark cannot use it in order to lie about history. Andrew Stuttaford rightly takes Clark to task. So does Johnathan Pearce:

Presumably, [Clark's article] explains why there were millions of downtrodden, poor people attempting to enter the Soviet Empire from such hellholes as West Germany. That explains why East Berlin erected the Wall, to contain the flood of people trying to enter it. Yes, that must have been the reason. (Sarcasm alert).
I guess the fact that the Soviet System created a two-tier society: the Party and Everyone Else, must have escaped Mr Clark’s gimlet-eye attention. Perhaps the Gulag, the shootings of political opponents, the construction of the White Sea Canal (with slave labour), etc, were in fact all features of ensuring that the “needs of the majority” came “first”.
For what it is worth, on a more theoretical level, the horrors of collectivism can be summed up in Marx’s dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. For if you believe that the needs of the majority trump such pesky issues as rights or liberties, then so much the worse for such liberal principles. But in practice, of course, the history of the Communist world was littered with stories of shortages, famines and shabby, crappily produced goods and services.
Make no mistake; however eloquent Stuttaford’s and Pearce’s condemnation of Clark’s drivel, no one will succeed in the effort to make Clark ashamed of what he wrote. The man is clearly ineducable.
Speaking of ineducable, consider Simon Winchester–hidden behind a paywall, so alas, no link–on North Korea:

The State’s founder, Kim Il Sung, claimed that all he wanted for North Korea was to be socialist, and to be left alone. In that regard, the national philosophy of self-reliance known in North Korea as “Juche” is little different from India’s Gandhian version known as “swadeshi”. Just let us get on with it, they said, and without interference, please.
India’s attempt to go it alone failed. So, it seems, has Burma’s. Perhaps inevitably, North Korea’s attempt appears to be tottering. But seeing how South Korea has turned out — its Koreanness utterly submerged in neon, hip-hop and every imaginable American influence, a romantic can allow himself a small measure of melancholy: North Korea, for all its faults, is undeniably still Korea, a place uniquely representative of an ancient and rather remarkable Asian culture. And that, in a world otherwise rendered so bland, is perhaps no bad thing.
Let’s give the mike to Brian Micklethwait, for a reply:

No bad thing? Competition for commenters: concoct morally disgusting sentences which begin with “For all its faults …”. You’ll struggle to top that one.
One could take that competition and run with it all day. “For all its faults, Nazi Germany was really good on the issue of realizing the health dangers of smoking.” “For all its faults, the Stalinist Soviet Union had itself a leader with an awesome mustache.” “For all its faults, Maoist China did not completely collapse into utter ruin.”
Now, your turn. Don’t be shy; this is a fun game!
Alex Massie is indignant. And who can blame him? Indignation ought to be directed at CNN as well, which has made eliding the facts and missing the point into something of an art form when it comes to North Korea. To be fair, of course, it is entirely possible that CNN is relying on the wrong academic to guide its thinking–or whatever passes for “thinking” at CNN–when it comes to North Korea. But that’s still no excuse, even if it might be an explanation.
I just have a simple request, however. Is it possible that we could ostracize communists–and their fanboys and girls–the way that we would ostracize Nazis and the people who make excuses for them? Could I possibly see that happen before I die of old age? Because that would be nice.
Title: Re: The cognitive dissonance of the left - social justice
Post by: DougMacG on December 27, 2011, 09:08:11 AM
What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.  - Thomas sowell
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Krugman says govt spending is too low
Post by: DougMacG on December 30, 2011, 07:46:17 AM
Keynes Was Right
Published: December 29, 2011

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as F.D.R. was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy — which had been steadily recovering up to that point — into a severe recession. Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.

Someone please show where this award winning economist / far left pundit called for spending austerity during the last boom.  I missed that column.  Which programs did he want cut and by how much?  Krugman swerves into the truth.  One reason for failure of all stimulus programs today is that we already swimming in government stimuli and simply can't feel any effect anymore from another tril or two.  Krugman points to Ireland.  How about Canada?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on December 30, 2011, 08:03:58 AM
"How about Canada?"

I have always like Canada; beautiful country and nice people.  They have an excellent National Health Care plan for example.   :-)   Canada's income tax rate is approximately 10% higher than ours.   :-)   Further, Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners versus the U.S.  :-)    Makes sense to me...     :-D
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 30, 2011, 08:08:21 AM
Doug has a post on Canada this morning in the Political Economics thread.  JDN, would you bring your comments here over to there please?
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Krugman - We need more deficit spending!
Post by: DougMacG on January 02, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
You can't make this stuff up.  I have used some of the same logic to explain how we could have survived our massive debt if we had gotten our act together a couple of years ago, grown the economy and stopped adding to the debt.  But Krugman still wants more.  At 15 trillion with deficits still over a trillion a year in 2012, he still wants more:

"We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way. "

Hard to point out he is wrong when he does that for you:

"Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion."
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 02, 2012, 10:22:57 AM
On drudger this am:

Another liberal socialist professor from Columbia U. succeeded in gaining a class for college credit for the OWS radical agenda.
Hannah Appel.

I presume if someone in the class went to a Tea Party event instead the person would get an F.

Just because one can think "outside the box" does not make one qualified to teach.  There is a limit to opposing and independent thought beyond which it is just stubborn, angry stupidity.

The radical left has really hyjacked the political thought in the Ivies.
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: DNC Wasserman Schultz
Post by: DougMacG on January 04, 2012, 09:34:42 AM
Is she stupid (no) or does she just think we are? (maybe)  Perfect Soviet-Orwellian talking.  Romney won a close Iowa caucus that he almost didn't enter and trailed badly 10 days ago, but she says a win is a loss.  Reasoning: because of money.

The point she is trying to make is that the money and establishment advantage didn't buy that many votes.  Meanwhile her guy is the establishment with the big money advantage.

2 million jobs lost, I wouldn't want her job spinning these facts.
Title: Spin ok just never use the L word
Post by: ccp on January 04, 2012, 09:46:34 AM
"Spin" is ok.  It makes no difference what a politician says but just go ahead and call them a liar and look what happens - You have the CNNs ODonnel going bonkers with her gotcha moment on Newt - "are you calling him a liar?" [Romney] 

Newt said frankly yes.  So of course CNN runs with it trying to make it into another big scandel.  This from the keeping 'em honest station - what a joke. :cry:

The political correct establishment thing is to never call spin what it is - lying.  The L word is no different now then the N word the F word.

On second thought the F word is great.
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Wassserman-Shultz
Post by: DougMacG on January 09, 2012, 10:29:11 AM
The DNC Chair won't hurry back to Fox News Sunday.  This clip only shows a little of it.  It was worse in total.  She struggles to answer the "one term proposition" he made in his own words in Feb 2009: "if I 'doesn't get it done in 3 years'...

I harped on this in another thread, but she can only refer back to the mess "he inherited":

"Without any help from the Republicans"
"The Republican Congress" - [HE HAD A DEM CONGRESS THE FIRST 2 YEARS!]
"he inherited a huge set of problems at once"
"George W Bush presided over... No one was minding the store, with almost no regulation that was appropriate over the financial services industry..."

I realize I am the only one harping on this, but he moved over to the White House, not from political obscurity, but from serving 2 YEARS IN MAJORITY CONTROL AND DE FACTO LEADERSHIP OF CONGRESS, ALMOST COMPLETELY UNRESTRAINED BY A LAME DUCK, 2ND HALF OF A 2ND TERM PRESIDENT.

Unemployment was 4.6% when the American people turned out people like Sen. Santorum by double digits in a swing state and put a San Francisco liberal in Speaker's chair leading up to the elevation of the Senate's number one rated liberal to be the nominee and then the President.  That is not exactly an inheritance - it has their fingerprints all over it.  And also it was not exactly a path to getting conservatives or Republicans on board with a reach to the middle agenda. 

"Without any help from the Republicans"  - Thank God.

Even if no one says it aloud, didn't everyone alive and paying attention see this happen?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2012, 02:04:34 PM
I'm with ya Doug in my amazement at how divorced "the story" is from reality. :x
Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: Republican War on Science
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
One consensus among the 20% of Americans who identify as liberal is that Republicans are in denial of science.

On global warming, they won't say how fast it is warming or what part of it is caused by human's using fossil fuels for energy but are certain that causation is proven in science, even after the lead scientists were caught cooking and cherry picking the data, studies and analysis.

Next is always evolution where a few 'Christian conservatives' prefer not to speak out against a Judeo-Christian religious belief that man is different from other creatures.  No one that I know on the right denies that God's creation included some ability for living things to adapt.

OTOH, the left on global warming is in compete denial that man or species will be able to adapt to the slightest variation in temperature.

Most stunning though is the omission of abortion from any discussion of a war on science.  let's see, science establishes it is a) alive, b) human, and c) of genetic code completely distinct from the mother.  In the later term, IF the cord is cut and the creature removed, it can live on support just like other people at the hospital.  Yet we kill them off at a rate that could make lenin and Stalin take pause, comparisons to Hitler and holocaust passed up by request.  Yea, this is science. But the Huffington Post is in search of something gone awry in the conservative brain.  Go figure.

Chris Mooney

Author, 'The Republican War on Science' and 'The Republican Brain'

Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation
Title: Jeffrey Sachs
Post by: ccp on January 16, 2012, 07:41:29 AM
The Columbia Univ. liberal who writes books on poverty as well as a lecturer for the far left liberal movement including one world government, wind and solar proponent and basically trashing capitalism and the rest was on Scarborough this AM.  I didn't listen to all of it but he listed CEOs, financiers and doctors as the 1% who are bilking the 99%.  They also had Ezeikel Emmanuel the brother of Rahm and an MD policy liberal on.

I notice he doesn't mention the entertainment industry being part of the 1%, or politicians, or some lawyers.

How about Columbia University professors who make a nice salary and benefits and get plenty of time to write/hawk books:

There is always justification for some to do well as long as they are politically correct.  All the others are lumped into "bilking the system".   

Frankly as a doctor I WISH I was in the one percent.  Lumping all doctors together is just as bigoted and biased as one can get.  I am sure the Emanuals are broke.  I wonder how much Sachs makes off his books.  I am sure every penny goes to feeding the poor.

Class warfare continues.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 17, 2012, 07:44:22 AM
Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative  :roll:.  He gives assigns credit for anything good to the genius of Obama.  Anything bad is result of the incompetence of the right or the delusion of the far left (which of course does not include Obama).  Obama  he concludes is a moderate.   

Some of the highly debatable opinions whcih are stated as though they are fact include:

For example, the bailout of the auto industry was a "great success".   (I ask for whom?)

And of course if Brock is not as far left as some paint him it is not because he couldn't be, it is because he *really is* a moderate left of center.   :roll:

He totally ignores Brock's own devisive politics.  I could go on but one can see for himself.  OF course the article is under the Newsweek banner.  A few decades ago I used to subscribe to this magazine:
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on January 17, 2012, 08:02:48 AM

For example, the bailout of the auto industry was a "great success".   (I ask for whom?)

Actually, most people consider it a "great success".

But give some of the credit to Romney; a big car guy himself.

Actually, Romney is now taking credit for the "great success" of the auto industry bailout!   :?

“Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

Actually, you've got to love Romney's flip flops.

In broad terms, that’s pretty much the course that Obama followed. But of course, the story doesn’t end there. Let’s briefly review the chain of events:

1.) Romney lays out broad outlines of a plan to rescue American auto industry.

2.) Obama implements a plan that follows general contours of Romney plan.

3.) Conservative Republicans erupt in fury at Obama plan, condemning it as a government takeover of industry and accusing Obama of being a socialist Marxist Kenyan secularist Muslim, or something like that.

4.) Romney joins the withering condemnation of the Obama plan, ignoring the fact that it’s quite similar to his own. He says it’s “a very sad circumstance for this country … really tragic in a lot of ways.”

5.) The plan works, inspiring Romney to try to reclaim authorship of a plan that he earlier attacked as “really tragic” and “very sad.”

Is there anything Romney won't flip flop on?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 17, 2012, 09:12:56 AM
I didn't know Romney is taking "credit" for using billions in taxpayer money to save them.

 :-o :?
Title: Cognitive dissonance: Chomsky on military funding, war criminals
Post by: DougMacG on January 26, 2012, 10:27:15 AM
"guys, as much as I like to debate stuff, please keep this thread contained of all else, BUT formulated questions for the man."

I will copy and extend comments Chomsky quotes here and delete them out of the 'Chomsky' thread.
What hypocrisy?: Chomsky makes the argument that because he has received funding from the U.S. military, he has an even greater responsibility to criticize and resist its immoral actions.
Regarding the death of Osama bin Laden, Chomsky stated: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, [and] the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."
(Doug):Uncontroversially, Mr. Chomsky, the "deciders" to be assassinated or hanged unlike the Libyan war are many, including the current Vice President and Secretary of State as former members of the senate authorizing military destruction.  Obama could start by prosecuting his veep for authorization and then himself for continuing the war.  Guilty are not only George Bush but also 77 Senators, 296 House members and all 15 members of the UN Security Council at the time.

Not only are we are no better than bin Laden but that we are far worse, he says.  You folks go ahead and raise him to that status of visiting dignitary; I have no questions for him.  He is  an expert on linguistics employed at anesteemed university, MIT, I have no linguistic questions.  For the rest of it, I would like to see his views elevated with clarity to the ballot and DEFEATED.

War criminals around the world, by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, U.S., U.K., plus Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Ireland, Mexico, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore and Syria all voted in favor of Resolution 1441, some will contend they had no idea the consequence would be a war already authorized by the US congress.

Seventy Seven War Criminals in the Senate alone: YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

We might have to expand Guantanamo in order to criminalize our foreign policy differences.  OTOH, we would no longer be a sovereign nation with a say in it if his views had prevailed.
Title: Another multimillionaire leftist, like Chomsky
Post by: G M on January 28, 2012, 01:54:16 PM

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told [Lawrence O'Donnell].
Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Title: Cognitive dissonance of the left: One Sane Liberal - Ed Koch
Post by: DougMacG on February 03, 2012, 10:03:48 AM
Make no mistake, Ed Koch is a liberal, but I enjoyed this piece by City Journal covering his career fairly well.  I admire certain decisions he made along the way to stand on principle sometimes to his own political detriment.
Title: Forbes magazine: What If Barack Obama And Paul Krugman Ran A Business?
Post by: DougMacG on February 03, 2012, 10:12:04 AM

A little bit facetious but so is the idea presented in the title that (either of) these two ideologues would ever let there ideas be tested in a competitive marketplace.

Spoiling the ending for you:

"Putting workers before profit, it turns out, leaves you with neither."
Title: Kill List
Post by: JDN on February 05, 2012, 09:52:37 AM
Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....,0,876903.column
Title: Re: Kill List
Post by: G M on February 05, 2012, 10:44:30 AM
Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....,0,876903.column

Ha hahahahaha!
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2012, 02:01:44 PM
Concerning the Ed Koch article:  Ed was at our house a few times because it was where a committee within the 17th CD that was co-chairedy by Bella Abzug (also mentioned in the article) and my mother would meet to further the candidacy of Sen. Eugene McCarthy for the nomination of the Dem party for President in 1968.  I liked Ed, and continued to like him throughout his career.  He was REAL and he genuinely loved New York City.   BTW, the slogan referenced in the article put out by the Cuomo people was "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo."
Title: Re: Kill List
Post by: G M on February 07, 2012, 07:20:58 AM
Sometimes I am deeply disappointed in Obama.....,0,876903.column

So, the trillions more in debt, the loss of American strength, the massive Obama corruption doesn't bother you, but the drone strikes do?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on February 07, 2012, 07:53:56 AM
I'm not interested in debating any of the subjects, except drone strikes, but to answer your question, perhaps the additional debt may have saved us from going into a full depression (many economists agree).  Obama IMHO is one of the most honest and family oriented Presidents in my memory so his so called "corruption" doesn't bother me. It pales in comparison to many others.  As for our loss of strength, I'm not sure why we need to spend more than the next 10+ countries combined on military matters.  Frankly, I am glad we are out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan.  I hope we don't go into Syria or Iran or anyplace else for that matter unless we are directly threatened. Ever since we entered the Vietnam War, I am tired of being the world's policeman, losing American lives, spending billions/trillions of our dollars, and never being thanked.  We have enough issues at home.

But yes, I think the drone strikes are wrong; I don't think one man, be it Obama who I trust more than most, or any other President, should be allowed to target and kill American citizens with impunity just on his say so alone.  I believe that there must be some due process.
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on February 07, 2012, 08:04:36 AM
"perhaps the additional debt may have saved us from going into a full depression (many economists agree)."

You mean the shovel ready jobs that weren't? The Solyndras that have gone belly up? The dem donors/union thugs got saved from a depression, unfortunately, the rest of America didn't.

What economists? Krugman?
Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on February 07, 2012, 08:08:28 AM
 Obama IMHO is one of the most honest and family oriented Presidents in my memory so his so called "corruption" doesn't bother me. It pales in comparison to many others.

Yes, nothing says family values like attending a church of racial hatred for 20 years.

Title: Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on February 07, 2012, 08:17:52 AM
JDN answered the Obama question, are you better off than you would have been.  The emergency funding to avoid panic and collapse however was in the transition period with Bush, McCain, Obama, Geithner and Bernancke all in agreement. Hardly the policy direction difference that will determine the next election.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on February 07, 2012, 08:33:19 AM
"Obama IMHO is one of the most honest"

Folks, this is what we are up against.

The 40-45% who will always vote for this guy no matter what.

Lying is no longer lying (unless one is Republican), spinning is no longer lying it is just politics and "they all do it", and indeed one cannot even call someone a liar when in fact they clearly are as that is now poltically incorrect and worse than calling someone a slang bigotted name.

Last night I noticed CNN calling Obama on his "reversal" on PACS.  If it was a republican it would have been called "flip-flop".

I didn't see the show but I assume they had several guests essentially explaining why it is really NOT a reversal or at the very least how he was driven to do it and is still true to his word etc... 
Title: Laura, you slut you!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2012, 03:02:28 PM
Title: Follow the Sacred
Post by: trickydog on March 19, 2012, 11:13:39 PM
A very interesting piece by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt - he takes an approach to the political situation that is very similar to one that I have been exploring for the last few years with regard to religiosity and mythological realization.

Extracted from Haidt:
"Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes."

He trends from the left - and yet I find the core of his argument very persuasive.  It applies equally well to both "sides" of the spectrum and begins to account for why we are so enthusiastically tearing ourselves apart.   How we can possibly make sense of maiming ourselves.

Mark 9:43:  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2012, 04:05:38 AM
Interesting point Tricky Dog.

In a similar vein, in later years Konrad Lorenz spoke of the possibility of creating a a fourth type of aggression on top of territorial, hierarchical, and reproductive aggression-- "collective militant enthusiasm" into his analytical framework.

The passion of some on the left against religion, indeed against those who oppose them in any fundamental way, might well be called CME-- as well as an example of Jungian shadow projection.
Title: Re: Follow the Sacred
Post by: G M on March 20, 2012, 05:25:08 AM
A very interesting piece by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt - he takes an approach to the political situation that is very similar to one that I have been exploring for the last few years with regard to religiosity and mythological realization.

Extracted from Haidt:
"Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes."

He trends from the left - and yet I find the core of his argument very persuasive.  It applies equally well to both "sides" of the spectrum and begins to account for why we are so enthusiastically tearing ourselves apart.   How we can possibly make sense of maiming ourselves.

Mark 9:43:  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

Look at the damage the democrat party has done to black Americans and continues to do under Obama, yet he'll get at least 90% of their votes. Tragic.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2012, 10:13:54 AM

A point with which I am in hearty agreement, yet I'm not sure it segues smoothly from Tricky Dog's post  :lol:

I understand his point to be one into which evolutionary psychology has put some thought, see e.g. Matt Ridley's , , , I forget the name or Robert Wright's superb "The Moral Animal" concerning how to explain selfless behavior in Darwinian terms.

While generosity is an aspect of this question, the progressives/liberal fascists/Dems/liberals tend to be generous with other people's money-- which of course is an oxymoron.  Those capable of linear thought must surely experience cognitive dissonance when contrasting the substantial personal charity of Mitt Romney with the niggardly charity of super-rich gigolo Sen. John Kerrey, Vice-President Biden, presidential candidate multi-millionaire plaintiff attorney , , , wuzzhisface-- the one with the pretty hair?-- or even the Community Organizer in Chief , , , but I digress  :-D
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on March 20, 2012, 01:08:39 PM

The dems shattered the black family and use race to enslave captive voting blocs on the left's plantation and use tribalist invective to enforce those boundaries.
Title: Tom Hanks, man of the left
Post by: G M on March 20, 2012, 01:27:50 PM

Big fan of Obozo!
Title: Does Trayvon Martin Killing Reveal Epidemic of Racial Violence?
Post by: G M on March 24, 2012, 05:01:16 AM

Does Trayvon Martin Killing Reveal Epidemic of Racial Violence?

The present media wave about the tragic death of Trayvon Martin is for me, an outsider, a fascinating lesson in race, politics, and media perversity in America.
The impression is being generated that young black men are continuously hunted by white men, and killed.
So I wanted to know the exact figures. The most recent, those of 2009, I could find are on the site of the Department of Justice.
About 13% of the population is black. About 80% is white (this number includes Hispanics).
In 2009, 2,963 white individuals were killed by white offenders. White offenders killed 209 black individuals.
In that same year, 2,604 black individuals were killed by black offenders. And 454 white individuals were killed by black offenders.
As we see, there is cross-racial deadly violence, but offenders mainly cause victims within their own race; it is so-called intra-racial.
What about recent decades? Murders surveyed between 1974 and 2004 show that 52% of the offenders were black, 48% were white. Of the victims, 51% were white, 47% were black.
In that period, 86% of white murders had whites offenders, and 94% of black murders had black offenders.
There may be a hunt by white vigilantes for innocent young black men in Florida — if it exists, the figures show this is a limited phenomenon. Trayvon Martin’s death should be thoroughly investigated and the vigilante should be brought to trial in case he broke the law. But such a crime is an exception.
The main problem for young black men is not violent white men chasing them. It is black on black violence.
The number of net cross-racial violence in 2009 shows that blacks killed more whites than whites killed blacks. To be exact: 245 more.
Title: The left misusing the phrase civil disobedience
Post by: ccp on April 07, 2012, 08:57:21 AM
They never stop distorting and spinning.

I watched for a few minutes Chris Hayes leftist propaganda show this AM and the topic is civil disobedience.  Now I am thinking what in the world is a liberal propaganda show speaking of civil disobedincen the left is all ABOUT huge government control over every aspect of our lives and promting class warfare and redistribution of wealth.   JUST THE OPPOSITE of what "civil disobedience" is all about!

So I note they are referring to climate change.  Again they have that loon Van Jones on who is all over the talk show circuit promoting the left agenda:
Title: Tocqueville wrote about the Pelosi-Obama governance:
Post by: DougMacG on April 09, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
“A man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.”
Title: The Big Double Standard
Post by: G M on April 09, 2012, 02:03:05 PM

The Big Double Standard

The News...
Some of you may be bothered by the fact that NBC News lied and is now lying about its lies in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. As reported while all the mainstream outlets except the Washington Post looked the other way, NBC News edited a tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make Zimmerman sound like a racist. A full description of the scurrilous edit is at the link.
When they were caught in their dishonesty, NBC News temporized. When they could no longer temporize, they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice. Then NBC News President Steve Capus released a statement to Reuters saying the deliberate editing of the tape to misrepresent the phone call was “a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.”

Some of you may read that statement and say to yourself, “Golly, Klavan on the Culture! How can Mr. Capus keep the word News in his title and not curl up in a ball of shame while tearing at his own flesh with his fingernails and begging God to forgive him for having sunk to depths of disingenuousness unimaginable to any real news person?” And some others of you may scratch your heads and wonder, “Gee! How come Andrew Breitbart was accused of dishonesty and racism when he posted edited videos of Shirley Sherrod, even though he attached a post explaining the edited context?” After which, you might add, “Crikey! Didn’t Breitbart respond to the accusations by making every piece of material in the Sherrod case readily available online?” And you might go on to remark, “Holy Moly, whatever a Moly is! Isn’t it kind of unfair that when NBC News actually has been dishonest and racist — and when they’ve responded to being caught in their dishonest racism by being even more dishonest — the news media doesn’t accuse them of anything at all but merely puts their collective fingers in their collective ears and whistles Dixie?”
Ah well. I can explain. There’s a double standard — but that’s okay! You see, NBC News is allowed to lie and get away with it because they’re good. Breitbart couldn’t even tell the truth without catching hell because he was bad. See the difference? It’s subtle I know — in fact, it’s so subtle you may have to be a big time literary theorist and legal scholar to understand it. So let’s turn for an explanation to big time literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish.
Recently (as my colleague Michael Walsh pointed out to me) Stanley Fish wrote an article for the New York Times explaining why there was a firestorm when Rush Limbaugh made an inappropriate remark about a woman whereas Bill Maher and Ed Schultz made even worse sexist remarks but remained relatively unscathed. “Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice,” Stanley Fish and his mighty mind explained. “Rush Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy.” There you have it. It’s okay when leftists are evil because they’re good; but it’s evil when patriots are good because they’re evil.
Now I understand you may need a few more years of graduate school before you can understand the reasoning of a very smart man like Stanley Fish, but it’s worth the effort because with a presidential election coming up, I’m pretty sure we’re going to see a lot more lies from the mainstream media like the ones we saw from NBC News. And I wouldn’t want you to think that mainstream journalists were being evil when they were only being evil out of goodness. Because if you couldn’t see that their evil was good because they were good when they were being evil, you might carry Mr. Capus and some of his MSM buddies out of their offices and tar and feather them in the public square.
And that would be evil. Or good. Really, it’s hard to say.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on April 09, 2012, 02:59:59 PM
"they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice."

How do we know THIS is true?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on April 09, 2012, 03:15:26 PM
"they scapegoated a single unnamed producer, firing him late on the Friday before Easter/Passover weekend so no one would notice."

How do we know THIS is true?

Good point. NBC claims to have fired an unnamed producer.
Title: In Praise of Chumps
Post by: G M on April 12, 2012, 05:27:07 PM

In Praise of Chumps

April 11, 2012 - 4:05 pm - by Richard Fernandez

When a red Ferrari recently crashed in Beijing, the rumor mills exploded with reports that the driver was none other than Bo Guagua, son of the Communist Party chief of Chonquing and graduate of Harrow and Oxford. Such is life among the vanguard of the Proletariat: in a Ferrari one day, on the run the next. Bo’s dad, Bo Xilai, has just been cashiered by the Politburo, and Bo’s mother is under arrest. But it was good while it lasted:

The Proletarian Life
Bo Guagua had been making social media headlines in China as he squired around Chen Xiaodan, the daughter of “Chen Yuan, the governor of the China Development Bank and one of China’s most influential bankers”:


Chen, now studying at Harvard for an MBA, is the granddaughter of Chen Yun, one of China’s top leaders until his death in 1995 and one of the “eight immortals” of the Communist leadership of the 1980s and 90s …
Her background thus makes her one of the most eligible women in the country. Together with 17-year-old Jasmin Li — the granddaughter of Jia Qinglin, a member of the all-powerful nine-member Politburo Standing Committee — they are better known among Europe’s elite as China’s “red princesses” for their high-profile appearances at blue-blooded Paris balls.
Chen has featured in photographs of debutante balls such as the Crillon Ball in Paris which have appeared on Twitter and Facebook as well as the usual Chinese social networking sites. In 2006, Chen was considered the most attractive young woman at the ball attended by beauties such as 20-year-old Princess Costanza of Italy and other European royals.
Wearing her Oscar de la Renta dresses, her stylish looks have been an inspiration to many young people in the new China, yet as news about these red princesses who mingle with the European and American glitterati is kept out of the state-run Chinese press, little is actually known in China about them.
The thing about communism, at least to the uninitiated, is that it appears to be identical in all respects to a hereditary aristocracy. If one didn’t know better, it would seem that the more communist a country, such as North Korea, the more it resembles a monarchy. In China, the children of the Politburo members are actually called princesses and princes, and they gad about in a style that makes the current European royalty look like a bunch of low-rent grifters.
How admirable then, that intellectuals like Cornel West, Van Jones, and Bill Ayers can go around and seriously sell socialism and Marxism in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism”. You know, because they are one with the Common Man. Surely their superior educations must provide a true insight into the nature of Marxist societies, because to the uninitiated the whole thing looks like a scam to trick people into waging “revolution” in which a few odd million will be horribly killed to create a worker’s paradise and green society. All the resulting outcomes we actually examine reveal only societies ruled by an aristocracy no different from — nay, more lavish than — the Court of the Sun King at Versailles. Versailles didn’t even have indoor plumbing.
But at least it had trees and bushes in the garden. North Korea doesn’t. North Korea’s forests have been burned down by the happy peasants to cook their gruel and to keep from dying of cold in winter. Defectors heading south know they’ve reached the capitalist Republic of Korea because they can see trees again. And as for the environment in China: well, why do you think the red princes and princesses go to Paris to dance the night away?
Future generations may wonder how it was possible for sophisticated Western intellectuals to actually devote their lives to bringing about communism as if it were anything more than a swindle. Consider Walter Kendall Myers, a distinguished State Department intelligence analyst, who together with his wife Gwendolyn spied on America for years on behalf of Fidel Castro. They were not paid money. In fact, their only known reward was being congratulated by Fidel himself:

Myers, an Ivy League-educated Europe specialist who made his home in Northwest Washington’s diplomat-friendly precincts, began working for the State Department as a contract instructor in 1977. He joined full time in 1985 and become a senior analyst with a top-secret clearance in the department’s sensitive bureau of intelligence and research.

“We did not act out of anger toward the United States or from any thought of anti-Americanism,” Walter Myers said in a 10-minute statement in seeking leniency for his wife. “We did not intend to hurt any individual American. Our only objective was to help the Cuban people defend their revolution. We only hoped to forestall conflict” between the countries.
They acted, as always, from what they believed to be idealism. Never did they entertain the notion that they might have been led on by stupidity. Gross, manifest, and terminal imbecility. They betrayed their country, and not in order to advance the cause of “peace” or “prosperity” for the “poor and downtrodden”. In reality, they sold out their country so that slimy tyrants in foreign countries could live the life of kings, and they did not even have the wit to notice.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on April 14, 2012, 10:09:42 AM
@ GM

I have no idea if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime in the Martin incident.  It's tragic of course.  What little I know, and I've read a lot,
there seems to be two valid sides to the story.  I don't of course, know all the facts.  I'm not sure anyone does except Zimmerman and i doubt
if he will ever present his side at trial. 

Anyway, my question GM is do you think, given your experience, that Zimmerman should have been charged by the DA with a crime?  And why?

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on April 14, 2012, 10:37:13 AM
From what I read in the press (which must be taken with a BIG chunk of salt) the Assistant State's Attorney (what is know as a Assistant D.A./Deputy D.A. in other places) that responded to the call and reviewed the case did not think that a case could be made in court and elected not to charge Zimmerman. Ultimately, the decision to file charges falls to the prosecutor and their ethical obligation is to act "in the interest of justice" as opposed to a defense attorney who must "act in the best interest of their client". As I understand it, if the prosecutor does not believe there is a reasonable chance at prevailing at trial, then charges are not supposed to be filed.

I heard the first officer on scene's report, verbatim on a local radio show and it corroborated Zimmerman's claim of being assaulted by documenting his bleeding nose, injury to the back of his head and wet, grass covered clothing.

If Obama and his race-baiting allies didn't need to fire up their base and distract from his failed presidency, this would have been a local story quickly forgotten.
Title: PDF of the SPD reports
Post by: G M on April 14, 2012, 10:55:17 AM

What's been made public thus far, at least what I can find for the moment.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on April 14, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
As I understand it, if the prosecutor does not believe there is a reasonable chance at prevailing at trial, then charges are not supposed to be filed.

Standard 3-3.9 Discretion in the Charging Decision

   (a) A prosecutor should not institute, or cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges when the prosecutor knows that the charges are not supported by probable cause. A prosecutor should not institute, cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges in the absence of sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction.

   (b) The prosecutor is not obliged to present all charges which the evidence might support. The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction. Illustrative or the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising his or her discretion are:

   (i) the prosecutor's reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;

   (ii) the extent of the harm caused by the offense;

   (iii) the disproportion of the authorized punishment in relation to the particular offense or the offender;

   (iv) possible improper motives of a complainant;

   (v) reluctance of the victim to testify;

   (vi) cooperation of the accused in the apprehension or conviction of others; and

   (vii) availability and likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction.

   (c) A prosecutor should not be compelled by his or her supervisor to prosecute a case in which he or she has a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

   (d) In making the decision to prosecute, the prosecutor should give no weight to the personal or political advantages or disadvantages which might be involved or to a desire to enhance his or her record of convictions.

   (e) In cases which involve a serious threat to the community, the prosecutor should not be deterred from prosecution by the fact that in the jurisdiction juries have tended to acquit persons accused of the particular kind of criminal act in question.

   (f) The prosecutor should not bring or seek charges greater in number of degree than can reasonably be supported with evidence at trial or than are necessary to fairly reflect the gravity of the offense.

   (g) The prosecutor should not condition a dismissal of charges, nolle prosequi, or similar action on the accused's relinquishment of the right to seek civil redress unless the accused has agreed to the action knowingly and intelligently, freely and voluntarily, and where such waiver is approved by the court.

Title: The search for probable cause in Trayvon Martin case
Post by: G M on April 14, 2012, 12:59:14 PM,0,1976621,full.story

The search for probable cause in Trayvon Martin case
By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
1:34 p.m. CDT, April 5, 2012
In order to arrest George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the special prosecutor heading the investigation must show a judge that she has found probable cause.

Sanford police faced public outrage when they announced they found no probable cause to arrest the Neighborhood Watch volunteer.

So what exactly is it?

"It's a 'reasonable person' standard under the law," said John Tanner, former state attorney in the 7th Judicial Circuit, which includes Volusia County.

It is evidence that would convince a reasonable person that a suspect committed a crime.

For example: It's a rock of crack cocaine found in a man's pocket. It's a department-store security video showing a woman slipping a necklace into her handbag. It's a blood test showing a driver's blood-alcohol level above the legal limit.

Bob Dekle, who prosecuted serial killer Ted Bundy and is now a professor at the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida, characterized probable cause as "just above suspicion."

In the case of Trayvon's shooting death, it would be any piece of evidence that would convince a judge that Zimmerman probably committed a crime when he shot the unarmed teen in a gated Sanford community in late February.

That could be a witness, a piece of physical evidence or something else.

Sanford police were looking for evidence of manslaughter. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey will not say what charge or charges her team is reviewing.

Police can and do arrest suspects without probable cause, but judges must then order their release from jail. Senior Judge O.H. Eaton Jr. said that happened at least once or twice every weekend he was on jail duty reviewing Seminole County arrests for the previous 24 hours.

When that happens, police can rearrest the suspect, and prosecutors are free to file charges. But they must bring the case to trial within 175 days of arrest, according to Florida rules of criminal procedure.

That ticking clock is often an incentive for prosecutors to hold off on an arrest, they said. It gives them more time to collect evidence — for example, to get ballistics tests done if a gun is involved or to have fingerprints analyzed.

Prosecutors almost always demand more evidence than cops.

Though an officer needs only probable cause to make an arrest, prosecutors typically want enough evidence for a conviction — enough to convince a jury beyond every reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.

It is a natural point of friction between the two branches of law enforcement, said Ric Ridgway, chief assistant state attorney in the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Lake County.

"It's probably the single most frequent source of … disagreement between law enforcement and prosecutors, between victim's families and prosecutors," he said. "They look at it and go, 'We know he did it.' As a prosecutor, I say, 'Can you prove it?' "

Evidence standards

Because of those different evidence standards, prosecutors typically kick loose at least a quarter of the cases in which police make arrests, he said.

That happened in the case of four co-defendants in the Jessica Lunsford murder, Ridgway said. The 9-year-old Homosassa girl was abducted, raped and buried alive in 2005. Prosecutors convicted suspect John Couey, the kidnapper and killer, but Citrus County deputies and prosecutors disagreed about what to do with four of his roommates.

Deputies arrested them on charges of obstructing an officer — withholding information.

"We would not prosecute them," Ridgway said, because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

Sometimes police and prosecutors work a long time to gather enough evidence before making an arrest.

A Seminole County grand jury in February handed up a murder indictment in a 21-year-old homicide: Betty Claire Foster was stabbed to death at the Casselberry computer store where she worked in 1991. David Lee Hedrick, 50, a computer and audiovisual specialist, is now in the Seminole County Jail, awaiting trial.

A Brevard County grand jury last year indicted a woman there on a first-degree-murder charge in a three-year-old homicide.

And in Orange County, Brett Ballard and his wife, Joy, have been waiting more than three years to find out whether the security guard who fatally stabbed their 20-year-old son, Marcus, in 2008 will be arrested and prosecuted.

Marcus Ballard was stabbed eight times in the torso and neck and several times on the palms of his hands, according to his autopsy. The security guard told deputies the men were fighting at a Pine Hills apartment complex and he used his knife to defend himself after Ballard had begun choking him.

Sometimes, mistakes

Police and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong.

An officer was dispatched to a Miami-Dade County neighborhood in response to a reported burglary. About that same time, a black 15-year-old, his brother and a friend ducked into a neighbor's carport because of a sudden rain, according to an appeals-court ruling.

The officer saw the boys, drew his weapon, and the 15-year-old took off running and hid. An officer soon found him, ordered him facedown in the mud, handcuffed him and arrested him on a charge of resisting an officer without violence, according to the ruling.

The Third District Court of Appeal in May 2010 reversed the juvenile court's finding in the case, ruling that the police officer should never have made the arrest.

There was no probable cause that the boys had committed a crime.

Staff writer Susan Jacobson contributed to this report. or 407-650-6394

Title: PDF of Zimmerman charging docs
Post by: G M on April 14, 2012, 01:05:20 PM

I have some serious issues with what looks like inexact and loaded language in the affidavit and the lack of probable cause in this case.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on April 15, 2012, 09:12:21 AM
@ GM

Thank you for your detailed response and summary.
Title: Justice for Trayvon...and Only Trayvon
Post by: G M on April 15, 2012, 09:58:30 AM
Justice for Trayvon...and Only Trayvon
Paul Jacobson

Justice for Trayvon by Charles M. Blow, columnist for the New York Times (where else?). The tears begin with the opening paragraph:

A boy's blood had been spilled on a rain-soaked patch of grass behind a row of mustard-colored condominiums by a man who had pursued him against the advice of 911 dispatchers. That man carried a 9-millimeter handgun. The boy carried a bag of candy.
The cascade of lacromosity quickly turns into a tsunami:

Americans saw the anguish of the boy's father and the tears of his mother. America saw a child who was its own. America saw its concept of basic fairness sinking in to the marsh of miscarried justice.
What Blow is really demanding is not justice at all but "social justice" (hereinafter called socialjusticeism), an utterly bogus leftist propaganda term that turns the authentic, historic definition of justice on its head: socialjusticeism is not justice for anybody, accused or accusers; it is injustice for all those whom the left hates. Nor should anybody be decoyed by Blow's brusque, phony feint at genuine justice: "The state will vigorously prosecute, and Zimmerman will be vigorously defended as is his constitutional right."
Charles Blow is obviously certain beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that George Zimmerman brutally gunned down Trayvon Martin out of racist malice. So are the Black Panther goons who have put a million-dollar lynch mob bounty on Zimmerman's head. A trial has not yet been concluded, so I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not; therefore, I have nothing to say about his guilt.
I do know that none other than Alan Dershowitz -- no friend of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," he -- has unambiguously condemned the affidavit prepared by Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder:

Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman's arrest "not only thin, it's irresponsible...Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won't make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge...There's simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder...I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not - if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit - this case will result in an acquittal."
Suppose the Black Panther thugs succeed in their plot to brutally assassinate George Zimmerman -- God save us from such an outcome. Millions of real Americans would be angered and outraged beyond words to express. Even more unspeakable consequences could ensue, we know not what.
And the moral silence of Charles Blow and his ilk would be long as they could suppress their glee at seeing socialjusticeism prevail yet again.

Read more:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2012, 06:03:06 PM
This is not the first racially driven mob in our history to howl for blood.   The solution for mistaken speech is Truth.  Let us do our part so that we can keep this divinely inspired Republic.
Title: The Mike Nifong school of prosecution
Post by: G M on April 17, 2012, 12:40:16 PM

Walking Papers? The Incredibly Thin, Speculative Zimmerman Affidavit

Angela Corey's filing against George Zimmerman bears the hallmarks of a career-ender.

Bob Owens


April 17, 2012 - 10:06 am

Last week, Florida prosecutor Angela Corey stunned many within the legal establishment when she announced her office was filing a second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman. The four-page affidavit of probable cause filed by Corey’s office shocked legal experts, ranging from liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and liberal law blogger Jeralyn Merritt to conservative former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and talk show host Mark Levin, among others.
The affidavit starts out typically, listing the names and qualifications of the two investigators used by the special prosecutor. It then begins to build a case against George Zimmerman:

On Sunday 2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 Store where he purchased a can of iced tea and some Skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.

Not one paragraph into the “meat” of the affidavit, Corey’s team already made two unsubstantiated claims.
First: there is no publicly known evidence that supports the contention that Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s 911 call made no reference to skin color or apparel until the the police dispatcher started pressing for a better description. If Corey’s team had evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, they should have included it here. They did not, which not only undermines the profiling charge in this case, but in any federal civil rights case the U.S. Department of Justice may have been considering.
The second unsubstantiated claim: they say Martin was not committing or preparing to commit a crime. Zimmerman became suspicious because he saw a figure who struck him as a person casing houses for burglary potential. Unbeknownst to Zimmerman at the time was the fact that Martin had been suspended from school for the possession of a “burglary tool.” We don’t know what Martin was thinking, but his actions were erratic enough to prompt George Zimmerman to want police to investigate.
That represents a lot of unsubstantiated speculation by a prosecutor trying to build an affidavit to support a second-degree murder charge, and that’s just from the first substantive paragraph.
The next troublesome claim is the lead sentence of the following paragraph:

Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle, observed Martin and assumed he was a criminal.
Perhaps it is hair-splitting, but there is no evidence to support Corey’s claim that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal. In his first comments on the 911 call, Zimmerman claims he saw “a real suspicious guy” acting erratically:  “Like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.”
Zimmerman was merely reporting suspicious behavior, just as our own Department of Homeland Security advocates with its “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, which has been created and promoted by cabinet officials appointed by the Obama Administration. Zimmerman saw someone acting suspiciously, and did precisely what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano wants citizens to do in that situation.
The prosecutor then made another claim not supported by the recorded evidence:

The police dispatcher then informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.
The second half of that claim is a complete and apparently willful misrepresentation of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police dispatcher. The closest the dispatcher ever gets to telling Zimmerman to “wait for the officer” was when Zimmerman was attempting to follow Martin, and the dispatcher told him, precisely: “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.”
In response to the dispatcher’s comment — which isn’t a command, but an ambiguous statement — Zimmerman’s response is “Okay,” and an immediate termination of his attempt to follow Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman spends the next 93 seconds — more than enough time for Trayvon Martin to reach where he is staying, even at a walking pace — in one location talking to the police dispatcher, informing the dispatcher that he is on the way back to his truck, and that he will meet the responding officer by the mailboxes.
Angela Corey’s team is misrepresenting the actual events as they occurred in order to fabricate a claim that George Zimmerman disobeyed police orders. Proving her behavior is one matter, but to be found deliberately misrepresenting the evidence is certainly grounds for considering disbarment.
The affidavit contained further problematic statements. The next one:

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated “these a**holes, they always get away” and also said “these f***ing punks.”
John Work, a multi-decade law enforcement veteran, caught something in this prejudicial paragraph that I’d missed on my first reading:

Either Zimmerman and the investigators who wrote the affidavit knew there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, or they did not know about any burglaries. It’s not possible to credibly say that anyone, including the defendant, felt that crimes had been committed. If, in fact, there was or was not a series of unsolved burglaries in that neighborhood, the cops should have included that fact in the affidavit. It’s a lie of omission, either way.
Corey’s affidavit then made even more unsubstantiated claims:

Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
The affidavit’s claim is in direct opposition to the facts as recorded on the 911 call.
Zimmerman was not “instructed” of anything. The use of that particular word creates the impression that Zimmerman was affirmatively told — commanded — not to do something. That isn’t what occurred. The dispatcher spoke ambiguously: “We don’t need you to do that.”
Then, the affidavit makes the completely unsupported claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, even as the 911 call indicates that he stopped following Martin and was stationary for more than a minute and a half before attempting to return to his truck to meet with the responding officer. This, again, appears to be a misrepresentation by the prosecutor, unsupported (and possibly refuted) by the known evidence.
The affidavit also makes the completely unsupported claim at the end of that paragraph that Martin “was trying to return to his home.”
There is no evidence of the sort. The timeline strongly suggests that — having evaded Zimmerman initially and with Zimmerman terminating his pursuit and then heading back the way he came — Martin had plenty of time and a direct, unobstructed path home had he chosen to return directly home. We don’t know where Martin was or what he was doing between the time he fled Zimmerman and when the confrontation began. What we do know is that Martin had an opportunity to make it home, and chose not to do so for reasons we may never know.
The affidavit continues:

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.
“Zimmerman confronted Martin.”
This is supposition, apparently based upon the recollection of Martin’s girlfriend. There is no physical evidence or eyewitness supporting this charge.
The next part of that crucial sentence has already been ripped apart by legal experts — the passive “and a struggle ensued.”
This entire case hinges upon who started the confrontation and then escalated it into a deadly force event that left a young man dead. If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman indeed triggered the confrontation and initiated the struggle, then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim becomes much harder to support. If the events occurred as Zimmerman described it — with the confrontation initiated by Martin, the physical assault initiated by Martin, and Martin then escalating the fight to assault with a deadly weapon by attempting to smash Zimmerman’s head on the concrete — and the evidence supports Zimmerman’s claims, then we have a justified use of deadly force in self-defense.
Sybrina Fulton’s contention that the voice she heard crying for help on the 911 calls was her son certainly adds emotional pain to the case; her claim is not one I would personally wish to challenge at a trial if she is called as a witness. However, competent attorneys routinely cast doubt on such testimony, perhaps by citing confirmation bias and the trauma of losing a child. No known audio experts have come forth to claim they can confirm with any degree of certainty that the voice calling for help is Martin. I would venture that Fulton’s claim is included in the affidavit only to elicit an emotional response from the public, which would be a grandstanding ploy, and perhaps an especially cynical one by a veteran prosecutor seeking reelection just a few months from now.
There are simply no facts in this affidavit to remotely support the charge of second-degree murder according to Florida’s statute, which reads:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree …
There is nothing in this affidavit nor among the publicly known facts about the case — nor even among the allegations from the victim’s family or their attorneys — that comes even remotely close to reaching the “depraved mind” standard. At most, the prosecutor would face making a difficult manslaughter case, and even then would risk having the lesser charge thrown out for insufficient evidence.
I am comfortable with saying that Corey’s multiple references to “Justice for Trayon” during her press conference combined with this breathtaking affidavit strongly suggest a political motivation.
I live and work in central North Carolina, just miles away from where an overzealous, politically minded prosecutor named Mike Nifong attempted to railroad athletes from the Duke University lacrosse team in a similarly racially charged environment just a half-decade ago.
Nifong was disbarred and found guilty of criminal contempt for his actions. Angela Corey’s affidavit against George Zimmerman looks to be treading dangerously close to that same path.

Bob Owens blogs at
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left- LA Times lost on economic recovery
Post by: DougMacG on April 23, 2012, 07:38:03 AM
"Why not raise taxes on capital gains but lower them on income?"

Yes, except that the proven way of raising taxes collected from capital gains is to LOWER the rate.

15% tax is low enough.  Make it permanent so that investors could try to build and create wealth and know with certainty what the tax rate on that effort, if successful, will be.,0,441132.story

Besides lost revenues, there is no recovery that comes out of punishing investment in America.  Other than that it all makes sense.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on April 23, 2012, 08:00:04 AM
Doug, I already posted that article elsewhere.  But I'm curious, why would you
post it in "The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left" when the article was written by
Tom Campbell who served five terms as a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of RINOs
Post by: DougMacG on April 23, 2012, 10:45:23 AM
"Doug, I already posted that article elsewhere."

I wonder if I already criticized it elsewhere... )

Thanks (sincerely) for that clarification, that Campbell is a Republican.  I guess this is a case then of the cognitive dissonance of trying to appease the left.  If you see a RINO thread, I will move the post.  I take back the blame insinuated at the LA Times for publishing this view no matter how flawed.   If he is a 5 term congressman, his view is newsworthy in his local paper.

I should have known no real leftist would lower personal income tax rates under any circumstance.  I noticed that some of the rest of the piece made sense but I got stuck on his false premise. With all his impressive economic training (he studied under Milton Friedman) he does not support his premise.

Answer this back on the tax policy thread then: What is the evidence that raising capital gains tax rates will raise revenues to the Treasury (as opposed to just appeasing liberal California voters for personal reelection).  All evidence of our lifetime indicates the opposite.  See the video posted of Obama being asked about that in a 2008 debate.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: s-word crosses the aisle
Post by: DougMacG on April 28, 2012, 11:22:41 AM
The war on women is a uniquely Republican phenomenon...  excerpt for the texting of Dem congressman Anthony's Weiner, the foul mouth of Obama financial supporter Bill Maher, now near-President and VP and Attorney General hopeful, former Dem Sen. John Edwards on trial:

Young also testified about Edwards' reaction to the news that Hunter was pregnant. "He said she was a crazy slut and there was a one-in-three chance it was his child"

Which America is it, Sen Edwards, where you have millions out of bogus lawsuits but can still find a millions of other people's money to quiet a woman with expensive tastes that he didn't even like?

Who knew that such a womanizer and political feminist would speak so disrespectfully when he thinks the throngs can't hear him. 
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 01, 2012, 03:24:56 AM
Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.  We just don't know.  His calling her a slut in a private conversation is just not something I see as worthy of attention.  Whether the Dem nominee for the VP of the United States of America is guilty as accused or not is.
Title: "Too brainy to be president?"
Post by: DougMacG on May 11, 2012, 08:52:36 AM
Too smart but he can't release a grade or test score.  Too smart but wrong on everything economic.  Too smart but no clue on how to solve a crises in Syria, Egypt, the Chinese embassy or anywhere else.  Can't balance a budget - ever.   He is perhaps the only person on earth to have moved from pro gay marriage 1990s to against it in the 2000s back to for it again in 2012.  Too smart or spineless or have gay people 'evolved' that much in such a short time.

This is lousy journalism to me reflecting on the paper that pays for it and publishes it, but it is opinion so into the cognitive dissonance of the left thread it goes.,0,2453306.column

Obama's intellect doesn't have much currency in the political climate of extreme partisanship and pandering to a very low common denominator.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - The Absent Vetting of John Edwards
Post by: DougMacG on May 14, 2012, 10:01:28 AM
The Edwards ordeal seemed irrelevant because it imploded right after his candidacy didn't quite make it.  Besides irrelevant, it seemed personal, sad and stupid.  But in fact, he was VERY close to being the non-Hillary who very well could have been President if Obama had not run such a flawless 2008 campaign. He also could have been VP and wanted to be attorney general.

What I forgot was that he WAS the candidate - chosen for VP in 2004, I was reminded by:

Amazing what lack of vetting occurred with this unaccomplished one term Senator, now known to be a liar and corrupt (pending more defense and a jury verdict).

Edwards’ own attorney told the trial judge this week: “No one is going to deny that Mr. Edwards lied and lied and lied and lied.”
Title: The Green Jobs Obama may destroy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2012, 09:45:25 AM
This also could have gone in the Liberal Fascism thread:

The green jobs Obama may destroy



Posted: 10:18 PM, May 21, 2012

It turns out some “greens jobs” are more equal than others.

The Obama Commerce Department last week moved to slap 31 percent tariffs on solar panels imported from China. That may prop up failing US panel-makers like Solyndra, which have received hundreds of millions in taxpayer support — but it’s a blow to the industry that’s installing panels in US homes.

The residential solar industry is doubling in size each year and creating tens of thousands of jobs. But apparently it’s not as important in the administration’s eyes as domestic panel-manufacturers.

Oh, the Commerce move also risks triggering a trade war with China.

That’s the feds — picking winners and losers, and making a mess.

Commerce didn’t have to rule as it did on a complaint last October from seven US-based solar-panel suppliers about alleged Chinese dumping. The key was which “surrogate” market to pick for comparison: It chose Thailand, a tiny market with high prices — not India, where huge demand and economies of scale have driven solar-panel costs lower.

Chinese-made panels in the US cost less than panels cost in Thailand — so, voila, Commerce ruled that prices in the United States were artificially low, and held Chinese makers accountable.

Bigar Shah is president of Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, a residential-solar trade group. He complains both about the “surrogate” decision and Commerce’s failure to negotiate some deal with the Chinese makers.

He also points out that it was actually a German national, SolarWorld CEO Gordon Brinser, who initiated the Commerce investigation, noting: “It’s literally a script out of the X-Men movies — one German trying to create a war between the US and China.”

Shah’s group expects the hefty tariffs to raise solar prices and slow conversions — putting in jeopardy the 100,000 jobs it says the sector has created in just a few years. After all, the industry thrived as the price of solar cells and modules dropped from $3.30 per watt in 2008 to roughly $1 by year-end 2011.

The Commerce decision could also cost the US export business. US suppliers export some $2 billion a year in solar materials to China, but could lose out in a trade war.

Shah thinks Commerce chose Thailand out of sheer ineptitude; others fault election-maneuvering. For months, Mitt Romney has attacked President Obama for not standing up for US workers displaced by aggressive Chinese trade practices; these tariffs might give Obama an answer.

Yet the tariffs aren’t likely to save US panel-makers. Their global market share fell from 27 percent in 2001 to 5 percent in 2010. The Chinese built huge overcapacity in order to dominate the market, and now they are.

Without continued huge subsidies, it’s unlikely that any US panel makers could stay in business. After Germany recently slashed its subsidies, many panel-makers there went bankrupt.

Ironies abound here. Even as the administration tries to boost one solar industry at the expense of another, solar power still costs more than energy from coal or natural gas. Until recently, even a vast alphabet soup of state and federal subsidies wasn’t enough to jump-start US solar conversions.

What turned the tide? China’s aggressive expansion of solar-panel manufacturing, which sent prices plummeting.

Hmm: Instead of encouraging a trade war that will damage solar providers and users — and, inevitably, all taxpayers — perhaps the Obama administration should consider sending Beijing a thank-you note.

Liz Peek is a columnist for The Fiscal and

Read more:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 24, 2012, 05:24:37 PM
Mitt:  for freedom
The left:  for free Birth control.
Title: Wasserman-Schultz, Apples and Coconuts
Post by: DougMacG on May 26, 2012, 09:27:21 AM
Followup to CCP's post on Politics, DNC attacks, but can't answer it.
Title: Here it comes
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2012, 03:21:09 PM
Bloomberg's ban on large sugared drinks .

First the continuance of the government's control of our lives to the extent of INDUSTRIAL QUALITY level control is a problem.

Think of it, from the time we get up to the time we go to sleep our lives can be controlled.   We get up go to the bathroom.  Brush our teeth because if we don't don't we get tooth decay and we cost the society more.  We go to the BR and use only an allotted amount of water to wash, flush, drink, brush.   We are told how much electric to use for our coffee maker, our oven, our stove, our electronics, lights, our wash machines, AC, our cars are regulated with endless safety features, kind of fuel, we are punished if we don't  use mass transit, bike or walk to work, we can't eat anything that doens't conform with the proper Harvard decided nutritional values, we must never use elevators, we cannot sit at our desks but must work at stations that are on treadmills, lunch can consist of no more than a salad bar, every single detail of everything we do is chronicalled, catalogued, data warehoused, sold to marketers, or sent off to government agencies, CDC, FDA, HHS, and the political machines, CIA, FBI, and probably over to China as well as professional criminal organizations from the US and overseas, and on and on and on:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2012, 05:22:22 PM
I forgot to add as I drifted off down the left's "progression" to total government control of our lives as well as control coming from every other avenue within the digital universe,

*The soda restriction will have absolutely no effect on obesity*.

To think that if we only avoided soda we would all be thin... :-P

If only it were that easy. :wink:

Medicine is fast becoming increasingly controlled with industrial strength quality controls.  If one thinks it pleasant to have every single step, thought process, time documented for every single action all day long..

I can look forward to the day I come home and the same process exists there too (as well as in the office and the hospital) when my flushes, sink usages, wattage amounts etc or also being measured, taxed, restricted, regulated, requiring more and more forms , permissions, feedbacks loops, and endless measures, changes, commnets, opinions, studies that change what we should do every 6 months,  and more.

I long for the 60's and 70's and 80's.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on June 07, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
If the left's analysis of why the left went down in Wisconsin is correct, then the left is doomed.

The answer is money, she says (Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation ), reflecting a very widespread line of analysis. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the right is able to outspend the left ten to one, ensuring that the left can never win.

 - Walter Russel Mead
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Detroit is Liberalism's End Game
Post by: DougMacG on June 10, 2012, 04:24:04 PM
Important piece IMO by Kevin Williamson at National Review.

Detroit: The Moral of the Story
By Kevin D. Williamson
June 8, 2012 3:18 P.M.

The Left’s answer to the deficit: raise taxes to protect spending. The Left’s answer to the weak economy: raise taxes to enable new spending. The Left’s answer to the looming sovereign-debt crisis: raise taxes to pay off old spending. For the Left, every deficit is a revenue-side problem, not a spending-side problem, and the solution to every economic problem is more spending, necessitating more taxes. The problem with that way of looking at things is called Detroit, which looks to be running out of money in about one week. Detroit is what liberalism’s end-game looks like.

And Detroit does in fact have a revenue problem, as I argued in the May 14 National Review (“Let Detroit Fail”): “Revenues declined by more than $100 million between 2007 and 2011. Income-tax revenue dropped by 18 percent, utility-tax revenue by 17 percent, property-tax revenue by 2.3 percent. Seeking a quick fix to its revenue problems, Detroit chartered several casino-gambling operations, only to see taxes from them begin to decline (by 1.5 percent last year) after a period of early growth. Detroit, once the wealthiest city in the United States by per capita income, is today the second-poorest major U.S. city.”

Detroit is evidence for the fact that the economic limitations on tax increases sometimes kick in before the political limitations do. The relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, economic incentives, growth, and investment is complex, to say the least, and deeply dependent on the historical and economic facts of particular places at particular times. We have theories of growth, but no blueprint. But Detroit was not reduced to its present wretched circumstances by historical inevitabilities or the impersonal tides of economics. It did not have to end this way, but it did, and understanding why it did is essential if we are to avoid repeating Detroit’s municipal tragedy on a national scale.

One lesson to learn from Detroit is that investing unions with coercive powers does not ensure future private-sector employment or the preservation of private-sector wages, despite liberal fairy tales to the contrary, nor do protectionist measures strengthen the long-term prospects of domestic firms competing in highly integrated global markets. We cannot legislate away comparative advantage or other facts of life. But the problem of unions’ coercing distortions in the private sector is at this point a relatively small one, given the decline of unionization outside of government. Organized labor being a fundamentally predatory enterprise, its attention has turned to the public sector, where there are fatter and more stable rents to be collected.

The second important lesson to be learned from Detroit is that there are hard limits on real tax increases, a fact that will be of more immediate significance in the national debate as our deficit and debt problems reach crisis stage. Even those of us who are relatively open to tax increases as a component of a long-term debt-reduction strategy must keep in mind that our current spending trend is putting us on an unsustainable course in which our outlays will far outpace our ability to collect taxes to pay for them, no matter where we set our theoretical tax rates. The IMF calculates that to maintain present spending trend the United States will have to nearly double (88 percent increase) all federal taxes to maintain theoretical solvency. Those tax increases are sure to have real-world effects on everything from investing to immigration. At some point, the statutory tax increases will not increase actual revenue.

Even the best tax regimes are cannibalistic: Every tax is an incentive for the taxpayer to relocate to a more friendly jurisdiction. But tax rates are not the only incentive: Google is not going to set up shop in Somalia. Healthy governments create conditions that make it worth paying the taxes — which is to say, governments are a lot like participants in any other competitive market (with some obvious and important exceptions). The benefits of being in Detroit used to be worth the costs, but in recent decades millions of people and thousands of enterprises large and small have decided that is no longer the case. It is not as though one cannot profitably manufacture automobiles in the United States — Toyota does — you just can’t do it very well in Detroit. No one with eyes in his head could honestly think that the services provided by the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan are worth the costs.

The third lesson is moral. Detroit’s institutions have long been marked by corruption, venality, and self-serving. Healthy societies have high levels of trust. Who trusts Detroit? This is not angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. People do not invest in firms, industries, cities, or countries they do not trust. Corruption makes people poor.

What is true of Detroit is true of the country. Our national public sector not only is bloated and parasitic, it is less effective, less responsible, and less honest than that of many other developed countries, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Germany. I am not an unreserved admirer of Transparency International’s global corruption-perceptions index, but I believe that it is in broad outline accurate. Liberals are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from the relative success of countries such as Canada or New Zealand, concluding that what we need is a bigger welfare state, government-run health care, etc. (Conservatives, for our part, tend to overemphasize the role of comparatively low taxes and light regulation in the success of countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Those are important, but there are other equally important factors.) In reality, there is a great diversity of health-care arrangements and social-spending levels among the countries that have more effective institutions than ours, while many countries with the sorts of institutions liberals admire (take Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal for starters) are in crisis, in significant part because of plain corruption. What the more successful countries tend to have in common is a public sector that is less intent on looting the fisc.

Sure, Hong Kong and Singapore have lower levels of government spending (as a share of GDP) than does the United States. So do Switzerland and Australia. At 38.9 percent of GDP, our public-sector spending is indistinguishable from that of Canada (39.7 percent). It is not obvious that we have much to show for it.

The city fathers of Detroit inherited one of the richest and most productive cities in the world, and they ruined it in a generation. The gentlemen in Washington have been entrusted with the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, and the trendline does not look good. Those of us seeking to radically reduce the footprint of government must remind ourselves from time to time that our case is as much ethical as economic, that the ethical and the economic are indeed closely intertwined.
Title: Obama: first "manufactured" President
Post by: ccp on June 23, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
Not mentioned in Mark Steyn's piece but along his lines of thinking is Elizabeth Warren's phoney and knowing claim to be part Cheriokee.   Claiming membership into a "victim group" has become rewarding monetariily and career wise in the new "post" racial, post gender America.

*** June 22, 2012 Updated: June 23, 2012 7:58 a.m.
Text:    Next Article » Mark Steyn: Obama the first Invented-American president 

Syndicated columnist
Courtesy of David Maraniss' new book, we now know that yet another key prop of Barack Obama's identity is false: His Kenyan grandfather was not brutally tortured or even non-brutally detained by his British colonial masters. The composite gram'pa joins an ever-swelling cast of characters from Barack's "memoir" who, to put it discreetly, differ somewhat in reality from their bit parts in the grand Obama narrative. The best friend at school portrayed in Obama's autobiography as "a symbol of young blackness" was, in fact, half Japanese, and not a close friend. The white girlfriend he took to an off-Broadway play that prompted an angry post-show exchange about race never saw the play, dated Obama in an entirely different time zone, and had no such world-historically significant conversation with him. His Indonesian step-grandfather, supposedly killed by Dutch soldiers during his people's valiant struggle against colonialism, met his actual demise when he "fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes."
David Maraniss is no right-winger, and can't understand why boorish nonliterary types have seized on his book as evidence that the president of the United States is a Grade A phony. "It is a legitimate question about where the line is in memoir," he told Soledad O'Brien on CNN. My Oxford dictionary defines "memoir" as "an historical account or biography written from personal knowledge." And if Obama doesn't have "personal knowledge" of his tortured grandfather, war-hero step-grandfather and racially obsessed theater-buff girlfriend, who does? But in recent years, the Left has turned the fake memoir into one of the most prestigious literary genres: Oprah's Book Club recommended James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces," hailed by Bret Easton Ellis as a "heartbreaking memoir" of "poetic honesty," but subsequently revealed to be heavy on the "poetic" and rather light on the "honesty." The "heartbreaking memoir" of a drug-addled street punk who got tossed in the slammer after brawling with cops while high on crack with his narco-hooker girlfriend proved to be the work of some suburban Pat Boone type with a couple of parking tickets. (I exaggerate, but not as much as he did.

File: This undated file photo released by Obama for America shows President Barack Obama as a young boy, and his father, also named Barack Obama.
70 cartoons on executive privilege, immigration, leaks and more

Oprah was also smitten by "The Education of Little Tree," the heartwarmingly honest memoir of a Cherokee childhood which turned out to be concocted by a former Klansman whose only previous notable literary work was George Wallace's "Segregation Forever" speech. "Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood" is a heartbreakingly honest, poetically searing, searingly painful, painfully honest, etc., account of Binjamin Wilkomirski's unimaginably horrific boyhood in the Jewish ghetto of Riga and the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz. After his memoir won America's respected National Jewish Book Award, Mr. Wilkomirski was inevitably discovered to have been born in Switzerland and spent the war in a prosperous neighborhood of Zurich being raised by a nice middle-class couple. He certainly had a deprived childhood, at least from the point of view of a literary agent pitching a memoir to a major publisher. But the "unimaginable" horror of his book turned out to be all too easily imagined. Fake memoirs have won the Nobel Peace Prize and are taught at Ivy League schools to the scions of middle-class families who take on six-figure debts for the privilege ("I, Rigoberta Menchu"). They're handed out by the Pentagon to senior officers embarking on a tour of Afghanistan (Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea") on the entirely reasonable grounds that a complete fantasy could hardly be less credible than current NATO strategy.
In such a world, it was surely only a matter of time before a fake memoirist got elected as president of the United States. Indeed, the aforementioned Rigoberta Menchu ran as a candidate in the 2007 and 2011 presidential elections in Guatemala, although she got knocked out in the first round – Guatemalans evidently being disinclined to elect someone to the highest office in the land with no accomplishment whatsoever apart from a lousy fake memoir. Which just goes to show what a bunch of unsophisticated rubes they are.
In an inspired line of argument, Ben Smith of the website BuzzFeed suggests that the controversy over "Dreams From My Father" is the fault of conservatives who have "taken the self-portrait at face value." We are so unlettered and hicky that we think a memoir is about stuff that actually happened rather than a literary jeu d'esprit playing with nuances of notions of assumptions of preconceptions of concoctions of invented baloney. And so we regard the first member of the Invented-American community to make it to the White House as a kinda weird development rather than an encouraging sign of how a new post-racial, post-gender, post-modern America is moving beyond the old straitjackets of black and white, male and female, gay and straight, real and hallucinatory.
The question now is whether the United States itself is merely the latest chapter of Obama's fake memoir. You'll notice that, in the examples listed above, the invention only goes one way. No Cherokee orphan, Holocaust survivor or recovering drug addict pretends to be George Wallace's speechwriter. Instead, the beneficiaries of boring middle-class Western life seek to appropriate the narratives and thereby enjoy the electric frisson of fashionable victim groups. And so it goes with public policy in the West at twilight.
Thus, Obama's executive order on immigration exempting a million people from the laws of the United States, is patently unconstitutional, but that's not how an NPR listener looks at it: To him, Obama's unilateral amnesty enriches stultifying white-bread America with a million plucky little Rigoberta Menchus and their heartbreaking stories. Eric Holder's entire tenure as attorney general is a fake memoir all by itself, and his invocation of "executive privilege" in the Fast & Furious scandal is preposterous, but American liberals can't hear: Insofar as they know anything about Fast & Furious, it's something to do with the government tracking the guns of fellows like those Alabama "Segregation Forever" nuts, rather than a means by which hundreds of innocent Rigoberta Menchus south of the border were gunned down with weapons sold to their killers by liberal policy-makers of the Obama administration. If that's the alternative narrative, they'll take the fake memoir.
Similarly, Obamacare is apparently all about the repressed patriarchal white male waging his "war on women." The women are struggling 30-year-old Georgetown Law coeds whose starting salary after graduation is 140 grand a year, but let's not get hung up on details. Dodd-Frank financial reform, also awaiting Supreme Court judgment, is another unconstitutional power grab, but its designated villains are mustache-twirling top-hatted bankers, so, likewise, who cares?
One can understand why the beneficiaries of the postwar West's expansion of middle-class prosperity would rather pass themselves off as members of way-cooler victim groups: it's a great career move. It may even have potential beyond the page: See Sandra Fluke's dazzling pre-Broadway tryout of "Fake Memoir: The High School Musical," in which a 30-year-old Georgetown Law coed whose starting salary after graduation is 140 grand a year passes herself off as the Little Rigoberta Hussein Wilkomirski of the Rite-Aid pick-up line. But transforming an entire nation into a fake memoir is unlikely to prove half so lucrative. The heartwarming immigrants, the contraceptive-less coeds, the mustache-twirling bankers all provide cover for a far less appealing narrative: an expansion of centralized power hitherto unknown to this republic. In reality, Obama's step-grandfather died falling off the chair while changing the drapes. In the fake-memoir version, Big Government's on the chair, and it's curtains for America.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Ends Justify Means, by Valerie Jarrett
Post by: DougMacG on July 09, 2012, 10:22:26 AM
Who cares if its constitutional, we got healthcare:

“We will take it any way we can get it," Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said about the Supreme Court calling the individual mandate a tax in the majority opinion upholding ObamaCare. "I mean we argued both ways, but we thought that it fell within the commerce clause, the Court ruled it was a tax, we really look at it as a penalty."

"But whatever they want to call it, the fact of the matter is it was a historic day for the United States. A country as wealthy as ours is now going to provide health insurance for everyone," Jarrett said to Roland Martin on the Tom Joyner Morning Show.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on July 10, 2012, 06:31:30 AM
Bumper sticker seen on a parked car in a nice, liberal neighborhood yesterday;

"Am I liberal or just well educated?"
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Let's do more of the same
Post by: DougMacG on July 10, 2012, 07:02:51 AM
Speaking of liberals well educated in something, art history maybe, to compensate for the shortage of liberals posting on the board I offer you the latest from the liberal media echo chamber in the Upper Midwest, today's Minneapolis StarTribune editorial taking the President to task for not turning further and sharper to the left.  What we really need right now, they argue, is more of the exact same policies that didn't work the first three and a half years in failed Barack Obama Presidency:

Editorial: Obama should call for new stimulus\

"June jobs numbers show that economy needs more juice."

They want him to do more on deficit reduction and offer a new fiscal spending stimulus.  Huh?

"Obama shouldn't wait for a full-blown recession to return. He should ask Congress for another dose of stimulus this summer..."

Read it at the link if you need a good dose of leftist confusion.  What they don't seem to get is that these results called fairness, "the June unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds was 13.7 percent, back up to where it was last fall", not economic growth, are exactly what you get from their policies.
Title: WSJ: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on July 11, 2012, 03:39:39 PM
Always fun to see that famous people are picking up on the themes here in the forum.  Sometimes they credit us, sometimes they don't.

The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left.

By JAMES TARANTO  Editor of and member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board

"Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them."

That bit of advice, No. 1 on a list titled "The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know," comes from the promotional material for "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic" by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling. (You may remember them from our June 12 column.) In a essay, the anonymous blogger whose pen name is Zombie draws out the implications:

    Many politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff's recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can't seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their own conservative "moral frames," every time a conservative speaks, his liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come back with a reply literally [sic] out of left field.

    Thus, he is the progenitor of and primary advocate for the main reason why liberalism fails to win the public debate: Because it never directly confronts, disproves or negates conservative notions--it simply ignores them. . . .

By intentionally refusing to challenge, disprove, understand or even acknowledge the existence of the other side's argument, you allow that argument to grow in strength and win converts.

This is an important insight, not only into the way the left debates and otherwise communicates, but into the way the left thinks--or fails to think. The book's subtitle, after all, promises an instruction in "Thinking and Talking Democratic." Lakoff and Wehling command their readers not only to act as if opposing arguments are without merit, but to close their minds to those arguments. What comes across to conservatives as a maddening arrogance is actually willed ignorance.

Such an attitude is the product of leftist intellectuals, not political professionals--and, as Zombie notes, the latter are foolish to follow it:

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is an exemplary Lakoffite, relentlessly hammering home her own framing of each issue, and utterly ignoring the Republican frame, except on rare occasion to mock it. How effective is this? A quick survey of conservative sites shows that she is regarded as the Queen of Buffoons, a figure meriting gleeful derision and eliciting relief that the Democrats have selected the worst possible spokesperson. She certainly hasn't changed a single conservative mind, I can assure you. But has she converted "undecided" voters to the liberal cause?

    I posit that the answer is "No," and I'll explain why. . . . Lakoff has an authoritative "scientist" persona in addition to his partisan "activist" persona, but in order to lend gravitas to his arguments he must conflate the two and pretend to be an impartial scientist while in reality enunciating transparently partisan talking points. Yet people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz don't have that option, so that when she speaks, every single listener already knows that she is a partisan spewing partisan spin. She doesn't have an "authority hat" to put on which might give her statements the veneer of impartial truth.

This is one difference between an intellectual and a politician: When an intellectual haughtily dismisses opposing arguments, he does so in part by resting on his authority as an intellectual. This authority may give him a false sense of his own intellectual strength and that of his arguments.

Recall how lefty law professors thought mockery a sufficient response to the idea that Congress's Commerce Clause authority has limits. Lefty journalists and politicians joined in the mockery, made confident by the authoritative pronouncements of the scholars. The U.S. Supreme Court has now adopted a legal principle that elite law professors refused even to comprehend.

The other difference between an intellectual and a politician is that the latter's profession entails regular reality checks. If the Democrats do badly this fall, Barack Obama and the unwieldily named Wasserman Schultz will be understood to have failed. He will lose his job, and she will likely lose her prominence. Lakoff presumably has tenure, which shields him from reality. Barring a severe financial crisis in the higher education industry, he's set for life.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Geithner, He made a mistake, lol.
Post by: DougMacG on July 17, 2012, 05:38:48 PM
Yeah, he made a mistake (depends on what the word 'a' means) and it was a DOOZY.  Keep in mind, the Treasury Secretary is the cabinet official responsible for the IRS.  Having Geithner in that position would be like having Eric Holder at DOJ oversee the ATF.  Oh, never mind, I forgot about the double standard.
Geithner's Tax History Muddles Confirmation
Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years
(Imagine the uproar if they find that on Romney; a leftist wet dream!)
Timothy Geithner's Tax Problems
Monday, January 19, 2009
At a time when the nation needs a reliable, respected voice on financial issues at the Treasury Department, is an admitted tax cheat the best we can do [front page, Jan. 14]
Geithner's Tax Troubles Are Serious
Brian Wingfield, 01.13.09, 07:22 PM EST
The issues surrounding Obama's choice for Treasury secretary may be worse than Democrats are letting on.     

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Timothy Geithner has just run into a potentially serious obstacle on the road to his confirmation as Barack Obama's Treasury secretary.

Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee made public concerns about Geithner's tax obligations, which resulted in his recent payment of $42,702 in additional taxes and interest for tax years 2001 to 2004. In addition, the committee's report on the matter says that in 2005 Geithner employed a housekeeper for about three and a half months after her ability to work in the U.S. had lapsed. (Maybe we can let the states handle immigration enforcement.)

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., described Geithner's errors as "serious," but he said they were "honest mistakes" that "do not rise to the level of disqualification." Baucus also said Geithner corrected the problems as soon as he learned of them. The Montana Democrat wants to have a confirmation hearing on Friday because he says it's important to have a Treasury secretary on "day one." Obama's inauguration takes place Jan. 20.

But Geithner's tax troubles are more worrisome for his confirmation than Baucus lets on--and not just because the Internal Revenue Service is part of the Treasury Department.

According to the Senate committee's report, Geithner "recently filed amended tax returns" for each tax year from 2001 through 2006. (3 strikes and you're out??  I guess not.) However, the report doesn't specify when these returns were filed, leaving open the question about how long Geithner knew about the improprieties before he fixed them.

On Dec. 5, Obama's transition team told Finance Committee staff that Geithner hadn't paid social security or self-employment taxes on income received from the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004, the report says. Three years ago, the IRS audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, which resulted in him paying back taxes and interest--but no penalties--totaling $16,732.  (I guess he didn't make a mistake.  More like a series of mistakes, all in his favor.)

However, Geithner voluntarily amended his 2001 and 2002 returns only after Obama expressed interest in nominating him to the Treasury post. The total bill this time: $25,970.

Income taxes for U.S. citizens who work for the IMF can be tricky. The IMF doesn't withhold an employee's share of social security taxes, and all of the organization's employees are responsible for meeting their own tax obligations. The IMF gives its employees--Geithner included--direction on how to pay self-employment taxes. And Geithner, a former Treasury official who is now president of the New York Fed, has dealt with complicated tax issues before, the report notes.

Was Geithner previously aware of irregularities on his 2001 and 2002? Did he only correct them when it became evident that a congressional committee would likely scrub his tax records in anticipation of confirmation hearings? The report doesn't say. Officials from Obama's transition team were not immediately available to comment.

But there's another concern, related to three people who have worked for him as household help since 2004. "He did not obtain the required Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, from these persons at the time they were hired to verify their legal work status," the Finance Committee's report says.

Nonetheless, Geithner was apparently aware of their legal status--someone entered into an address book owned by the Geithners, the report says. The Geithners apparently made a record that one employee's legal work status expired in July 2005, though she "did not renew her legal work status and the Geithners did not follow up with the employee to confirm whether she had done so." The person remained on the family's payroll until October 2005.

For now at least, Obama is standing by Geithner...  Obama has pledged to make addressing the economic crisis his top priority. The timing for this couldn't be worse.
Forbes Jan 13, 2009

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on July 17, 2012, 05:59:22 PM
He made a "mistake" obviously not very serious since no penalties were assessed.

I've been audited before; after hours upon hours on haggling, I ended up paying a few dollars plus interest as well.  No penalties.  Absolutely no one accused me of "tax evasion". 

Further, as I also pointed out, it couldn't have been too bad in the opinion of those who matter since he was approved by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 60-34 for Secretary of the Treasury.
Those that matter, on both sides of the aisle agreed, it was clearly a "mistake". 
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on July 17, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
A mistake? Can you STILL not grasp the errors was not SINGULAR??!??!??!
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on July 17, 2012, 06:20:52 PM
Doug, can YOU still not grasp that even the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan decision decided it was a "mistake" and approved him overwhelmingly.

There's nothing there....  You might want to move on to something of substance.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, serial cheater
Post by: DougMacG on July 17, 2012, 07:52:29 PM
Writes it singular again, 3 times after having the plural nature of the serial mistakes over an extended period on a multitude of problems pointed out.  I posted 3 sources detailing more than 10 major tax law compliance errors cited.  They didn't fall randomly either; all were on the side of TAX EVASION.  You and I can't get away with that, don't kid yourself.  The context was a historic financial crisis and the opposition looked the other way to give the popular new President a good start.  So they put him in charge of the guy who is in charge of tax law compliance.  In hindsight that was stupid.  He is a buffoon and we should have known.  Doesn't know Treasury, doesn't know tax law and doesn't know or care about the constitution. (
Good luck to you - it's fun having our own internet troll.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on July 17, 2012, 08:38:56 PM
I'm just trying to help.   :-)  Someone has to "troll" and so you can "find the truth".  :evil:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2012, 06:16:19 AM
Ummm , , , no.  NO ONE has to troll, and it is a bummer and a drag on this forum when someone does.  In this case Doug took the time to find and bring here considerable support/evidence of the point he was making.  Your response just ignores it.  This is tedious and a waste of our time.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: JDN on July 18, 2012, 07:08:32 AM
Ummm , , , no.  NO ONE has to troll, and it is a bummer and a drag on this forum when someone does.  In this case Doug took the time to find and bring here considerable support/evidence of the point he was making.  Your response just ignores it.  This is tedious and a waste of our time.

My "troll" comment was tongue in cheek in response to Doug's snide troll comment.  I agree Doug posted an excellent piece although I would not call it "considerable support/evidence.  The FACTS remain that the Senate in a BIPARTISAN manner agreed it was a mistake, a mistake so little that they approved the man to be Secretary of the Treasury.  Further no other enforcement agency thought they were "major tax law compliance errors.  They were all minor; as proof he paid no penalty. 

Geithner called the tax issues "careless", "avoidable" and "unintentional" errors, and he said he wanted to "apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues".Geithner testified that he used TurboTax to prepare his 2001 return, but that the tax errors were his own responsibility. The Obama campaign stated that Geithner was advised by his accountant that he did not owe any taxes beyond those assessed by the IRS following the 2006 audit. Geithner said at the hearing that he had always believed he was an employee, not a self-employed contractor, while serving at the IMF

Nearly everyone, except for a few partisan critics said it was a non issue.  Hardly "tax evasion". 

Tedious and a waste of time; why because I don't agree that Secretary Geither is buffoon?  One is not a buffoon merely because they disagree with your economic policies.

Geithner spent most of his childhood in other countries, including present-day Zimbabwe, Zambia, India, and Thailand where he completed high school at the International School Bangkok. He attended Dartmouth College, in the tradition of his father and paternal grandfather, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983. In the process, he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982. He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985. He has studied Mandarin and Japanese.

In October 2003, at age 42, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. His salary in 2007 was $398,200. As President of the New York Fed, he served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. In May 2007, he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank. In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.

During the 2008 Presidential election, as a registered Independent, Geithner was one of three people tipped to be nominated for Treasury Secretary regardless of whether John McCain or Barack Obama won.

Hardly a Buffoon or a tax evader. 

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2012, 07:48:39 AM
The tedious comment was in response to your non-response to content of a substantive post.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Trashing achievement
Post by: DougMacG on July 20, 2012, 08:24:50 AM
This is a theme running through both Presidential and congressional threads.  Thomas Sowell spells it out quite well:  "Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality."

Trashing Achievements

By Thomas Sowell - July 20, 2012
There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but were often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale.

The perseverance of Thomas Edison, as he tried scores of materials for the filament of the light bulb he was inventing; the dedication of Abraham Lincoln as he studied law on his own while struggling to make a living -- these were things young people were taught to admire, even if they had no intention of becoming inventors or lawyers, much less President of the United States.

Somewhere along the way, all that changed. Today, the very concept of achievement is de-emphasized and sometimes attacked. Following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard has made the downgrading of high achievers the centerpiece of her election campaign against Senator Scott Brown.

To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate."

Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them?

People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?

At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow being subsidized by "the rest of us," whether in paying for the building of roads or the educating of the young.

Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like free loaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, because it is part of an "underlying social contract."

Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy on the left -- one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled "The Promise of American Life."

Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a "promise" that American society was supposed to have made -- and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of "social contracts" began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the left.

If talking in this mystical way is enough to get you control of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, why not?

Certainly someone who claimed to be part Indian, as Elizabeth Warren did when applying for academic appointments in an affirmative action environment, is unlikely to be squeamish about using imaginative words during a political election campaign.

Sadly, this kind of cute use of words is not confined to one political candidate or to this election year. The very concept of achievement is a threat to the vision of the left, and has long been attacked by those on the left.

People who succeed -- whether in business or anywhere else -- are often said to be "privileged," even if they started out poor and worked their way up the hard way.

Outcome differences are called "class" differences. Thus when two white women, who came from families in very similar social and economic circumstances, made different decisions and got different results, this was the basis for a front-page story titled "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do'" in the July 15th issue of the N.Y Times. Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 20, 2012, 09:19:10 AM
"Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality."

Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Depends on what the meaning of "that" is...
Post by: DougMacG on July 23, 2012, 03:43:08 PM
Sensing big trouble over the "You Didn't Build That" statement, the left* has decided the attacks on his statement are out of context and wrong, *Rachel Maddow for example.  Before he said you didn't build that, he was talking about roads around your business.  You didn't build that.  Or did you?

Elizabeth Warren was more clear: roads "THAT THE REST OF US PAID FOR", she shouted angrily and repeatedly.

But the rich DO pay their fair share of the taxes and more and they do pay their fair share of the infrastructure and education systems in their towns that made the businesses that hire people possible.

More important though is that by parsing his words it exposes what Obama was really doing, as he always does in the heat of politics, making the straw argument.

He was putting on his opponents the view that if you favor any kind of limit on the continued growth of an obese and wasteful $4 trillion dollar FEDERAL government that is overlapped on most functions at the state and local levels and is already 1.2 trillion/yr in the red, then you must oppose all spending on all functions of government at all levels of government.

Remember what he said about any reform to our overblown regulatory jungle: "my opponents want dirtier water and dirtier air".

He can't argue honestly a political difference with a political opponent; he can only argue straw with a straw man if needs the win.

Yes, maybe he was talking about local government, local roads and local schools, but for the leader of the FEDERAL government talking about differences in federal laws and taxation, that is bunk.  I don't know about where you live but local businesses here pay huge amounts of property taxes, and I mean scary-high amounts.  Besides that he can't honestly say they didn't pay for that, he is the head of the federal government and not building the roads around your business is not a federal issue. 

Federal roads are paid for with usage taxes that are in fact pilfered for liberal purposes like mass transit.  Maybe he meant the airports but those are paid for in usage fees too.  He did mention the internet, but yesterday's WSJ says that the government invented the internet is urban legend:

Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.  But full credit goes to the company where Robert Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical user interface that still drives computer usage today.

According to a book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning" (by Michael Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn't wait for the government to connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. "We have a more immediate problem than they do," Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch in 1973. "We have more networks than they do." Mr. Shoch later recalled that ARPA staffers "were working under government funding and university contracts. They had contract administrators . . . and all that slow, lugubrious behavior to contend with."

"[We] didn't build that"??  No, Mr. President.  YOU didn't build that.

Whatever the hell "that" is.
Title: Basher Assad, a different leader, a Reformer - HRC, March 2011
Post by: DougMacG on July 30, 2012, 01:27:24 PM
Here's Mrs. Clinton's fuller quote, from March 27, 2011, answering CBS's Bob Schieffer on why the U.S. was prepared to intervene against Moammar Gadhafi but not against Assad: "There's a different leader in Syria now," she explained. "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he is a reformer." - Hillary Clinton, current Secretary of State, advancing that viewpoint to support validate her policy.  Not surprising since she previously had quite a kiss with Mrs Arafat at the conclusion of a hate-Israel speech:

In 2007, Nancy Pelosi enthused that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."   The lady wants to be Speaker of the House - again.

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been "very generous with me." He added that under Assad "Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States." This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 29, 2012, 09:41:42 AM
Short Cuts

"President Obama is angry at Mitt Romney for suggesting that college students should
'borrow money from their parents.' Right. You should do what Obama does -- have them
borrow money from their future children." --Fred Thompson

"Personally, I'm on a quest [at the Republican National Convention] to find all of
these racist Republicans everyone at MSNBC keeps saying dominate the party. I
thought I saw a Klansman, but it turned just to be someone with a totebag on their
head to fight the rain." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

"Yeah, the Democratic National Convention goes second and has a chance of upstaging
the Republicans, but I'm not sure how. Is there anything more tiresome than the
thought of Obama giving another speech? I mean, the one Biden gives might be some
comic relief, but they'll force him to stay on script and it will probably just be
boring. But they have fake-Indian Elizabeth Warren! Won't American respond to yet
another rich person whining about rich people? And then there is the dynamically
unlikable Sandra Fluke taking on our nations greatest problem: how annoying it is to
go to Walgreens and buy your own birth control." --humorist Frank J. Fleming

"President Obama passed up the chance to play golf in Washington Sunday to attend
church at St. John's Episcopal with his family. It was an emotional experience for
him. He felt the pain that all politicians feel when a collection plate goes by and
it's not for them." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"They [were] worried that Tropical Storm Isaac [w]ould hit Florida during ... the
Republican convention. But Florida [was] ready for it. Thanks to President Obama's
economic policies, many businesses down there [were] already boarded up." --comedian
Jay Leno
Title: We are doomed
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 10, 2012, 05:55:59 PM
Title: Oy vey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
Title: Obama contributor made anti-Islam Film
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 15, 2012, 05:41:30 PM
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on October 23, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Covering for the lack of liberal posts on the board, I offer these:

Bill Keller's advice for Romney in the final debate.  He actually followed point one, lay off of Benghazi.  Point two is say something nice about the Palestinians, then extend a hand to the Muslim Brotherhood and on it goes.  Keller is former editor of NY TImes, maybe even inspired Crafty's 'Pravda' naming.
Next, the geniuses ot NYT thought if I liked that one I would like to read this one too!

Government creates jobs - millions of them:

Mr. Romney interrupted. “Government does not create jobs,” he said. “Government does not create jobs.”

It was a decidedly crabbed response to a seemingly uncontroversial observation, and yet Mr. Obama took the bait. He said his political opponents had long harped on “this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe.” He went on to praise free enterprise and to say that government’s role is to create the conditions for everyone to have a fair shot at success.

So, they agree. Government does not create jobs.

Except that it does, millions of them — including teachers, police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, astronauts, epidemiologists, antiterrorism agents, park rangers, diplomats, governors (Mr. Romney’s old job) and congressmen (like Paul Ryan).
What they don't get it that government jobs ride off the revenues generated by taxpaying enterprise jobs (not the other way around).  Government can't and doesn't create them first or on their own.
Title: Flip Off the Big Bird
Post by: Body-by-Guinness on October 24, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
Big Bird
Posted by John Stossel | October 24, 2012
 Print Email Share 0 CommentsTweet

Give me a break.

The left screams because Romney says he'll cut PBS.

A Huffington Post writer says that would be "a cultural and spiritual disaster for the nation."

Please. America is going broke! If we can't cut PBS, what can we cut?

Public broadcasting costs taxpayers "only" $420 million per year, but that's real money, and even if it weren't, the price is not the point. Government should not fund any broadcast networks.

As for news programs, government funding means taxpayers pay for lefty propaganda like Bill Moyers and most of NPR. We need separation of News and State. Thomas Jefferson warned that it is wrong to force citizens to pay for "the propagation of opinions which [they] disbelieve." He was right, but now I have to fund NPR.

As far as children's programming, Big Bird doesn't need the money! Sesame Street has assets of $355,858,257! Sesame Workshop makes $46M in licensing fees. The company is such a gold mine, it paid its recent president $929,629. Big Bird will do fine without taxpayer subsidies.

PBS once asked, "If not PBS, then who?" Cato's David Boaz points out that now the answer is: HBO, Bravo, Discovery, History, Science, C-SPAN, The Learning Channel ... and so on. I'm told that kids' programs like Noggin (Nick Jr.) are like pre-school on TV.

Yes, you have to pay for cable, but 63.7% of people below the poverty line have cable or satellite TV.

Those who don't have cable still get education programs on free TV. NBC alone has The Wiggles, Noodle and Doodle, and LazyTown (get up & go, eat healthy).

Funding public broadcasting is welfare for rich people. PBS viewers are richer than average Americans.

NPR even bragged about its listeners' wealth to potential advertisers: "152% more likely to have a home valued at half a million or more ... 194% more likely to travel to France."

It's fine that they appeal to rich people. But you shouldn't have to fund it.
Title: 53% of Dems like socialism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 29, 2012, 05:20:23 PM
Title: Re: 53% of Dems like socialism
Post by: G M on November 29, 2012, 05:24:33 PM

Only 53% ?

Seems pretty low.
Title: Dissonance on the left: Susan Rice owns the Canadian Keystone pipeline firm
Post by: DougMacG on November 30, 2012, 09:53:54 AM

Liberals blast Susan Rice's 'outrageous' investments in Canadian pipeline firm
By Julian Pecquet - 11/30/12 10:48 AM ET

A liberal group launched an online petition Friday demanding that potential secretary of State nominee Susan Rice divest herself of “every dollar of stock” in the Canadian company seeking approval for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to the Gulf Coast.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations owns between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada Corp. stock, according to her financial disclosure forms. The pipeline needs approval from the State Department before it can go forward.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 30, 2012, 04:48:30 PM
It was just reported this evening on CNN she and her husband are worth 20 to 25 million dollars. 

I continue to call for all Democrats liberals and Hollywood types who are in the one percent (including you you jerk Buffet) should get a special tax of 90%.   Esp. he who spent his entire life avoiding taxes and instead of donating his 50 bill fortune to the government to help pay down debt donates it to the Gates foundation.

Hey if our gov. is so good with money that we should continue to pay more in taxes really put YOUR money where your mouth is.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Robert Reich - How to make things worse
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2012, 09:46:19 AM
In the interest of political economic diversity on the forum I continue to post things that make no sense to me from writers like Krugman and Reich...

Wal-Mart and McDonald’s: What’s wrong with U.S. employment
The walkouts were no coincidence. Low wages are strangling the economy, and Washington needs to pay attention
By Robert Reich

No.  Washington and other meddling governments are the cause.  Low wages are market wages when there is a dearth of successful new startups or existing companies flourishing to compete for the services of these workers.

'Entry level' jobs are intended for entry level workers, or people who earn only a portion of the money in a multi- income household. 

"These workers are not teenagers. Most have to support their families."

Flipping fast food burgers and working the drive up window does not raise a family, allow your wife to stay home with the children or put the kids through college.  That doesn't mean there is something wrong with having a first job, a first rung on the economic ladder, making the second, third and fourth rungs each an easier step.  What is wrong is that someone removed the ladder - by implementing the big government, private strangulation policies of Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama et al.

"More than 46 million Americans now live below the poverty line."

MILLIONS more than that are underemployed, unemployed or spome other form of just not working.  We are pursuing 'fairness' at the expense of lost national prosperity and lost economic opportunity.  That said, "poverty" as measured by the Census Bureau is a false measure and does not count most of their transfer payment income.

Startups in America are occurring at the lowest rate in 40 years.  I don't suppose 47,000 new regulations in the last 47 months and new taxes impending on everyone and everything has anything to do with that.

"Organizing makes economic sense."

Force someone to pay you more than you are worth to the enterprise, or put them out of business, is the answer of the left.  Not for these people to rise up freely and contribute to the economy with more valuable and productive work.

"wage gains are likely to come out of profits...That wouldn’t be such a bad thing."

To the Professor of Public Policy at Berkeley:  It will result in even fewer jobs, you birdbrain.  Non-performing restaurants CLOSE!  Potential new businesses projected to never provide a healthy return on investment simply don't open.  Take a look around.
Title: George Zimmerman Photograph
Post by: G M on December 04, 2012, 10:39:45 AM
George Zimmerman Photograph
on 03 December 2012.

This is a photo of George Zimmerman taken by a police officer on the night of February 26, 2012. A black and white photocopy of this image was provided by the State in the first Discovery. This high-resolution digital file was finally provided to the defense on October 29, 2012. This image was disclosed in the State's 9th Supplemental Discovery.  In accordance with the updates to our media policy that we published on November 13, we will be making all public documents related to the case available on our website, including the rest of the State's 9th Supplemental Discovery as soon as we are sure it has been properly redacted according to the Court's stipulations on protecting information regarding specific witnesses.

Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Never anything more than straw arguments
Post by: DougMacG on December 13, 2012, 03:08:55 PM
Is this all they've got in leftist logic? (oxymoron)  Washington Post/mainstream media but really this is just a typical leftist straw argument to avoid the real one.  No attempt is made at real journalism or trying to understand the the other side of an argument.

Fed’s big decision is victory for liberal economics

"’s a sign that the current Fed board is increasingly taking the “dual” part of its dual mandate — to seek stable prices and full employment — a lot more seriously than it seemed to earlier in Barack Obama’s presidency... it’s a consequence of the November 2008 election,  members of the Fed Board of Governors; [Pres. Obama] has now appointed six of seven [members of the Fed Board of Governors], all of whom voted for today’s policy."

"Republicans... rejecting entirely the Fed’s responsibility for improving the economy in favor of having it worry only about inflation. In fact, just last week, Marco Rubio implied that he may adopt that as a key position in his possible presidential campaign. Yes, that’s right: ...many Republicans believe that (at least when it comes to monetary policy) the United States has been paying too much attention to jobs and not enough to fighting inflation."

FYI to the leftist wingnut published in the mainstream media:  Tight monetary policy at zero percent interest and shortage of quantitative expansion currently close to a trillion a year is NOT what is wrong with investment and employment in this country.  Who could possibly think that is what's wrong?  Let's say your car engine is seized up but the gas tank is full to the top and spilling over.  With their logic, they would keep adding gas and criticize everyone who opposed them as not caring as we watch it spill over into the street - and keep doing it expecting that eventually it will cause the car to start running again.  It won't.  Adding more gas doesn't address what is wrong, so don't do it.  At zero percent interest rates with our money flooding all over the world at a rate of close to a trillion a year, year after year, and diluting the value of all our existing money, we don't have a problem with interest rates being too high or money unavailable.  The problem is that no one wants to start, run or expand a business in this current business climate.

People are leaving the workforce by the millions, existing businesses are refusing to expand in this country and startups are occurring at the lowest rate in history because of a combination of taxes, regulations and uncertainty laid on them by our government at all levels on a scale unprecedented in our history.  The problem is that our public sector is screwing up our markets in all major industries, taking away resources from private enterprise and making rules and regulations and imposing layers and layers of taxes that are strangulating the life out of private initiative, business expansion and hiring.

Republicans aren't the ones who oppose fixing this; they oppose putting more gas on the fire.  

(I will post more on the monetary policy thread.)
Title: Why they came for Susan Rice’s scalp
Post by: DougMacG on December 18, 2012, 10:58:12 AM
This is too stupid to answer... but here goes:

A NY Daily News opinion piece linked at Real Clear Politics today has the headline:

Why they came for Susan Rice’s scalp

Answer:  "It is about her skin color. It is also about her being female."  Exact quote.

Photo accompanying the bizarre answer:

It could be my television set but I watched those shows and didn't notice she was 'a person of color'.  Nor do I care.  They went after her because she lied - on an important matter when the whole point was to get accurate information out to the American people.

The author must not have known that the same day the Indian American Republican Governor of South Carolina would appoint tea party favorite: Tim Scott.  RCP used this photo:

Excusing them for not knowing, they might though have known that the darling of the Republican party in the campaign of 2012 was Mia Love:

Neither Democrat lying, nor conservative favoring limited government is a topic about race - or gender!

Title: Leftism: ‘Forget It, Jake. It’s Chinatown.’
Post by: G M on January 03, 2013, 03:39:29 PM

Leftism: ‘Forget It, Jake. It’s Chinatown.’

January 3rd, 2013 - 9:57 am
     I went shopping with my family on New Year’s Day at the “premium” outlet mall in Cabezon, California, outside Palm Springs — the kind of place where you traipse around for hours in the hopes of scoring a $225 Prada tie for 30 bucks, or a $700 Versace sweater for $135.

A large number, possibly a majority, of the shoppers there are well-heeled Chinese who have flown over to binge on Yves Saint Laurent, etc. products — many of which were made in their home country in the first place. Dressed in designer clothes, these mostly young and trendy Chinese are the privileged scions of the Communist Party. Their parents and grandparents are the ones who played along and did their best not to make waves, even cooperated, throughout the mass murders of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Now, they and their kids are reaping the harvest of their modern state capitalist system that still flies under the banner of communism, a false flag operation if ever there was one. Ironies abound, and those same ironies provide a snapshot of what constitutes “leftism” in our own culture.

Idealism is not the point, nor has it been for ages.

Leftism has devolved into a kind of scam run not only on others but also on the self. Leftists are brilliant at convincing themselves of their own altruism and then broadcasting it to the public, thus providing cover for the most conventionally greedy and selfish behaviors. We see that in our society all the time: the quondam Marxists of Hollywood, the media, and the academy blathering on about economic equality while living lives the Medici could not have dreamed of.

Part of this construct is a “prevent game,” a public persona and system erected so privilege cannot be questioned or undermined. A nomenklatura more successful and sophisticated than anything ever conceived in the Soviet Union. The result of this is a highly stratified society. As is well known but scarcely reported, blacks and Latinos have actually done worse under Obama than other groups. Normally, that would be unconscionable, considering the rhetoric. But as we know, it’s all about the rhetoric. Reality is unimportant — an inconvenience.

Relatively unbridled capitalism has always been the best way out of this, the best way to true social mobility, but our nomenklatura doesn’t want to admit this because it might threaten them and their perquisites. It would blow their cover.

I suspect those Chinese shoppers knew this better than anyone, having lived through a similar experience ratcheted up to the nth degree. Although I was too polite to do it, I wanted to question them. I would have loved to know what they say to each other in the privacy of their own homes, not that they would be likely to tell me.

But there was something to learn from watching them. I felt like a detective and it made me think of Roman Polanski and Robert Towne’s Chinatown. I also thought of myself, of the way I was when I was a leftist. Yes, I drove a Porsche then (a used one). And had a house in the Hollywood Hills. And ate at gourmet restaurants. And there were plenty like me. I was part of a class. I felt safe and protected for many years, though finally I just left it. I couldn’t stand the hypocrisy anymore. Or maybe I just lost the ability to convince myself of my own altruism.

Whatever the case, when it comes to the truth about leftism, it’s about the cover it gives. Or, as Bob Towne put it: “It’s Chinatown.”
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: SWBrowne on January 11, 2013, 05:23:09 AM
(This where it belongs?)

Yes, they really hate America.

Gentlemen and ladies,

Guro Marc Denny did me the honor of inviting me on to this forum, and I've been remiss in jumping in. I'll introduce myself at greater length later, but in brief: I'm a single dad, a journalist, a martial artist (PTK and Wu Wei Gung Fu.) I lived from 1991 to 2004 in Eastern Europe: Poland (where my son was born), Bulgaria, Serbia, and traveled around the region quite a lot. I lived a year in Saudi Arabia as well.

My blog site is and you can find out more about me there.

The topic I'd like to get a discussion started on concerns my thesis which is briefly - yes, the left hates America, and I believe I know why.

See the first of a series I wrote about it a while back, which I really need to distill into a more succinct article, but the basic thesis is here. Two men, Abraham Lincoln and Francis Bacon showed my why the people who are arguably the most fortunate individuals in the history of the human race hate the civilization that gifted them beyond the reach of ancient kings.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 11, 2013, 08:31:00 AM

Yes, this is the thread for it. 

Again, delighted to have you with us.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on January 11, 2013, 09:04:29 AM
Likewise, welcome!  After your first post a little while back I took the time to read a good number of your writings both at your site and at the newspaper.  Very impressive and insightful, covering a lot of the same topics of the forum.  I hope you jump into the discussion here on a wide range or things.
Title: Oh the hypocrisy!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2013, 08:00:54 AM
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - The Colin Powell Double Standard
Post by: DougMacG on January 15, 2013, 11:22:52 AM
I've got news for Sec. Powell.  Someone who supports Obama twice and all of the leftist agenda is not Republican.  You are a leftist.  Be proud of that.

Powell went on Meet the Press to give a show of support for Chuck Hagel.  He said regarding Hagel's use of the term Jewish lobby,  "that term slips out from time to time".

Yes it does, and so does support for Iran, Hamas, Castro, etc.  His ideological matching with Obama is his qualification.

Powell called American DOD official, Douglas Feith "a card-carrying member of the Likud Party."   Those slip ups are going to happen??

Hagel is not an anti-semite for what he said but the GOP IS racist for what they didn't say:

Powell went on to say that when Romney supporter Gov. Sununu called Obama "lazy" after his first debate performance, it was short for lazy bleaping nigger(?), the GOP is racist - they just don't say the last parts out loud.  Huh? 

Scorched by Powell without the verbal slipup.  One is not anti-Jewish for saying he is and the other is racist for not saying what he didn't say.  What a jerk.  Whatever Powell did to earn all his credibility (lying to the UN about WMD?) ought to be re-examined. 
Brett Stephens WSJ wrote about the Powell double standard today:
Title: BO's The Second Bill of Rights comes from the Soviet Constitution
Post by: DougMacG on January 30, 2013, 03:47:51 PM
The Second Bill of Rights of which Obama, Sunstein et al speak has been sourced:

"guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum"

"the right to education. This right is ensured by free provision of all forms of education, by the institution of universal, compulsory secondary education, and higher education - free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills, training in new trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational guidance and job placement"

"the right to rest and leisure... a working week not exceeding 41 hours"

"the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry..."

"the rights to housing...well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services."

"the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church"

"It is the internationalist duty of citizens to promote friendship and co-operation with peoples of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world peace."

A more perfect union has been found.  (All quotes from USSR Constitution linked above.)
Title: Re: BO's The Second Bill of Rights comes from the Soviet Constitution
Post by: G M on January 30, 2013, 05:44:15 PM
The Second Bill of Rights of which Obama, Sunstein et al speak has been sourced:

"guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum"

"the right to education. This right is ensured by free provision of all forms of education, by the institution of universal, compulsory secondary education, and higher education - free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills, training in new trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational guidance and job placement"

"the right to rest and leisure... a working week not exceeding 41 hours"

"the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry..."

"the rights to housing...well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services."

"the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church"

"It is the internationalist duty of citizens to promote friendship and co-operation with peoples of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world peace."

A more perfect union has been found.  (All quotes from USSR Constitution linked above.)

Dreams from his father.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2013, 07:09:49 AM
I would also add the "right" to retire is guaranteed.

There is no higher service, no greater good, no more honorable thing one could do than to serve in the government.

We are the people of for and by the government. :-(
Title: The war on womyn update
Post by: G M on February 01, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
The pro-women political party that made sure to honor both Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton at their last convention, has a new rising star!

Protests and outrage from feminists in 3....2....never

NJ’s Menendez flees ho heat
Last Updated: 11:46 AM, February 1, 2013
Posted: 1:04 AM, February 1, 2013

Sen. Robert Menendez repeatedly dodged reporters in Washington yesterday — avoiding questions about allegations he had sex with underage hookers in the Dominican Republic.

The Democrat from New Jersey slipped quietly out a back door after a New Jersey Chamber of Commerce banquet, at which he made his first public speech since the allegations surfaced.

Cornered by a wall of reporters, he refused to answer questions — and, with a half-grin, escaped into an elevator.
Title: Re: The war on womyn update
Post by: G M on February 02, 2013, 12:08:52 PM
The pro-women political party that made sure to honor both Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton at their last convention, has a new rising star!

Protests and outrage from feminists in 3....2....never

NJ’s Menendez flees ho heat
Last Updated: 11:46 AM, February 1, 2013
Posted: 1:04 AM, February 1, 2013

Sen. Robert Menendez repeatedly dodged reporters in Washington yesterday — avoiding questions about allegations he had sex with underage hookers in the Dominican Republic.

The Democrat from New Jersey slipped quietly out a back door after a New Jersey Chamber of Commerce banquet, at which he made his first public speech since the allegations surfaced.

Cornered by a wall of reporters, he refused to answer questions — and, with a half-grin, escaped into an elevator.

“The same people who claimed Mitt Romney was waging a ‘War on Women’ are doing everything they can to avoid talking about Bob Menendez.”- JIM TREACHER
Title: Remember when dissent was patriotic and we had a peace movement?
Post by: G M on February 08, 2013, 09:59:56 AM

You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way Journalists Blow
Nick Gillespie|Feb. 7, 2013 7:00 pm

Remember back in what was it - 2006 or thereabouts - when left-leaning critics of President Bush couldn't stop talking about how nothing was more red, white, and blue than good old-fashioned American dissent? Why, our very country was founded by an act of dissent, didn't you know! So back when Vice President Dick Cheney - routinely likened to Darth Vader and Voldemort - was running things, the very air was filled with cries of "not in our name" and all that, because it was so damned important that the United States not contravene its basic principles even in the name of self defense!

Those were good times, friends, and they stopped pretty much the minute that liberals and Democrats took control of the federal government. The antiwar movement disappeared once it became clear that Barack Obama wasn't going to shut down Gitmo or stop bombing places or give a rat's ass about that constitutional stuff he used to teach in law school.

But cheer up, because things can always get worse, as the last few days have demonstrated.

There's that report from the Open Society Justice Initiative that despite Obama's soothing intonations to the contrary, the U.S. is complicit in torture up the ying-yang. And of course there's the leaked memo outlining what passes for Obama's decision tree regarding killing suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens. It's a relief to that the president has put his top men - anonymous yet "informed, high-level" officials - on figuring just who should be pinged and when. No need to share information or evidence or anything with either the legislative or judicial branches because that would just get in the way of getting the job done, right? Checking your math and making sure you're not making a bone-headed unconstitutional mistake is for losers. We're at war, don't you see, a new and different sort of war in which the old rules don't apply. And besides, doesn't the authorization of war powers signed three days after September 11, 2001 mean that whatever Obama does is A-OK? So even if we do need rules, Obama's got that covered! Nothing to see here, move along please.

It's sad, though never unexpected, when leaders such as Obama flip flop like a fish on the sand once they ascend power. Cromwell did it, the French revolutionaries did it, Castro did it, the Sandanistas did it, and on and on. It's one of the oldest plots in history and infinitely adaptable to new conditions. How else to explain, as Jacob Sullumn notes, that candidate Obama rejected the Bush adminstration's position that it could detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without pressing charges while President Obama claims the right to kill U.S. citizens without laying charges? The guy may not be able to pass a budget but christ, give him credit for ingenuity and brass balls.

But Obama is a politician - what do you expect? Politicians are not just the bottom of the barrel - they're what's under the bottom of the barrel, right?

So what then explains the contortions that journalists fold themselves into like so many carnival sideshow rubber-men in defending their hero? Mike Riggs points to comments by rising liberal MSNBC pundit Toure that suggest just how far explicitly pro-Obama liberals are willing to go in excusing the president's declaring himself and his crew judge, jury, and executioner. As Riggs explains, it seems pretty clear that Toure isn't up to speed on specifics, especially when it comes to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son:

When his co-hosts continue to press him on the consequences of a small group of individuals determing who deserves to die without a shred of oversight, Touré dismisses them by saying, "Al Qaeda attacked this nation. We are attacking al Qaeda back." On Twitter Touré simply said, "He's the Commander in Chief."

Al Qaeda is the new Communism, dig? To invoke its name is to settle all arguments. If Toure is just light on facts, the recent defense of Obama's kill list machinations from Michael Tomasky is more illuminating of the mind-set that controls journalists. Tomasky has been at the news game far longer than Toure and once upon a time penned a fawning "inside" account of what he dubbed Hillary Clinton's "Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign." After stints at various leftoid outposts such as The American Prospect and The Guardian, Tomasky has now found a perch at The Daily Beast. Back in the day, Tomasky was a reliable critic of everything related to Bushitler, by which I of course mean Dick Cheney. Here he is circa 2009, in a typical post titled "Dick Cheney's Dangerous Game":

Cheney wants Americans to live in fear. He believes that we should be living in more or less constant fear of another attack. I suppose it probably occurred to him over the years that, when a people are whipped into a fearful state, they tend to hand their leaders more power....

Obama wants to move people beyond fear. "If we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear," he said, "we will make more mistakes." Are the American people up to this? More to the point – and more depressing to consider – are Washington politicians? We will find out as this debate plays out.

This sort of analysis struggles to rise above Goofus and Gallant in Highlights for Children: Goofus constantly invokes real and imagined threats to concentrate his power. Gallant talks a good game about protecting rights even while claiming far more power than this predecessor.

Tomasky struggles with the in-your-face spectacle of a president saying he has the right to pick which Americans can be killed unilaterally by insisting that the important thing is to walk a mile in Obama's mocassins:

I’ve always written about politics with part of my brain focused on the question of what I would do if I were in Politician X’s position. This line of thought came so naturally to me that I imagined everyone did this.... [The memo is] certainly not something that makes the breast swell with pride. But it does make me wonder what I would do in this situation, and I can’t honestly come up with easy answers.

He should try harder to come up with answers, perhaps by halting the mind-meld with the powerful and instead grokking some imaginary solidarity with the falsely accused. After dilating a while on the term imminent as used in

the memo and then deciding that al Qaeda is pretty much always about to attack the U.S., he concludes

Well, either this makes a certain sense to you, or you just think that a state can't be in the business of killing its own citizens and that's all there is to it. There's no doubt that a sentence like "the president has the power to order the assassination of American citizens" sounds positively despotic. However, these are people who have gone off and joined Al Qaeda (the white paper also mentions "associated groups," and one definitely wonders where that line is drawn, precisely). If an American citizen of German descent had gone back to...Germany in 1934 and joined the Nazi Party and worked his way up such that he was involved in the plotting of attacks against American soldiers, and Roosevelt had order him killed, no one would have batted an eye in 1940s America.

You got that? You're either with the president's logic or you can't understand it (shades of George Bush's simplistic, Bible-based manicheanism when he said you're either with us or against us!). There's enough qualifiers in the passage above to give anyone pause, of course: Who are the associated groups after all? How exactly is this like 1940s America? The short version, as even Tomasky eventually grants later, is that "it's not 1940s America." Last time, I checked, Congress declared war against Nazi Germany. And the Nazis kept membership lists which greatly minimized - though didn't eliminate fully - questions of who belonged. Maybe more important, mistakes were made, including the internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans and alien residents for no good reason other than hysteria. Can we learn at least a little from the past? And not the distant past, either. Enough of the detainees at Gitmo were wrongly held so that you'd figure Obama (didn't he pledge to shut that prison down?) would want to make double-plus sure that he's targeting the right bastards?

But all Tomasky's mental whittling is besides the point, really, because people aren't saying they can't think of scenarios in which the state has the legitimate right to kill bad guys (including its own citizens) without going through every possible aspect of criminal or military due process. The current controversy is over Barack Obama's unwillingness to explain precisely how and when he's been making such calls and exactly where he thinks he derives the right to do so.

Tomasky's colleague at The Daily Beast, David Frum, is not beset with internal strife. A former Bush speechwriter (best known for coining the phrase "the Axis of Evil"), Frum says that just about anything Obama does is plainly covered under the authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) that was signed a few days after 9/11. "That resolution remains in force today," writes Frum. "It assigns to the president - not to some judge - the authority to determine who committed the 9/11 attacks. It assigns to the president - not a jury - the responsibility to prevent any future acts of international terrorism." Leaving aside the fact that it was signed a dozen years ago, the AUMF does direct the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice as well as "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." While the authorization covers a lot of ground, it doesn't mean that the president, or whoever he designates, can simply do whatever he pleases. As Eli Lake noted for Reason in 2010, the Supreme Court limited President Bush's powers under the AUMF and the Obama adminstration itself pledged to respect international law even while prosecuting the war on terror. More to the point, perhaps, the AUMF doesn't mean that Congress can't oversee or be privy to the president's actions and logic. What does it say about Obama's respect for a separation of powers and the Constitution that he has refused to give the Senate the classified truth on his decision matrix for killing suspected terrorists? Nothing good.

We grudgingly allow the government to surveil, detain, and confront people all the time when various sorts of suspicions are raised; the difference is that there is a clear framework in place so that we can judge whether the government is acting in accordance with the law rather than simply acting on its own impulse. You'd think that Obama - an Ivy League lawyer and a Nobel Peace Prize winner no less- would be proactive in reassuring the Congress and the country that he's not flying by the seat of his pants on this.

By making clear that as a journalist he tries to see things first and foremost from the perspective of the powerful, Michael Tomasky helps to clarify why so many in the media are rushing to the president's defense. They are entranced with power and the view from the top. "Presidents live with that responsibility [of protecting American lives] every day," he writes. "If that responsibility were mine, I can't honestly say what I'd do, and I don't think anyone can." Not all journalists are awed by power, of course, even on the right (National Review's Jim Geraghty, for instance, asserts that this sort of thing of extra-judicial killing policy wouldn't be cricket even under a GOP president).

This isn't ultimately about ideological hypocrisy - of liberals changing their tune once their guy is in office - but something much more basic and much more disturbing. It reveals that for all their crowing about being watchdogs of all that is good and decent in society, when push comes to shove, too many journalists are ready and willing handmaidens to power - including the power to kill.

There's the old saw from Mother Jones - the namesake of today's left-wing publication - that her job was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." To its credit and unlike too many on the broadly construed left, Mother Jones (the magazine and website) still believes that as it relates to civil liberties. As Adam Serwer has written,

The Obama administration claims that the secret judgment of a single "well-informed high level administration official" meets the demands of due process and is sufficient justification to kill an American citizen suspected of working with terrorists. That procedure is entirely secret. Thus it's impossible to know which rules the administration has established to protect due process and to determine how closely those rules are followed. The government needs the approval of a judge to detain a suspected terrorist. To kill one, it need only give itself permission.

That such an obvious analysis escapes so many in the press is troubling, to say the least. But it makes total sense if, as Michael Tomasky says, you focus first on what you would do if you were in "Politician X's position." The world - and your concerns - must surely look different when viewed from such a lofty vantage point.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2013, 10:05:28 AM
Contrast my post of John Yoo just now in the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread-- you might even want to post this Reason piece there GM.
Title: Nancy Pelosi -"It's almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem"
Post by: DougMacG on February 12, 2013, 07:47:25 AM
Nancy Pelosi with Chris Wallace shows at the link why powerful people like her don't normally do this kind of interview. 

Liberals have their own language and it permeates their thinking.  Sometimes it doesn't even make sense to her. 

"It's almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem"

This bizarre statement begs two questions: 1) We spend a trillion more than the most we have ever been able to figure out how to take in plus 150 trillion of unfunded liabilities.  Nancy, we have a spending problem.  2) What is "almost a false argument"?   Does she not know that in English that is a way of saying something is true?

"Nothing brings more money to the Treasury of the United States than ..." [public spending].

She believes so strongly that increasing the federal government's involvement in every area equals improvement.  She forgets that she never won that argument. The Soviet central control system never did outperform individual freedom and ingenuity.  It imploded.  Ayers, Alinsky, Obama and Pelosi all have this wrong.

Title: Jay Carney, Oops, we do have a spending problem...
Post by: DougMacG on February 12, 2013, 07:55:24 AM
Didn't President Obama and Nancy Pelosi just say we don't have spending problem?  It's almost a false argument.  Now Carney is sent out by the same President's handlers to say we do have a spending problem - but it's all healthcare.

Will they use this in future political science classes to illustrate what we mean by talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Lawrence Summers says growth agenda
Post by: DougMacG on February 12, 2013, 11:10:53 AM
Clinton's Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers says growth agenda.  Then he lays out an agenda that largely skips over taxes and regulations.  Good luck.  His points if they were numbered 3-8 are actually pretty good:
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Michelle Malkin asks: Who failed Chicago?
Post by: DougMacG on February 13, 2013, 07:29:46 AM
Could go under Glibness, failed programs, gun control, ACORN corruption or America's inner city, Michelle Malkin hits it out of the park.  How come the party of science doesn't tie policies to results?

Who Failed Chicago?

By Michelle Malkin - February 13, 2013
On Tuesday, President Obama and the first lady used the State of the Union spotlight to pay tribute to an innocent teenage girl shot and killed by Chicago gang thugs. On Friday, Obama will travel to the Windy City to decry violence and crusade for more gun laws in the town with the strictest gun laws and bloodiest gun-related death tolls in America.

Does the White House really want to open up a national conversation about the state of Chicago? OK, let's talk.

Obama, his wife, his campaign strategists, his closest cronies and his biggest bundlers all hail from Chicago. Senior adviser and former Chicago real estate mogul/city planning commissioner Valerie Jarrett and her old boss Richard Daley presided over a massive "Plan for Transformation" in the mid-1990s to rescue taxpayer-subsidized public housing from its bloody hellhole. How'd that work out for you, Chicago?

Answer: This social justice experiment failed miserably. A Chicago Tribune investigation found that after Daley and Jarrett dumped nearly $500 million of federal funding into crime-ridden housing projects, the housing complexes (including the infamous Altgeld-Murray homes) remained dangerous, drug-infested, racially segregated ghettos. Altgeld is a long-troubled public housing complex on Chicago's South Side, where youth violence has proved immune to "community organizing" solutions and the grand redevelopment schemes championed by Obama and company.

In fact, as I've reported previously, it's the same nightmarish 'hood where Obama cut his teeth as a community activist -- and exaggerated his role in cleaning up asbestos in the neighborhood, according to fellow progressive foot soldiers. As always, Obama's claims to success there were far more aspirational than concrete.

In the meantime, lucrative contracts went to politically connected Daley pals in the developer world to "save" Chicago's youth and families. Another ghetto housing project, the Grove Parc slum, was managed by Jarrett's former real estate empire, Habitat, Co. Jarrett refused to answer questions about the dilapidated housing development after ascending to top consigliere in the Obama administration.

But as the Boston Globe's Binyamin Appelbaum, who visited the slums several years ago, reported: "Federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition. ... (Jarrett) co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems." Grove Parc and several other monumental housing flops "were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the (federal) subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered."

Democrats poured another $30 million in public money into the city's public schools to curb youth violence over the past three years. The New York Times hailed the big government plan to fund more social workers, community organizers and mentors and create jobs for at-risk youth. But watchdogs on the ground exposed it as a wasteful "makework scheme." One local activist nicknamed the boondoggle "Jobs for Jerks" because "it rewards some of the worst students in the school system with incredibly rare employment opportunities while leaving good students to fend for themselves."

Obama and his ineffectual champions of Chicago's youth will demand more taxpayer "investments" to throw at the problem. But money is no substitute for the soaring fatherlessness, illegitimacy and family disintegration that have characterized Chicago inner-city life since Obama's hero Saul Alinsky pounded the pavement. As Heather Mac Donald noted in a damning indictment of the do-gooders' failures, "Official silence about illegitimacy and its relation to youth violence remains as carefully preserved in today's Chicago as it was during Obama's organizing time there."

Team Obama will find perverted ways to lay blame for Chicago's youth violence crisis on the NRA, Sarah Palin, FOX News, George Bush and the tea party. But as the community organizer-in-chief prepares to evade responsibility again, he should remember: When you point one finger at everyone else, four other fingers point right back at you-know-who.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Cass Sunstein, ends justify means
Post by: DougMacG on February 19, 2013, 11:29:07 AM
Continuing in our get to the know the left series.

It’s For Your Own Good!
Cass R. Sunstein

Left thinker Sunstein reviews "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism"
by Sarah Conly which explains with a straight face why a system of "paternalist" government-based decision making is better than individual free choices.  I kid you not.

"Conly convincingly argues that behavioral findings raise significant questions about Mill’s harm principle [coersion can only be to prevent harm to others]. When people are imposing serious risks on themselves, it is not enough to celebrate freedom of choice and ignore the consequences."
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on February 19, 2013, 11:32:13 AM
Now that they think they've won, we see the true face of the left.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2013, 01:00:42 PM
 :-o :-o :-o :cry: :cry: :cry: :x :x :x

Please post in the Liberal Fascism thread.
Title: Waiting for the feminist outrage....
Post by: G M on February 21, 2013, 12:14:16 PM

CO Democrat: Even if you feel like you might get raped, you may not, so no guns for you

posted at 9:31 pm on February 18, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

Downplaying the threat of rape? Check. Questioning the ability of grown, sentient women to perceive that threat? Check. A man in a position of power presuming to know what’s best for women he knows nothing about? Check. Limiting women’s choices by law in potentially life-threatening situations? Check. Six months ago, this was known as the frightful patriarchy. Now, it’s just another member of the Party of Women doing his part for the good work of gun control.
In arguing for the disarmament of college students in Colorado this week, state Rep. Joe Salazar suggested a novel method of self-defense for women on campus— just chill, ladies.


“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”
Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment! I guess if you are raped, there’s this…safe zone. Look, colleges are welcome to establish safe zones (though criminals are notoriously unobservant of such signage), call boxes, lighted paths, and whistles to help prevent campus attacks. I have benefited from at least a few of these tools, and begrudge no one their use. But I would also like women who choose to arm themselves, in the event that safe zones, call boxes, lights, and whistles don’t work, to retain the right to their chosen tool of prevention.

Revealing Politics has background on the bill in question:

House Bill 13-1226 to prohibit the lawful concealed carry on Colorado college campuses passed the Colorado House of Representatives this morning. Many of the arguments Democrats used to justify the bill included the alcohol and drug use common on campuses coupled with the age and immaturity of average college students. These arguments didn’t resonate with many Republican lawmakers and opponents of the bill who cited Colorado’s intensive training process for obtaining a concealed carry permit and the state’s requirement that permit-holders be 21 years of age, as rebuttal.
Salazar has apologized for revealing how incapable he believes women are. (Notice the framing of the story in local media is not about his comments, but about conservatives objecting to them.)

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. “I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”
Charles Cooke notes the University of Colorado’s advice for women under attack. This would be the liberal-sanctioned method of self-defense if the Rep. Salazar method of hoping real hard doesn’t pan out. Passive resistance, bare feet, and your period:

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
“Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” That is, unless you’d like to use a projectile more potent than vomit, in which case, settle down little missy. You can’t be trusted.

In other “common sense” gun control news, a Washington state bill obliterates the Fourth Amendment for gun owners. Oops:

It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
When the sheriff shows up, try vomiting or urinating.
Title: Jack Lew- Forrest Gump at Treasury?
Post by: DougMacG on February 22, 2013, 09:13:45 AM
NYU, a taxpayer owned institution, paid Lew $840,339 in a year and lent him and additional $1.4 million Mr. Lew said that the university "provided a mortgage forgiven in equal installments over five years, and an additional shared appreciation mortgage."  Plus severance when he left voluntarily.  Citi paid him 1.1 million to run a group that lost a billion and required a taxpayer bailout.  Let's put him in charge of the Treasury.  Liberals and leftists are up in arms about this.  Just kidding.

Jack Lew doesn't seem to know much about how or why he got paid.

Senate Democrats are in a hurry to confirm Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury before anyone notices his biography. Otherwise, liberal lawmakers might be embarrassed voting for a man who represents everything they've been campaigning against.

Investor in Cayman Islands tax haven? Check. Recipient of a bonus and corporate jet rides underwritten by taxpayers at a bailed-out bank? Check. Executive at a university that accepted student-loan "kickbacks" for steering kids toward a favored bank? Check. Excessive compensation with minimal disclosure? Check.

Like a financial Forrest Gump, Mr. Lew keeps walking into the frame of the business-political dramas of the last decade. But unlike the lovable movie character, Mr. Lew is playing the villain of liberal financial lore. One very compelling role, highlighted by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), was Mr. Lew's star turn as an administrator at a university that encouraged students to borrow from his future employers at Citibank.

Prior to working at Citi, Mr. Lew was the executive vice president for operations at New York University from 2001-2006. He was responsible for NYU's budget and finances. During his tenure the university agreed to recognize Citibank as its primary private lender for student loans. Citibank in turn paid NYU 0.25% of the value of the loans.

Mr. Lew and the school say that Citi offered the payments to NYU only after winning a competitive process to offer low rates to students. Mr. Lew says he doesn't recall much about the arrangement, and he responded to a Grassley inquiry by saying, Gump-like, "I do not believe that I approved the selection of Citigroup as C +0.61% a preferred lender for NYU students."

We never thought it was the crime of the century for universities to get a cut of loan revenue when they recommended particular lenders to students. But politicians like Senator Max Baucus (D., Mont.) referred to these payments as "kickbacks." Yes, the same Max Baucus who has spent his career howling about the Cayman Islands. Yes, the same Mr. Baucus who has now forgotten how outraged he is while supporting Mr. Lew's nomination.

Anyway, after Mr. Lew had left NYU to work at Citi, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charged in 2007 that the school's payments from Citi had not been adequately disclosed to students and that the school's policy toward Citi created a conflict of interest and violated state laws. NYU settled without admitting any wrongdoing and agreed to a new code of conduct.

We'd have thought this story would offend principled liberals, but then they're also giving a pass to Mr. Lew's fabulous compensation from the tax-exempt school. NYU students shoulder one of the highest collective debt burdens in the country as they struggle to afford one of the nation's most expensive universities. For those who claim after watching Mr. Lew's confirmation hearing that he doesn't understand finance, we say: Check out his NYU compensation package. He sure knows how to get paid.

According to a 2004 report in NYU's student newspaper, Washington Square News, Mr. Lew was paid $840,339 during the 2002-2003 academic year. This meant that Mr. Lew earned more than most of the country's university presidents that year, including his own boss, John Sexton.

After more Grassley inquiries and reporting by the New York Post, it's not clear whether even that astronomical figure covers all the compensation paid to this employee of an ostensibly nonprofit outfit.

The Post discovered in NYU's IRS forms that the school lent Mr. Lew at least $1.4 million. When Mr. Grassley asked the Treasury nominee about it, Mr. Lew said that the university "provided a mortgage forgiven in equal installments over five years, and an additional shared appreciation mortgage."

Mr. Lew says that NYU reported "income related to housing assistance" on his W-2, so it's possible the loan subsidy was counted in the $840,339 figure. We asked NYU and the Treasury to disclose Mr. Lew's total compensation from the school, including benefits. NYU suggested we review their public tax filings and White House spokesman Eric Schultz said only that, "Mr. Lew has answered more questions than any Treasury Secretary nominee in history. He has been fully transparent and responsive to the Committee and deserves a vote as soon as possible."

What Mr. Lew has told Mr. Grassley is that "in addition" to his salary, he received other benefits, including "a one-time severance payment upon my departure." The website for the Obama Department of Labor notes, "Severance pay is often granted to employees upon termination of employment." That's our understanding as well—severance is typically paid to employees being laid off. But NYU says he left voluntarily.

Why would the school shovel still more money to an employee as a parting gift before he heads off to Wall Street? NYU is a university that gets favorable tax treatment on the premise that it is pursuing an educational mission, not a commercial or political one.

The Grassley inquiry is unlikely to derail Mr. Lew's nomination, because Senate Democrats, the White House and most of the media really don't care. But Mr. Grassley is doing a public service in revealing how liberals redistribute income to themselves. And Mr. Lew is finally delivering educational value to youngsters by providing a lesson for the Obama era: If you want the big bucks, go into the world of taxpayer-backed enterprises.
Title: The Banana War
Post by: bigdog on March 06, 2013, 07:55:30 PM 

The firm’s lawyers have struggled to explain publicly that Chiquita had to make a choice between “life and law” and that it chose the “humanitarian” route of protecting its workers. “This company was in a bad position dealing with bad guys,” says Eric Holder, a Washington attorney representing Chiquita. “There’s absolutely no suggestion of any personal gain here. It’s not a case like Tyco, where someone is squirreling money away. No one is out buying great shower curtains.”
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2013, 07:54:57 AM
Please post in the Latin America thread as well.  Thank you.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Bill Clinton on gay marriage
Post by: DougMacG on March 09, 2013, 04:11:20 PM
Bill Clinton now argues that DOMA, the defense of marriage act, that he signed is unconstitutional.

Like minimum wage laws killing off jobs, what is good and bad policy, what is right and wrong, and what is constitutional and unconstitutional if you are a lefty is largely determined by the latest public opinion poll.

Was he sworn to uphold the constitution?  Did gays change, did the constitution change?  Is it too late to impeach him?

Title: Governance by the Left: Toxic Government by Democrats: Minneapolis
Post by: DougMacG on April 05, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
"increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies"
In the heart of the nation's 4th wealthiest metro ( is the failing City of Minneapolis.  This article could have been written about nearly any of America's Democrat-governed major inner cities.  Minneapolis is not bankrupt (yet) because many of the social costs are picked up by the rest of Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.  Minneapolis has zero Republicans on its 13 seat city council, the rich neighborhoods are Democrat too.  Mpls is represented in Washington DC by Dem. Rep. Keith Ellison and Dem. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.

Toxic Government by Democrats: Minneapolis
April 4, 2013 By John Perazzo

Editor’s note: The following is the first in a series of articles that will expose the misery of life in America’s poorest cities, all of which have one thing in common: they are controlled exclusively by Democrats. Each article presented by FrontPage will reveal how the production of mass urban poverty is much more than just a failure of leadership, but a means of political survival for the Left.

The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota—whose population is composed of 63.8% whites, 10.5% Hispanics, and 18.6% African Americans—has been governed exclusively by mayors from the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, the state affiliate of the Democratic Party, since 1978.

As of 2011, the poverty rate in Minneapolis was 23.5%, more than one-and-a-half times the national figure of 15%. This differential is consistent with a longstanding, well-documented trend: Virtually all of America’s poorest cities have been led politically by Democrats for many years, even decades. In 2010, for example, not even one of the ten poorest large cities in the U.S. had elected a Republican mayor since the 1980s. In fact, 8 of the 10 cities had been led exclusively by Democrats for more than half a century.

The common thread running through each of these economically decrepit cities is a phenomenon that Harvard scholars Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer famously dubbed “The Curley Effect,” after its prototype, James Michael Curley, who served four non-consecutive terms as mayor of Boston between 1914 and 1950. This phenomenon, Glaeser and Shleifer explain, is the strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Forbes magazine puts it this way: “A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.”

This typically occurs when Democratic administrations adopt policies that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the poor, causing the latter to become economically dependent upon their political patrons, and thus to become a permanently pro-Democrat voting bloc. At the same time, these redistributive policies cause the people harmed by them (i.e., those from whom wealth is extracted) to emigrate to other cities and states, thereby further solidifying the political power of Curleyist practitioners.

The beneficiaries of Curleyist redistributionism invariably become unable to perceive the connection between left-wing policies and their negative consequences. Instead, they view Democrats as the noble, last line of defense that stands between them and total destitution. As a result, their loyalty to Democrats persists, undiminished, regardless of how bad conditions may get—chiefly because they interpret the failures of leftist policies as evidence that those policies simply did not go far enough, probably as a result of conservative obstructionism. Thus do residents of Democrat-controlled cesspools of poverty and crime continue, in perpetuity, to elect Democrats to political office.

Prior to the permanent Democratic takeover of Minneapolis in 1978, the city’s poverty rate had been consistently lower than the national average. Then, through most of the 1980s, the ripples of the Reagan economic boom delivered a positive effect to cities nationwide, including Minneapolis. Indeed, Minneapolis added some 3,000 new jobs to its downtown area each year from 1981-87. In 1983, only 8% of the city’s metropolitan-area population lived below the poverty level, as compared to approximately 15% nationally.
But by 1988, Minneapolis’s left-wing Democratic mayor, Donald Fraser, had grown troubled by the stark contrast between those sections of his city that were thriving economically, and a number of African-American neighborhoods where crime, teenage pregnancy, and welfare dependency were widespread. Fraser believed that the proper remedy for these pathologies would be to implement a host of taxpayer-funded, government-administered social-welfare programs. “What is needed,” said the mayor, “is a more thoughtful discussion, a rethinking of the city, of welfare support, and it should begin right here.” Specifically, Fraser held that federal and local agencies needed to focus more of their attention and financial resources on the economic and social problems confronting unwed mothers and their children. His successors as mayor, Sharon Sayles Belton and R.T.Rybak, have shared this same perspective—a mindset that has fueled the decades-long trend of ever-increasing wealth redistribution and government subsidies for the poor, not only in Minneapolis but across the United States.

By no means is financial hardship in Minneapolis limited solely to low-income residents. Indeed, the city’s homeowners pay higher property taxes than their counterparts in most other metropolitan municipalities. One study of 142 metro areas found that only 15 of them bore a heavier property-tax burden than Minneapolis as of 2010, and that was before Minneapolis raised its property taxes by 4.7% in 2011.

Just as Minneapolis residents face significant economic challenges, so must they deal with the city’s sizable crime problem. In the early 1990s, crime began trending downward in much of the U.S. for various reasons, including the decline of the crack cocaine epidemic, more aggressive policing strategies, and harsher punishments for criminal behavior. New York City, under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police commissioner William Bratton, led the way in this regard with their CompStat crime-tracking system and their use of the so-called “broken-windows” approach to crime-prevention. In comparison to other cities, Minneapolis was slow to adopt the new law-enforcement and criminal-justice strategies and thus lagged behind the national trend for several years. But once the city changed its ways (e.g., by incorporating CompStat) in the late 1990s, it likewise experienced a noteworthy reduction in crime.

Notwithstanding this positive downward trend, however, crime rates in Minneapolis remain far higher than statewide and national figures alike. For example, in 2010 the violent crime rate for Minneapolis exceeded the corresponding Minnesota rate by 346.55%, and the overall U.S. rate by 161.03%. Similarly, the property crime rate in Minneapolis surpassed the Minnesota rate by 84.44%, and the national rate by 61.27%.

In a particularly ugly develoment, Minneapolis in recent times has been the scene of numerous incidents involving “flash mob” violence, usually by large groups of black assailants targeting white victims. For example, on March 17, 2012, a gang of some 20 young men inflicted serious brain injuries on one young man, just an hour after a large group of assailants had beaten an out-of-town couple in that same location. Six days later, without provocation, 15 to 20 suspects attacked and beat three cyclists, leaving one of the victims with a broken jaw. As Sergeant Steve McCarty of the Minneapolis Police Department observed: “It’s just mainly to create mayhem, assault people and just whatever they can do. It’s a weird mentality I don’t think a lot of people can fathom or understand. Just to victimize people.” And a few days after that, four Minneapolis juveniles assaulted two men in quick succession, rendering one of the victims unconscious and inflicting serious injuries (including a broken arm) on the other.

It has long been commonplace for Democrat-led cities to have much-higher-than-average crime rates. As of 2011, for instance, America’s ten most dangerous cities were all strongholds of Democratic political leadership. Minneapolis’s experience, therefore, is par for the course.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, The Smear of Ted Cruz
Post by: DougMacG on April 20, 2013, 06:25:39 PM
Maybe we can move this over to the Ted Cruz thread...  )

John Hinderaker, Powerline

Demonizing Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz has made quite an impression in just three months in the Senate. Like Marco Rubio, he is the son of a Cuban exile. He is a extraordinarily talented guy. Unlike Barack Obama, he had a stellar record both in academia and in the practice of law: he was national debating champion, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, served as Solicitor General of the State of Texas and authored more than 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. As a law student, Cruz was described by Professor Alan Dershowitz as “off the charts brilliant.” He was elected to the Senate last year in what the Washington Post called “the biggest upset of 2012 . . . a true grassroots victory against very long odds.” So it is not surprising that, just as Cruz has quickly become a hero on the right, the Democratic Party is out to destroy him.

The Post’s Dana Milbank contributed to that effort yesterday. Milbank is a bit like Jon Stewart: he often comes across as a clown, but his underlying purpose is deadly serious. This is how Milbank began his hatchet job on Cruz:

    Is there nobody who can tell Ted Cruz to shut up?

    The young senator from Texas has been on the job for about 100 days, but he has already turned the Senate’s ancient seniority system upside down and is dominating his senior Republican colleagues. He’s speaking for them on immigration, guns and any other topic that tickles his fancy; Republican leaders are seething at being outshone yet are terrified of challenging him.

If Milbank had any evidence to support this assertion, it would make for an interesting story of the Washington gossip variety. But Milbank, a notoriously partisan Democrat, is no intimate of Republican leaders of the Senate, and he cites no evidence to back up his claim that “Republican leaders are seething,” but “terrified” of Cruz. Milbank did, however, go to the trouble of counting up words at a recent press conference:

    Consider his news conference this week to promote the Republican alternative to gun control. …

    Cruz took over the lectern and refused to relinquish it. He spoke 2,924 words for the cameras, more than Grassley (904), Graham (1,376) and Coats (360) — combined. Factoring in his dramatic pauses to convey sincerity and deep thought, Cruz’s dominance was even more lopsided. The others shifted uncomfortably and looked awkwardly around the room. At one point, Graham requested a chance to speak. “Can I?” he asked Cruz.

Now, it’s possible that Cruz talked too long. In D.C., it has been known to happen. But I suspect it is more likely that Cruz was delegated to carry the ball at the press conference, and Milbank tells us nothing to the contrary.

But now Milbank gets to the real point:

    Cruz is 42, the same age Joe McCarthy was when he amassed power in the Senate with his allegations of communist infiltration. Tail-gunner Ted debuted in the Senate this year….

This is one of the most ludicrous smears in the history of journalism. It would make as much sense to say “Cruz is 42, the same age as Thomas Jefferson when he was named Ambassador to France.” Or “Cruz, like Abraham Lincoln, is tall.” But Milbank wanted to echo the Democratic Party’s chosen route of attack by linking Cruz, however randomly, with McCarthy.

Why? Because “Tail-gunner Ted debuted in the Senate this year with the insinuation that Chuck Hagel, now the defense secretary, may have been on the payroll of the North Koreans.” In fact, Cruz, along with a number of other Republicans, criticized Hagel for refusing to explain his sources of income during the years after he left the Senate. It is reasonable to suspect, given Hagel’s out of the mainstream foreign policy views, that he may have received honoraria from Middle Eastern countries or groups, in particular. What Cruz said–”We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups. It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea”–made perfect sense, given that Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of State.

Milbank goes on to accuse Cruz of lying on various occasions, but in each case, Cruz was right and Milbank is wrong:

    On guns, Cruz’s high profile required Grassley to give the upstart a premium chunk of floor time for his trademark falsehoods. Cruz claimed that his bill was the “result of multiple hearings in the Judiciary Committee.” (It was never brought before the panel.)

But Cruz didn’t say his bill “was brought before the panel,” he said it grew out of the Judiciary Committee’s hearings, like this one. There is no inconsistency at all.

    He claimed the opposing legislation would extend “background checks to private transactions between private individuals.” (The bill applied to only advertised sales. [sic])

This one is mystifying. Under current law, only federally licensed dealers have to run background checks. The whole point of the Democrats’ proposed legislation and the Manchin/Toomey compromise bill was to extend background checks to private transactions between private individuals, specifically over the internet and at gun shows. Cruz obviously was correct.

    Off the floor, he made the patently false claim that the “so-called ‘gun show loophole’” doesn’t exist.

Again, Milbank is simply wrong. There is no “gun show loophole.” Gun shows are treated exactly like everything else: if a licensed dealer sells a firearm at a gun show, he has to run a background check. If a private citizen sells a firearm at a gun show, he doesn’t. Milbank and his fellow liberals may not like the existing law, but Cruz stated it accurately.

If this is the best Milbank and the Democrats can do to illustrate Ted Cruz’s “trademark falsehoods,” they are going to have to come up with a new line of attack.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 20, 2013, 07:11:38 PM
I knew Cruz had a strong resume, but that is even more than I realized :-o 8-)
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on April 21, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
I knew Cruz had a strong resume, but that is even more than I realized :-o 8-)

Doesn't even do him justice:

Good post, Doug.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 21, 2013, 05:39:11 AM
Ineed, it is worth pasting here:

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator for the state of Texas, in office since 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[2] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and had the longest tenure in Texas history. He was formerly a partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.[3]

He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation, from 2004 to 2009.

Cruz was the Republican nominee for the Senate seat which was vacated by fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.[4] On July 31, 2012, he defeated Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the Republican primary runoff, 57%–to-43%.[5] Cruz defeated the Democrat, former state Representative Paul Sadler, in the general election held on November 6, 2012; he prevailed with 56%-to–41% over Sadler.[5] Cruz is endorsed by the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Liberty Caucus.[6]

On November 14, 2012, Cruz was appointed vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.[7]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Legal career
3 U.S. Senate
3.1 2012 election
3.2 Committee assignments
4 Personal life
5 Electoral history
5.1 2012 Republican primary
5.2 2012 Republican primary runoff
5.3 2012 General Election
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

[edit] Early life and educationCruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business.[8][9] His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution.[10] His mother was born and reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent.[9][11] Cruz's family returned to the U.S. when he was four years old.[10]

Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas,[12] and then graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston.

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1992.[13] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[14] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton).[15] Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[16]

Cruz's senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled "Clipping the Wings of Angels," draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers." [17][18]

Cruz then attended the Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995.[19][20] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[13] As a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.”[21]

[edit] Legal careerCruz served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, and J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[22][2] Cruz was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States.[23]

Cruz served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission under President George W. Bush.[21]

In 2003, Cruz was appointed Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[2]

Cruz has authored more than 80 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.[2][21][24] In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[24][25] Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[24][26] Cruz did legal work during the Florida recount during the Presidential campaign of Bush/Cheney 2000.[27]

In addition to his victory in Heller, Cruz has successfully defended the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds,[21][24] the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools[21] and the majority of the 2003 Texas redistricting plan.[28]

Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.[2][21][24]

Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America,[29][30] by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America,[31][32] and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.[33][34]

[edit] U.S. Senate[edit] 2012 electionMain article: United States Senate election in Texas, 2012
Cruz speaking to the Values Voters Summit in October 2011.Cruz's election has been described by the Washington Post as “the biggest upset of 2012 . . . a true grassroots victory against very long odds.”[35] On January 19, 2011, following an announcement that U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison would not seek reelection, Cruz announced via blogger conference call his candidacy for the position.[4] Cruz faced opposition from sitting Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the Republican senatorial primary. Cruz was endorsed by the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative political action committee;[36] Erick Erickson, editor of prominent conservative blog RedState;[37] the FreedomWorks for America super PAC;[38] nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin;[39] former Attorney General Edwin Meese;[40] Tea Party Express;[41] Young Conservatives of Texas;[42] and U.S. Senators Tom Coburn,[43] Jim DeMint,[44] Mike Lee,[45] Rand Paul,[46] and Pat Toomey.[47] He was also endorsed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Texas Congressman Ron Paul,[48] George P. Bush[27] and former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.[49]

Cruz won the runoff for the Republican nomination with a 14-point margin over Dewhurst.[50] In the November 6 general election, Cruz faced the Democratic nominee Paul Sadler, an attorney and a former state representative from Henderson in east Texas. In the general election, Cruz prevailed with 4,469,843 ballots (56.4%) to Sadler's 3,194,927 (40.6%). Two minor candidates held the remaining 3% of the ballots cast.[5] Cruz won 35% of the Hispanic vote in the general election.[51]

[edit] Committee assignmentsCommittee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Subcommittee on Seapower
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
Subcommittee on Science and Space (Ranking Member)
Committee on Rules and Administration
Special Committee on Aging
[edit] Personal lifeCruz was born and spent the first four years of his life in Calgary before his parents returned to Houston. His father was jailed and tortured by the Fulgencio Batista regime and fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[52] but "didn't know Castro was a Communist" and later became a staunch critic of Castro when "the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property and suppressing dissent."[53] Rafael Cruz moved to Austin in 1957 to study at the University of Texas. He spoke no English and had $100 sewn into his underwear.[24][54] The elder Cruz worked his way through school as a dishwasher making 50 cents an hour.[21] Cruz's father today is a pastor in North Dallas and became a U.S. citizen in 2005.[17] Cruz’s mother, who was from Delaware, was the first person in her family to attend college. She earned a degree in mathematics from Rice University in Houston in the 1950s, working summers at Foley’s and Shell.[17] Cruz has said, "I'm Cuban, Irish, and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist."[55]

Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz, have two daughters, Caroline Camille and Catherine Christiane. Cruz met his wife while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Cruz's wife is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker.[56]

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left - April Fools or serious?
Post by: DougMacG on April 22, 2013, 02:36:52 PM
Keeping up with the left in the interest of balance on the board:

Paul Krugman claims unemployment is too high today because of our irrational fear of debt.

Thomas Friedman argues that the correct response to the Boston bombings is a carbon tax.

New Sec of State John Kerry says our number one foreign policy priority is climate change.

Gabby Giffords believes law abiding citizens can stop mass shootings by disarming. 

You can't make this stuff up.
Title: Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues
Post by: DougMacG on April 24, 2013, 09:06:35 AM
Remember how they yearned to find a tea party connection to the Tucson and Aurora shooters?
Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues

Liberal hopes were dashed with the revelation that the Boston Marathon bombers were a couple of Chechen Muslim immigrants.  The Left was so sure they had finally bagged the elusive Tea Party murderer!  The bombings occurred in Boston on Tax Day.  Surely, at long last, the opportunity to smear libertarians, small-government conservatives, anti-tax crusaders, and the whole hellish tri-corner hat crowd was at hand!  ”Two plus two equals…?” Michael Moore burbled happily...

Now that it turns out that the political tie to bombing innocent people in our furthest left state was to the anti-war left, the relevance of their political motivations diminishes.
Title: Re: Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues
Post by: G M on April 24, 2013, 10:09:35 AM
Now they can't figure out what might have motivated the Boston bombers and "at this point, what difference does it make" will probably become their new talking point....
Remember how they yearned to find a tea party connection to the Tucson and Aurora shooters?
Hunt for the elusive Tea Party murderer continues

Liberal hopes were dashed with the revelation that the Boston Marathon bombers were a couple of Chechen Muslim immigrants.  The Left was so sure they had finally bagged the elusive Tea Party murderer!  The bombings occurred in Boston on Tax Day.  Surely, at long last, the opportunity to smear libertarians, small-government conservatives, anti-tax crusaders, and the whole hellish tri-corner hat crowd was at hand!  ”Two plus two equals…?” Michael Moore burbled happily...

Now that it turns out that the political tie to bombing innocent people in our furthest left state was to the anti-war left, the relevance of their political motivations diminishes.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left
Post by: DougMacG on April 29, 2013, 11:33:21 AM
Two unrelated stories today regarding Cognitive Dissonance of the Left:

1) AP reports that 'African Americans' had higher voter turnout than pale-Americans last year for the first time in history [to vote for Obama].

2) Urban Institute reports that Minorities Lose Their Shirts under Obama:

[Relying on CRAp and the rest of the failed GSE/Fannie Mae programs] "Black families were hit disproportionately by the housing collapse, because heading into the recession housing constituted a higher proportion of their wealth than for white families, leaving them more exposed when the market crashed. Higher unemployment rates and lower incomes among blacks" [that got worse under the Pelosi-Reid-Obama's war against enterprise] "left them less able to keep paying their mortgages and more likely to lose their homes, experts said".
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2013, 02:24:49 PM
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on May 21, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
Will the Daily Show go after this:

Winstead, who created The Daily Show and uses social media to promote her far-left views, sent out this Twitter joke earlier today:

"This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives."

Ha, ha, ha.  Is the fact that the IRS targeted conservatives groups funny too?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on May 21, 2013, 10:43:00 AM
Oops, this elected leftist wasn't joking:

"When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover," he said. "And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

He continued, "You drag America with you to your fate."

  - Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Senator, not the Daily Show, Democrat of Rhode Island

I wonder what the uproar would be if a Republican Senate candidate said something similar.  They wouldn't become a U.S. Senator.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on May 21, 2013, 11:23:13 AM
Funny how the left finds the deaths of children funny, unless the see an opportunity to disarm law abiding Americans.
Title: Cognitive Diss of the left, McAuliffe: George Bush's election killed my father
Post by: DougMacG on May 30, 2013, 02:06:38 PM
former Democratic National Committee head and current Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe blames Bush for his dad dying. Really. In an interview in May 2001, McAuliffe said that his father, Jack, died because “he could not go into a new year knowing that a Republican was actually moving into the White House.”
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 31, 2013, 12:44:19 AM
Obama’s ‘Chicago Way’  
The administration’s political tactics are straight out of the Daley playbook.  

By John Fund

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how “hope and change” seem to have been supplanted by “arrogance and fear.” Perhaps it’s time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn’t influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama “somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it.” It’s true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor’s former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: “While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally.” The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine’s core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on “the Chicago Way,” is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing “the Chicago way” to Washington, sums up his city like this: “Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut.”
“We have a sick political culture, and that’s the environment Barack Obama came from,” Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state.”

Joel Kotkin, an urban expert who still considers himself a “Kennedy Democrat –– John F. Kennedy,” wrote at Forbes: “Most of us would put up with a bit of corruption and special dealing if the results were strong economic and employment growth. But the bare demographic and economic facts for both Chicago and Illinois reveal a stunning legacy of failure.” Since 2007, the Chicago region has lost more jobs than Detroit has, and more than twice as many as New York. The city’s murder rate is a national disgrace, and its teachers’ union is so powerful that a strike it called last year forced new mayor Rahm Emanuel to back down from his attempt to curb union power.

The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch tags Chicago as the fifth most heavily taxed city in the country: Its sky-high effective sales tax of 9.75 percent makes the tax burden on a family earning $25,000 a year the fourth highest in the country. From 1991, two years after Richard M. Daley first took office as mayor, to 2011, the year Emanuel took the reins, the average debt per Chicagoan grew from $600 to $2,600, an increase of 433 percent. As Dick Simpson, a former reform Chicago alderman who now teaches at the University of Illinois, put it: “There’s a significant downside to authoritarian rule. The city could do much better.”

Conservatives in Chicago, an embattled breed, say the Obama scandals now coming to light — the IRS, the intimidation of journalists, the green-energy boondoggles such as Solyndra — could have been anticipated. “The 2008 Obama campaign perpetrated a fraud that he was a reformer,” says Chris Robling, a former journalist who has served as a Republican election commissioner. “All of the complaints — from the lack of transparency to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s shaking down corporations to promote Obamacare — stem from the culture of the Daley Machine.” For decades, Robling says, Mayor Daley “encouraged” contributions to his favorite charities, with the implicit understanding that the “encourager” controlled the city’s inspectors and regulators. “That sounds an awful lot like what Sebelius was doing to prop up Obamacare,” Robling notes. “Obama’s ideology may come from Saul Alinsky’s acolytes, but his political tactics come straight from the Daley playbook.” Indeed, friends of Bill Daley, Mayor Daley’s brother, say that one reason Bill left his post as Obama’s White House chief of staff after only one year was that even he thought Team Obama was too much “all politics, all of the time” and not enough about governance.

Journalists used to know that presidents are in part a product of their past: where their careers were nurtured and where their politics were shaped. They understood this as a given when it came to Ronald Reagan and California; they basically grasped it about Bill Clinton’s Arkansas, and certainly nailed it on George W. Bush and Texas. But when it came to Barack Obama, all that went out the window. Speaking at the University of Southern California, at a post-2008 conference on the election, Mark Halperin, then of ABC News, said that the media’s treatment of Obama had been “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.” It was “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage,” he concluded.

That media failure continued throughout Obama’s first term. Perhaps now, as Obama’s “Chicago Way” is coming into focus, the media will want to redeem itself. With Obama, it’s become all too clear: You can take the politician away from the machine, but you can’t take the machine out of the politician.

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
Title: Industrial grade stupid
Post by: G M on May 31, 2013, 01:01:46 PM

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on June 03, 2013, 05:39:37 AM
Time to move on off of Obama and onto Hillary.   :wink:

So it was the Dem leadership and the media that turned on Hillary in '08 - not her collapse among Black voters.

In any case he is right that those of us on that side "fear" her.   Women still adore her no matter what.   In their minds she is their Abraham Lincoln.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Washington Post's Dana Milbank: 'Shoot first'
Post by: DougMacG on June 04, 2013, 08:10:16 AM
The Washington Post is comfortable putting forward an opinion piece that leave readers with a false knowledge of the facts:

Regarding the IRS, Dana Milbank says the GOP shoots first, asks questions later.  FYI to Dana Milbank, the questions have all been asked.  The letter was written by a Democrat.  It is the ANSWERS that are lacking.  Does Milbank really not know that the questions were asked and the answers were not forthcoming?

OPINIONS  Washington Post
The ‘shoot first’ party
Dana Milbank
Here are the unanswered questions, imagine if you didn't answer their questions!
IRS Ignores Senate Deadline To Answer Questions About Scandal
IRS fails to meet Senate Finance's deadline for documents on targeting
The Internal Revenue Service missed a Friday deadline for turning over reams of documents to the Senate Finance Committee, one of several panels investigating the tax agency’s targeting of tea party groups.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2013, 10:03:08 AM
Nice work putting that together Doug!
Title: NY Times:[administration]will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it
Post by: DougMacG on June 07, 2013, 07:27:45 AM
"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue[NSA surveillance].  Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. "
Title: RALPH NADER: Has there been a bigger con man in the White House
Post by: DougMacG on June 14, 2013, 08:07:48 AM
RALPH NADER: Yeah, has there—has there been a bigger con man in the White House than Barack Obama?

Ralph, I feel your pain.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - “negative feedback loop from hell”
Post by: DougMacG on June 22, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
This observation from Crafty's post in US Economics is too good to leave in just one thread:

... a “negative feedback loop from hell,” where states that are suffering with large debt overhangs and dwindling tax revenues don’t have the money to pay or invest in things like infrastructure, education, and public safety. As those services begin to deteriorate over time, states will be forced to raise taxes, which only reinforces the decline.

The concept applies to nations as well.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, NYC politics, Spitzer v Davis
Post by: DougMacG on July 10, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
"Ironically, Kristin Davis, the madam infamous for her role in the Spitzer scandal, is also running for comptroller (only in New York!). But unlike Spitzer's, Davis' candidacy is not being taken seriously, despite the fact that she has performed well in debates in her previous runs for office. Instead Davis is laughed off, in part because she is a convicted felon. What was she convicted for? She served time for her role in Spitzer's prostitution scandal. He never did. --Keli Goff,, July 8
Title: Iowahawk nails it!
Post by: G M on July 17, 2013, 01:46:49 PM

David Burge‏@iowahawkblog

 Of all the young black shooting victims in this country, you can name 1. Because you've been trained like a circus seal to bark on command.
Title: The latest action in the war on women
Post by: G M on July 29, 2013, 01:44:12 PM

The latest action in the war on women: Column

 Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:43 p.m. EDT July 29, 2013

 Recent scandals find politicians harassing women and embarrassing themselves.

(Photo: Spencer Platt, Getty Images)

Story Highlights
So far seven women have accused San Diego Mayor Bob Filner of sexual harassment.
New York now has the infamous serial sexter Anthony Weiner running for mayor.
Weiner's wife has stood by him throughout.

Back during the 2012 election, Democrats were quick to seize on some Republican words -- like Todd Akin's remark about "legitimate rape" and late-term abortion, orRush Limbaugh's calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" for wanting free birth control -- to build the notion of a "war on women."

But if you look past words to actual deeds, most of the action in the war on women seems to be coming from the Democratic front lately. Just consider these cases:

First, Democratic San Diego Mayor Bob Filner. So far seven women have accused him of sexual harassment. According to one report, Filner said, "You'll have to excuse me for what's about to happen. It's your fault," before pinning a woman in a restaurant booth. Other allegations include kissing, grabbing and assorted other inappropriate behavior.

As is usually the case, this stuff was no secret within the world of San Diego Democratic politics, but even though there were complaints, the leadership supported Filner anyway until things went public. And even afterward, until the pressure became too great, Democrats supported him. As with Bill Clinton, and his alleged assaults on Paula Jones, Juanita Broddrick and Kathleen Willey, tribal loyalties to party kin outweighed any concern for women as a group -- or for the accusers as individuals. The accusers were tossed over the side until the publicity became too strong to ignore. Democrats -- like Hillary with Bill -- stood by their man, Tammy Wynette-style.

Then take New York. Please. New York now has the infamous serial sexter Anthony Weiner running for mayor. Unlike Clinton and Filner, the women Weiner was involved with seem to have been entirely consenting. Though the names involved (Weiner's online pseudonym was "Carlos Danger," and one of his virtual paramours -- a former Obama campaign worker and anti-Sarah Palinpetitioner -- went by "Sydney Leathers" though that, shockingly, is her real name) seemed like something from a 1970s porn film, the sexual contact involved seemed voluntary enough. It was just pathetic.

Even more pathetic was the fact that for Weiner this was the second time around, after giving up his congressional seat for, basically, the same thing in 2011. For Weiner, the "War On Women" aspect has more to do with the doormatization (Is that a word? It is now) of his wife, Huma Abedin. Long a star to people on the left, for reasons that Slate's Dave Weigel finds somewhat unclear, Abedin has stood by Weiner throughout, even putting on a rather embarrassing press conference appearance.

But now that her stand-by-your-man routine has gone from the possibly noble to the clearly ridiculous, even liberal writers such as The Atlantic's Elspeth Reeve are saying that "Huma has lost her halo." Indeed, even as Huma was delivering quotes for rehabilitative puff-pieces in People and The New York Times, it's now clear that she knew that Weiner hadn't been rehabilitated at all, leaving some to say that she's even worse than he is. People are even starting to ask about how Huma could work for the State Department while consulting for people who dealt with the State Department. Her future political career, previously bright, seems seriously tarnished.

As Gloria Allred's daughter, Democratic attorney Lisa Bloom, notes, Weiner's treatment of Huma could be described as a kind of spousal abuse. Well, whatever it is, it's not indicative of any particular respect for women. Weiner, meanwhile, seems to have been weirdly jealous for an online philanderer. Leathers reports: "Me being hit on by other men really upset him. We were Facebook friends, so he could see if men were commenting on photos of me, or telling me that I was pretty. Really minor things like that really bothered him." Uh huh.

Then there's former New York governor and attorney general Eliot Spitzer, better known as "client #9" for his extensive patronization of call girls. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with that: These were consenting adults, and if it were up to me, I'd make prostitution legal everywhere the way it is in Nevada. But even while patronizing call girls, Spitzer was also going out of his way, as attorney general, to see that they were prosecuted. It's usually Republicans who are charged with sexual hypocrisy, but this is first-rate phoniness.

The funny thing, though, is that in the press, an isolated remark by a Republican candidate or radio host is treated as representative of the entire party. The behavior of these Democratic officeholders and candidates, on the other hand, is treated as an isolated incident -- and in many of the national media reports regarding Filner, his party affiliation is omitted, or not mentioned until paragraph 12.

But do I think this behavior betrays a special contempt for women on the part of Democrats? Well, not really. I think it demonstrates a contempt for people in general, and especially for voters. But then again, why shouldn't they be contemptuous of voters? Look who elected them.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at
Title: Left alert: Robert Reich, 'Savage' inequality in America is deeply dangerous!
Post by: DougMacG on August 14, 2013, 07:31:57 AM
It is quite strange to hear the far-left punditry call the most far-left possible governance - not far enough left.  I should have sent my previous de-bunk of this straw to Reich last time.  He clearly does not read the forum.  Now it seems the inequality worsened under Pelosi-Reid and then under Obama.  Hmmm.  What policies then are needed to cure it?  Why won't he say it, if you want all to be equal you must use what in math they call lowest common denominator.  For incomes to be equal with people who don't produce or don't produce abundantly, others must stop or slow their efforts.  How does THAT make us better off?

" income, wealth, and power have become more concentrated at the top than they've been in ninety years."

"Make no mistake: The savage inequality America is experiencing today is deeply dangerous."

Oh good grief.  Among the bunk:  static, snapshot analyses always avoid the facts of income mobility.  Every new worker, illegal, immigrant or otherwise, brings down the median without lowering any one person's income.  Every successful retiree who moves from producing income to living off of earned, accumulated wealth moves down in income while moving up in leisure and perhaps quality of life.  Our measures of income for the poor do not measure their income.  Our measures for income of all do not include their wealth.  The top 1%, 5%, 20% or 50%, or bottom quintiles or half, are NOT the same people when you make comparisons versus a year ago, a decade ago or in this case, over three and half decades.   The only interruption in the Reich income inequality scare was when the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress precipitated the recent, historic collapse of wealth in this country.  But after the devastation, paraphrasing Wesbury, the plow horse continues to plow and not everyone is equally invested and pulling.

The real test of an economy is what opportunities or choices do you have, not just what is your immediate outcome.  
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Funding "the law of the land"?
Post by: DougMacG on August 18, 2013, 11:38:50 AM
Republicans will cause a constitutional crisis if they fail to fund Obamacare in the new budget, because it is the law of the land, and requires more than a vote by one chamber to be repealed.

If so, then what about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed in 1982 requiring the construction a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain?

"Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has robbed Yucca Mountain of funding, and although President Barack Obama has commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to look at other nuclear-waste alternatives, Yucca Mountain is still the law of the land."

"The D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week delivered a scathing rebuke to the Obama administration, ordering it to restart work on the Yucca licensing process."
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 18, 2013, 04:55:37 PM
I confess to be a bit unclear here.

If the point is that Dingy Harry et al were in the wrong, then wouldn't the Reps be wrong here?

a) Not necessarily IMHO because Obama is violating his oath to enforce the law by picking and choosing.

b) Note too that according to Jim DeMint (and his analysis seems sound to me) not funding Obamacare is NOT shutting down the government (which goes very badly for the Reps when they do this)-- this is a tremendous canard-- because presumably the rest of the government will be funded-- or am I missing something here?

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on August 19, 2013, 07:37:50 AM
"If the point is that Dingy Harry et al were in the wrong, then wouldn't the Reps be wrong here?"

Yes, hypocrisy cuts both ways.  In this case Dems accuse R's of contemplating what they themselves do regularly.

My view with spending authorizations is that one congress has no power to bind the next congress to spend money.  The congress of 2009 never had the authority to bind the voters of 2013 and beyond.

"not funding Obamacare is NOT shutting down the government ... because presumably the rest of the government will be funded-- or am I missing something here?"

That is the way I thought it was designed to work.  A bill goes to the House, to the Senate and then to the President.  Instead, a bill passes in the House.  The Senate ignores or intentionally changes that and passes a different bill.  A joint committee writes a 'compromise' to send back to the House, to the Senate and then to the President.

It is in this second loop where Republicans get screwed and end up with the stark choice of funding everything or closing the government.  Their own bill was clear - to fund everything except healthcare.  That will no longer be the issue and they don't have enough bully pulpit to say that it is.

Government spending be the smallest number of what the House, Senate pass and President will sign.  That, and no more, is the amount we all agree on.  In fact, it is the biggest spenders who force the choice of fund it all or shut down the government.
Title: Deep seated moral belief-just kidding!
Post by: G M on September 03, 2013, 09:59:36 AM
Title: Re: Deep seated moral belief-just kidding!
Post by: G M on September 03, 2013, 10:01:56 AM

September 03, 2013

Shock: Democrats' Deeply-Felt and Principled Opposition to War in All Its Forms Ended, Coincidentally Enough, Upon the Election of one Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peace Lauraeate



You know when we used to claim that the Democrats were playing games with foreign policy and national security to advance their petty animal partisan interests?

We were all so wrong!

I have entitled the following graph "Nuance and Profound Intellectual Analysis."

Title: The latest casualty of global warming...
Post by: G M on September 04, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
David Burge @iowahawkblog

Global warming has apparently wiped out the Puff-Chested North American War Protester.
Title: Harassing Petraeus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 11, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
Title: Actor converts to Reps
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 01, 2013, 01:30:41 PM
Title: moved over from recent new to soon to be retired "Buffett" thread.
Post by: ccp on October 03, 2013, 05:50:50 PM

Buffett; an enigma to me

« on: Today at 10:54:48 AM »
Remove message 


He doesn't mention either party per se but he is clearly speaking out about Republicans.  I have no problem with the genius in Nebraska.  I just understand why he is such a Democrat Partisan.  He has lived his whole life like a capitalist.  And he does let people share in his wealth by investing in his stock.   He plans on giving most away via the Gates Foundation.   While he uses his influence, money, and international sources of intelligence to leverage his investments to his favor there has been no evidence of unethical or illegal activity to my knowledge.   Yet he still supports a party and President that are socialist in nature.   I wonder how this is.   I guess one can say the same for Gates.   Gates was as ruthless as anyone in business on the way to the top.   Now that he is there suddenly he is a die hard Democrat who believes in transfer of wealth rather than individualism, freedom, competition, self reliance, and responsibility? 

The only thing I can think of is it must be something psychiatric to this.   They must have a need to feel loved.  Maybe they are guilty?  I admire their charity.   I don't admire them making the great masses who work hard and strive in their work the way they did, albeit of course without the extreme financial success into goats who are just greedy selfish etc.

They want to give their money away go ahead.   Most of us don't have fortunes that are so vast we can only dream of how to spend it over several lifetimes.  That doesn't mean it is my fault that people may be starving thousands of miles from here.  Or that there are poor people down the street.  What about helping them help themselves?   

I am ruminating.  There just seems to be some disconnect between the way these guys have lived and their politics now.

*****Buffett speaks out against DC's 'extreme idiocy'
By Matthew J. Belvedere | CNBC – 3 hours ago..

.Lacy O'Toole | CNBCView Photo.
Lacy O'Toole | CNBC

History will judge the Troubled Asset Relief Program more positively than people do now,  Warren Buffett  said on CNBC Thursday-five years to the day since the financial bailout program was signed into law, and in the midst of the first government shutdown in 17 years.

Appearing alongside former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on CNBC's " Squawk Box ," Buffett first addressed TARP-saying people don't realize how tough a position Paulson was in when he crafted the rescue package.

(Read more:  Hank Paulson: Teaparty 'hijacked the debate' )

The chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A) said the bailout was vital at the time in order to shore up the credibility of the banking system. "Belief creates its own reality," Buffett said. "If people think the banking system is unsound, it is unsound, because no bank can pay out all of its liabilities at the same time."

The interviews were conducted a day after chief executives from major financial institutions met with President  Barack Obama , and warned of adverse consequences if government agencies remain closed, and if lawmakers failed to raise the U.S.  debt ceiling  by mid-October.

 (Read more:  Wall Street CEOs sound alarms on fiscal problems )

Later in the day, the president spoke to CNBC-saying he's genuinely worried about what is going on in Washington and exasperated that Republicans are trying use to the shutdown and the borrowing limit fight as leverage to delay Obamacare. (Read more below the video.)

"If [Republicans] can't get their way on another issue, they'll use the threat of, in effect, defaulting on the government's credit to get their way," Buffett said. "That won't work long-term."

"The public will turn on them, and they'll all of a sudden have a counter revelation," he predicted-adding that Washington "will go right up to the point of extreme idiocy" but won't cross it.

Buffett did provide a glimmer of hope if the Oct. 17 debt limit deadline is breached. "If it goes one second beyond the debt limit, that will not do us in. If it goes a year beyond that would be unbelievable."

 (Read more:  Obama to Wall Street: This time be worried )

"These guys may threaten to take their mother hostage, but they will never hurt their mother," joked Paulson, who's also a former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs (GS).

Buffett played a crucial role in providing capital during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis, and rescuing Paulson's old firm. Berkshire's $5 billion lifeline to Goldman Sachs at the time has proved quite lucrative today. Berkshire has now  exercised warrants  acquired as part of the original deal-netting more than $2 billion in Goldman stock.

In addition to the warrants, that Berkshire-infusion had called for the investment bank to provide Berkshire with $5 billion in preferred stock, which paid annual dividends of $500 million. Three years later, Goldman repurchased those preferred shares from Buffett at a premium.****
Title: Amazing how the left just keeps spitting on us
Post by: ccp on October 08, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Citizens are not allowed on the Mall but illegals are permitted.  The excuse is "first amendment rights".

*****Pro-Amnesty Forces Rally on National Mall

Email ArticlePrint articleSend a Tip 
by Matthew Boyle  8 Oct 2013, 11:28 AM PDT 925  post a comment 
Several thousand AFL-CIO and SEIU sponsored pro-amnesty demonstrators began rallying on Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon around 12:30 PM to call for Congress to grant legal status to America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants. 

The size of the crowd suggest the organization that put on the rally, the Center for Community Change (CCC), under-delivered on its promise to have “hundreds of thousands” attend the rally; the group tweeted on Monday afternoon and on Tuesday morning that it expected “hundreds of thousands” of people to attend.

Several members of Congress are in attendance at the event, including GOP Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is expected to join the event soon as well, an organizer confirmed to Breitbart News.

Scores of Democratic House members also began arriving shortly after 12:30 PM on golf carts. House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is scheduled to speak as well, as are many different labor union officials. Washington, D.C. mayor Vince Gray is slated to address the group too.

Illegal immigrants and union members have been chanting “Si Se Puede!” the Spanish slogan of the United Farm Workers which President Barack Obama adapted for his “Yes we can!” campaign slogan.

The event on the National Mall, which is supposed to be closed because of the ongoing government shutdown but to which the Obama administration granted exception for today's rally, is heavily funded by organizations like the labor unions and amnesty special interest lobbyists sponsoring it. At least four jumbotrons and an elaborate setup of port-a-potties, special event fencing, tents, and raised and lighted stages are set up across the National Mall.

AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Casa De Maryland organizers are walking around in groups, wearing orange vests labeled with their organization’s namesake printed on them. 

Referencing how union dues from working class American citizens are being used to help fund this rally, a congressional GOP aide told Breitbart News, “It is utterly shameful that these big money interests have fooled so many they’re trying to hurt into helping them.” If amnesty were to pass, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and many other high-ranking economists expect wages of American workers to be driven down while similarly expecting unemployment to go up.

In a statement released as the rally was about to begin, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that this is unfair to American workers. “Why are businesses laying off thousands and then spending a fortune to lobby for ‘comprehensive immigration reform’?” Sessions said. “That’s because, in Washington, ‘comprehensive reform’ means increasing the number of immigrant workers to reduce the cost of labor."

"The Senate bill would double the number of guest workers and add 30 million mostly lower-skill legal immigrants over the next ten years. Today’s rally is designed to pressure the House to pass similar legislation," he explained. "There’s something odd about House leaders like Nancy Pelosi protesting on the Mall to get jobs for illegal aliens and pushing legislation to reduce job opportunities for US citizens. The House must resist calls to replace struggling workers and instead fight for the public interest and to restore our shrinking middle class.”

- See more at:****
Title: Janet Yellen completes the dream come true of the Left
Post by: DougMacG on October 10, 2013, 08:55:52 AM
The Leftists only have one problem, their policies don't work.  Other than that, this is as good as it gets.  

A decade ago they could only wield power from the minority in congress with amplification by the media.

Then the Leftists won back the House and Senate with Pelosi-Reid-Hillary-Obama-Biden taking majority control, and scheduled the end of Republican economic policies and broke the cycle of private sector prosperity.  Within 2 years the Senate's most leftward member was elevated to the White House and by the end of the Franken recount they had their 60th Senator and Obamacare.

Chief Justice Roberts affirmed Obamacare, Candy Crowley shot down Benghazi, and with the rape-abortion and Romney-47% fiascos, Dems held the Senate and Presidency assuring themselves that no one could repeal their agenda.

Now the tax rate hikes are firmly in place as is Obamacare's unprecendented control over the rest of people's lives.  Enter Janet Yellen's commitment to put monetary flooding and government intervention above dollar responsibility at the Fed - for years past the Obama's second term - and this is as good as it gets if you are a leftist.

Meanwhile, Republicans negotiate surrender and America contemplates what to do when work, savings and investment all become obsolete.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on October 12, 2013, 09:20:28 AM
Despite this he will defend and "protect" the President.   Just wait till we have another 30 million people who will work harder than you and will work for less Tavis.

*****Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

By Noel Sheppard | October 11, 2013 | 12:34
PBS's Tavis Smiley made a comment Thursday that every African-American as well as liberal media member should sit up and take notice.

Appearing on Fox News's Hannity, Smiley said, "The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: My last question to you. You often do these seminars with the state of black America. I've watched them on C-Span and different channels, right?


HANNITY: Are black Americans better off five years into the Obama presidency?

SMILEY: Let me answer your question very forthrightly. No, they are not. The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category. On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.

But here's the other side. I respect the president. I will protect the president. And I will correct the president. He's right on this government shutdown. Republicans are thwarting the rule of law with the Constitution. If they let this debt go into default, they're trampling again on the Constitution.


Now to be fair to Smiley, he has been hard on the president concerning how his policies are economically damaging the black community, but this is the first time I believe he's been this harsh on national television with such a large audience.

Sadly, he's right.

So why would this community re-elect someone doing so much damage to them economically?

Is it possible they're not aware of it because most liberal media members other than Smiley aren't reporting it?


Read more:
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Lawrence Summers
Post by: DougMacG on October 14, 2013, 11:41:29 AM
While the left is rejoicing at the choosing of leftist-Keynesian Janet Yellen to head the Fed, his second place discard, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, urges us to "focus on growth", recognize the "need to reduce regulatory barriers that hold back private infrastructure".  "We need to take advantage of the remarkable natural gas resources that have recently become available to the U.S. We need to...assure that public policy promotes entrepreneurship."

Imagine if moderate Democrats controlled the party and governed in some kind of bipartisan fashion with these points in mind!  Rest assured Summers is still a Democrat and sounded all those familiar themes as well.  Pres. Obama did not pick Yellen she is a woman.  He picked her because she is the most highly qualified far-leftist available for the job.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on October 16, 2013, 07:57:51 AM
Ezra Klein, designated liberal hitter for the Wash Post, makes sense here.

"The Obama administration's top job isn't beating the Republicans. It's running the government well. On this -- the most important initiative they've launched -- they've run the government badly. They deserve all the criticism they're getting and more."

[Klein supports the program and also ripped Republicans in the piece.]

FYI to leftists, replacing millions and millions and millions of individual free choices in a free market all with one rigid government program designed by staffers isn't as easy as it looks.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on October 16, 2013, 08:25:27 AM

Just think of the jobs this creates.  The policy tinkerers, the lawyers, the academics, the associated "researchers", their staffs, the interest groups who insert themselves somewhere into this mess, the cottage industries, the consultants who thus attempt to interpret all this to the rest of us, the fodder it gives to pundits, and media types. 

Why, this has created a huge internal economy.   Never mind the rest of us are forced into it whether we like it or not.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Obamacare rates hit a Daily Koz regular
Post by: DougMacG on October 16, 2013, 10:10:04 AM
Welcome young people to the consequences of leftism.  A Koz regular in his own words:

Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.

Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.

I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?

I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.

I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.

What am I missing?

I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Paul Krugman the Invincible
Post by: DougMacG on October 22, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
Niall Ferguson — Harvard professor (and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution fellow — launched a three part series, in the Huffington Post, entitled Krugtron the Invincible, Parts 1, 2 and 3 with a notable coda at Project Syndicate.  Ferguson succeeds in methodically humiliating New York Times columnist, celebrity blogger, and Nobel economic prize laureate Paul Krugman.

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3
Title: Dems: Those aren't 'cancellation notices,' they're 'transitions' into Obamacare
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2013, 10:54:54 AM
Top Democrat says those aren't 'cancellation notices,' they're 'transitions' into Obamacare  (Oh Good Grief!!)
By JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 29, 2013 AT 1:53 PM

Insurance companies aren't sending out cancellation letters, they're helping people "transition" into Obamacare, according to a top Democrat.

"If [the companies] changed [the insurance plans] then they have to notify the people who have to have the opportunity to have another policy," said House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich.

In fact, according to Levin, the "so-called cancellation notices" merely "help people transition to a new policy."

Levin cited comments made by Florida Blue CEO Patrick Geraghty, the insurance company executive who originally floated the "transitioning" talking point on Sunday's Meet the Press.

"We're not cutting people, we're actually transitioning people," Geraghty told NBC's David Gregory. "What we've been doing is informing folks that their plan doesn't meet the test of the essential health benefits, therefore they have a choice of many options that we make available through the exchange."  (At double the cost!)
Title: Tactics of the left, Hollywood Receives Grant to Promote Obamacare on TV Shows
Post by: DougMacG on November 05, 2013, 06:28:14 AM
Meanwhile, while we dither with no de-fund and repeal strategy, here comes Obamacare into your living room:

Hollywood Receives Grant to Promote Obamacare on TV Shows
by Elizabeth Sheld 5 Nov 2013,
The California Endowment, a foundation spending big bucks to promote Obamacare, has just delivered a $500,000 grant to TV writers and producers to sneak Obamacare promotions into their programs.  "The aim is to produce compelling prime-time narratives that encourage Americans to enroll, especially the young and healthy, Hispanics and other key demographic groups needed to make the overhaul a success."

In a rather backhanded insult, grant recipient Martin Kaplan of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center explained, "We know from research that when people watch entertainment television, even if they know it's fiction, they tend to believe that the factual stuff is actually factual." He continued on to say that "people learn from these shows."

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 05, 2013, 08:26:08 AM
Fcuk!  That's rather Orwellian  :cry: :x
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: George Will - Clunker Progressivism
Post by: DougMacG on November 07, 2013, 05:17:44 AM

" the cost per job created by the program was $1.4 million"

A wealth transfer to the well-off  in pursuit of liberal objectives,  “cash for clunkers” merely caused people to purchase vehicles “slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred.”

Clunker progressivism

By George F. Will, Washington Post

Barack Obama’s presidency has become a feast of failures whose proliferation protects their author from close scrutiny of any one of them. Now, however, we can revisit one of the first and see it as a harbinger of progressivism’s downward stumble to

“Cash for Clunkers” was born with Obama’s administration as a component of his stimulus. Its fate is a window into both why the recovery has been extraordinarily weak and what happens when progressives’ clever plans collide with recalcitrant reality.

Consumers could trade in older vehicles and receive vouchers toward the purchase of a new, more fuel- efficient car. The vouchers were worth $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference in fuel economy between the trade-in and the new purchase. The program’s purposes were economic stimulation and environmental improvement.

Now a study by Ted Gayer and Emily Parker, published by the Brookings Institution, a mildly liberal think tank, concludes: “The $2.85 billion in vouchers provided by the program had a small and short-lived impact on gross domestic product, essentially shifting roughly a few billion dollars forward from the subsequent two quarters following the program.”

Most of the 677,842 sales were simply taken from the near future. That many older vehicles were traded in — and, as required by law, destroyed. Gayer and Parker accept as reasonable an estimate that the cost per job created by the program was $1.4 million. Although the vouchers did not come close to covering the cost of the new cars, voucher recipients seem not to have reduced their other consumption. This, say Gayer and Parker, suggests that participants in the program “were not liquidity constrained,” which is a delicate way of saying “there was no change in other consumption patterns,” which is a polite way of saying that “cash for clunkers” merely caused people to purchase vehicles “slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred.”

Because the program was not means-tested, it had only a slight distributional effect of the sort progressives favor: Voucher recipients had lower incomes than others who bought new cars in 2009. Against this, however, must be weighed the fact that the mandated destruction of so many used vehicles probably caused prices for such vehicles to be higher than they otherwise would have been, meaning a redistribution of wealth adverse to low-income consumers.

As for environmental benefits from Cash for Clunkers, the reduction of gasoline consumption was small and “the cost per ton of carbon dioxide reduced by [the program] far exceeds the estimated social cost of carbon.” But it was — herewith very faint praise — more cost-effective than the subsidy for electric vehicles or the tax credit for ethanol.

Cash for Clunkers lasted 55 days and ended with confusion that was a preview of things to come. The New York Times explained in August 2009 the final surge of demand for clunker funds:

“Around the country, dealers had put off the laborious task of applying for the rebates . . . which requires entering the 17-character identification numbers of each vehicle to be scrapped, scanning images of proof of insurance and filling out other paperwork. The computer system was overloaded, according to the dealers. They said they would finish one page in the application, hit enter and nothing would happen. Eventually a message would appear notifying the dealer that the page had ‘timed out.’ Tom Frew, the business manager at Galpin Motors in Los Angeles, said that he needed 35 tries to register just one of the company’s 11 dealerships on the day that the program opened because of problems with the government Web site. On Friday, he spent an hour processing just one rebate application, he said.”

The recovery from the recession began in June 2009; 53 months later, vehicle sales still have not yet reached the pre-recession peak. Cash for Clunkers was prologue for the government’s vastly more ambitious plan to manage health care’s 18 percent of the economy.

The present, too, is prologue. There is heated debate about Common Core, whose advocates say it merely involves national academic targets and metrics for primary and secondary education. Critics say it will inevitably lead to a centrally designed and nationally imposed curriculum — practice dictated by targets and metrics. Common Core advocates say, in effect: “If you like your local curriculum, you can keep it. Period.”

If you believe this, your credulity is impervious to evidence. And you probably are a progressive.
Title: Hillary will also distance herself
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2013, 08:22:55 AM
Both of them were huge supporters of Obama.  Now he is safely re-elected and the focus is now in the direction of the next liar to be in chief, Hillary, they are safe to come out and mock HIM.

Where were they when it counted - before the election?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on November 09, 2013, 07:16:55 AM
As Doug points out "after the obligatory belittling of Republicans, and now Bamster is safely elected, and AHA is law, and Hillary now has opportunity to distance herself and is being set up for her coronation, and we get opening phrases such as, "to be fair", and "on balance" the left now sort of makes some sort of back ended "Obama has to take his lumps".

Importantly the Repubs will have to devise strategy to deal with Hillary in the future.  Not simply keep up the same barrage against Obama the same way.
Hillary's mob is already figuring ways to spin this to her favor.  The total difference between her and Obama is she will pretend to compromise, she will pretend to give on certain issues (era of big gov is over) and not be steadfast in your face double downing ideologue - even though she is.   The Republicans always thought they had the goods on Clinton and he most of the time could successfully spin it around take credit and walk away laughing. 

In any case back to Bamster's comrades in arms:

Cynthia Tucker
By Cynthia Tucker 9 hours ago
President Obama deserves forbearance on the bungled rollout of his health care initiative. After all, Republicans have dedicated themselves to sabotaging the law -- withholding funds required for a smooth inauguration, harassing the experts hired to explain the law to consumers, and even threatening the National Football League when Obama asked teams to advertise it to their audiences.

Millions losing health plans under Obamacare. Did president mislead? Christian Science Monitor
Obama Tells Americans Losing Coverage: 'I'm Sorry' ABC News
Republicans Allege Obama Deception on Health Plan Cancellation ABC News
Obama promises to "smooth out" health care Associated Press
Why some individuals are losing their health plans under ObamaCare The Week (RSS)

Still, Obama deserves all the blame for the deception that may be the biggest threat to his signature legislative achievement -- and his legacy. He must have known better when he told Americans repeatedly over the past five years that they could keep their insurance policies if they were happy with them. As countless policyholders have learned over the past few weeks, that's simply not true.

Early on, the president was careful in his descriptions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Speaking to a joint session of Congress in 2009, he said, "If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." The veracity squad at Politifact rated that statement "true."

But as Obamacare, as it is now widely known, picked up a dedicated and vociferous group of critics, the president grew careless. In countless speeches in the last three to four years, he dropped the nuances: "If you like the (health insurance) plan you have, you can keep it."

Just as more Americans were beginning to pay attention to a mandate that will go into effect in 2014, that flawed description became Obama's mantra. Now, as insurers send out cancellation notices, many consumers feel betrayed. And that includes some of Obama's most loyal supporters.

Writer Peter Richmond, who has purchased his health insurance through a small group affiliated with a local Chamber of Commerce in upstate New York, was stunned to learn recently that his insurer was dropping the group.

"(Obama) spoke so vehemently about our being able to keep our coverage. ... I feel betrayed for the first time by (this) president. ... I resent it a great deal," he said.

At a recent congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a liberal Democrat from Maryland, weighed in, contending that the cancellation notices were creating a "crisis of confidence" about Obamacare. She's right.

On balance, the cancellation notices are affecting a relatively small group of Americans -- those who don't get insurance from their employers but who purchase it in the individual market. They represent about 5 percent of the population. There are no exact figures on the number receiving cancellation notices, but experts have given estimates ranging from seven to 12 million people.

To be fair, many of them will be better off. Obamacare has virtually abolished their old "bare bones" policies, some of which didn't even pay for hospital stays. With subsidies, many consumers will be able to buy far superior health insurance policies for less money. Kaiser Family Foundation health care expert Larry Levitt told CBS News that "the winners will outnumber the losers."

Still, there are many customers who are experiencing genuine rate shock. They will be stuck paying a higher premium for health insurance policies they may not have wanted. That's bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that Obama misled them.

At the moment, Obamacare is a morass of confusion: dysfunctional websites, lies spread by its critics and even deceptive practices by some insurance companies. That's all the more reason that Americans need to be able to trust their president to tell them the truth about his health care overhaul -- even if some of that truth is unpleasant.

Obama needs to stand up and admit that he misled consumers about keeping their health care plans. He needs to take his lumps and promise to give the public straightforward and truthful answers.

If he keeps prevaricating, he will be doing as much damage to Obamacare as its harshest critics.

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left - NY Daily News, Why He Lied...
Post by: DougMacG on November 11, 2013, 09:05:30 AM
Long story, but he lied because we can't handle the truth:

"Seemingly the only path to change is telling voters what they want to hear."

"So accuse Obama of lying about health-care reform — but understand the simple underlying reality: we can’t handle the truth."

Title: Progressive Linguistics
Post by: DougMacG on November 12, 2013, 08:44:18 AM
They own the language and they keep needing to change it.  Steven Hayward of Powerline picks up on this point I have been trying to make.

Progressive Linguistics  by Steven Hayward

Out in the further reaches of the critical theory left, the necessity of denying objective reality extends to language itself.  The deep-dish post-modernists declaim that language is just another subjective tool of the (white) power structure.  Whenever I hear such drivel, I usually ask not only why are we having this argument, but how are we having this argument?  (And if there is nothing but power in the world, I like to say: “Fine.  How many guns you lefties got?  Because I’ve got lots of them.”  That’s when the whole subject is usually changed or dropped.)

It should not surprise us, then, that “progressives” (the new term for “liberals” since modern liberals have discredited liberalism) are obsessed with language, and think that merely changing words will change minds. George Lakoff has made a lucrative cottage industry out of this.

The latest entry in the glossolalia of progressivism is this post about how we need to ditch “big business,” “entitlements,” “free market capitalism,” “government spending,” and other hardy perennials.  Some of the suggestions include:

     (1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, progressives can try: Unelected Government. This puts big, global, multinationals in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

    (2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, we progressives should try: Earned Benefits. . .

    (4). Government Spending: (Also referred to as: Taxes, Burden, and Inconvenient) Conservatives talk about “government spending” like it’s this awful thing, but the fact is, communities across America benefit from U.S. tax dollars, especially supposedly anti-government red states, which receive way more federal tax money than they contribute.  Instead, progressives should try: Investing in America. Because, that’s what our federal tax dollars do.

    (11). The Environment: When people talk about “the environment,” they often sound annoyingly self-righteous, as if lecturing people with dubious hygiene practices. Unfortunately, you can’t count on people to make environmentally friendly choices — especially when people are struggling financially and these choices cost significantly more. Instead, we progressives can try: Shared Resources.

    (12). Welfare: When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes. The majority of us need help at one time or another. Instead, progressives should try: Social Safety Net: When people think of a safety net, they’re more likely to think of a protection of last-resort, and one that they can instantly bounce out of like circus acrobats.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Secret Meetings??
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2013, 07:13:57 AM
Does anyone from the left remember when then Vice President Dick Cheney formed an Energy Task Force that included industry experts to advise him on creating an energy plan for that administration?

There was an uproar from the left, one might recall, including a lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court trying to force the details of the meetings to be made public.

"This ruling means that for now, the public will remain in the dark about the Bush administration and energy industry executives' secret meetings about national energy policy," said David Bookbinder, Washington legal director for the Sierra Club..."

What a difference a dozen years can make...

A day after they were caught off guard by President Obama’s proposal to prevent cancellation of insurance policies for millions of Americans, top executives of some of the biggest insurance companies emerged from a meeting at the White House on Friday, expressing mixed feelings about whether the idea could work in every state.

They did not discuss in detail how the president’s goal might be achieved.

 The participants included executives of WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, Humana and Kaiser Permanente, as well as several nonprofit Blue Cross plans.

After the meeting, Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, said only that it had been “very productive.”

Title: Mark Schields: If this goes down it is the end of liberal government
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2013, 07:35:28 AM
Normally a reliable shill for the Democrats, now he is saying almost exactly what Charles Krauthammer is saying:

MARK SHIELDS: [You can keep your plan] -- wasn't a true statement. And you're driven to one of two conclusions. Either the president was almost -- almost negligently uncurious in not asking about what the answer was, or he made the choice to trade his considerable reputation and record of integrity for short-term political gain. That's why they had to come and that's why there was such consternation in the ranks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you explain it, David, what happened, with the president acknowledging yesterday that he wasn't on top of it?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think it is politics. They knew that they -- getting this thing passed -- we were there -- it was hard. And so they were pulling out every political stop in the book. And a lot of those political stops have made it harder now. The first early one was, they were really late in issuing the regulations because they didn't want them to come out during the campaign so Romney could attack them.

As a result, the whole implementation got pushed back, and that's part of the reason the Web site is such a mess. And then they made this political calculation. Then they made the -- that they weren't going to tell you there will be losers here. And they made the political calculation there would be no deficit effects. They made a whole series of political calculations.

Shields didn’t think Obama made enough of a personal apology, like John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and it looks grim:

SHIELDS: It wasn't this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. I mean, this has got to work.  Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Seattle's Socialist Kshama Sawant wins
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2013, 07:52:07 AM
I don't know Seattle but it has similarities with Minneapolis where Democrats hold all the city council seats and the only opposition to them comes from the left.  What separates these two great cities from the fate of Detroit is probably only a matter of timing and circumstance.

Enter Kshama Sawant, just elected in a city-wide election to the council.  She was a leader of Occupy-Seattle, an avowed hater of capitalism.  Some Kshama Sawant quotes:

“Capitalists are criminals of our society”

“The Capitalist system itself…Is at the root of racism, hatred, and fear of black people, people of color, of poor people”

“We need to…put on trial capitalism itself”


So what does she do for a living?  She teaches 'Economics' at a public university.

Let's get capitalism out of Seattle and see how the "black people, people of color, and poor people" do.  Good grief.  Maybe North Korea would be a good model.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on November 17, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
I admire her honesty, rather than running as a democrat and then voting as a socialist as the rest of the dems do.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2013, 08:05:45 AM
I admire her honesty, rather than running as a democrat and then voting as a socialist as the rest of the dems do.

That's right.  Instead of the deception of the Obama phenomenon, Hillary and the rest, let's put actual socialism on the ballot and take an up and down vote.  In Seattle this week, they did and it passed.
Title: Warning. The following is obscene.
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2013, 05:57:42 PM
I am not sure this is suitable for people with brains: :roll:
Title: Unemployment benefits for 'working men and women'
Post by: DougMacG on December 14, 2013, 01:33:07 PM
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee calls for unemployment benefits for 'working men and women'

The Houston Democrat called upon her fellow Congress members to extend jobless benefits for people with jobs.

"Let us vote to provide for unemployment insurance for working men and women so that faces across America will not have the tear of desperation on their faces,"
Title: WSJ: ASA votes to boycott Israel
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2013, 09:06:52 AM
Shame of the Academy
The American Studies Association votes to boycott Israel.
Dec. 16, 2013 7:20 p.m. ET

The political corruption of the American academy is by now an old story, but every so often it reveals itself in a new and shocking way. The latest example comes from the professors of the American Studies Association, which on Monday announced that two-thirds of its members had voted in favor of boycotting Israel.

Jonathan Marks reports nearby on the association's internal politics, and readers won't be surprised at the bullying tactics employed to pass the boycott resolution. This is how the modern academic and media left operate.

Yet it's still worth pondering what must go through the mind of a professoriate, presumably dedicated to free political speech, that would choose to boycott the most democratic country in the Middle East. The country in which Arabs are treated far better and have far more rights than they do in most Arab lands. And the country that is America's most reliable ally. We can only imagine what these same professors must teach their students about the supposed crimes of America.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 09, 2014, 07:17:56 AM
Has anyone read anything as nuts as this?  Christie should save his career by coming clean and being transparent and, get this emulate a Clinton! :x

He should change the subject, after coming clean, with a *sister soldier* moment.   No peep from this lib that both Clintons are the ROLE MODELS for how to cover up and get your corruption swept under the rug. 

No Fournier,  Christie should do the opposite of Clinton.  He should resign.  Instead he will follow the role model Clintons with clever lies, cover-ups and the rest.

Amazing how a few emails give the left credibility on this.  Yet when Obama, Rice, Clinton where all over the place lying about an event before the election which is even worse they just sweep it under the rug.  Simply not one email turned up.


How Chris Christie Can Save His Career

Transparency and accountability would transcend politics of today.
 Ron Fournier

January 9, 2014

Since 1992, when Bill Clinton moderated the Democratic Party's image by criticizing a hip-hop artist for her racially incendiary comments, politicians have searched for their "Sister Souljah moment" – when a candidate takes what appears to be a brave stand against extremes in their party.

Related Stories
Republican Leaders Assess Scandal Damage to Christie
Christie Says He Was 'Misled' on GW Bridge Closings
Christie Administration Implicated in a Very 'New Jersey' Scandal

In 2000, George W. Bush caricaturized conservative jurist Robert Bork in an attempt to appear more compassionate than the GOP brand.  That same year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain demonized the far right's "agents of intolerance." Eight years later, Sen. Barack Obama distanced himself from his own pastor, calling Jeremiah Wright's racially charged comments "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."

The sordid George Washington Bridge scandal offers Chris Christie two choices: Continue to deny, deflect and dissemble in a manner that is so common in the politics of today, and most recently exhibited by President Obama during a spate of controversies in 2013; or … pull a Super Sister Souljah.

A Super Sister Souljah goes beyond distancing one's self from extremes within your party. It is when a candidate to take what appears to be a brave stand against politics as practiced by both parties. It is what I had in mind Wednesday with this tweet:

Christie needs to come clean about his involvement in the bridge-lane closures, if any, and provide a more believable explanation of when he learned about the activity. Instead of hiding behind spokesmen, lawyers, press releases and smug assertions, the New Jersey governor needs to apologize, accept responsibility, and release every document and electronic communication about the closures. He should call for an independent investigation and order his advisers to comply.

Finally, he should do as I urged Obama to do last year: Clean house. Fire anybody who knew or should have known about the closures and replace them with people who will change the culture of his office. These charges are sticking to Christie because they fit so neatly into his office's reputation for bullying and arrogance. "He and his staff operate as divas," conservative blogger Erick Erickson wrote in a post titled, "The Politics of A-Holes."

The challenge for Christie is overcoming the damage to his reputation caused by his office's role in shutting down some access lanes to the George Washington Bridge, an act of political retribution that endangered lives. The scandal is an easy-to-understand antithesis to Christie's carefully cultivated image of a leader capable of transcending petty politics to serve the public good. Here's how New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial team assessed the situation:

Until yesterday, the official line from Christie's lieutenants at the Port Authority has been that this was all part of some secret "traffic study"; that they were simply curious to see what sort of mayhem would ensue if two of Fort Lee's three access lanes to the George Washington Bridge were cut off, suddenly and unannounced.

That's clearly a bogus story. But was the governor lying, too?

Christie originally said that after checking with his staff, he determined that no one from his office was involved in these lane closings. He scoffed at the very idea that it was political retribution against the Fort Lee mayor for refusing to endorse Christie's re-election, and joked that he had moved the traffic cones himself.

His attempts to laugh this off now appear to be dishonest, though we can't yet be sure that he personally knew about the doings of one of his top aides. Either way, though, Christie bears responsibility. If it turns out he did know, he is obviously lying and unfit for office — let alone a 2016 presidential run.

And even if he did not, his officials are liars. If Christie can't control them, how can we trust him as a potential future leader of our country?

Those are fair questions that go right to the issue of leadership, which John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate covers religiously. He wrote of Christie:

This is a political problem for Christie, but more importantly, it's a leadership test. Since the governor arrived on the national stage, he has given various ad hoc seminars on leadership and the qualities required for greatness. He talks a great deal about the topic and offers himself as an expert. Before he became partners with Barack Obama in responding to Hurricane Sandy, he gave a very astringent critique of the president's shortcoming. Recently Christie advised the president to apologize for his promise that if people wanted to keep their insurance they would be allowed to. "When you make a mistake, you should own up to it and apologize for it," he said.

Will Christie do that here? Christie now faces problems that echo ones this president has faced, most recently in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act: Does he apologize, and how fully? Does he take responsibility for the actions of his aides? Does he admit mistakes? Does he fire someone? Does he increase his famous bluster or does he step back from it? Christie is very good at giving advice on these matters. Now he can show rather than tell.

If he's lying, his career is over. But if Christie truly was not involved, he can show some accountability and transparency, which in this era of no-responsibility politics, would be a Super Sister Souljah moment.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on January 09, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think this was a perfect example of media bias...
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: bigdog on January 09, 2014, 12:14:13 PM
From which side of the media?

Republican media strategist Rick Wilson, who worked on Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign, argued that Christie "goes out of his way to be a dick to other Republicans" -- and will reap the payback if his fortunes start to head south.

 "You're going to see conservatives returning the favor he gave them over the last year. There's no love lost between Chris Christie and conservatives. I don't expect them to be in love with him, and he doesn't want their love," said Wilson.  "But if you want to win a GOP primary, you better find a way to get there."

Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think this was a perfect example of media bias...
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on January 09, 2014, 12:27:27 PM
Good point.Christie got a pass when he smuggled guns to the Mexican cartels and got a pass when he used the IRS to target politics opponents and the MSM  gave him a pass on Beghazi, so it's about time the media stopped giving him a pass on this scandal. Right ?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on January 09, 2014, 12:35:59 PM
Using a traffic study to inflict political payback is disgusting. Imagine if we had a president that used federal law enforcement officers to barricade the WWII monument from being visited by veterans and shut down national parks?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 09, 2014, 01:16:39 PM
I know Christie is not really a conservative, but I'm not sure why "Operation Fat & Furious" (hat tip to Glenn Beck) is in this thread.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 10, 2014, 06:36:01 AM

Just one question.  Why is your response to any criticism of a left politician that the Republicans do it too?

As for Christie I admit if he is thrown out (he won't resign) I know my taxes will go even higher.   And half of NJ will be cheering for that.

Yet I won't accept a liar.  I won't accept anyone who abuses his/her power.   He is full of crap.  He knew.  Just like Obama knew.  Just like the Clintons knew.

This kind of behavior from right OR left has got to stop.

We need people who are honest.  First and formost.   For God's sake is this too much to ask?

Unfortunately McCain was partly right about campaign finance reform.  It just takes so much money to run a national campaign there seems no way to keep corruption out.

I am not sure his fix was the best answer but he is right in theory.  
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 10, 2014, 08:29:12 AM
IMHO the McCain-Feingold law is an incumbency protection act and that this is not an accident.

The reason campaigns require so much money is that the government has its paws and claws into ever more of our lives-- thus there is more at stake.

It is not clear to me that Christie knew.  After his press conference yesterday if it comes to light that he did know, then he may well be done.  But if things are as he said (arrogance of power idiot employees in government-- how rare!) then he did the right thing. He promptly looked into it and fired those responsible and apologized to the people, including a visit to Fort Lee itself if I am not mistaken.

The left is looking to take down the strongest challenge at present for Hillary.  Where was the outrage on their side over Obama closing parks and monuments to make the 16% govt. shutdown as painful as possible?

Anyway, may I suggest that we take Operation Fat & Furious to the Politics thread?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 12, 2014, 09:26:56 AM
Maureen Dowd - a lib - who I usually do not agree with. On this I mostly agree.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.  Legal diatribe arguments that split hairs help.  And of course the political consequences play a huge role in who is protected.  The left with Clinton for example and now the establishment DC right with Christie all coming to his defense.

****JAN. 11, 2014

 Maureen Dowd   

WASHINGTON — I HAVE learned two things covering politics.

One, first impressions are often right. John Edwards is slick. Hillary Clinton is expedient. W. was in over his head. Barack Obama is too much in his head. Chris Christie can be a bully.

Politicians are surrounded by spinners who work tirelessly to shape our perceptions of the characters of their bosses. Pols know how to polish scratches in their image with sin-and-redemption news conferences, TV confessionals and self-deprecating turns at hoary Washington press banquets. As Carter spokesman Jody Powell joked, if Hitler and Eva Braun came on stage at the Gridiron Dinner and mocked themselves in a song-and-dance routine, Washington chatterers would say, “Oh, they’re not so bad.”

After being showered with spin, you say to yourself, maybe that first impression was wrong. But often it isn’t.

Christie’s two-hour “I am not a bully” news conference was operatic about an act of malice so petty it did not merit being called “authentic Jersey corruption,” as New Jersey native Jon Stewart said, adding that it was unworthy of a state with a severed horse head on its flag.

If you’re going to wage a vendetta, at least make it a well-thought-out one. How can Christie & Co. run a national campaign when they can’t even aim straight? How moronic to think the mayor of Fort Lee would get blamed for problems on a bridge that everyone knows is controlled by the Port Authority. If you want to be malicious, it would be so easy to put a project close to the mayor’s heart on hold for a few months or redirect 60 state snowplows the night before a storm.

The governor groveled to New Jersey residents after his aides so gleefully burned them (even joking about children being late for the first day of school because of the orchestrated gridlock on the George Washington Bridge).

After zapping Obama for being so clueless that he couldn’t find “the light switch of leadership” in a dark room, Christie is trying to salvage his once blazing career by claiming he was in a dark room, clueless to the bogus traffic study masking a revenge plan that top aides were executing in plain sight.

The epic news conference felt like a scene out of the governor’s favorite movie, “The Godfather”: Christie offering his tremulous, grandiose, self-pitying public apologia while in cross-cut scenes, his henchmen were getting rid of those who threatened his operation.

Calling his deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly “stupid” and “deceitful,” he threw her off the bridge, without talking to her himself or, as Niall O’Dowd slyly wrote in, even extending the courtesy of the old Irish wedding night admonition: “Brace yourself, Bridget.”

He also disappeared his two-time campaign manager, Bill Stepien. His cronies at the Port Authority, Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, fell on their swords last month.

Christie took a line straight out of the Robert DeNiro handbook, lamenting: “I am heartbroken that someone who I permitted to be in that circle of trust for the last five years betrayed my trust.”

Yet we know workplaces are chameleon-like. I once had a publisher who loved the Audubon Society, so we ran a lot of bird stories. I had another boss who wore suspenders, so guys in the office started wearing suspenders.
Shades of Watergate: Since they were headed toward a landslide, you’d think the Christie crew would have been in a more benevolent mood. But given the governor’s past flashes of vindictive behavior, this was probably a wink-wink, nod-nod deal. Question: Who will rid me of this meddlesome mayor? Answer: The “little Serbian” has been dealt with.

The second thing I’ve learned from covering politics is that we can debate ad nauseam whether Christie was telling the truth, shading it or bluffing. But we can’t gauge that from his impressive, marathon Trenton performance art.

No matter how jaded we feel in the news business, we are still suckers for the big lie. It’s tough to wrap your head around a stunning level of duplicity.

I learned this lesson the hard way covering Paul Tsongas’s presidential surge in 1992. When The Times’s Dr. Larry Altman came on the campaign trail to interview Tsongas, he was skeptical about the candidate’s claim that his lymphoma had not recurred. I told Altman it was impossible for me to believe that Tsongas, who prided himself on his honesty and who was so straightforward he was mocked as “Saint Paul” by Clinton aides, could lie about that — especially given the profound political consequences.
Dr. Altman was right, as Tsongas later admitted. The candidate and his doctors at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston repeatedly said he was cancer-free when he was not.

A cascade of subsequent outraged denials about transgressive behavior delivered with bravado and finger wagging, from Gary Hart to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Anthony Weiner, has persuaded me that politicians — who are narcissists and, in essence, actors stuck in the same role — can persuasively tell the big lie if they believe their futures are on the line.

The Christie saga is still unraveling. Maybe he was a dupe in the dark. Maybe the man in the fleece jacket is fleecing us. Let’s just say, I’m not yet permitting him in my circle of trust.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 12, 2014, on page SR11 of the New York edition with the headline: Thunder Road. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe**** 

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2014, 10:41:41 AM
Working from memory here:

Sen/Gov/SecTreasury John Conally of Texas ran for president in 1980.  He was asked about whether he lied at his trial about corruption (something having to do with milk???) and told this story:

"I bet most of you don't know that George Washington was a Texan.  One days he cut down a mesquite bush.  His father asked who had cut down the tree.  "I cannot tell a lie. I did." said little George.

"Well don't bother running for office until you can" his daddy replied.

In plain sight Obama did a plethora more of petty and fiendish misdeeds during the 1/6th government reduction (a.k.a. the Shutdown) that he chose to create (and was blamed on the Reps).  Nary a peep from the Pravdas.

This is all Alice-in-Wonderland.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 12, 2014, 11:03:12 AM

This is the most cynical post I've seen you make in all the years "boarding" with you.

If that is the case then why do we care about Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious?

If we cannot get honesty from our leaders than they can do anything and later deny and cover it up.

We cannot accept dishonesty.  Christie has got to go.  Of course he is denying he knew.  That is his last play here.  He had no problem with the bridge thing until emails were exposed.    To think he wasn't a least bit curious as to why the GWB was blocked off to Ft Lee because of a "traffic study"?  He ignored all the complaints prior.   Oh yes he takes "full responsibility". 

You can't really mean this.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 12, 2014, 03:07:26 PM
Sorry for my lack of clarity.

I'm not advocating this attitude, I'm describing it.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Krugman, The Undeserving Rich
Post by: DougMacG on January 20, 2014, 03:27:38 PM
How much does Paul Krugman make, and what does he contribute, seriously.

I made the mistake of clicking on his column today.  Don't do that.  Let's have government decide how hard people work and how much they make.  Don't trust free people making free choices.

If David Ortiz and his batboy come to the ballpark at the same time, leave at the same time, why not the same pay? 

Link: NYTimes/unsubscribe

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on January 20, 2014, 03:46:51 PM
One website says Kruggy has a personal wealth of 2.5 million.

I'm sure he's given it all away to the poor, right?
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Divided Democrats
Post by: DougMacG on January 21, 2014, 06:41:16 AM
Divided Democrats Put Obama in a State of the Union Squeeze
Liberals want the president to tackle income inequality; moderates want him to focus on economic growth.

Of course pursuing policies that 'tackle income inequality' is the exact opposite of pursuing policies that focus on positive economic growth.

And 'moderate Dem' is a term not seen since the rising of Pelosi-Reid-Obama.  Moderates who "want him [Obama] to focus on economic growth" sound like former Dems and likely 2014/2016 Republican voters.

News Flash:  The Democratic party is not the party of economic growth and opportunity.
Title: Thomas Sowell: Fact Free Liberals
Post by: DougMacG on January 21, 2014, 06:47:22 AM
Thomas Sowell, pointing out truths with clarity:

Fact-Free Liberals

By Thomas Sowell - January 21, 2014

Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.

President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality?

That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed.

It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.

But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left -- which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study -- are not likely to get much attention.

The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.

Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.

But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work.

Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things -- and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors.

Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous "top one percent" have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country.

But check out a Treasury Department study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005." It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall -- repeat, fall -- by 26 percent by 2005.

What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up.

Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.

All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.

For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.

But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.

Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2014, 08:06:15 AM
GM says:

"One website says Kruggy has a personal wealth of 2.5 million.

I'm sure he's given it all away to the poor, right?"

I have been an advocate of the left's wishes on this board a number of times.   All wealthy liberals should be taxed at 90% and their wealth handed over to big government welfare programs.  The rest of us can be left alone.


Sowell does it again.  I am sick and tired of hearing how women do't get paid the same as men.  I can tell you in health care that is simply bogus.   Women may make less than men overall but that is by THEIR design.  There is NO conspiracies going on to KEEP WOMEN DOWN.  They get reimbursed the same from Medicare, Medicaid, insurers the same as the rest of us.  They may make less because THEY choose jobs that have easier hours.   To some extant this is so they can take time off for pregnancy leave with generous guarantees their job is secure and waiting for them when they choose to come back.

They also do not choose high paying surgical careers as much.  These tend to have long hours and be more demanding.  Yes, surgeons historically had been an all boys club, no doubt, but this is not the case now.  Women have quite good.  They have it both ways.  Nonetheless we will be hearing the none stop propaganda machine from the left MSM setting up for Hillary.  It is all about getting her elected now.   
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, pay equity
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2014, 09:52:46 AM
ccp wrote:  "I am sick and tired of hearing how women don't get paid the same as men.  I can tell you in health care that is simply bogus.   Women may make less than men overall but that is by THEIR design.  There are NO conspiracies going on to KEEP WOMEN DOWN.  They get reimbursed the same from Medicare, Medicaid, insurers the same as the rest of us."

"In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."

Title: Ann Coulter: The Heroism of Wendy Davis
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2014, 10:51:27 AM
Is there something about leftists and lying?  Wendy Davis is the latest Hero of The Left and is running for Governor as a Democrat in Texas.  Ann Coulter is very much on point and funny all the way through.  Read it the end where Davis blames her paraplegic opponent for the news story and complains that he hasn't "walked a day in my shoes."

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

By Ann Coulter - January 23, 2014

Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator running for governor, became a liberal superhero last June when she filibustered a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. (This was the good filibuster, not that awful filibuster three months later by Ted Cruz -- that was just grandstanding.)

Apart from her enthusiasm for abortion (and you have to admit, abortion is really cool), the centerpiece of Davis' campaign is her life story. Also the fact that she's a progressive woman who doesn't look like Betty Friedan.

In a typical formulation, Time magazine said Davis was someone who could give the Democrats "'real people' credibility," based on "her own personal story -- an absent father, a sixth-grade-educated mother, a teen pregnancy, followed by life as a single mom in a mobile home, then community college and, at last, Harvard Law School."

The headlines capture the essence of Wendy-mania:

CNN: Wendy Davis: From Teen Mom to Harvard Law to Famous Filibuster

Bloomberg: Texas Filibuster Star Rose From Teen Mom to Harvard Law

The Independent (UK): Wendy Davis: Single Mother From Trailer Park Who Has Become Heroine of Pro-Choice Movement

Cosmopolitan: Find a Sugar Daddy to Put You Through Law School!

Actually, that last one I made up, but as we now know, it's more accurate than Davis' rags-to-riches life story.

The truth was gently revealed in the Dallas Morning News this week. Far from an attack, this was a puff-piece written by Wayne Slater, rabid partisan Democratic hack and co-author of the book, "Bush's Brain." (He is not an admirer of Bush's brain.) It would be like Sean Hannity breaking a scandal about Ted Cruz.

The first hint that Slater was trying to help Davis get ahead of the story and tilt it her way is his comment that Davis' life story is "more complicated" than her version -- i.e., completely the opposite -- adding, "as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves."

Actually, the truth is much simpler than her story. Also, be sure to look for that "as often happens" excuse the next time a Republican gets caught lying about his resume.

Slater's peculiar obsession with whether Davis was 19 or 21 when she got her first divorce, and exactly how long she lived in a trailer home, is meant to deflect attention from something much more problematic: the huge whoppers Davis told.

Her big lies were about the obstacles she had to overcome and how she overcame them, not about how old she was at the time of her first divorce.

She claims she was raised by a single mother, went to work at age 14 to support her family, became a single mother herself in her teens, and then -- by sheer pluck and determination -- pulled herself out of the trailer park to graduate from Harvard Law School!

The truth is less coal-miner's daughter than gold-digger who found a sugar daddy to raise her kids and pay for her education.

Point No. 1: Davis' family wasn't working-class. Her father owned a sandwich shop and a dinner theater, which puts Davis solidly into middle-class land.

Point No. 2: No one who works at MSNBC would know this, but everyone whose parents run a family business starts work at age 14, if not sooner.

Point No. 3: Her parents were separated, but that is not the commonly accepted meaning of "single mother."

Point No. 4: As for being a single mother at age 19 -- she wasn't a "single mother" in the traditional sense, either. She was married at age 18, had a child at 19 and divorced her first husband, a construction worker, at 21. (He couldn't afford tuition at Harvard.)

So she got married young? That isn't a hard-luck story. Well into the 1950s, nearly half of all first-born children were born to married women under the age of 20.

But Wendy Davis' harrowing nightmare of poverty and sacrifice wasn't over yet.

Just a few years after her first divorce, Wendy was on the make, asking to date Jeff Davis, a rich lawyer 13 years her senior, who frequented her father's dinner club. In short order, they married and had a child together.

The next thing Jeff Davis knew, he was paying off her college tuition, raising their kids by himself and taking out a loan to send her to Harvard Law School.

(Feminists rushed to the stores to buy the shoes Davis wore during her famous filibuster. I'd like the shoes she was wearing when she met her sugar daddy.)

Then Wendy left her kids with the sugar daddy in Texas -- even the daughter from her first marriage -- while she attended Harvard Law.

Slater says Davis' kids lived with Jeff Davis in Texas while she attended law school. Wendy Davis claims her girls lived with her during her first year of law school. Let's say that's true. Why not the other two years? And what was the matter with the University of Texas Law School?

Sorry, MSNBC, I know you want to fixate on how many months Davis spent in the trailer park and her precise age when the first divorce went through. And that would be an incredibly stupid thing for conservatives to obsess on, if they were, in fact, obsessing on it. But I'm still stuck on her leaving her kids behind while she headed off to a law school 1,500 miles away.

The reason Wendy Davis' apocryphal story was impressive is that single mothers have to run a household, take care of kids and provide for a family all by themselves. But Wendy was neither supporting her kids, nor raising them. If someone else is taking care of your kids and paying your tuition, that's not amazing.

Hey -- maybe Jeff Davis should run for governor! He's the one who raised two kids, including a stepdaughter, while holding down a job and paying for his wife's law school. There's a hard-luck story!

Mr. Davis told the Dallas Morning News that Wendy dumped him as soon as he had finished paying off her Harvard Law School loan. "It was ironic," he said. "I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left."

In his defense, a lot of people are confused about the meaning of "ironic." That's not "ironic." Rather, it's what we call: "entirely predictable."

It's ironic -- my car stopped running right after I ran out of gas.

It's ironic -- my house was broken into, and the next thing I knew all my valuables were missing.

It's ironic -- I was punched in the face right before my nose broke.

In his petition for divorce, Mr. Davis accused his wife of adultery. The court made no finding on infidelity, but awarded him full custody of their underage child and ordered Wendy to pay child support.

Wendy boasted to the Dallas Morning News: "I very willingly, as part of my divorce settlement, paid child support." Would a divorced dad get a medal for saying that?

In response to Wayne Slater's faux-"expose," naturally Davis put out a statement denouncing ... her probable Republican opponent, Greg Abbott. Again, Slater wrote the story. But Davis blathered on, blaming Abbott for the Dallas Morning News story and complaining that he hasn't "walked a day in my shoes."

About that she's certainly right. Greg Abbott could never walk a day in her shoes or anyone else's. He's a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.

I guess Wendy could teach him a lot about suffering.

Davis also said these attacks "won't work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women ..." Yes, for example, Anna Nicole Smith. Though at least Smith had the decency not to ask for a paid education.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - (Wendy Davis) We're All Single Moms Now
Post by: DougMacG on January 28, 2014, 06:55:52 AM

We're All Single Moms Now

"Wendy Davis did make a mistake," according to the subheadline of an article by Liza Mundy.
"She thought that we were ready for a single mother." Mundy, author of "The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love and Family," deems Davis "The Most Judged Woman in America."

Mundy turns out to want a transformation of the family beyond basic logic. She writes:

    [Davis's] the strategy is risky, in part because our notion of a single mother is rigid: Critics have been picking holes in her story, saying that she didn't live in that trailer long enough, or was too ambitious. We seem to have a pretty strict notion of who a single mother is and how she should live. Truth is, the lives of single mothers are multifaceted and hard to categorize.

It's not that hard to categorize Wendy Davis: She was among the category of "single mothers" who are married to rich dudes.

Heck, if you don't have to be single to be a single mother, it stands to reason, or whatever Mundy is substituting for it, that you don't have to be a mother either. That would make your humble columnist a single mother (James Taranto, WSJ).  So don't judge us.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2014, 08:23:28 AM
On this WD story, I think our side would do better focusing on the fact that her older, rich husband stayed home to raise the children, and the day after he paid off her tuition loans, she dumped him.  EVERYONE, man and woman, knows that what story reveals is as revolting as it is revealing.  Fibbing about the age at which her divorce was finalized and fluffing up having lived in a trailer does not even come close.

Stupid Reps.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 28, 2014, 06:21:41 PM
"On this WD story, I think our side would do better focusing on the fact that her older, rich husband stayed home to raise the children, and the day after he paid off her tuition loans, she dumped him.  EVERYONE, man and woman, knows that what story reveals is as revolting as it is revealing."

Excellent point.   Is this the kind of person one wants as their leader?  If she could do that to her husband and caretaker of her own children just think what she could do to an electorate. 
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on January 30, 2014, 07:52:48 AM

Many chronically ill Americans unable to afford food, medicine

By Allison Bond 42 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - One in three Americans with a chronic disease such as diabetes, arthritis or high blood pressure has difficulty paying for food, medications or both, according to a new study.

People who had trouble affording food were four times more likely to skip some of their medications due to cost than those who got plenty to eat, researchers found.

"This leads to an obvious tension between 'milk' or 'med,'" said Dr. Niteesh Choudhry, who worked on the study at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "If you have a fixed income, should you treat or should you eat?"

The findings are based on data collected by the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, a questionnaire that offers a snapshot of the U.S. population as a whole. Nearly 10,000 people age 20 and up filled out the survey and reported having one or more chronic illnesses like cancer, asthma, emphysema or a psychiatric illness.

Among those participants, 23 percent took their medication less often than prescribed because of the cost, 19 percent reported difficulty affording food and 11 percent said they were having trouble paying for both food and medications. In the end, about one in three had trouble affording food, medication or both.

These rates are high but are similar to figures found in previous studies, said lead author Dr. Seth Berkowitz, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Yet the link between difficulty paying for food and for medications is a novel one.

"The idea of tradeoffs that people might make (between buying medications or food) is something we haven't seen before," said Berkowitz.

The researchers also found that patients who had difficulty paying for both food and meds were 58 percent more likely to be Hispanic or African American.

With each additional chronic illness the patients reported, their risk of having a tough time affording those items went up by 56 percent, according to the findings published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Finally, people having trouble affording medications and food were 30 percent less likely to have public, non-Medicare insurance like Medicaid, and about 60 percent less likely to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC. This program provides supplemental food and healthcare referrals for certain women and children up to age five.

By removing some of the financial pressure from people struggling to afford food, assistance programs like WIC may also help them afford their medications, Berkowitz said.

For that reason, for people struggling to pay for either food or medications, the authors recommend looking into eligibility for food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC, along with community support services like food banks.

When it comes to medications, there may be cheaper alternatives or assistance programs for the medication a patient is already taking.

"The most important thing people can do is talk with their doctors about it," said Berkowitz.

It's also important for people to be honest with their doctor if they are unable to afford enough food, since that may affect which medications and dosages are best.

"If you are eating very irregularly, a medication that might be perfectly safe when you are eating regularly could cause low blood sugar," or other complications, Berkowitz told Reuters Health.

If patients don't bring up the fact that they are struggling to afford medications or food, Berkowitz said, the doctor won't know to adjust medications accordingly.

He said people should "not be embarrassed or ashamed" to bring up the topic with their doctor.

SOURCE: The American Journal of Medicine, online January 21, 2014.*****

*****""This leads to an obvious tension between 'milk' or 'med,'"  Only a liberal could say this. 

""The most important thing people can do is talk with their doctors about it,"

Is this guy putting me on.  Patients have always complained when they can't afford health care.

""The idea of tradeoffs that people might make (between buying medications or food) is something we haven't seen before," said Berkowitz."

How old is this fool.   This has always been the case.  How about people who always seem to afford cigarettes or booze when they want to yet are always short for more important stuff.   Oh this never happens. 

This is the problem with Ivy league liberals.  This was not a "study".  Did tax money go to fund this stuff?
Title: Affirmative Action in Action
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2014, 09:38:18 AM
Title: Re: Affirmative Action in Action
Post by: G M on February 04, 2014, 09:56:09 AM

In the US code, the term is illegal alien.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2014, 10:54:28 AM
Well, that might explain why she is uncomfortable with it.
Title: "Illegal alien" as defined by statute
Post by: G M on February 04, 2014, 01:19:27 PM

(3)The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

 3 1542


(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
 - See more at:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2014, 05:47:26 PM
Title: Perfect timing for a communist Pope for the left
Post by: ccp on February 09, 2014, 08:30:38 AM
Now we have a socialist/communist Pope.

****Obama, Francis to meet amid shared economic view

Obama and Pope Francis to meet in the Vatican in March with focus on shared economic view

Associated Press
By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press January 21, 2014 9:11 PM
Obama, Francis to meet amid shared economic view

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When President Barack Obama meets Pope Francis in the Vatican in March, both men will speak a common economic language rooted in similar views about poverty and income inequality, giving prominence to an issue that the U.S. president wants to be a central theme of his second term.

In the complicated relationship between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church, the White House sees the popular new pontiff and his emphasis on the plight of the poor as a form of moral validation of the president's economic agenda. When Obama delivered a major address on the economy last month, he cited the growth of inequality across the developed world and made sure to note that "the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length."

The White House and the Vatican announced Tuesday that Obama will meet with the pope on March 27 during a four-day European trip that includes a nuclear security summit in the Netherlands and a U.S.-European Union summit in Brussels. The meeting is the first between the president and Pope Francis.

Obama had an audience with the previous pope, Benedict XVI, in July 2009. At the time, the Vatican underscored the deep disagreement between them on abortion. Benedict gave the president a copy of a Vatican document on bioethics that asserted the church's opposition to using embryos for stem cell research, cloning and in-vitro fertilization. Obama supports stem cell research.

Francis has made it clear that Catholic positions on homosexuality, same-sex marriage and abortion haven't changed.

"But in his view those issues which create conflict need to be deemphasized a bit," said John C. Green, a political scientist who specializes in religion and politics at the University of Akron.

The pope created a stir in November when he decried trickle-down theories that assert that economic growth can result in greater justice and inclusiveness as unproven. "The excluded are still waiting," he wrote.

Paul Begala, a former top aide to President Bill Clinton, said Obama can only benefit from Francis' emphasis on economic disparities.

"It becomes very difficult for conservatives to attack President Obama for being divisive, when the world's greatest figure for unity is saying pretty much the same thing," Begala said.

Still, Francis' attention to poverty has also captured the attention of Republicans, among them Rep. Paul Ryan, a devout Catholic and Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012. Other Republicans, such as Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky have also staked out prominent anti-poverty positions.

The economic theme will be a centerpiece of Obama's State of the Union address next week. But his specific policies — a higher minimum wage, universal pre-school and ending loopholes for the wealthy — face difficulty in Congress in an election year.

"American Catholics as a whole don't tend to take specific policy guidance from the pope, whether it's Pope Benedict or Pope Francis," Green said. "But what the pope can do is to get them thinking about particular issues and thinking about them in distinctly Catholic ways. That kind of rethinking could very well be an advantage to President Obama."

The issue of health care has highlighted other disagreements between the administration and the Catholic Church. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a high-profile critic of a provision in Obama's health care law that requires employers to provide insurance coverage that includes birth control.

Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the control requirement, but affiliated institutions that serve the general public are not. That includes charitable organizations, universities and hospitals, and critics say that violates religious liberty. The issue is now before the Supreme Court.


Follow Jim Kuhnhenn on Twitter:

Title: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution
Post by: DougMacG on February 15, 2014, 07:55:11 AM
Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution

"Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us," Judge Allen wrote on the first page of her opinion. That line opens the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Wright Allen was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama.,0,5553408.story

The Virginia decision follows a declaration from Attorney General Eric Holder that the federal government will begin to expand same-sex marriage rights from the top down by recognizing marriages between same-sex couples on a federal level that invalidates the ability of states that ban such rights. Privileges included in this expansion by the federal government would include spousal privilege in a courtroom and the right to jointly file for bankruptcy.

How many branches of government do they control?

Title: Liberalism really is a disease
Post by: ccp on February 17, 2014, 05:45:33 AM
They just have to find some sort of cause no matter how ridiculous.  Maybe she wants some sort of entertainment contract from one of the gay Hollywood people:

****Chelsea Clinton says gay rights have made progress

AP  2/16/2014 11:24:57 PM
Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton said Sunday that the gay-rights cause made "incredible progress" on political and legal fronts in 2013, but progress should not be mistaken for success.

Clinton called lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues "the unfinished business of the 21st century" in an address at a national conference in Las Vegas where actress Ellen Page came out as gay days earlier in an emotional speech that's stirred a social media outpouring.

Clinton urged a crowd of 600 professionals who work with children to become more sensitive to the needs of LGBT youth, saying the deck is stacked against them because of bullying, rejection and other harassment.

"I've often been asked why issues of equality are so important to me. Frankly, I don't know why they ask that question," Clinton said. "This is about the premise and promise of our country. (It's) always marching forward to a more perfect union. I was raised in a family where inertia is not an option."

The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign Foundation's inaugural conference, which was designed to promote the safety and welfare of LGBT youth, honored Magic Johnson and his wife, Cookie, former 'N Sync singer Lance Bass and writer Robin McHaelen for their support of gay rights.

The Johnsons' son, E.J., who accepted the award on their behalf, praised his parents for giving him unconditional love after he revealed that he was gay.

During the three-day conference that ended Sunday, Betty DeGeneres, mother of Ellen DeGeneres, stressed the importance of parents in giving support to LGBT children, and Candace Gingrich, the openly gay half-sister of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, served as a moderator for a panel discussion about LGBT youth issues.

On Friday, Page, 26, whose role as a pregnant teenager in the 2007 film "Juno" won the hearts of moviegoers and earned her an Oscar nomination, came out as gay at the conference, saying, "I feel a personal obligation and social responsibility" and that she was "tired of lying by omission."

Clinton praised both Page and Jason Collins, the NBA player who announced he was gay after last season.

"Now others have followed his (Collins') courageous example, and I hope later on this year, we'll be cheering for the first openly gay player in the NFL," Clinton said, referring to Missouri All-American Michael Sam, who came out this month.

She noted how 17 states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage and how the U.S. Justice Department recently instructed all of its employees to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers.

"With all the incredible progress we had in 2013, it's easy to think progress marks success," she said. "We certainly shouldn't take anything away from the historic victories in 2013 ... But we should not mistake progress for success. We need to continue to push for progress in communities, states and the country."

The conference, which was held in partnership with the National Education Association and American Counseling Association, drew teachers, counselors, coaches, social workers, health professionals and others who work with children.

A report issued in conjunction with the conference focused on youth who identify themselves as transgender or express their gender in nonconventional ways. It found that such youth feel even more marginalized and challenged at school and require more attention, said Ellen Kahn of the Human Rights Campaign.****
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: The Pro-Gay, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison
Post by: DougMacG on February 18, 2014, 02:47:43 PM
The recent post on Gender thread, ‘Kill the Gays’ Law Called for by Muslim Association in Malawi
by Pamela Geller, reminded me of the delicate balance Minneapolis congressman  Keith Ellison strikes with both constituencies. Can't everybody just get along?

I wonder if Rep. Keith Ellison addressed gay rights on his visit to Mogadishu last year, or kept those views in the vest pocket. 

How about when he was in Gaza:

He is at ease with the issue in front of the camera on home turf:
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Markos Moulitsas: A blue Georgia
Post by: DougMacG on February 20, 2014, 09:23:40 AM
The competitive Georgia Senate race will covered elsewhere.  My observation on this piece by the founder of Daily Kos is the left's belief they will win states merely by upping their "non-white" numbers.

"Georgia’s population grew by 1.5 million between 2000 and 2010. Of those, 81 percent — 1.2 million — were nonwhite. That brought down Georgia’s percentage of whites from 63 percent in 2000 to 59.7 percent in 2010. And that trend appears to be accelerating: According to updated census estimates, that number was down to 55.1 percent in 2012. "

Absent in his certainty is any indication, much less proof, that leftist policies have been helpful to "non-white" people.

He also fixates on Presidential year voting with a non-white at the top of the ballot.  A bigger political story is the huge level of Obama-2012-voter buyer's remorse.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Rule by the Ignorant
Post by: DougMacG on March 03, 2014, 11:02:47 AM

These are dark days - being ruled by the ignorant.
Title: How Obama / Demcrat / leftist policies hurt the poor, George Will
Post by: DougMacG on March 16, 2014, 09:22:55 PM

Democrats are making income inequality worse

By George F. Will, Published: March 14

Someone who is determined to disbelieve something can manage to disregard an Everest of evidence for it. So Barack Obama will not temper his enthusiasm for increased equality with lucidity about the government’s role in exacerbating inequality.

In the movie “Animal House,” Otter, incensed by the expulsion of his fraternity, says: “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture.” Such thinking gives us minimum-wage increases that do very little for very few. Meanwhile, there are farm bills, like the one Obama signed last month at Michigan State University.

MSU was one of the models for the land-grant colleges created under the 1862 Morrill Act, whose primary purpose was to apply learning to agriculture. Today, we apply crony capitalism to agriculture. The legislation Obama lavishly praised redistributes wealth upward by raising prices consumers pay. Vincent Smith of Montana State University says small non-farm businesses are almost 30 times more likely to fail than farms, partly because the $956 billion farm legislation continues agriculture’s thick safety net. The geyser of subsidies assures that farm households will continue to be 53 percent more affluent than average households.

Certain payments are, however, restricted. People making more than $900,000 annually are ineligible.

Seventy percent of Agriculture Department spending funds food services. Nearly 48 million people — almost as many live on the West Coast (in California, Oregon and Washington) — receive food stamps. This dependency, inimical to upward mobility, is assiduously cultivated by government through “outreach initiatives” to “increase awareness” and “streamline the application process.”

Between 2000, when 17 million received food stamps, and 2006, food stamp spending doubled, even though unemployment averaged just 5.1 percent. A few states have food stamp recruiters. An award was given to a state agency for a plan to cure “mountain pride” that afflicts “those who wished not to rely on others.”

Nearly two-thirds of households receiving food stamps qualify under “categorical eligibility” because they receive transportation assistance or certain other welfare services. We spend $1 trillion annually on federal welfare programs, decades after Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that if one-third of the money for poverty programs was given directly to the poor, there would be no poor. But there also would be no unionized poverty bureaucrats prospering and paying dues that fund the campaigns of Democratic politicians theatrically heartsick about inequality.

The welfare state, primarily devoted to pensions and medical care for the elderly, aggravates inequality. Young people just starting up the earnings ladder and families in the child-rearing, tuition-paying years subsidize the elderly, who have had lifetimes of accumulation. Households headed by people age 75 and older have the highest median net worth of any age group.

In this sixth year of near-zero interest rates, the government’s monetary policy breeds inequality. Low rates are intended to drive liquidity into the stock market in search of higher yields. The resulting boom in equity markets — up 30 percent last year alone — has primarily benefited the 10 percent who own 80 percent of all directly owned stocks. Charles Wolf writes in the Weekly Standard: “The financial sector’s profits rose from 18 percent of total corporate profits preceding the recession in 2007 to 23 percent in 2013.”

Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, says the total reserves of depository institutions “have ballooned from a pre-crisis level of $43 billion to $2.5 trillion.”

And? “The store of bank reserves awaiting discharge into the economy through our banking system is vast, yet it lies fallow.” The result is a scandal of squandered potential:

“In fourth quarter 2007, the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) was $14.7 trillion; at year-end 2013 it was estimated to be $17.1 trillion. Had we continued on the path we were on before the crisis, real GDP would currently be roughly $20 trillion in size. That’s a third larger than it was in 2007. Yet the amount of money lying fallow in the banking system is 60 times greater now than it was at year-end 2007.”

The monetary base having expanded 340 percent in six years, there is abundant money for businesses. But, says Fisher, the federal government’s fiscal and regulatory policies discourage businesses from growing the economy with the mountain of money the Fed has created. This is why “the most vital organ of our nation’s economy — the middle-income worker — is being eviscerated.” And why the loudest complaints about inequality are coming from those whose policies worsen it.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on March 16, 2014, 10:15:39 PM
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on March 20, 2014, 03:24:43 AM
Typical Bloomberg News item.  Don't worry Democrats ; Bush approval rating even lower than Brock's.   

Barack Obama
Obama Beats Bush

Jonathan Bernstein
Mar 19, 2014 9:31 AM ET
By Jonathan Bernstein

In February, I asked whether Barack Obama's approval ratings had pulled ahead of those of George W. Bush at a similar juncture in his presidency, ending a long period where they were basically tied. We now have evidence they have.

Today, Gallup has Obama at 41 percent approval, which is probably a bit lower than his true Gallup score from the last few weeks. HuffPollster’s polling average estimates the president's approval at 43.7 percent and slowly rising. A month ago, the trend was less clear, and results varied depending on whether one looked at regular polls or those that were more sensitive to recent changes. Now the two methods are showing essentially the same thing: Obama bottomed out in November or December and has been improving gradually since.

(Yes, that means the New York Times was wrong to refer to Obama’s “sinking approval ratings.” I wouldn’t quibble with low and stable ratings. But sinking? Not in the last several months).
At a similar point in Bush's second term, in 2006, a March 13-16 Gallup reading gave him a 37 percent approval rating. He remained at that level or below until a late-summer rally, which pushed him above 40 percent for the final time of his presidency. So Obama’s lead over Bush, which I estimated at around 3 points last month, is up to around 5 points now, and the two men are headed in opposite directions.

This is not to say Obama is doing well. Unless his recent improvement gathers steam, he’s going to be a drag on Democrats in November, though he won't be as big a drag as Bush was for his party in the 2006 midterms. And even if Obama rebounds, it probably wouldn't be enough to help the Democrats hang on to some tough Senate seats. Ronald Reagan was very popular until the 1986 election, when Democrats took a number of Senate races, in large part by unseating Republican incumbents who had benefited from having Reagan at the top of the ticket in 1980.

But at least for now, Obama isn't as unpopular as Bush was in 2006. This suggests a good year for Republicans (especially in the Senate), but not a landslide.
Title: The left is tolerant and compassionate, unless you dare to disagree with them
Post by: G M on April 02, 2014, 08:22:53 AM

Compassion: Anti-Obamacare cancer patient smeared by Reid now receiving death wishes from liberals

posted at 7:51 pm on April 1, 2014 by Guy Benson

Welcome to your feel-bad story of the month.  Remember Julie Boonstra?  She’s the single mother fighting leukemia who appeared in an anti-Obamacare television ad running in Michigan:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assailed Ms. Boonstra, and others like her, in a breathtakingly mean-spirited floor speech — going so far as to say that “all” of their negative experiences were “untrue” and “lies.”  Reid now claims he doesn’t remember saying any such thing, but there’s video tape:

In his effort to discredit Boonstra, Reid relied on a Washington Post “fact check,” which effectively ruled her story half true.  In fact, every claim Boonstra made in the ad has been confirmed, as explained by the Detroit News’ Dan Calabrese:

Boonstra is on five different medications to help deal with her leukemia. The Blue Cross PR spokesman claimed that they are all covered. But when Boonstra went to fill her prescription for Loratadine — a prescription-level equivalent of Claritin that she uses to control congestion brought on by chemotherapy — she was told that Loratadine is not covered. She has not yet attempted to restock any of her other meds but she is already having to come with strategies to deal with that problem. The $5,100 cap on Boonstra’s out-of-pocket spending is for in-network care only. If she has to go out of network, she could spend an additional $10,200…When Boonstra was first diagnosed, she had to go through a painstaking process to get approval for her chemotherapy drugs to be covered. When she finally found insurance she liked, she had no problem with the chemo drugs. She now says that process is starting all over again. Boonstra has already had to cut back on her bone marrow biopsies, which she was having on a regular schedule she had worked out with her doctor, because she doesn’t have clarification on whether these will be covered. I could go on, but the bottom line is this: Julie Boonstra told the truth, and arrogant media “fact checkers” had a lot of nerve claiming she hadn’t when they never even talked to her.
Nevertheless, Reid’s inaccurate nasty gram touched off a torrent of bile from Obamacare supporters,  including this delightful care package Boonstra received in the mail:


Die, because your experience is inconvenient to my “pissed off” ideology. Incidentally, Ms. Boonstra isn’t the only Obamacare victim who received a cancellation notice, and whose subsequent plan presents out-of-pocket hardships:

Breast cancer survivor Ginny Mason was thrilled to get health coverage under the Affordable Care Act despite her pre-existing condition. But when she realized her arthritis medication fell under a particularly costly tier of her plan, she was forced to switch to another brand. Under the plan, her Celebrex would have cost $648 a month until she met her $1,500 prescription deductible, followed by an $85 monthly co-pay. Mason is one of the many Americans with serious illnesses — including cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis — who are indeed finding relatively low monthly premiums under President Barack Obama’s law. But some have been shocked at how much their prescriptions are costing as insurers are sorting drug prices into a complex tier system and in some cases charging co-insurance rates as high as 50 percent. That can leave patients on the hook for thousands.
Another example from North Carolina:

Amy Newbold, a 57-year-old saleswoman from Randolph County, N.C., lost her employer insurance last year. Through, she found a mid-tier “silver” plan with premiums that at first blush are $75 a month lower than her previous policy. But there are no savings, she said, since her old premiums were paid with pretax dollars and Obamacare premiums are paid with aftertax dollars. Newbold said she faces substantially higher drug costs for arthritis and psoriasis and worries that an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000 could put needed medicines out of reach. “I feel left out in the cold, and I don’t know why it has to be that way,” she said
Maybe Reid can make these “liars” famous, too.  Indeed, unleashing left-wing wrath on ordinary people for the sin of speaking out must be a pretty effective method of stifling dissent — which is precisely what Reid wants.
Title: Dennis Prager on The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 04, 2014, 07:53:22 PM
Title: Cardiomyopathy due to climate change
Post by: ccp on April 05, 2014, 04:31:51 AM
Where does the liberal slant end?   Even Takotsubo syndrome is due to global climate change -  and all "natural disasters" are due to climate change.  They never existed before.  Now they are all man made :x

*****By Rachel Hochhauser April 3, 2014 5:45 AM The Daily Beast
Broken Hearts Can Kill You

Day-to-day heartache doesn’t hold a candle to scientifically proven heartbreak—a real thing called Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Turns out, your cardiac muscle can temporarily enlarge and weaken, and what’s more, the number of diagnoses is growing, leading a team of researchers to examine the cause. They found a surprising correlation that has the power to impact each and every one of us, even if you think you’ve got heart health on lock.

First described in Japan, broken heart syndrome got its name because a diagnosed patient’s left ventricle balloons to resemble the shape of an octopus trap. In non-doctor speak, the condition is essentially an impermanent weakening of the heart, often triggered by extreme emotional or physical stress—anything from losing a job to surviving a tsunami. Some physicians postulate a similarity to the fight-or-flight response; stress hormones paralyze the heart, affecting muscle tissues and blood vessels, and impede proper contraction of the left ventricle.

Patients with the condition may experience chest pain, shortness of breath, and other false evidence, such as biomarkers and electrocardiogram changes, bearing the markers of a cardiac arrest.

Though some studies have been conducted internationally, the latest research from the University of Arkansas—which explores a synergy between natural disasters and cases of cardiomyopathy—is unlike any other stateside. Dr. Sadip Pant, an internist at the university and the lead investigator of the report, explains, “This is the first study of its kind in the country.  We have so many hurricanes and storms…but not one has described the spiking of the cases after natural disasters.”

His team used a nationwide hospital discharge database to identify a group of more than 20,000 diagnosed cases. When they mapped them out geographically, the results indicated “clusters” of broken heart syndrome patients around sites of recent tragedies. Essentially, the data illustrates a notably larger number of reported cases in areas that had seen a natural disaster.

Missouri and Vermont possessed the highest number of reported cases, and the latter, with 380 cases per million residents, had more than double most other states. The data came from the same year Hurricane Irene wreaked the worst havoc Vermont had seen in decades. Similarly, the “cluster” in Missouri occurred near the site of 2011’s massive Joplin tornado. And while there might have been a number of other factors affecting these results, the general research takeaway suggests natural disasters can strongly contribute to cardiomyopathy.

The correlation was first noticed after the 2004 earthquake in Japan, and since then plenty of other global examples have popped up on the radar. Dr. Pant says, “There have been cases reported from Australia after the great flooding. Similarly, people from France described increasing cases after a village burned down.”

Looking at the bigger picture, the study’s implications are significant when viewed in light of the increasing number of natural disasters on the whole.  According to a 2013 report from the New England Journal of Medicine, the scale of these events is expanding, with three times as many from 2000 through 2009 versus those recorded from 1980 through 1989. Climate-related events account for nearly 80% of the increase, indicating that climate change may affect our health in more ways than we anticipated. The journal also notes that since 1990, “natural disasters have affected about 217 million people every year,” which just goes to show the importance of furthering our understanding of medical heartbreak.

As if you needed another reason to worry about global warming.

Climate changes aside, there are smaller immediate shifts we can make today, namely prepping response teams for future catastrophic incidents. Dr. Pant’s most important takeaway is the need for further education amongst physicians. Emergency room staff—often the first to see patients affected by natural disasters—and cardiologists need the background knowledge required to properly diagnose the syndrome, because its symptoms usually resemble those of a heart attack. Misidentification of the problem means a delayed legitimate diagnosis—no small thing when it comes to matters of the heart. While the syndrome is largely reversible, Takotsubo also requires careful attention during its acute phase.

Dr. Pant says, “It’s really important to have widespread knowledge of this disease, not just among cardiologists, but among the other medical specialties, so they can detect in time and diagnose accurately after.”

A properly diagnosed cardiomyopathy patient usually mends—like most romantic heartbreak—within a month or two.*****
Title: The Left Isn't Pro-Gay - It's Pro-Power...
Post by: objectivist1 on April 07, 2014, 06:20:34 AM
The Left Isn’t Pro-Gay — It’s Pro-Power

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 7, 2014 @

Libertarians and liberal Republicans have been proposing a truce on social issues in order to be able to concentrate on fiscal issues, but there is no such thing as a truce on any issue with the left.

Brendan Eich offered the left a truce on gay marriage. He talked about tolerance and diversity and he got his head handed to him. His forced departure from the Mozilla Foundation, which is behind the Firefox browser, should be a wake up call to anyone on the right who still thinks that social issues can be taken off the table and that we can all agree to disagree.

Those on the right who insist that conservatism should be reduced to fiscal issues imagine that the culture war is a fight that the right picked with the left. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The left does not care about gay marriage. In most left-wing regimes, homosexuality was persecuted. It was illegal in the USSR. Gay men were locked up in Cuba and are still targeted in China. Nicolas Maduro, the current hero of the left, openly uses homophobic language without any criticism from his Western admirers. It goes without saying that homosexuality is criminalized throughout the Muslim world.

Engels viewed homosexuality as a perversion born out of the bourgeois way of life that would be eliminated under socialism. The Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States stated that homosexuality “is a product of the decay of capitalism” and vowed that once the revolution took place, a “struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.”

The left’s shift on this issue, as on many issues, was purely tactical. The left’s leading lights were racists who jumped into civil rights. They were sexists who became feminists. They were advocates for the working class who despised the idea of working for a living.

The culture war does not emerge from the left’s deeply held beliefs. Its leaders could care less about the things that they pretend to care about. It emerges instead from the need to maintain a constant state of domestic conflict.

You can’t have a truce when the other side wants a war.

Did the activists who claimed Eich’s scalp care about him or his $1,000 donation to defend marriage? They’re already forgetting his name and moving on to the next target. Eich just happened to make a good target. The Mozilla Foundation is shaky, its board was insecure, and once an online dating company cynically came out with a publicity stunt to keep the news cycle churning, the scalp of the man behind Javascript was claimed. If he had hung on for another few days, the whole thing would have gone away.

Next week it will be someone else. And then the week after that.

Opting out of the conflict means standing by while men like Eich are torn down, not because they did anything wrong, but because destroying them allows the left to feel the thrill of its power over people.

Every gang needs to hurt and terrorize people in order to feel its power. Unlike a Chicago street gang which goes in for an honest mugging or beating, the online activists of the left do their dirty work in this way. Afterward there is no blood and there are no bruises, but lives are destroyed and its social justice activists chortle to themselves coming off an adrenaline high before going after someone else.

The purpose of these purges is not to make the country more tolerant, but to make it more afraid. The message of the Eich purge is not, “accept gay marriage,” it’s “don’t question us.” As many have pointed out, Eich had the same view of gay marriage at the time he made that donation as Obama and Hillary.

But Eich wasn’t “us.” He wasn’t a member of the club.

Members of the club can and do make racist jokes. They can oppose gay marriage. They can sexually harass female employees, pay them less and even kill them. They can do all these things because the “club” is not about gay marriage or equal rights for race or gender.

It’s about the supreme power of the club.

You can call the club, liberalism, progressivism or simply “the left.” You can call its members Marxists, Socialists or anything else you like. They go by many names, some real and some fake, but they are the “club”; a totalitarian organization dedicated to absolute power in the name of any available lie.

The left is a totalitarian movement that inverts everything it touches. It fights against poverty by making more men poor. It helps black people by keeping them down, and it promotes tolerance through displays of intolerance. Its endgame is simply raw power. It wants as much of it as it can get its hands on.

We can stand aside, but it will affect us sooner or later. Even if we don’t get picked to be the teachable moment of the day, we will find ourselves in a country that is less free and more oppressive every year.

The idea that any part of the left’s agenda can be delinked and ignored is wishful thinking. The left’s incessant accusations of racism show that the refusal to engage an issue does not take it off the table. It’s the left that determines the content and the context of the conflict. And that’s why the right is losing. It imagines that it can unilaterally retreat to more favorable ground.

That’s a strategy that has yet to work.

The left doesn’t do truces. If the right cedes gay marriage, all it will have won is the right to be called homophobes for the next hundred years. And the culture war will move on to the next issue and the one after that. The purges will continue and more criminals guilty of thought crimes will be paraded for the virtual cameras. Yesterday’s commonplace idea will be tomorrow’s act of unspeakable bigotry that prevents you from being employed, opening a business or even staying out of prison.

You may be in the clear today, but you won’t be tomorrow.

Wars aren’t won by constantly retreating. They’re won by taking a stand for what you believe in.

The left constantly takes stands, but it believes in nothing. Like all totalitarian movements, it worships at the feet of the bronze bull of power. It believes in the virtue of its outrage, the might of its rhetoric and the pleasure of trampling an enemy underfoot. Every one of its beliefs are baseless and expendable in the name of its true god of power.

The right has sold its moral birthright in the hopes of being tolerated by a movement with no morals or beliefs except in the virtue of its own intolerance. It strategically embraces the left’s ideas and hopes that this process will eventually lead to a truce.

It can’t and it won’t.

The left does not hate the right because of gay marriage. It does not hate the right because it thinks that the right is racist, sexist, transphobic, semaphoric or plasmatic. It hates the right because it is not of the left. The right stands in the way of its absolute power. These two things are enough to be hated.

Totalitarian movements are destructive. They feed off conflict and desire absolute power. They cannot be compromised with, reasoned with or appeased. Instead they have to be exposed for what they are.

The only way to beat a totalitarian movement is to expose the dirty little secret that it is not pro-black, pro-gay, pro-woman or pro anything except pro-power. It is a greedy, corrupt and selfish movement that does not stand for a better world tomorrow, but for unlimited abuses of power in the world today.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Central Planning
Post by: DougMacG on April 14, 2014, 08:35:15 AM
'Smart growth' means that leftist, centrally planned governments will tell you where you may work, live and travel.

Relying on the excellent work of Katherine Kersten, we’ve written before about the left’s big plans for the Twin Cities. The Metropolitan Council, an unelected body, wants to steer new jobs, homes, and economic development to areas within one half mile of major transportation stops. These stops will mostly be in the urban core and inner-ring suburbs.

In these favored areas, tax dollars will be lavished on high-density housing, bike and pedestrian amenities, and subsidized retail shops. The money thus lavished will come from people who live elsewhere.

The transportation needs of the rest of the metropolitan area will take a back seat. Money to improve highways and bridges will shrink. Congestion will grow and traffic safety will suffer. Residents will be pushed into “stack and pack” high-density housing.

As Kersten observes in her latest column on the subject, such a regime “is a tough sell in a democracy in which people believe they have a right to govern their own towns with their neighbors.” Accordingly, it is being promoted as the price the Twin Cities region must pay to remain “economically competitive” with peer regions. The Council insists that without its program — which it markets as Thrive MSP 2040 — the Twin Cities will lose jobs and creative young professionals to more enlightened metro areas like Portland and Seattle.

Intuitively, though, it seems obvious that, in Kersten’s words, people don’t move to a metro area for light rail; they move for opportunity. Similarly, intuition tells us that rigid central planning around a leftist agenda does not promote opportunity.

The facts bear this out. According to the Council’s own data, between 2000 and 2010, while the Twin Cities were was losing population and New York and Los Angeles were experiencing a mass exodus, Atlanta gained 415,000 residents; Dallas-Fort Worth 318,000; Houston 241,000, and Raleigh, North Carolina 190,000.

What do these “people magnets” have in common? Less burdensome government regulation and fewer land use restrictions. Both are strongly correlated with greater economic growth. Thus, Kersten concludes that the Council’s plan will push the Twin Cities in exactly the wrong direction.

In reality, though, Thrive MSP isn’t about competing with other areas for jobs and creative professionals. Rather, it’s about implementing a vision of how, as a matter of leftwing ethics and aesthetics, we should live. People always seem to vote with their feet against this top-down, authoritarian approach.

The Council’s other rationale for Thrive MSP is concern about the economic plight of the region’s low-income households. Here, the Council may be sincere. However, as Kersten shows, these households are likely to suffer most from its misguided policies:

The council deplores our region’s lack of “affordable housing.” Yet its drive for densification likely will significantly increase housing prices, which will harm low-income residents. Rents will rise, too. In Portland, for example, income-adjusted median gross rents in high-poverty areas rose more than 2.5 times the increase in the rest of the metro area during densification from 1999 to 2009.

The “gentrification” that accompanies transit-oriented development often disproportionately displaces low-income households, driving them from the urban core to more dispersed areas with less transit. Low-income families also suffer disproportionately when bus service must be cut to pay for light rail serving well-heeled suburbanites, as frequently occurs.

Kersten reminds us that the Twin Cities already has a very low rate of business formation and, in recent years, taxes as well as labor, property and energy costs have escalated substantially. Thrive MSP seems designed, almost diabolically, to exacerbate these trends and render them irreversible.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Keystone causes "spewing"
Post by: DougMacG on April 16, 2014, 09:51:57 AM
Leftist oppose Keystone XL because the heavy oil is worse than light sweet crude like they have at ANWR.

Fine, then what about oil from ANWR?  Who stopped that??!!

Oil from tar sands spews 17% more greenhouse gas than the average crude oil refined in the United States. ... That's a risk that climate champions such as Kerry and Obama shouldn't be willing to take.

New leftist dictionary: Exhale - to "spew" CO2. 

Climate Champions?  Obama leaves Air Force One on and idling during 15 day golf vacations, flies the family dog on a separate jet, and Kerry's pride is a $7 million, 76 ft imported yacht.  Good grief!

Kerry's Yacht - "a departure from the norm in the opulent world of yachting”:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 02, 2014, 07:39:15 PM
I only post this liberal propaganda because of this line:

"The Republican "more drilling brings the price down" argument clearly isn't working. It is, however, making oil companies a hefty profit at our taxpayer-subsidized expense."

I have to ask, since when does the left give a crap about taxpayers.  Leave it up these people and our taxes would be substantially higher.  Yet here he tries to sound like he is protecting taxpayers. 

******Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva Become a fan
Co-chair, Congressional Progressive Caucus

'Drill, Baby, Drill' Has Failed -- And Now We Can Do Something About It

 Posted:  05/02/2014 11:18 am EDT    Updated:  05/02/2014 11:59 am EDT   

 In the next few weeks, Congress will decide the country's Fiscal Year 2015 funding priorities. A lot is riding on whether we fund necessary environmental, clean energy and reclamation programs or leave them to wither. I'm hoping we do the right thing.

It's important to know the context. Americans paid an average of $3.57 for a gallon of gasoline last year. Compare that to the $2.40 per gallon average in 2009. The Republican "more drilling brings the price down" argument clearly isn't working. It is, however, making oil companies a hefty profit at our taxpayer-subsidized expense. We need a better national strategy.

This year President Obama requested about $6.9 billion for clean energy technology programs at the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. Many parts of his proposal are smart investments in our environmental future. Unfortunately, the administration wants to accelerate the already rapidly expanding exploitation of domestic oil and gas fields. This would do grave damage to our already heavily stressed climate.

How stressed? Last month, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a series of reports finding once again that human activities are the leading cause of higher atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) levels and a warming climate. The reports find that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes have contributed 78 percent of total GHG emissions since 1970. The scientific community expects the volume to double -- some even say triple -- by 2050.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have other things on their minds. In the guise of being worried about the economy, they have introduced a number of bad bills to allow oil and gas companies to drill and frack wherever and however they please. This won't help the consumer. Since 2008 oil production from federal lands and waters has gone up 7 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Despite that dramatic increase in extraction, gas prices haven't gone down since 2009.

More oil and gas activity adds more CO2 to the atmosphere, causing our climate to get warmer. The scientific consensus on those questions is overwhelming. The only debate today exists in professional climate change denial circles. If my conservative colleagues are concerned about the country we leave our children, my question is this: Is our environmental debt out of control? Is it time for us to scale it back?

Solving environmental degradation and curbing climate change are not easy tasks. But I believe we have the chance to do what's right for our future now, without waiting. We need to curb the carbon dioxide emissions already polluting our atmosphere; just as seriously, we need to start making sustained investments in a cleaner future. Part of the president's proposed budget would address this, especially through increased renewable energy production investments and through the Climate Action Plan.

Republicans keep arguing for sequestration as the only way to reduce the deficit. I think they're wrong, but their argument raises an important question: When you see a problem, when is it time to stop contributing to it? When is enough enough? When Congress finalizes the FY2015 budget, I hope my colleagues bear in mind the need to start chipping away at the environmental debt we're leaving our children. Coming generations of Americans will judge us harshly if we continue to pollute our atmosphere in the name of short-term profits, especially when there's a better way.

This post is part of a series from the Safe Climate Caucus. The Caucus comprises 38 members of the House of Representatives who have committed to ending the conspiracy of silence in Congress about the dangers of climate change. For more information, visit the Safe Climate Caucus website and like the Safe Climate Caucus on Facebook.*****
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Harry Reid off the deep end
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2014, 08:44:26 AM
Only 30 seconds and there isn't a word in here that is true.  This is the Majority Leader of the US Senate?  
(And Mitt Romney didn't pay income taxes for 10 years?
This guy is reckless and nuts, and somewhere close to half the country supports what he is doing?


“Pollution” isn’t causing global warming, the Koch brothers are not the “two richest people in the world,” and the idea that the brothers are somehow one of the “main causes” of climate change is delusional, even if you buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory. The U.S. is not the main emitter of CO2–China is–and within the U.S., Koch Industries is far down the list of CO2 emitters. Koch doesn’t do any coal mining or oil extraction, to my knowledge, and it doesn’t own power plants. No doubt refineries emit some CO2, as do all manufacturing operations, but Koch Industries is not one of the major emitters in the United States, let alone the world.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: objectivist1 on May 08, 2014, 08:59:20 AM
Democrats and leftists (now one and the same) have zero interest in truth.  They care only about how they can manipulate the public into doing their bidding.  It's all about centralized control.  There is clearly no lie which Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama will not spout - knowing full well it is in fact a lie - to influence low-information voters.

I honestly don't know how this situation can possibly be fixed without the country splitting into constitutionally conservative and social democratic fragments.  Far too many of our citizens are ignorant and disengaged.  This will not end with the nation's borders as we know them now.  Secession and quite possibly violent resistance are all but inevitable at this point, IMHO.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 08, 2014, 09:05:26 AM
Agree with two previous posts.  I am very pessimistic that it is already too late.  The left is winning big.
We have immense corruption in government, wall street and the rest.  We hear about "1% ers" when it suits the left's political purposes.  The answer is always to tax the rich and buy votes with the cash.  Obamster reduced funding for the FBI for white collar crime.  And yet the illegals get more legal help than the rest of us:

******Administration to pledge equal education for illegal immigrants

By Benjamin Goad - 05/07/14 02:27 PM EDT

The Obama administration announced Wednesday it would issue new guidance requiring U.S. schools to provide equal education to all children, regardless of their immigration status.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are expected to detail the proposal Thursday morning during a conference call with reporters.

The Justice and Education departments sought through 2011 guidance to ensure equal treatment for children living in the U.S. illegally in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 1982 Plyler vs. Doe ruling, which prohibited a school district from charging illegal immigrants extra tuition fees.

“The Obama administration continues to receive reports that school districts are adopting policies and practices that have the effect of discouraging, and in some cases preventing, undocumented children and children from immigrant families from enrolling in public schools,” the Justice Department said in announcing the follow-up guidance. “The new guidance is intended to help address these issues.“

The updated guidance is intended to help schools understand their responsibilities under Plyler vs. Doe and other federal civil rights laws..

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2014, 10:31:35 AM
...Secession and quite possibly violent resistance are all but inevitable at this point, IMHO.

Possibly true, but I think discussion of the s-word or taking up arms is out of bounds politically.  For one thing, the deep divisions  are not geographical.  I would love to see an inside the nation, opt-out plan where I could give up my claim to government benefits and cronyism perks in exchange for lower levels of taxation and regulation.  But its not going to happen.

More realistically, the conservative movement could - win over the Republican party, win the House, gain more than 10 seats in the Senate and put forward a half dozen really good Presidential candidates that would run against leftist-fascism this time instead of running against each other - all this year!
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left- Rbt Reich's 6 Principles of Populism
Post by: DougMacG on May 08, 2014, 09:50:38 PM
First this, from wikipedia:  Populism is a political doctrine in which one sides with "the people" against "the elite".

Reich is as far left as they come, in my view.  Therefore it is funny when we find areas of agreement.  The so-called populism argument is one conservatives need to articulate to win.  The left uses it heavily in their rhetoric but not in their governance.  A purer leftist like Reich might actually want them to embrace it.  Reich starts with this, also showing that the purer conservative thought is populist:

Who made the following comments? (Hint: Not Warren, and not Bernie Sanders.)

A. We "cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street."

B. "The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy..."

C. "If you come to Washington and serve in Congress, there should be a lifetime ban on lobbying."

D. "Washington promoted moral hazard by protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized profits and socialized losses."

E. "When you had the chance to stand up for Americans' privacy, did you?"

F. "The people who wake up at night thinking of which new country they want to bomb, which new country they want to be involved in, they don't like restraint. They don't like reluctance to go to war."

(Answers: A. Rand Paul, B. Ted Cruz, C. Ted Cruz, D. House Republican Joe Hensarling, E. House Republican Justin Amash, F. Rand Paul )

Skipping forward, here are  Reich's six principles, with my comments:

1. Cut the biggest Wall Street banks down to a size where they're no longer too big to fail.  I don't know about making banks smaller, but stop bailing out the Wall Street financial industry.

2. Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking...  No, but he is right in concept.  If you want federal insurance, there will be limits on risk taking.

3. End corporate welfare -- Yes, but also end the over-taxation, over-regualtion that corp welfare is intended to mitigate.

4. Stop the National Security Agency from spying on Americans.  No, but stop the abuses.

5. Scale back American interventions overseas.  Okay, but replace interventions with successful deterrence, not disarming, surrendering or pretending to not see the evil in the world.

6. Oppose trade agreements crafted by big corporations.     Free trade agreements should not be crafted in the shadow of big government either.  A real free trade agreement can be written on one side of a cocktail napkin.  Anything more is government regulated trade.  This concept is better labeled 'freedom to trade', a basic economic right.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
This would fit well in the Way Forward for the American Creed thread as well.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of left - The Bailout Secretary, Geithner, writes a book
Post by: DougMacG on May 12, 2014, 07:58:36 PM
I don't want to help this guy publicize a book, but this WSJ review should save us the trouble or finding and reading it.

... Mr. Geithner makes a persuasive case that he is the man most responsible for the federal bailouts of 2008.

Some prefer to credit his Treasury predecessor, former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Others focus on the role of former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But Mr. Geithner insists that, time and again as the crises flared in 2008, he was the most consistent and tireless advocate for government aid to struggling firms. His core principle is that, during a crisis, the creditors of large financial institutions should not suffer any losses.
Bear Stearns was heavily exposed to subprime mortgages, had been planning to file for bankruptcy protection, and its regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission were prepared to protect customer brokerage accounts. This was standard practice when securities firms failed. But Mr. Geithner intervened to give the firm short-term liquidity and arranged a sale to J.P. Morgan, a move that put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for some of Bear's risky mortgage paper. And so the taxpayer safety net was stretched to cover not just commercial banks but Wall Street investment houses as well.
...Mr. Geithner's difficulty in understanding the health of large financial firms. He admits that he didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it appeared. He didn't require that the banks he was overseeing raise more capital because his staff's analysis couldn't foresee a downturn as bad as the one that occurred.

None of this is particularly surprising in a man who, at the time he became president of the New York Fed, had never worked in finance or in any type of business—unless one counts a short stint in Henry Kissinger's consulting shop. At Dartmouth, Mr. Geithner "took just one economics class and found it especially dreary."
*more at link*
Title: Prager says we are right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2014, 09:30:57 AM
Title: Man bites Dog: Jon Stewart nails Harry Reid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2014, 02:07:13 PM
Title: The Democrat Party's Brain Damage...
Post by: objectivist1 on May 16, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
The Democratic Party’s Brain Damage

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On May 16, 2014 @

In 2008, Democrats insisted that Senator John McCain was too old to be president. At a rally introducing Hillary Clinton, Congressman John Murtha criticized him for even running. “It’s no old man’s job,” he said.

Obama and Kerry used language suggesting that McCain was senile. Left-wing activists claimed that he could die of skin cancer at any moment. Late night comedians turned McCain’s age into a target.

McClatchy headlined a story, “Some wonder if McCain’s too old and wrinkly to be president.”

There are no stories in which reporters ask passerby if Hillary is too old and wrinkly to take 3 AM phone calls.

In Newsweek, Anna Quindlen, a fanatical Hillary supporter, wrote that, “The senator’s pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s.” If she has any objection to Hillary’s pursuit of the presidency while pushing 70, she hasn’t written about it.

By October, spurred by repeated media attacks on his age, 34 percent of Americans said that McCain was too old to be president. The sharp spike in the poll numbers over one month showed how effective the Democratic age smear was.

Had McCain been elected, he would have taken office at 72. If Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll be 69. And age is suddenly no longer an issue. Neither is health.

Quindlen emphasized that McCain couldn’t lift his arms over his head. No one is going to ask how flexible Hillary Clinton is in body (the political flexibility of the woman who opposed and supported nearly everything at one time or another is already renowned).

The problem as it turned out was not that McCain was old. It was that he was a Republican.

Slate ran an article claiming that McCain’s brain would go bad over the next eight years, but discussing the state of Hillary’s brain is out of bounds. Late night comedians won’t be making jokes about how old Hillary is or how confused she gets in the morning.

Those jokes could only be made about a man who was three years older than she is now.

It’s outrageous to question the medical consequences of Hillary’s “traumatic brain injury” which took her six months to recover from after passing out and falling down while boarding a plane. But ridiculing Bob Dole’s dead arm, an injury he suffered while dragging one of his men into a foxhole out of enemy fire during WW2, or McCain’s inability to lift his arms or perform certain tasks after they were broken by his torturers, was part of the political game.

We can question the health of war veterans, but not of a career politician.

There will be no stories about how wrinkled Hillary’s skin is. No one will ask her if she can tie her shoes or use Twitter without an assistant. Or whether she forgets things sometimes.

But if a Republican in his late sixties or early seventies becomes a candidate, then the switch will flip and suddenly asking those questions will become fair game.


The issue isn’t Hillary’s brain. It’s that Democrats don’t consider themselves accountable in the same way that they expect Republicans to be. It’s that they consider attacks on Republicans fair game that they are too thin-skinned to accept.

If McCain was too old and his brain too infirm to serve in the White House, the same people making that argument should have to explain why those same questions can’t even be asked about Hillary. Does three years make a world of difference? Has medical science been so dramatically revolutionized over the last eight years that they no longer matter?

If Hillary isn’t too old and if her health is off limits, then Democrats should admit that they engaged in cynical ageist attacks to win the White House. But that too would be accountability.

And we have a crisis of accountability.

The Democrat in the White House and his associates refuse to accept responsibility for anything. Any call for accountability results in an explosion of outrage as if the very act of holding the ruling party accountable is a crime.

The huffing and puffing over the suggestion that a woman who took six months to recover from a serious health episode may have health problems that will affect her performance is typical of the way that the Democratic Party behaves.

And of the way that its media auxiliaries echo its agenda.

When Murtha accused McCain of being too old, the media took the attack seriously. When Karl Rove mentioned Hillary’s health problem, the majority of the stories focused on it as a cynical attack. This partisan coverage gap is not an anomaly. It’s the new normal.

The problem isn’t Hillary’s brain damage. It’s the Democratic Party’s brain damage.

The Democratic Party, which has been around since the early 19th century, is just too old. The parts of its brain that relate to accountability and integrity have been burned out. The political party suffered a traumatic brain episode in the sixties and hasn’t recovered from it since. The left side of its political brain is dominant while the right side has completely withered away.

The Democrats keep insisting that they’re moving forward, when they’re actually wandering off to the left. They insist that they’re centrist when they’ve completely drifted off the road.

It doesn’t matter how young or old its candidates are as long as they base their worldview around discredited 19th century ideas about economics and equally discredited 20th century ideas about the virtues of central planning. A youthful body with a decayed brain rotting with ideas that were old when Nixon and LBJ were toddlers isn’t progressive.

It’s hopelessly reactionary.

Obama may have been in his late forties when elected, but his ideas were around one hundred and forty years old. No matter what age Hillary is, her ideas are equally old. It’s not the state of her brain that’s the problem; it’s the things that she’s been putting in there since a young age.

If Hillary and her Democratic Party really want to demonstrate their mental fitness, they can start by naming one single new economic idea that they’ve brought to the table in the last seventy years. And if they can’t, Americans will ask themselves whether they can afford another eight years of 19th century economics from a party whose last new idea is even older than Hillary.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2014, 04:31:48 PM
Thursday, May 19, 2011

USS Cesar Chavez? Why not the USS Saul Alinsky?

 Incredibly, the U.S. Navy has decided to name a cargo ship after the guy who came up with the Obama campaign slogan, "Yes, we can!" That man is the late labor agitator and community organizer Cesar Chavez. Chavez's union, the United Farm Workers, used the saying he coined as its official motto. (In Spanish, "¡Sí se puede!")

 The decision to name a Navy ship after this radical is remarkable not only because President Obama's teleprompter has the phrase "Yes, we can!" burnt into it from the phrase's overuse, but because the far-left leader was a disciple of communist sympathizer Saul Alinsky. Chavez, who died in 1993, worked for the Community Service Organization from 1952 to 1962. CSO was a pressure group created by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. Chavez has been lionized by the left because he hated capitalism and shared Alinsky's contempt for the American system. The man even sounded like Alinsky, insisting he loved America while working to undermine its institutions. Chavez said

Until the chance for political participation is there, we who are poor will continue to attack the soft part of the American system - its economic structure. We will build power through boycotts, strikes, new union - whatever techniques we can develop. These attacks on the status quo will come, not because we hate, but because we know America can construct a humane society for all its citizens - and that if it does not, there will be chaos.
"There will be chaos?" Prediction or threat? You decide.

 Chavez is also connected to ACORN founder Wade Rathke, a fact I reported in my new book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

 When Rathke was employed as an organizer at ACORN's parent organization, the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), he was trained by a man named Bill Pastreich who had studied Alinsky’s in-your-face organizing techniques. Pastreich had also been employed by Chavez's United Farm Workers.

 Is it just a matter of time before the Obama administration commissions the USS Saul Alinsky? No doubt it will be a destroyer.

Follow me on Twitter and check out my new book Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2014, 07:00:20 PM
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: G M on May 28, 2014, 07:46:50 PM
Well, Cesar Chavez was strongly against illegal immigration.
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Piketty
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2014, 08:51:07 AM
Together in Boston, a dream event for the silent leftists on the forum:

Described here on National Review for the rest of us:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, left fights left in Minneapolis
Post by: DougMacG on July 11, 2014, 11:37:08 AM
I wrote about this race somewhere, probably under election fraud, but the ugliness exposes a rift in the Dem party.  Jewish liberal Democrat incumbent since 1972 Phyllis Kahn is facing a serious primary challenge from Islamic Somali immigrant Mohammed Noor.  Phyllis Kahn is a household name around here, on a par maybe equal to what Ted Kennedy was nationally.  The liberal lioness is now blowing the whistle on Democrat fraud they perpetrated earlier as it backfires against her.  More fraud incidentally than the Al Franken margin of victory that gave Obamacare it's 60th vote in the Senate.  Perhaps more interesting than cheating is the cultural divide in the party the race is exposing.   I wonder how well her position on gay rights fits with Sharia law, lol.  Minneapois-based Powerline is covering the race, calling it business as usual:

Title: Tear down this wall!
Post by: MikeT on July 12, 2014, 12:21:07 PM
Not sure this hyperlink will work but I don't have a url to the original cartoon.!/206783309358337/photos/a.207689922601009.46857.206783309358337/732535253449804/?type=1&theater
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2014, 12:30:51 PM
I had to cut and paste the entire URL and then it worked.

Good one!
Title: Cool Hand Baraq and the Children
Post by: MikeT on July 14, 2014, 03:08:42 PM
Another scorcher, I thought...!/ConservativeCartoonsDaily/photos/a.746324325406048.1073742575.215319478506538/746324738739340/?type=1&theater
(Marc:  You will have to cut and paste the entire link to see it)
Title: Re: Heads in the proverbial sand... WH claims world more tranquil under O
Post by: MikeT on July 15, 2014, 09:00:40 AM
1.   :-o
2.   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
3.  :x
Title: Bill Maher surprises
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 16, 2014, 02:32:22 AM
When he first came on the scene he was more capable of this much more often, but still quite nice to see he still has it on occasion.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, INCOME INEQUALITY IN 2010
Post by: DougMacG on July 24, 2014, 09:45:10 AM
Leftist power, leftist results, how did it all work out?
(skip to the bottom if you don't like my long intro)

In November 2006, based mostly on Iraq war fatigue, the American people transferred nearly all power in Washington to the left. The last initiative won by the lame duck George Bush was the surge; all domestic policy momentum shifted to the Democrats, led in name Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and in fact by the Presidential frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  What happened in that time?  Unemployment doubled.  Real estate crashed.  There was a financial run on the too big to fail institutions unprecedented at least since 1929.  Then there were the bailouts, TARP, a Presidential change, QE, cash for clunkers, cash for home buyers, cash for solar, cash for hybrids, cash for quitting work, artificially low interest rates and a debatable 'recovery' of sorts and a recession ending in the summer of 2009, the recovery summer of 2010 and so on.  If you invested everything you owned at the exact bottom of the market, you would have at least two or three times (nothing) today!

For the left, this was the perfect storm, complete control of the House, the White House, and the swearing in of the (stolen) 60th Democratic Senate seat in July 2009.  Tax increases on the rich became inevitable, along with the passage (or "deemed passed") of Obamacare along with a couple dozen more taxes that made it all possible.  As good as it gets!

Jumping forward, Republicans swept the House elections in Nov 2010 to be sworn in and take control of the one chamber in Jan 2011, limiting the growth and spread of leftism to just Republican caving and administrative over-reaches.  So the best year to judge the results of our leftist American storm was in their last big year, 2010, when George Bush had totally and completely left the building.

Here are the results of all this leftist euphoria, measured in terms of progress on their number one priority, income inequality.

Today's New York Times, Journal of the Left, Pravda on the Hudson, lifted from the trusted  Editorial Page, from one of their most trusted columnists, Nicholas Kristof, telling us how bad income inequality is, (drum roll please):

" In 2010, 93 percent of [all] additional income created in America went to the top 1 percent."
Idiot's Guide to Income Inequality

This, from the party of the middle class and the expanding underclass?? Unfortunately, the policies of cronyism, government takeover, class envy and punishment of personal achievement are not how you rise the tide that lifts all boats. 
Title: Smart power, smart diplomacy with Lurch
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 27, 2014, 05:19:03 PM
Even if you knew nothing else about our Secretary of State except this:

"Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday."

then THIS would not come as too much of a surprise:

"Leaked comments from unnamed senior government sources to Army Radio, Channel 2 and other Hebrew outlets have described the secretary as amateurish, incompetent, incapable of understanding the material he is dealing with — in short, a blithering fool."
Title: Re: Cognitive Dissonance - Prediction: Left will move more left in coming years
Post by: MikeT on July 28, 2014, 03:42:33 PM
Title: Sadara Fluke runs for office
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 30, 2014, 03:35:45 PM
But can she afford birth control?
Sandra Fluke is trying desperately to carve political career out of being the face of "millennials who want free stuff," so she's running for California's state Senate. It isn't going well. Despite being the most easily recognizable candidate, Fluke floundered in June's open primary, where she carried just 19.4% of the vote in a turnout described as "embarrassingly low."  That was enough to give her a weak second place finish.  Unfortunately for her, it was probably not enough to bring substantial donors to the table.
Ms. Fluke is now the single largest contributor to her own Senate campaign.
From the Washington Examiner:
Fluke donated $12,000 to her campaign and $4,826.27 in non-monetary contributions. While $16,826.27 may not sound like a lot, Fluke also loaned her campaign $100,000.
Where does a 2012 law school grad working as a social justice attorney get a loan that size? Her campaign never responded to a Washington Examiner inquiry, so we’re left to speculate.
Perhaps the loan was in part secured by the family of Fluke’s husband, Adam Mutterperl. In 2012, Fluke married Mutterperl, an amateur stand-up comic and son of big-time Democratic donor William Mutterperl.
This is not a good sign.  It could be an indicator that external support is less than stellar and, combined with Fluke's poor performance in the primaries, could portend trouble in the general election.
Also troubling? It looks like her family is propping up the numbers in order to keep up appearances....
As a family, the Mutterperls have given Fluke $20,500. Fluke’s own family has donated $9,600 to her campaign (her mother gave one donation as Betty and one as Elizabeth).
In total, Fluke has raised $416,185.28, according to disclosure forms. With one-third of that total coming from her family, it appears the campaign is trying to pump up its donation totals to appear stronger than it actually is.
Now, a family donating to a campaign is not surprising or unusual but the percentage of overall funds coming from Fluke's inner circle should raise red flags.
Currently, Fluke's campaign has raised more cash than Ben Allen, but Allen may still still be in a stronger position. First of all, he's considered a potent candidate with deepconnections in the district. He's given his campaign a $50,000 loan, and his parents have each donated $4,100. If you remove his family and his loan from the equation, he's raised $330,141 - slightly more than Fluke, who stands at $278,859.
And according to the Associated Press, the Examiner's numbers represent a "rosy" estimate.  In reality, things are probably a bit worse:
“Allen has raised at least $443,388, including more than $50,000 from his law firm, Richardson & Patel LLP, while Fluke has raised about $500,000, including $175,000 from her own loans and contributions, according to campaign finance reports."
That would mean that Allen has funded just over 10% of his campaign, while Fluke is footing the bill to the tune of about 35%.
That's bad news for a campaign, but it's great news for someone who - just a few years ago - was claiming that $15 a month for birth control was  a bridge too far....
Title: schools are liberal indoctrination camps
Post by: ccp on August 09, 2014, 09:06:40 PM
We must teach our children to be the NICEST on the planet.  We are all so nice and thoughtful and understanding.   That is the most important thing.  We all love one another NOW, right NOW....

I never realized how many people are promoting this crap.  It must be the internet juggernaut.   Where did all this liberal crap come from?   That and millions coming here who don't believe in America anymore.

*******Readin’, Writin’, and Social Justice Agitatin’

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 8, 2014 07:57 AM

Readin’, Writin’, and Social Justice Agitatin’
by Michelle Malkin

It’s back-to-school season across the country. But in an increasing number of districts, “back to school” doesn’t mean back to learning. Under the reign of social justice indoctrinators, academics are secondary to political agitation. Activism trumps achievement.

In Massachusetts, the John J. Duggan Middle School will open on August 25 with a new name and mission. It is now a “social justice magnet school.” As a hiring advertisement for teachers explained earlier this year, the emphasis will be on “helping students develop the necessary skills to analyze and synthesize information and to generate empathy by looking at multiple sides of important issues facing the world, be that hunger, water quality, racial barriers, child labor or imbalance of power.”

Concise writing, as you can see, is not on the social justice pedagogues’ agenda.

Oh, and forget about memorizing times tables or mastering the scientific method. The new principal says the school’s primary job is teaching “fairness.” Duggan Middle School’s junior lobbying factory is “serious about creating 21st century global citizens, and it begins with understanding who we are as members of each of those communities.”

The ultimate goal of these social justice prep schools: creating left-wing political advocates.

At the Crescent Heights Social Justice Magnet School in Los Angeles, children will work on “action projects” tied to the “United Nations Millennium Development Goals.” Students will spend the academic year transforming into “agents of change.” Yes, they will learn language arts. But basic reading and writing are only a focus of the magnet school, the founders explain, because “we want our students to recognize injustice in their world or the world at large and be able to fully express their outrage, their plan of attack, their progress in this endeavor.”

In Chicago, Ground Zero for social justice brainwashing, the Social Justice High School (SOJO), follows a similar mission. Activist teachers openly foster identity politics and systematically undermine individualism. Their specialties: “struggle and sacrifice.” SOJO’s mission statement sounds like a pot-addled Oberlin College freshman’s — er, freshperson’s — Sociology 101 term paper:

“Through collective community power, we commit to a conscious effort to overcome the intended historical obstacles that have been designed to disempower and divide our communities.”

At the Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School, also in Massachusetts, students won’t learn math. They’ll be taught “social justice math.” (Freire was a Brazilian leftist who wrote a social justice teacher’s Bible called “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”)

His acolytes explain the push for radicalization of math: “Math is an instrument for detailing social justice issues and developing critical consciousness.” In the hands of progressive teachers, math “becomes an analytic tool to bring awareness to important world issues.”

In other words: One plus one equals “That’s unfair!”

New York City schools have been infested for years with city-funded math teachers who “train students in seeing social problems from a radical anticapitalist perspective,” as City Journal’s Sol Stern reported. As I’ve noted previously, the “Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers” guide rejects traditional white male patriarchal methods of teaching computation and statistics in favor of politically correct number-crunching.

Out: Algebraic equations, geometric proofs and advanced calculus.

In: “Racial profiling, unemployment rate calculation, the war in Iraq, environmental racism, globalization, wealth distribution and poverty, wheelchair ramps, urban density, HIV/AIDS, deconstructing Barbie, junk food advertising to children, and lotteries.”

State education codes mandate value neutrality in the classroom. But in schools of “social justice,” every academic subject is a means to a “progressive” (anti-American, pro-collectivist, redistributive) ideological end. The radical transformation of K-12 classrooms into leftist agitation labs is embedded in the mission of countless teachers colleges and universities, which require social justice training or offer special certification in its indoctrination techniques.

These teaching institutions are pumping out generations of educators who cast themselves as leaders against “social struggle” — instead of facilitators of intellectual inquiry. Passing the most rigorous student standards in the world won’t amount to squat as long as the overseers of public education exploit government schools as community organizing vehicles for captive tots, tweens and teens.
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: DougMacG on August 11, 2014, 10:15:20 AM
Pres. Obama and the Dems are trying to keep multinational corporations in America by passing laws, issuing executive orders and deeming things to be law retroactively, instead of competing with other countries and economies on a level playing field based on business climate, regulations, taxers etc.  Witness firms like Walgreen and Minnesota's Medtronic dying to leave.

I wrote last year or so that California cannot solve its fiscal problems by raising tax rates - unless it bars the exits.

Minnesota's Governor is fighting the migration-out problem by attempting to levying state tax against the snowbirds even if they are gone for most of the year.

Glenn Beck noted in this context that the Berlin Wall was built and armed to keep people in, not to protect a border from outsiders as we think of it.

Is that what this country has come to - under liberal-fascist rule?  Really?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 11, 2014, 11:21:28 AM
Unless we fight and win, then yes.
Title: Progressive donor in TX
Post by: ccp on August 23, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
Talk like a socialist while living like a capitalist raking in the dough:
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left, Dan Rather
Post by: DougMacG on August 26, 2014, 06:07:20 AM
Dan Rather on war against Islamic murderers, unless you would send your own son or daughter, shut up.

Why doesn't that same logic apply to the 99% always wanting to keep raising taxes on the 1%?
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 26, 2014, 07:05:05 AM
The logic of the point is not without merit.
Title: Leftists, Hamas and nazis
Post by: G M on August 26, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
Title: Amazing lack of outrage
Post by: G M on September 03, 2014, 12:35:20 PM
Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Supply and Demand Venn Diagram
Post by: DougMacG on September 14, 2014, 08:29:59 PM
This is aimed at Paul Krugman but applies to all of the hypocritical left.  How is it that they believe that hiking the cost of fossil fuels will kill energy use, but deny that an artificially high minimum wage law kills jobs or that high marginal tax rates kill off economic activity and job creating investment?  It seems to me you can have it one way or you can pretend to have it the other, but you can't have it both ways.

Title: Dissent is patriotic, except when it isn't
Post by: G M on September 15, 2014, 03:17:41 AM
Title: Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 15, 2014, 04:43:12 AM
Good one Doug.

GM please post that in the First Amendment thread on the SCH forum as well-- that is a keeper.
Title: Holy Cow
Post by: ccp on September 19, 2014, 08:47:49 PM
Now everyone has a "right" to "free" child care and paid leave!!   Did anyone catch John Kerry advising Code Pink that one of the reasons they should support BamBam's going after ISIS is because they don't offer their members free health care?   

Joe Biden: 'The NFL Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet'Speaking at a conference Friday, the vice president was equal measures somber and feisty.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduces Vice President Joe Biden at the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum on Sept. 19, 2014 in Washington.(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
September 19, 2014 In the bowels of the Marriott Marquis in downtown Washington, Joe Biden was yelling.

The vice president was there to speak at the Democratic National Committee's annual Women's Leadership Conference, and he was fired up. Hillary Clinton and President Obama will address the crowd Friday afternoon.

In the run-up to its leadership conference, the DNC has faced somewhat of a leadership crisis of its own. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has faced flack from members of her party over the past two weeks for two recent PR blunders. On Friday she took the stage to introduce Biden, who has made a couple gaffes of his own recently.

In an otherwise warmly received speech, Biden did make one apparent slip, when he oddly praised a former Republican senator, Bob Packwood, who was accused of sexual harassment and ultimately resigned. Biden called Packwood "the type of Republican I miss," then continued his speech against sexual assault.

There was no apparent love lost for Biden and Wasserman Schultz—at least in the crowd. Wasserman Schultz called Biden a "national treasure" for his work on domestic violence, including his sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, which President Clinton signed into law 20 years ago. She also admitted to sporting a "Biden for President" button on her backpack when she was in college.

Biden in turn called Wasserman Schultz his "little sister," and praised her for her work as chairwoman. "I've never seen anybody work as hard and as tirelessly as Debbie has," he told the crowd.

Both addressed domestic violence in the scope of Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice, whom the National Football League suspended indefinitely after TMZ uncovered footage of Rice assaulting his then-fiancée in an elevator.

Biden name-dropped Cynthia Hogan, one of his former aides on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was recently hired as the NFL's senior vice president for public policy and government affairs.

"The NFL ain't seen nothin' yet," Biden said. "They have no idea what they just bought onto." Also on Friday morning, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reportedly asked his staff to look into the military's relationship with the NFL.


“The day's action in one quick read."Stacy, Director of CommunicationsSign up form for the newsletter

Biden touted the success of the Violence Against Women Act, saying there has been a 64 percent drop in domestic violence between 1993 and 2010.

"Success will come when the societal attitude changes and not a single woman in America asks herself the question, 'What did I do?' " he said. Then, in a theatrical staccato: "Never. Never. Never is it the woman's fault!"

Biden also used the speech to introduce a new PR campaign by the White House to encourage young men to speak out against sexual assault on college campuses. The new campaign, called It's On Us, will try to shift the burden of combating rape culture from women to men. The Justice Department will also award $6 million in grants to 18 colleges "to develop comprehensive campus sexual-assault prevention and response programs."

"We have to reach out and engage young men, because the vast majority are decent," Biden said.

Then—after finishing a speech about domestic violence to a predominantly female audience—Biden derided the idea of "women's issues." The state of America's middle class, Biden said, is the most important women's issue. His speech echoed similar comments Hillary Clinton made Thursday, in which she pushed for paid leave and universal child care, along with passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

"You can't have a conversation about economic growth if women aren't fully participating in the economy," Biden said. "It's not just about equity, it's about economic growth for everyone."

But no speech would be complete without a bit of campaign puffery, especially now that lawmakers in Congress have mutually decided to skip out on work to campaign for the next two months. Biden ended his speech by mentioning female senators facing tough reelection bids—Jeanne Shaheen, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan—and reassuring the crowd, "They're gonna win, by the way."

He also praised two female gubernatorial candidates who face uphill battles against Republicans—Wisconsin's Mary Burke, and Texas's Wendy Davis, who is polling around 12 points behind her Republican opponent, Greg Abbott.

"If you have an extra dollar, give it to Wendy Davis," Biden said. "She's going to win that race."

The audience's applause drowned out the scoffs coming from the press gallery.

Title: Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Ezekiel Emanuel, Die by 75
Post by: DougMacG on September 23, 2014, 07:08:40 AM

It is a bad sign that Obamacare's architect thinks you have no value past 75.  65 really, he just gives you a 10 year cushion.
Title: Top 3 Reasons liberals hate conservatives
Post by: MikeT on October 03, 2014, 10:42:05 AM
Found this to be a really good article...