Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2014, 06:46:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81201 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 80
3301  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: BO's National Civilian Voluntary (sic) Service on: April 03, 2009, 10:10:01 AM
Not one peep from the MSM.
3302  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Speaking of prisoners.... on: April 02, 2009, 05:02:05 PM
Rachel Maddow gleefully put on her show (anyone who will disrepute Bush and or Rep in general) a former Gitmo soldier who stated he was ashamed of the abuse he witnessed of prisoners.  Abuse which according to his account included someone punching one of the prisoners in the face and another time a prisoner thinking he was going to be executed when he was asked to kneel (obviously because in his country this would have meant he was going to have his head chopped off).

Of course such incredible abuse and along with a few seconds or minutes of waterboarding places Bush/Cheney/Rumsfiled up there with Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and all the rest of the butchers in modern history.

I am not ashamed of W et al, just of the left that mocks them for political reasons.

It sounded to me that any high school football player receives more abuse than any of these prisoners; at least from this eye witness account.
"Torture" - what a joke!

3303  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GWill/Congress.granted.BO unconstitutional power on: April 02, 2009, 02:39:19 PM
Bailing Out of the Constitution

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money — even, say, subsidize automobile companies — well, whatever."

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization, argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure — particularly the separation of powers — imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

The Vesting Clause of Article I says, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in" Congress. All. Therefore, none shall be vested elsewhere. Gary Lawson of Boston University's School of Law suggests a thought experiment:

Suppose Congress passes the Goodness and Niceness Act. Section 1 outlaws all transactions involving, no matter how tangentially, interstate commerce that do not promote goodness and niceness. Section 2 says that the president shall define the statute's meaning with regulations that define and promote goodness and niceness and specify penalties for violations.

Surely this would be incompatible with the Vesting Clause. Where would the Goodness and Niceness Act really be written? In Congress? No, in the executive branch. Lawson says that nothing in the Constitution's enumeration of powers authorizes Congress to enact such a statute. The only power conferred on Congress by the commerce clause is to regulate. The Goodness and Niceness Act does not itself regulate, it just identifies a regulator.
 
The Constitution empowers Congress to make laws "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution federal purposes. But if gargantuan grants of discretion are necessary, are the purposes proper? Indeed, such designs should be considered presumptively improper. What, then, about the Goodness and Niceness Act, which, as Lawson says, delegates all practical decision-making power to the president? What about EESA?

Writing in the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University Law School makes a prudential point: "The military-spending scandals during World War II, exposed by the Truman Committee, showed the risks for corruption and fraud when the executive branch is given a free hand to spend vast amounts of money." But even in the unlikely event that the executive branch exercises its excessive EESA discretion efficiently, the mere exercise would nevertheless subvert the principle of separation of powers, which, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, was adopted "not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."

As government grows, legislative power, and with it accountability, must shrink. The nation has had 535 national legislators for almost half a century. During that time the federal government's business — or, more precisely, its busy-ness — has probably grown at least twenty-fold. Vast grants of discretion to the executive branch by Congress, such as EESA, may be necessary — if America is going to have constant governmental hyperkinesis. If Washington is going to do the sort of things that EESA enables — erasing the distinction between public and private sectors; licensing uncircumscribed executive branch conscription of, and experimentation with, the nation's resources.

Since the New Deal era, few laws have been invalidated on the ground that they improperly delegated legislative powers. And Chief Justice John Marshall did say that the "precise boundary" of the power to "make" or the power to "execute" the law "is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry." Still, surely sometimes the judiciary must adjudicate such boundary disputes.

The Supreme Court has said: "That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution." And the court has said that properly delegated discretion must come with "an intelligible principle" and must "clearly delineate" a policy that limits the discretion. EESA flunks that test.

With EESA, Congress forces the country to ponder the paradox of sovereignty: If sovereign people freely choose to surrender their sovereignty, is this willed subordination really subordination?

It is. Congress has done that. A court should hear the argument that Congress cannot so divest itself of powers vested in it.

3304  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: More arrogant bumbling from the Empty-suit on: April 02, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
As long as the market is improving BO is unstoppable.

I now wholely agree with Crafty that by the time it is obvious to the majority that BO is reversing 200 years of greatness it will be too late.

It seems to me that this guy whose roots are from another country and who has spent time growing up overseas is more interested in using America to advance his idealistic benefits for the world - and not advancing our interests.

The component of the left who hates America surely has their man.

Never again should Republicans elect someone who can't give an intellectual argument.


3305  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 28, 2009, 01:14:26 PM
"Conservatives answer this kind of bs but they are only heard and read by conservatives.

Luckily, some truths are so true and so obvious that even unspoken they can become known truths"

Doug, well said.  And that is the thrust of my concerns about "conservatism" whatever the reitierations.  It doesn't seem to be heard by those who are not already "conservatives".  Or the message just does not appeal to others.

I am hoping the new contract with America will appeal to all of us with common sense.

3306  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 27, 2009, 01:42:41 PM
Well now you are getting to the question:  is health care a right or a privilege that is earned?

I just tried to look up if there are any polls conducted on the opinions of people on this issue.  I do not find much.
Clearly BO feels it is a right and in conjuction, a responsibility for those who can and do pay to do so for those who can't or won't.
I don't know where the majority of Americans are on this issue.  I suspect most feel it is a right but I could be wrong. 
What do I feel?  Well of course as a doctor I am expected to be kind, thoughtful, and a true humanitarian and philanthropist, and alive and working only for the public good. 
All the while my wife and I are getting stalked and robbed. 
And everyone and their sister has an opinion about how much doctors should or shoudn't make.
So is it a right or a privilege?  Personally I am tired of philosophy and I frankly don't even give a darn.
My thoughts don't mean anything anyway. 

I suspect one reason BO is so popular is because most agree with him.
3307  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 27, 2009, 10:54:55 AM
The proper mechanism is called "price".

I don't follow you. huh
3308  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 27, 2009, 10:03:02 AM
I agree with the post but,
I am afraid that one can find statistics that buttresses both sides of the argument. For or against national or single payer care.
I am not for big government care.  But at this point the free market's answer appears unsustainable with regards to costs.
The electronic medical  records may or may not decrease costs - the jury is out - as is the concept that preventative care reduces costs (evidence suggests it increases costs in many cases). 
There is simply no way to insure another 40 mill people and not ration care.
That said we will need to ration care anyway at some point.

People are living longer and the result is more health care needs.  As well of course the baby boom thing.

The best hope in my opinion still comes ironically from the pharmaceutical industry.

For example it is becoming apparent that diabetes 2 is possibly an intestinal disease and bariatric surgery which was used for weight loss results in reversal of diabetes far more than expected for any degree of weight loss.  This seems to have been discovered by accident.  It is also clear that some people who are NOT overweight still will have diabetes reversed by this surgery.
Thus a treatment with goal of cure for this is surgery.  At this time it costs several thousand dollars.  Yet in the long run thses procedures may reduce costs.

If the drug industry can find a real cure or better treaments for obesity and other conditions than costs may actually decrease.

It is all too complicated.  I could work towards a Phd thesis and still not know the answers though I would have a better handle on the problems.
3309  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 27, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Well, I am not sure we disagree.
I am not saying we should not articulate conservative values.  What I am saying is the majority of Americans do not think conservative values will benefit them - hence BOs continued popularity. So are you saying rep should come up with a plan and articulate it or are you saying is the plan is to let the markets crash and burn because that is the best long term course of action?
It does not appear most in this country want to hear that.
While I hate BO's politics I am not clear strictly leave the markets alone to "repair" themselves is enough either.  Certainly the majority of Americans don't want to hear that. 

That is why I like Newt.  He recognizes this shortcoming and is searching for ideas that take conservatism foward in a way that applies to todays problems at least in a practical and sensible way.
One risk of articulating your plan now is the other side will steal the ideas for themselves and take the credit.  That is what Clinton always did.  The great example is welfare reform. 
But you certainly raise a good point that that risk is a far better alternative to allowing BO, Pelosi and the other cooks to have their way and destroy what made this country great.
3310  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 27, 2009, 08:23:49 AM
BOs poll ratings will not come down as long as the majority of Americans think they will not be footing the bill for the unprecedented budgets he is proposing.  Until events prove that they too are screwed, along with those of us who know they are his poll numbers will be over 50%.
At this time the Republicans have not convinced many of this IMO.
The Dems keep throwing the chant Rep are the party of "no" and offer no alternatives.  I am not sure it is in the interest of Rep to present an alternative while they are out of power and most elections are still a bit off.
OTOH I don't know anyone but Newt who could articulate a message that would get through the left MSM filter.
Perhaps it is best to keep up the no tactics and let BO;s policies eventually fail as I believe will by themselves.


3311  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 27, 2009, 08:17:19 AM
Well for those people who for whatever reason have no health coverage now, rationed care is better than no care.  They will be quite pleased to have someone else pay for their health care - rationed or not.
For the rest of us who will have to foot the bill - we are screwed.
3312  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: March 26, 2009, 05:45:29 PM
Emanual made hundrds of thousands for sitting on a board and doing little.  It is amusing how we hear over and over again how board members are asleep at the wheel. Well what the heck does anyone expect.  Some of these boards pay their "members" ridiculous sums for almost no work.  What do they do go and sit at a meeting once a month for hundreds of thousands a year.  If these are not payoffs than what is?

Folks they are all stealing at the top.  Some of these board members are essentially stealing.  Because they can.  It is like asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

I am not going to lose sleep over these guys/gals who are getting scrutiny. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
3313  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 26, 2009, 02:52:08 PM
This is outrageous.

"gave thousands in Madoff donations to charity"

Why aren't they giving it back to a fund for those robbed?
3314  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chinese intelligence defector on: March 25, 2009, 05:57:14 PM
From Bill Gertz.  A Chinese intelligence officer defects to the US and is seeking asylum tell all (was it water boarding, cash, or idealism, or seeking a better life that did it?):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/exclusive-chinese-spy-who-defected-tells-all/
3315  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Noonan on BO (lite) on: March 24, 2009, 10:11:23 AM
Watching for a few minutes (all I can stand) BO on 60 minutes leaves me with the impression this is guy maked Clinton't narcissm look mild.  But Clinton didn't come off as pompous and arrogant as this guy.  Plus Clinton was more of a realist while this guy is a true idealogue.  One can see the more power this guy gets, seizes, the more euphoric he appears.  He is in my opinion far more dangerous to this country and the world than Jimmy Carter:

OPINION: DECLARATIONS MARCH 20, 2009 Neither a Hedgehog Nor a Fox The unbearable lightness of Obama's administration.By PEGGY NOONAN
He is willowy when people yearn for solid, reed-like where they hope for substantial, a bright older brother when they want Papa, cool where they probably prefer warmth. All of which may or may not hurt Barack Obama in time. Lincoln was rawboned, prone to the blues and freakishly tall, with a new-grown beard that refused to become an assertion and remained, for four years, a mere and constant follicular attempt. And he did OK.

Such impressions—coolness, slightness—can come to matter only if they capture or express some larger or more meaningful truth. At the moment they connect, for me, to something insubstantial and weightless in the administration's economic pronouncements and policies. The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say. "I am angry" about AIG's bonuses. The administration seems buffeted, ad hoc. Policy seems makeshift, provisional. James K. Galbraith captures some of this in The Washington Monthly: "The president has an economic program. But there is, so far, no clear statement of the thinking behind the program."

 
Associated PressThis in part is why the teleprompter trope is taking off. Mr. Obama uses it more than previous presidents. No one would care about this or much notice it as long as he showed competence, and the promise of success. Reagan, if memory serves, once took his cards out of his suit and began to read them at a welcoming ceremony, only to realize a minute or so in that they were last week's cards from last week's ceremony. He caught himself and made a joke of it. One was reminded of this the other day when Mr. Obama's speech got mixed up with the Irish prime minister's. Things happen. But the teleprompter trope has taken off: Why does he always have to depend on that thing?

There is a new Web site where the teleprompter shares its thoughts in a breathless White House diary. It's bummed that it has to work a news conference next week instead of watching "American Idol," it resents being dragged to L.A. in Air Force One's cargo hold "with the more common electronic equipment." It also Twitters: "We are in California! One of the interns gave my panels a quick scrub and I'm ready to prompt for the day." And: "Waiting for my boss's jokes to get loaded for Leno!"

More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns.

And click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace.The fact is that Mr. Obama only has two jobs, but they're huge. The first is to pull us out of an economic death spiral—to save the banks, get them lending, fix the mortgage mess, address unemployment, forestall inflation. TARP, TALF, financial oversight and regulation of Wall Street—all of this is enormously complex, involving questions of scale, emphasis and direction. All else—windmills, green technology, remaking health care—is secondary. The economy is the domestic issue now, and for the next three years at least.

So one wonders why, say, the president does not step in and insist on staffing the top level of his Treasury Department, where besieged Secretary Tim Geithner struggles without deputies through his 15-hour days. Might AIG and the bonus scandals have been stopped or discovered sooner if Treasury had someone to answer the phones? Leadership is needed here. Not talkership, leadership.

Mr. Obama's second job is America's safety at home and in the world. Dick Cheney this week warned again of future terrorism and said Mr. Obama's actions have left us "less safe." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted with disdain. Mr. Cheney is part of a "Republican cabal." "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy." This was cheap.

A journalist, watching, said, "They are like two people fighting over a torn bag of flour." It may be hard cleaning it up.

Mr. Cheney's remarks, presented in a cable interview, looked political and were received as partisan. The fact is he was wrong and right, wrong in that a subject so grave demands a well documented and thoughtful address. It's hard to see how it helps to present crucial arguments in a cable interview and in a way that can be discounted as partisan. Nor does it help to appear to be laying the groundwork for a deadly argument: Bush kept us safe, Obama won't. It is fair— and necessary—to say what the new administration is doing wrong, and to attempt to correct it, through data and argument. The Bush administration made a great point of saying, when they were explaining what U.S. intelligence is up against, that the challenges are constant and we only have to be wrong once, fail once, for the consequences to be deeply painful. What the Bush administration was doing, in part, was admitting that they might be in charge when something happened. The key was to remain focused and vigilant. This is still true.

But Mr. Cheney was, is, right in the most important, and dreadful, way. We live in the age of weapons of mass destruction, and each day more people and groups come closer to getting and deploying them. "Man has never developed a weapon he didn't eventually use," said Reagan, without cards, worrying aloud in the Oval Office.

What can be used will be used. We are a target. Something bad is going to happen—don't we all know this? Are we having another failure of imagination?

A month ago FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warned of Mumbai-type terrorist activity, saying a similar attack could happen in a U.S. city. He spoke of the threat of homegrown terrorists who are "radicalized," "indoctrinated" and recruited for jihad. Mumbai should "reinvigorate" U.S. intelligence efforts. The threat is not only from al Qaeda but "less well known groups." This had the hard sound of truth.

Contrast it with the new secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, who, in her first speech and testimony to Congress, the same week as Mr. Mueller's remarks, did not mention the word terrorism once. This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, she was pressed: "Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?" Her reply: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism." It's true she didn't use the word terrorism in her speech, but she did refer to "man-caused" disasters. "This is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear."

Ah. Well this is only a nuance, but her use of language is a man-caused disaster.

Our enemies are criminals, and criminals calculate. It is possible they are calculating thusly: America is in deep economic crisis and has a new, untested president. Why not move now?

Mr. Obama likes to say presidents can do more than one thing at a time, but in fact modern presidents are lucky to do one thing at a time, never mind two. Great forces are arrayed against them.

These are the two great issues, the economic crisis and our safety. In the face of them, what strikes one is the weightlessness of the Obama administration, the jumping from issue to issue and venue to venue from day to day. Isaiah Berlin famously suggested a leader is a fox or a hedgehog. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.

3316  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War? on: March 23, 2009, 09:53:30 AM
***The Obama administration should take the growing threat of nuclear proliferation seriously. It should try to provide leadership in forging a united response by the major powers to what could become the world's No. 1 security concern within the next few years.***

Blah blah blah. angry

Why do we keep denying the obvious? we must use military force to damage their program, or in the less likely pray for some sort of regime change.
Simple talking is NOT going to work.  Hasn't ten years of Iran proceeding with their program made this obvious?
God, are we weak.
3317  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Euthanasia - humane? or just simply a way to cut costs? on: March 22, 2009, 09:16:45 PM
this is a very difficult topic. Euthanasia.  I feel very uncomfortable about it.  I have "pulled the plug" with family permission only on patients that were brain dead but the idea of helping someone die even if they are terminal and suffering would be very hard for me to do.  Yet this debate is only going to get bigger.  The worst part is the reason won't be for the goodness of humanity.  But for dollars and cents.  I worked for 30 days with other physicians to keep alive an 85 year old lady.  She made it and went off to the nursing home.  I recently got word she died after two weeks there anyway.

Not only was I saddened by her passing - she was a sweet little old lady - but saddened by the fact she really suffered for a month struggling to survive and pull through - only to die anyway.  that said the issue to society that is going to cause this to be something we will hear about a lot in the near future is the cost>
suppose she died 6 weeks earlier.  100k Would not have been spent.  Something like a quarter of all health care expenditures are for the last 6 months of life.  With a broken system that is going bankrupt and driving us all into the gutter people are going to start to raise the taboo questions we all try to avoid:

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=587095&sk=a76544f67ebabb8029168ea3bd20baae
3318  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: March 22, 2009, 09:05:24 PM
GM, that piece is very thought provoking to me.  After the worst ten years of my life watching everyone around us willing to take bribes to rob us of Katherine's music lyrics I no longer have much appreciation for humanity in general.  When it comes to money people are truly a disappointment to say the least.  The phrase, "everyone has a price" is if not completely true than nearly so from what I have seen.  Like one of the victims of the ponzi scheme of the guy who crashed his plane in Florida said, "I have never witnessed this level of dishonesty in my whole life, I at the age of 51 (now) can certainly relate.  Only my expereince was and still is 100 times worse.  Friends, family, neighbors, young, old white, black, Latino, mothers, fathers, it made no difference.  When it came to money, or getting back stage passes, or getting in on the easy action any concern for me or my wife with any common decency, respect, fairness, or the usual politeness went right out the window.

All I can say when one experiences such inhumanity one starts to ask questions that have probably been asked for thousands of years by millions throughout the history of mankind.

I have often been questioning myself and wondering if it is "this generation" or just that we know more about ouselves, and more about the human race than we ever did that seems so depressing?

I am not sure.  Surely there were terrible people before.  Just look at the slavery, the butchery, the inhumanity throughout history.
Did anyone else catch the show on Nat Geo - Washington unbuckled - George W. - no not this one - the original one - George Washington had a child from a slave.  As did (we all know now, Thomas Jefferson).  Woodrow Wilson's second wife fooled the entire country for months about the real condition of the Pres after he had a devastating stroke so that he and she would not have to relinquish power to the VP.  Calvin Coolidge was supposedly caught in the closet with a teenage girl.  Franklin Roosevelt we now know had his girlfriend(s), while so did Eleanor have hers and maybe a male military officer to boot ("bi" - i guess?).  John Kennedy not only had steady streams of hookers but one who was probably an East German spy.  Herbert Hoover who appeared to have a file on every politician in Washington got Kennedy off the hook in return for continuing on as FBI chief.  Similar extortion scams with dirt on every important person within the beltway kept him as the head of the FBI for 47 years.

So in context, what Clinton did was really not such a big deal.  Yet, it is a big deal. It is a big deal when our leaders and the system they work in are and is so corrupt.   Maybe it just isn't new.  It's just that it is in our faces all day long now.  Maybe it's not that *this* generation is any worse then those previous.  I don't know really.  I am just trying to figure it all out.  Like victoms of the Jewish, Turkish, Cambodian, Rwanda, Ukranian, holocausts, the 60 or 70 million that died in the two World Wars, the millions of Balcks who were slaves, for 300 years and second class citizens for another 100.  Of course I can go on but you see the point.

The greatest generation also was segregated.  The generation before them drove the Indians off the map.  The generation before them treated those of another race as animals

McCain was right about campaign finance reform.  Republicans ciritized him and mocked him.  Why because they had the edge in fundraising.  Not because of any idealistic beliefs.

The truth is all our leaders appear to be spending too much time fundraising.  And having to do so because campaigns are expensive.  Advertising rips them off.  And thus they almost have to accept money.  How could they not become corrupt.

Surely this is not new.  Surely those before us were not all saints (except my father).

That said - I just can't decide if it is this generation - or - humanity in general.

I guess I digress.

 

3319  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: March 21, 2009, 09:15:14 AM
My opinion:

****"It's one of the classic presentations of head injuries, `talking and dying,' where they may lose consciousness for a minute, but then feel fine," said Razek.****

Yes but banging your head and talking and *not* dying is a thousand times more common.
The classic blame game.  She wasn't instantaneously brought to an operating room right off the slopes in some remote area of Quebec with neurosurgeon (Sanjay Gupta) waiting to do the perfect operation. 

Which one of these good doctors will be the lucky chosen one to be expert witness for the plaintiff's team.
To me this was a tragic accident.  We can always in every single negatvie human outcome ask, "what if"?   Why this has to turn into a lawsuit is beyond me.  And now we will have a billion dollars more in head cat scans as a result.
 
****Doctor: Lack of medical helicopter cost actress
Death: Freak Accident ABC News NEW YORK – As a steady stream of celebrities pay their last respects to Natasha Richardson, questions are arising over whether a medical helicopter might have been able to save the ailing actress.

The province of Quebec lacks a medical helicopter system, common in the United States and other parts of Canada, to airlift stricken patients to major trauma centers. Montreal's top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson's death.

"It's impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is ... driving to Mont Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a 2 1/2-hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city. Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal's hospitals.

While Richardson's initial refusal of medical treatment cost her two hours, she also had to be driven to two hospitals. She didn't arrive at a specialized hospital in Montreal until about four hours after the second 911 call from her hotel room at the Mont Tremblant resort, according to a timeline published by Canada's The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Not being airlifted directly to a trauma center could have cost Richardson crucial moments, Razek said.

"A helicopter is obviously the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B," he said.

After Richardson fell and hit her head on a beginner ski slope at the Mont Tremblant resort in Quebec, the first ambulance crew left upon spotting a sled taking the still-conscious actress away to the resort's on-site clinic.

A second 911 call was made two hours later from Richardson's luxury hotel room as the actress deteriorated. Medics tended to her for a half-hour before taking her to a hospital about a 40-minute drive away.

Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe does not specialize in head traumas, so her speedy transfer to Sacre Coeur Hospital in Montreal was critical, said Razek.

"It's one of the classic presentations of head injuries, `talking and dying,' where they may lose consciousness for a minute, but then feel fine," said Razek.

Richardson, 45, died Wednesday at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. The New York City medical examiner's office ruled her death was an accident.****
3320  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 21, 2009, 08:35:55 AM
Just kind of reiterates what is already obvious.
BO has already made it completely clear he will not stop Iran's nuclear program.
He has already made the determination it would be too costly to do so.
When Iran gets a working bomb (and Missles) he has already telegraphed the message more or less we can't or really won't stop you but if you ever use a nuc we will respond with a devastating blow (more or less).
Israel will have to go it alone.  But the world is already poised against them.  Perhaps the US can stop them too.  I don't know.
But there is certainly no evidence BO will allow them to take military action against Iran like perhaps W would have.
3321  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: March 20, 2009, 09:21:58 AM
American culture or whatever you want to call it is not something to be proud of anymore IMHO.
When the mainstream media is constantly calling BOs showing up on Jany Leno as a "historical event"  rolleyes all I can think is we have sunk to ever new lows:

"Obama tells Leno he was stunned by AIG bonuses"  rolleyes
3322  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF on: March 19, 2009, 05:55:38 PM
I don't know where to post this kind of stuff except in the "humor" department.   The guy who is expanding the role of government to unprecedented proportions with debt of the same astronomical levels has this to say.  And of course the crowds love him.  Obviously these people do not think they are the ones paying for all this:

****Facing largely adoring crowds far from Washington, President Barack Obama on Thursday asked Americans to back his far-reaching economic and health policies, but warned them not to expect too much from him or the federal government****
3323  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF on: March 19, 2009, 04:52:02 PM
Not only can the chosen one chew gum and play basketball at the same time but he can among other things fix the world economy, global climate change, the national health care problems, watch college basketball, revamp the world energy supply, fix the middle east, Afganistan, Iraq, reset the Russian American relationship, visit Muslims around the world and what the heck, show up on Jay Leno.  Well I guess he does use a telepromter so Emanuel and crew and tell him how to fool us some more:

LOS ANGELES - President Barack Obama is defending his appearance on Jay Leno’s late-night talk show.

He said his Thursday appearance on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” is not keeping him from pressing matters. Some critics have questioned whether the television stint distracts from his work to fix the economy.

Obama said he can do more than one thing at a time and is working on a host of issues, including climate change and health care reform.

3324  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 19, 2009, 03:18:46 PM
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/

***NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute Home Member Login Contact Us Search 
 l
Most used fuel from nuclear power plants is stored in steel-lined concrete pools filled with water, like this one above, or in airtight steel or concrete-and-steel containers.
Used Nuclear Fuel and Low-Level Waste
Used nuclear fuel is a solid material safely stored at nuclear plant sites. This storage is only temporary—one component of an integrated used fuel management system that addresses all facets of storing, recycling and disposal.
Integrated Used Fuel Management
Under an integrated management approach, used nuclear fuel will remain stored at nuclear power plants in the near term. Eventually, the government will recycle it and place the unusable end product in a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel
Currently, used nuclear fuel is stored at the nation's nuclear power plants in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in massive, airtight steel or concrete-and-steel canisters.

Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel
The federal government plans to develop advanced recycling technologies to take full advantage of the vast amount of energy in the used fuel and reduce the amount and toxicity of byproducts requiring disposal.

Yucca Mountain
In 2002, Congress approved Yucca Mountain, Nev., a remote desert location, as the site for a centralized deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste.

Transportation
The U.S. Department of Energy will transport used nuclear fuel to the repository by rail and road, inside massive, sealed containers that have undergone safety and durability testing.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Low-level waste is a byproduct of the beneficial uses of a wide range of radioactive materials. These include electricity generation, medical diagnosis and treatment, and various other medical processes.


3325  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Nuclear Power on: March 19, 2009, 03:15:01 PM
There was a recent segment on cable about the disposal of nuclear waste in salt caverns and how the salt is nearly a perfect way to encircle and keep  isolated the waste.
The deep underground caverns (~2,000 feet I think) eventuall get literally encased in the salt which protects against water.
However, it would take 250,000 years for the stuff to decay and no one could say what the risk to future and interim generations would be so far in advance (if the human race is still around by then anyway).

As far as transporting the stuff to these natural salt "containers" that is another homeland defense story.
As for what is going to happen thousands of years from now I won't lose sleep over that.
3326  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Epi dural bleed on: March 19, 2009, 02:16:37 PM
As far as I know epidural hematomas are not at all common.  I have never seen or heard of another case in 20 years though I would not usually see any like say a neurosurgeon or ER physician would.  Usually they are from trauma or fracture over the skull near the temple are with rupture to the middle meningeal artery that runs through that vicinity.  Contrast these to  the common subdural or subarachnoid hematomas.

If say someone got a skull fracture over the temple with a club this could be the result.  Any serious blow to this area has to be evaulated with extreme care.

As for the actress it is all too sad.  She, as far as I know, is now much more famous for her death then her life.  I never heard of her before this.

****Autopsy: Richardson died of impact to the head
         NEW YORK – The New York City medical examiner's office says actress Natasha Richardson died of blunt impact to the head. Medical examiner spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said the death was ruled an accident. The cause of death was "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head."

The 45-year-old actress reportedly suffered a head injury after a fall during a private lesson Monday at a resort in Quebec. Richardson was seemingly fine after she fell, but about an hour later, she complained that she didn't feel well. She was hospitalized Tuesday in Montreal and later flown to a hospital in New York, where she died.

Alan Nierob, the Los Angeles-based publicist for Richardson's husband, Liam Neeson, confirmed her death Wednesday without giving details on the cause. There were no details on funeral arrangements.

Funeral arrangements for the 45-year-old actress will be handled by the Greenwich Village Funeral Home.

Broadway theaters will dim their lights Thursday in honor of Richardson. Theater marquees will be dimmed for one minute at 8 p.m. EDT, the traditional starting time for evening performances of Broadway shows.

"The Broadway community is shocked and deeply saddened by the tragic loss of one of our finest young actresses, Natasha Richardson. Her theatrical lineage is legendary, but her own singular talent shined memorably on any stage she appeared," said Charlotte St. Martin, executive director of The Broadway League, the trade organization for Broadway theaters and producers.

Sam Mendes, who directed the Broadway musical "Cabaret" for which Richardson won a Tony, said, "It defies belief that this gifted, brave, tenacious, wonderful woman is gone."

Actress Judi Dench told the BBC that Richardson was "a really great actress" who had "an incredibly luminous quality, that you seldom see, and a great sense of humor."

"It's just so shocking, really shocking, and I hope that everybody leaves the family quietly to somehow pick up the pieces," Dench said.

"She was a wonderful woman and actress and treated me like I was her own," said Lindsay Lohan, who as a preteen starred with Richardson in a remake of "The Parent Trap" in 1998. "My heart goes out to her family. This is a tragic loss."

Neeson and Richardson's sister, actress Joely Richardson, were seen leaving Lenox Hill hospital Wednesday. Actress Lauren Bacall also visited the hospital.

Yves Coderre, director of operations at the emergency services company that sent paramedics to the Mont Tremblant resort where Richardson suffered her fall, told The Globe and Mail newspaper Wednesday the paramedics who responded were told they were not needed.

"They never saw the patient," Coderre told The Globe and Mail. "So they turned around."

Coderre said another ambulance was called later to Richardson's luxury hotel. By that point, her condition had gotten worse and she was rushed to a hospital.

Richardson's career highlights included the film "Patty Hearst" and a Tony-winning performance in a stage revival of "Cabaret."

She was a proper Londoner who came to love the noise of New York, an elegant blonde with large, lively eyes, a bright smile and a hearty laugh.

Jane Fonda on Wednesday recalled meeting a young Richardson on the set of "Julia," the 1977 film Fonda starred in opposite Richardson's mother, Vanessa Redgrave.

"She was a little girl but already beautiful and graceful. It didn't surprise me that she became such a talented actor," Fonda recalled on her blog. "It is hard to even imagine what it must be like for her family. My heart is heavy."

As an actress, Richardson was equally adept at passion and restraint, able to portray besieged women both confessional (Tennessee Williams' Blanche DuBois) and confined (the concubine in the futuristic horror of "The Handmaid's Tale").

Like other family members, she divided her time between stage and screen. On Broadway, she portrayed Sally Bowles in the 1998 revival of "Cabaret." She also appeared in New York in a production of Patrick Marber's "Closer" (1999) as well as the 2005 revival of Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire," in which she played Blanche opposite John C. Reilly's Stanley Kowalski.

She met Neeson when they made their Broadway debuts in 1993, co-starring in "Anna Christie," Eugene O'Neill's drama about a former prostitute and the sailor who falls in love with her.

The New York Times critic Frank Rich called her "astonishing" and said she "gives what may prove to be the performance of the season."

Her most notable film roles came earlier in her career. Richardson played the title character in Paul Schrader's "Patty Hearst," a 1988 biopic about the kidnapped heiress for which the actress became so immersed that even between scenes she wore a blindfold, the better to identify with her real-life counterpart.

Richardson was directed again by Schrader in a 1990 adaptation of Ian McEwan's "The Comfort of Strangers" and, also in 1990, starred in the screen version of Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."

She later co-starred with Neeson in "Nell" and with Mia Farrow in "Widows' Peak." More recent movies, none of them widely seen, included "Wild Child," "Evening" and "Asylum."

Richardson was born in London in 1963, the performing gene inherited not just from her parents (Redgrave and director Tony Richardson), but from her maternal grandparents (Michael Redgrave and Rachel Kempson), an aunt (Lynn Redgrave) and an uncle (Corin Redgrave). Her younger sister, Joely Richardson, also joined the family business.

She also is survived by two sons, Micheal, 13, and Daniel, 12.

Friends and family members remembered Natasha as an unusually poised child, perhaps forced to grow up early when her father left her mother in the late '60s for Jeanne Moreau. (Tony Richardson died in 1991).

Interviewed by The Associated Press in 2001, Natasha Richardson said she related well to her family if only because, "We've all been through it in one way or another and so we've had to be strong. Also we embrace life. We are not cynical about life."

Her screen debut came at 4, when she appeared as a flower girl in "The Charge of the Light Brigade," directed by her father, whose movies included "Tom Jones" and "The Entertainer." The show business wand had already tapped her the year before, when she saw her mother in the 1967 film version of the Broadway show "Camelot."

"She was so beautiful. I still look at that movie and I can't believe it. It still makes me cry, the beauty of it," Richardson said.

She studied at London's Central School of Speech and Drama and was an experienced stage actress by her early 20s, appearing in "On the Razzle," "Charley's Aunt" and "The Seagull," for which the London Drama Critics awarded her most promising newcomer.

She and her mother acted together, most recently on Broadway to play the roles of mother and daughter in a one-night benefit concert version of "A Little Night Music," the Stephen Sondheim-Hugh Wheeler musical.

Before meeting up with Neeson, Richardson was married to producer Robert Fox, whose credits include the 1985 staging of "The Seagull" in which his future wife appeared.

She sometimes remarked on the differences between her and her second husband — she from a theatrical dynasty and he from a working-class background in Northern Ireland.

"He's more laid back, happy to see what happens, whereas I'm a doer and I plan ahead," Richardson told The Independent on Sunday newspaper in 2003. "The differences sometimes get in the way but they can be the very things that feed a marriage, too."

She once said that Neeson's serious injury in a 2000 motorcycle accident — he suffered a crushed pelvis after colliding with a deer in upstate New York — had made her really appreciate life.

"I wake up every morning feeling lucky — which is driven by fear, no doubt, since I know it could all go away," she told The Daily Telegraph newspaper in 2003.****
3327  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / teflon Bam on: March 19, 2009, 02:04:06 PM
Now Dodd blaming BO.  We all know that is the end of Dodd.  In few days watch for him tol come out apologizing or correcting what he just said as though it was "taken out of context" after the BO thugs and MSM go after him (and maybe his family).  BO ain't going down for him that's for sure.
I bet this whole thing doesn't hurt BO a bit.  He is what the crats used to whine about Reagan - the "teflon" Prez.

****Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Bonus Amendment (Update2)

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

 March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday he agreed to modify restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving taxpayer assistance to exempt bonuses already agreed upon in contracts. He said he did so without realizing the change would benefit AIG, whose recent $165 million payment to employees has sparked a public furor.

Dodd said he had wanted to limit executive compensation at companies that got money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. AIG has received $173 billion in bailout money. His provision was changed as the stimulus legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.

“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment” to the stimulus bill, “but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG,” Dodd said in a statement released last night. “Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.” He didn’t name the administration officials who made the request.

No Insistence

An administration official said last night that representatives of President Barack Obama didn’t insist on the change, though they did contend that the language in Dodd’s amendment could be legally challenged because it would apply retroactively to bonus agreements. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

That provision in the stimulus bill may undercut complaints by congressional Democrats about the AIG bonuses because most of them voted for the legislation. No Republicans in the House and only three in the Senate supported the stimulus measure

“Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law,” said Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House.

The new law, approved by Congress Feb. 13 and signed into law by Obama the next week, effectively authorized bonus arrangements at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts as long as they were in place before Feb. 11. The AIG bonuses qualified under that provision.

Obama and many lawmakers who voted for the legislation, such as Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, are demanding AIG employees surrender their bonuses.

Schumer Letter

Schumer yesterday sent a letter to AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy warning him to return bonuses or face confiscatory taxes on them. The letter was signed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and seven other senators.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, said the senator “supported a provision on the Senate floor that would have prevented these types of bonuses, but he was not on the conference committee that negotiated the final language.”

A House vote is planned for today on a bill to impose a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by AIG and other companies getting more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.

“I expect it to pass in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday in Washington.

Republican Attacks

Republicans seized on the provision in the stimulus bill to paint Democrats as hypocrites.

“The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate,” Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement.

AIG donated a total of $854,905 to political campaigns in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group. AIG employees as a group represent Dodd’s fourth-biggest donor during his career, the group’s research shows. The company’s political action committee, employees and immediate family members have given Dodd more than $280,000, the group said.

Dodd said the provision was written to give the Treasury Department enough discretion to reclaim bonuses as necessary.

“Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers in a letter this week that department lawyers believe it would be “legally difficult” to prevent AIG from paying bonuses.

Other Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill have ramped up criticism of AIG’s bonuses, including Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who told reporters, “I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net****
3328  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: March 19, 2009, 10:17:22 AM
Yes I saw this.
The article suggests that if only Israel would agree to a two state solution the problems would all go away.
OVer decades Israel has agreed to this in principal and only asked for a guarantee of its existence in return.
They have never been able to secure one from the Palestinians.

Did you FareeK Zakaria last weekend?  With his guest discussing the Israeli lobby, conspiracy, the radical right Jews who are controlling the US foreign policy?
Ot his later guests, one Indian who worked in the past for the UN, one from Pakistan and another Muslim and the one Jew from the NYT?  They all smuggly downed past US policy as creating all the ills in the Muslim world and agreed that wwe must work with Iran which is positioning itself the regional power in the Middle East.  While the Jewish guy from the times was all for blaming W for everything wrong in the middle east he at the end did wrap up the talk with we should not give in to Iran who is a thirld world country is not any kind of power in the Middle East.  The smug grins all disappeared off Fareed and his other Israel hating guests.
3329  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 18, 2009, 04:35:10 PM
An interesting outcome of the electronic world we live in.  While everything I do or my wife or I speak in our house is monitored, I am sure my vehicle has a GPS system hidden somewhere, including no doubt eveything I post on this website, I have learned there really is nothing I can do about it.

One cannot even get any electronic device today withour remote access.  There are cameras everywhere, our cell phones document who we call and when and where.  Our financial records, and increasingly our health records are on line.  OUr children put all their personal infornation on line.  Some even think it cute to put up naked pictures of themselves.   There are not even laws that address most of these issues.  Even those that one would think would be simple common sense.
Bama's friends even want to monitor our bathroom habits!

Nothing is sacred anymore - nothing.

As for the jury thing I have a story - kind of a confession.  I was on jury duty once.  While we took our break I stood outside the courtroom and happened to look up to read a bulletin board that was right there.  On it it mentioned the cases of the day.  It mentioned the one I was on the jury duty for.  It mentioned it was for the third DUI offense of the defendant.  She would lose her license permanantly if she lost the case.

Thing of it is - the fact that it was her THIRD DUI was never mentioned during the trial.

I am guessing this information was kept out perhaps because it would "prejudice the jury".  Perhaps it could have only been brought up if the character of the defendent was brought up by the defense team - which never was the issue.

The evidence against her was overwhelming anyway.  She was clearly staggering on the police video.   She was literally driving the wrong way down a large thorough fair at 2AM after being seen leaving a bar/grill.

Her BAC was over the legal limit.  Yet some saps on the jury still felt bad, "well haven't you ever driven after drinking too much?" went the line.

Would they have felt this way if they knew it was her third arrest for this?  She was clearly a menace on the road.
Anyway, there were no blackberries or Iphones.  Just me standing outside the courtroom reading what the bailiff posted on the board.


3330  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: March 17, 2009, 03:55:05 PM
Doug,
Thanks for the links.  Very interesting. I wonder where drugs would be on the list of imports from Mexico if records were kept.
Natural gas seems to be the biggest US export if I read the table correctly.
I don't know how the oil market works.  One wonders how we export so much oil rather than use it all here?  It must not be that simple.
3331  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security on: March 17, 2009, 11:10:29 AM
As Mark Levin would answer (I think).  It isn't about polls.  It is about ideology.
It is more about moving the USA (and hence the world) towards a more socialistic society.

It isn't about making/keeping America great it is about transforming us into a different country that fits BO's idealized concept of the world.
3332  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 16, 2009, 02:19:56 PM
Do I hear

Jimmy C?
3333  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 16, 2009, 12:59:43 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The message is clear.  Go after the chosen one and we will come after you.  Ironically this sahkedown group is funded by one of the Wall Street big shots Soros who spent his life making fortunes on Wall St:

  NEW YORK (AP) - Some critics are seizing on comedian Jon Stewart's attacks of CNBC to launch an online petition drive urging the network to be tougher on Wall Street leaders.
The liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America and some economists are behind the effort, launched Monday. They're asking CNBC to hire economic voices with a track record of being right about the current crisis and do more to hold business leaders accountable.


CNBC has been in the firing line since Stewart pointed out network personalities who, in retrospect, offered bad financial advice.

CNBC had no immediate comment. CNBC spokesman Brian Steel said last week that the network was proud of its record of offering diverse opinions on the economy.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
3334  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Zogby poll on direction of country on: March 14, 2009, 12:30:44 PM
I know Bo doesn't care about polls or the direction of the stock market rolleyes but FWIW the recent Zogby on the "direction" of the country:


****Released: March 06, 2009
Zogby Poll: 40% Now Believe the U.S. is Headed in the Right Direction

Survey finds 56% view President Obama favorably while his positive job approval ratings hold steady at 52%

UTICA, New York - Forty percent of likely voters now have positive feelings about the direction the U.S. is headed, a slight gain over the 36% who said the same in late January and a significant increase over the 14% who said the country was on the right track at the beginning of the year, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Even as slightly more believe the country is headed in the right direction, there has also been a slight increase in those who believe the county is on the wrong track - 48% this month compared to 45% in late January, though significantly fewer than the 70% who had negative feelings about the country's direction at the start of the year.

The survey shows a stark contrast along political lines, with Democrats significantly more optimistic (71%) about the country's direction under President Barack Obama's administration than are political independents (35%) or Republicans (6%). Democrats and independents are more positive about the country's direction than in late January, while Republicans are now more likely to believe the U.S. is on the wrong track - 86% of Republicans feel this way, compared to 76% who said the same in late January. Just over half of independents (52%) feel the same, compared to only 14% of Democrats. The Zogby Interactive survey of 3,365 likely voters nationwide was conducted March 2-5, 2009, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.7 percentage points.

Congressional job performance ratings slowly climb as President Obama's job approval numbers hold steady

Obama enjoys strong personal popularity, with 56% who have a favorable opinion of the President - most notably among fellow Democrats, with 93% who view the President positively. More than half of political independents feel the same (52%), compared to only 14% of Republicans.

Obama maintains a 52% "excellent" or "good" job performance rating in this latest survey, unchanged from our polling in late January, while 46% rate his job performance as "fair" or "poor." There is a dramatic partisan split when it comes to Obama's job performance, with 90% of Democrats who give the President positive ratings, compared to just 11% of Republicans - political independents fall in the middle with 47%.

Congressional job performance ratings have climbed to 24%, up from 20% in late January and a vast improvement over the 4% of likely voters who gave Congress a job performance rating of "excellent" or "good" at the beginning of the year. Positive Congressional job performance marks from Democrats continue to climb - 46% this month compared to 39% in late January, while ratings from political independents (17%) and Republicans (2%) have changed little.

Perception of U.S. economic policy still overwhelmingly negative, but continues to show improvement

The vast majority of likely voters - 77% - give negative ratings to U.S. economic policy, a decline from the 85% who said the same in late January and an even larger drop from the 95% who viewed U.S. economic policy negatively in the weeks just before President Obama's inauguration. This latest poll shows 18% now give the nation's economic policy a positive rating, up from 8% who said the same in late January. When it comes to their personal financial situation, just 35% give it a positive rating, compared to 65% who paint their personal financial picture as "fair" or "poor" - only a slight change from polling early in the year. One in five (22%) express insecurity about their current job, which is largely unchanged from Zogby International polling at the beginning of the year.

For a detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.cfm?ID=1391

(3/6/2009)

 ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL
901 Broad Street, Utica, New York 13501 USA
1600 K Street, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006 USA
150 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 600, Miami, Florida 33131 USA
NY phone 315.624.0200
Toll Free in the U.S. and Canada 1-877-GO-2-POLL | 1-877-462-7655
fax 315.624.0210
Contact sales and marketing
Contact our web manager with any comments regarding this web site.

Copyright 2009 by Zogby International.****





 
 
3335  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 14, 2009, 10:04:18 AM
As Chad points out:  "I just don't see anyone that will be able to hurdle the media double standard put on Repubs"

And as we are seeing it doesn't have to be a Rep they go after.  Perhaps that is why Dems who are criticizing BO are doing it indirectly like criticize Hillary for speaking out against Israel when her policy is obviously based on BO's design.  Or Finemans somewhat negative citique of BO but then he pulls up short with oh "but Obama is definitley not a socialist".  Maybe they are actually afraid to go after the chosen one?

The liberal media is going after anyone who criticizes the chosen one.  Of course Stewart goes after Cramer only now because Cramer came out against the latest liberal icon:

****Cramer vs. Stewart: Post-Fight Analysis
Posted Mar 13, 2009 05:07pm EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers, Banking
Related: TSCM, VIA, JPM, BAC, WB, ^DJI, ^GSPC
A week-long verbal battle between cable TV personalities Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer came to a head on The Daily Show Thursday night. By nearly all accounts, Stewart won in a unanimous decision, if not a knockout:

"Cramer was playing rope-a-dope while Stewart swung away," writes Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz. "Jim seemed more concerned with being liked than justifying what he does for a living. It was a mismatch."

Some other items of note:

While eager to admit some mistakes, Cramer defended himself (in part) by saying Wall Street CEOs such as Dick Fuld lied to him and (by extension) other CNBC personalities. "I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show," he said, suggesting former Bear Stearns and Wachovia executives also misled him.
Stewart's populist rants often got in the way of any real conversation, and Cramer rarely has been at such a loss for words. Stewart tapped into the anger many Americans are feeling toward Wall Street and the financial media, given the ongoing bailout bonanza and the decimation to our collective portfolios: Americans' total wealth fell 18% in 2008, according to the Fed, the biggest annual loss since they started tracking the data after WW2.
Stewart said repeatedly his issue was with CNBC generally, not Cramer personally. But it sure seemed like Stewart's attack was directed at Cramer. (Of course, Cramer was sitting there and further invited attack by sarcastically dismissing Stewart earlier in the week.)
Speaking of the personal, I made a cameo appearance on 'The Daily Show' last night when Stewart showed clips of a segment I filmed with Cramer for TheStreet.com back in 2006. (Full disclosure: I worked for TheStreet.com, which Cramer co-founded, from 1998 to 2007. The company and Cramer were good to me and I still own some shares, much to my dismay.)

In the clip, "Cramer explained how traders gamed the system and seemed to say he had used such techniques in his Wall Street days," as Kurtz writes. There was a minor flap about the segment back in early 2007 and it's certainly received a lot of attention this week.

On The Daily Show, Cramer said he was speaking hyperbolically and denied having done those things personally. "I didn't do it," he said.

While I have no doubt Cramer pushed the envelope before he got out of the hedge fund business in 2000, I had assumed the same during the "infamous" video. I believed he was speaking hypothetically and trying to call attention to what hedge fund managers were doing then versus what he had done five-plus years prior.****
3336  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: March 14, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
I am trying to find out what our biggest exports are; autos? gas? oil? technology?

The biggest exporter is Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
3337  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Even death is a bad business on: March 13, 2009, 03:43:58 PM
I read with a smile this article. But I have news for these folks thinking the funeral business is stable.  It isn't.  I have a patient who is in this business who is very anxious because business is bad.  I asked him how business could be bad in this field.  He said no one is splurging for anything other then the bare minimum.  The cheapest caskets the cheapest funerals.  The least expensive everything.  Business is very bad.

So why are people dying to go into this field?  It sounds like a phoney sales pitch from the schools to me:

***If nothing is certain but death and taxes, then funeral service may be the closest thing to a recession-proof career in these uncertain times.

Nowhere is that more evident than mortuary science programs like the one at Nassau Community College, where interest and applications have mounted as the economy contracts.

At Nassau, which offers the only such public program in the metropolitan area, inquiries about mortuary science are up 15 percent in recent months, and enrollment for last fall's class was nearly double the year before.

At the American Academy McAllister Institute of Funeral Education, a private program in Manhattan, enrollment has jumped to 270 students for the spring semester, compared with 200 a year ago. The school attributes the rise to the economic downturn and the addition of an online program.
   Worried about your money? Stay on top of Wall Street and local LI business stories "They're looking for something stable, a career that will last them," said Michael Mastellone, chairman of the Nassau program. "And there will always be work out there."

Among the recent inquiries Mastellone fielded was one from a retired police officer who at 57 wondered whether there was an age limit to start the two-year program.

"He retired and his pension was fine, and now his retirement fund isn't fine anymore," Mastellone said.

He said that about 80 percent of the program's graduates are employed in the funeral service industry. Graduates can earn about $50,000 a year by the time they complete a yearlong residency at a funeral home, he said.

The demographics don't hurt, either.

"I sometimes see a twinkle in the eye of some particularly entrepreneurial students . . . as they imagine what their future will be like with the aging of baby boomers," said Regina Smith, dean of the McCallister Institute in Manhattan, in an e-mail.

What's more, funeral directors are, on average, older than workers in most other occupations, which means they will be retiring in greater numbers over the next decade, according to a U.S. Department of Labor report.

"I think we have an extremely unique career," said John Madigan, 20, of Hicksville, a second-year student at Nassau. "Not many people can do it.

"A lot of the kids I graduated from high school with . . . now they're worried about whether they'll find a job. I'm still on track."

Nassau has an enrollment of 107 students, including part-timers - an increase of nearly 20 percent over this time in 2008. The fall 2008 class was about 50 students, twice what the school normally enrolls.

The program has attracted an eclectic mix of fresh-out-of-high-school students and second careerists, who shrug off stereotypes that the profession is ghoulish or maudlin.

"I get a lot of, 'Are you sure you want to do that?' " said Arielle Gallo, 22, a second-year student from Holbrook. She was inspired by the funeral director who handled the funerals of her grandparents, who died within two months of each other when she was in high school. "It's not really about hanging around deceased people. It's about caring for the families."

For Matthew Bennett, 37, getting laid off from his job as a personal assistant was the catalyst for pursuing a career he had always wondered about.

"Losing my job gave me that push," said Bennett, a second-year student who also lives in Holbrook. "I was in a good position to go to school full-time - and it's a good job."
3338  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 13, 2009, 02:18:44 PM
"well if we're going to lose anyany, why not make it a "smaller tent" membership and restore Conservative principles and push out the so called moderates"

Prentice,
I have to respectfully disagree.  Most of the Republicans would not call themselves "religious right" though they may think of themselves as "conservatives". 
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "moderate". You and or Chad suggest that those of us who are less strict on principle are Dems lite or not really Republicans or conservatives.

Yet I am sure that most of the Rep party would fall into this group.  Without them/us, you or I like it or not the strict conservatives are a shrinking group in the overall population.  Rush doesn't get it.  Hannity doesn't get it.  Colin Powell does - in this regard IMO.

I am not sure Michael Steele has the abilities to "lead" the party but I think having a minority at the forefront is a good idea.  I would like to give him backing and the chance to try to show minorities they too have a stake in America and a real chance at the pie if they work hard, take responsibility and stop giving in to a party that is more like slave master whitey whose idea of helping them is with their benevolent handouts that was obtained by confiscation from others.

And speaking of W being born again, what the heck does that have to do with being President?
Why is a religious group running a political party?
Is it not all about abortion?  Please correct me if I am wrong.




3339  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 13, 2009, 10:22:07 AM
It was bad enough for Steele to offend the religious right's defacto spokeman Rush Limbaugh but he commited the greatest transgression after that.   I believe the religious right will force him out.  What a pity that more moderate views are simply not tolerated by the religious right.  They rightly claim that Republicans will lose much of their base by not pleasing them.  I can also tell something they won't:

The party loses millions of the women's vote because of this same view.  Sure the party would be happy to take all Balcks, Latinos, Asians.  But they must abide by all *our* beliefs.  No compormise no prisoners, no discussion.  And that folks is why we lost.
I don't know how being a Republican means I have to believe in every Christian value to be considered worthy.  There are more Republicans who are not the religious right than vice a versa.  Yet they claim to be the defacto party.  I am not afraid to stand up to them.

"RNC chief Steele clarifies his abortion stance after 'choice' remark
By Ann Sanner | The Associated Press
7:06 PM EDT, March 12, 2009
WASHINGTON - A day after a magazine quoted him as saying abortion was "an individual choice," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said today he opposes abortion and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

A leading conservative called Steele's remarks in the magazine "cavalier and flippant," underscoring the new chairman's precarious position with party regulars concerned about his off-the-cuff style and penchant for miscues.

Steele, who was adopted, told GQ magazine that his mother had the option of getting an abortion or giving birth to him.

"The choice issue cuts two ways," Steele said in the wide-ranging interview published online Wednesday. "You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life."

This morning, Steele attempted to clarify his remarks in a statement.

"I am pro-life, always have been, always will be," he said. "I tried to present why I am pro-life while recognizing that my mother had a 'choice' before deciding to put me up for adoption."

Both in the interview and in his statement, Steele said he believed Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided." He said the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion should be overturned and the decision left to the states.

In the GQ interview, Steele said he was opposed to gay marriage but wasn't going to "beat people upside the head about it."

Steele, a Catholic and former Maryland lieutenant governor, was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee nearly six weeks ago.

Since then, Steele has compared Republicans to alcoholics on a 12-step program and called Rush Limbaugh "incendiary and ugly," though he has apologized to the conservative radio host. Steele has also promised to give the party a "hip-hop makeover" that would be "off the hook" and would attract even "one-armed midgets."

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in a written statement that he was disappointed with Steele's remarks to the magazine on abortion and gay marriage.

"This only serves to reinforce the belief by many social conservatives that one major party is unfriendly while the other gives only lip service to core moral issues," Perkins said, "which is why many have dropped their affiliation with the GOP."

The Republican platform asserts the GOP's opposition to abortion, saying that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

In his statement, Steele said he supports the platform. "The Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life," he said.

Steele said in the magazine interview that he believed marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. "I just draw the line at the gay marriage," he said.

"And I'm not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they're wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness," he continued.

Steele said states should address gay marriage.

"Just as a general principle, I don't like mucking around with the Constitution," he said."

3340  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hands off BO, so say the polls on: March 11, 2009, 10:40:31 AM
BO is starting to get ciritcism from a few on the left and the MSmedia but only indirectly.  Here Fineman criticizes him but them lets him off the hook at the end:  " Obama is no socialist".   No of course not, he just allows a massive socialist agenda pass because he doesn't want to hurt feelings. huh

Camille Paglia criticizes many of his aides, but just not the Obama.  It's all their clumsiness - not his.  Of course.  Give the telepromter king credit whenever it may be due but criticize his aides when the opposite is due.

Go after Hillary when it is BOs obvious opinions/policies on the Palestinian - Israel issue that runs the show.

IF BO starts to fall in the polls this might just change.  But I suspect until, then the media and the left will still suck up to BO.

"Sponsored ByA Turning Tide?
Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.


Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 10, 2009 | Updated: 8:37  a.m. ET Mar 10, 2009
Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's. But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:

The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd rather redesign the canoe.
A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are the nice ones.
A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a "bad bank" catch basin.
A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.
Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565© 2009 "
3341  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 10, 2009, 08:32:09 AM
Although his personal history suggests he cares not for the investor class, the successful, the business class, he really should because without them he won't have any money to put into socialistic programs he really does care about.

Taxing toilet bowel flushes, and every mile we drive with electronic eavesdropping devices on our odometers will not be enough.

Amazing huh, how surprised so many people are at BOs leftism?  There was NOTHING to suggest he was anything but.
You pretend to be Abe Lincoln  well I'll give you Abe Lincoln:

*"You can fool some of the people all of the time...."  That should be the theme of the Republicans.*



3342  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 09, 2009, 01:56:45 PM
In a similar veing to HUSS's post:

March 6, 2009 12:00 AM

Waiting Game
He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone.

By Jonah Goldberg

‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Barack Obama proclaimed many times during the campaign. He and his throngs of supporters preened in the glow of their own righteousness like cats in a puddle of sunlight. They were for “shared sacrifice” and a “new era of responsibility.” They wanted to put aside the “old politics” and the “tired arguments” of the past.

Well, where are those people now?

Obama brags — albeit dishonestly — that he’s only raising taxes on rich people. Ninety-five percent of the American people will get a tax cut, the president insists.

Well, which is it? Do the times demand shared sacrifice from us all, or from just 5 percent of Americans?
If I say to ten co-workers, “We all need to chip in together to get this done,” and then say, “So, Todd, open your wallet and give five bucks to everyone else in the room,” it would sound ridiculous. But when Obama says the same thing to 300 million Americans it’s called “leadership.”

“The problem with socialism,” Margaret Thatcher once said, “is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” What Obama is proposing isn’t socialism — yet — but it runs into the same problem. You could take all of the money made by the richest one percent in this country and it wouldn’t come close to covering government’s expenses — even if those rich people for some reason kept working.

Our income-tax system is already extremely progressive, and it provides roughly half of all government revenue (add corporate income taxes, and it covers nearly three-fifths of all government revenue). The top five percent of earners pay more than 60 percent of income taxes. The top ten percent of earners pay more than 70 percent. And the top half of earners pay just shy of 100 percent of income taxes. Estate and gift taxes are even more progressive.

Now, it’s true that the low-wage earners who pay no income taxes do contribute in other ways. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other hidden taxes take a mighty bite out of the working poor and lower-middle class.

And, thanks to Obama, the poor will pay even more. President Obama’s proposed carbon tax will raise the price of energy. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in early 2008, candidate Obama admitted as much: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Liberals will defend Obama’s carbon tax by saying it’s vitally necessary to combat climate change, end our dependence on foreign oil, and boost our embryonic green industries like wind and solar. Fine, fine. We can have that argument, as weak as I think it may be.

But why isn’t Obama honest about the fact that he’s asking the working poor and middle class to pay even more? He’s the guy who talks such a big game about shared sacrifice. He’s the one talking about a “new era of responsibility.” Heck, that’s the title of his proposed budget — you know, the one that will irresponsibly explode the deficit?

Instead, Obama sticks to his promise that everyone who isn’t rich will get a “tax cut.” That tax cut, by the way, amounts to $13 dollars more a week for the typical worker, according to the Associated Press. In 2010, that cut will be worth $7.70 a week. Will that cover “skyrocketing” electricity rates? Or higher gas prices? How about higher prices for things that use energy to get manufactured, i.e. everything?

I don’t know the answer myself. Maybe $1.85 a day in 2009 and $1.10 in 2010 will cover that. But I doubt it, particularly when your job is outsourced to carbon-tax-free China or India. The point is that Obama’s rhetoric about shared sacrifice is bogus on every level.

He tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies when what he’s actually saying is that he’s taking from the rich and giving it to them. “Shared sacrifice” really means taking other people’s money, while “greed” is not wanting to give it up and “responsibility” is when the government takes it anyway.

In reality, he’s giving with one hand and taking with the other. He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone. The amazing thing is that his supporters, rich and poor alike, buy it. No wonder they’re the ones they’ve been waiting for.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
 
3343  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A party who would love more minorities is not racist on: March 09, 2009, 09:32:49 AM
Well the polling data that 3 out of four Democrats agree with bigger governement and the taxation of the successful for dole outs to those who are for whatever the reason not, while 3 of four Republicans do not.

And there you have it in a nutshell.
Ant then when we have what , 40% who pay no Federal income tax, every expanding government employees whose livlihoods and pensions, and retirements are dependent on maintaining this, and a mindset of immigrants who are not what it was even 50 years ago, then we have a divided and bitter electorate.

The fact that 95% of blacks as well as large proportions of latinos, (as well  as my fellow Jews - though the latter for different reasons - guilt perhaps) vote Democratic is pretty strong evidence that there are many in this country who see that evening the playing field is being on the dole.

Sorry but this if fact - the polls, election demographics are clearly proof of this.
One only has to watch the talk shows for a week to see that most of the spokespeople for these groups are saying exactly that though they often try deflect it, or camouflage it.

This does not make me a racist.  Indeed the Republicans more than anything would love to have more "diversity" in their party.
Why cannot the Republicans not attract more minorities? Because they don't believe in big government dole outs. 

That said the Republicans do not have an attractive alternative message or messenger as yet.

Just haveing a big fat white boistrous multimillionaire guy screaming about "freedom", "less government", "personal responsibility",
trickle down theory, etc. while the rich keep getting richer and the rest of us keep going no where, is not going to compete with the opposing political gamesmenship.

And having pundits screaming all we need are tax cuts and let the cards fall where they may especially while many who are losing jobs are not apying taxes to begin with ....  well how many are going to vote for that.

I was gladdened to hear Newt rumors he may run in 2012.  He is the only one so far with ideas, and a willingness and ability  to
articulate past the dead end talk of limbaugh, hannity, coulter, and that group.


 
3344  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 06, 2009, 02:43:17 PM
Actually it is only an observation from that program.  It was about a black, Michael Steele trying to reach out to other Blacks.
The response from Hughey was to the effect that he has no problem with the rich getting richer even if faster than the rest, but that the other classes are staying put.  I actually agree with him on that.  The rest of the population seems to be unable to "get ahead" though I am not at all  sure of the reasons.  However, what struck me is he feels quite comfortable with BOs confiscation of wealth to give to them. More or less what have Republicans done for "us"?
Of course not all blacks feel this way but many do.  It is obvious.  It is obvious from many who call these shows.  It is obvious from their hatred of Rebublicans.   That said many whites and Latinos certainly feel the same way.

"Maybe African Americans don't want to be involved with a party who's members view them as monetary leeches who are out for "payback"?"

The Rebublicans are not racist. It is about the money. The racial thing is either intentional/unintentional delusion.

For me it is about people, of all stripes who want the government to take care of all their needs.  The problem is that there is an ever decreasing proportion of the population that can support these dole outs.  Meanwhile the whole country is going broke and increasingly into deeper debt.

FWIW though I am a doctor I would not be in BOs target range, or fit his description of being "rich" so I am not just thinking of my own pocket here.

3345  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 06, 2009, 09:29:13 AM
Krauthammer pretty much what I feel - that BO is a massive liar and fraud.  Yet Fox came out with a poll that shows he is still popular with a 64% approval and 55% are quite happy with the "soak the rich" theme and that it is "evening the playing field".
While truly wealthy people do have an extraordary advantage over the non wealthy and the rich are getting richer faster than any other group by idea of trying to even this out was not out and out confiscation of wealth to redistribute to your fans.
Hugely expanding government so the rest of us can pay for the salaries, health care, retirement and other benefits was not my idea of moderation.

These dopes who think getting a check ot two from BO is the answer to their problems are going to bring the whole house of cards down.  It is remarkable how stupid some are.  Did anyone see Michael Steele on Hughey the other night?  I'm saddened to say that for most blacks apparantly it is all about pay back time - no more no less.  Republicans are not going to attract many Balcks no matter what they do because it is all about the checks going into their pockets.   sad

***March 06, 2009
Deception at Core of Obama Plans
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.

 All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.

The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this:

"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.

At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.

The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group****
3346  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How do you say telePromter in French? on: March 05, 2009, 07:55:58 PM
Interesting.  I wonder if Chris Matthews would still get a chill on his leg after reading this.  He seems to delight with glee and glow in anything that mocks W as being less than intellectual.

In a similar vein Lou Dobbs showed BO mistating the PE ratio as "profit" to earnings ratio.  He asked if the main stream media would have let W off the hook if *he* did that.  We all know the answer.

BO would do well to remember Lincoln's famous phrase about you can fool some of the people some of the time....

Bo is too disingenious by half.   If only the Republicans can get the right message and the right messenger (it ain't Limbaugh)....BO is finished.

***Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter
By CAROL E. LEE | 3/5/09 3:22 PM EST  \President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.

His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of the Grand Foyer.

See Also
Dueling Dems have Obama in earmark jam
GOP tries to lure Dems on housing
Reports: Obama goes gray!
“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December 1975. “It’s jarring to the eye. In a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.”

Just how much of a crutch the teleprompter has become for Obama was on sharp display during his latest commerce secretary announcement. The president spoke from a teleprompter in the ornate Indian Treaty Room for a few minutes. Then Gov. Gary Locke stepped to the podium and pulled out a piece of paper for reference.

The president’s teleprompter also elicited some uncomfortable laughter after he announced Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his choice for Health and Human Services secretary. “Kathy,” Obama said, turning the podium over to Sebelius, who waited at the microphone for an awkward few seconds while the teleprompters were lowered to the floor and the television cameras rolled.

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

 
3347  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / pretend you are one of them and then you will be able to change them on: March 05, 2009, 04:20:21 PM
The them is us.  it is America as we knew it.  The you is BO and his true agenda.  America just voted the most liberal guy in the Senate to be our leader.  Why people now are so surprised by his leftist leanings I guess comes from the humanistic natural defense mechanism of denial.

Personally I have seen enough.  Lets not be taken by his deception.  This guy will go on to "being open to all ideas and options", and "everything is on the table" etc etc.

This guy's game is now obvious.  "Pretend you are one of them, then can change them."  Thanks to Mark Levin for opening my eyes pre election about what BO is really about and what he is up to.  As he says "it is pay back time".  This is reparations time.  Problem is we will all suffer far more because of this.

Folks, the *plan* for health care reform is already done.  Just like it is for Wall Street, Gas and coal companies, businesses, those at the higher end of the pay scale, Israel, and all the rest.   This is just a dog and pony show to snooker the gullible:

****Obama open to compromise on health care overhaul
         AP – President Barack Obama delivers remarks to the White House Forum on Health Reform, Thursday, March 5, … WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said the consensus from the White House health care summit is that there is an immediate need for health care reform, and signaled that he's open to compromise on Thursday.

Obama told participants at the end of a health summit that although he offered a plan during last year's campaign, he isn't wedded to that proposal. He told Republicans and Democrats, doctors and insurers — "I just want to figure out what works."

The president said there are some elements that all sides can agree on such as electronic health records that will save lives and money. Other issues — such as his $634 billion down payment for expanded coverage — are certain to create deep divisions.

He said: "We have to keep an open mind."

Obama invited more than 120 people who hold a wide range of views on how to fix the system.

Obama entered the room with Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is battling a brain tumor. After brief remarks summarizing the participants' observations, Obama called on Kennedy. The veteran Democratic senator said he looked forward to being a foot soldier in the push for health care reform and said: "this time we will not fail."

Kennedy, who recently turned 77, is battling brain cancer and has been in Florida continuing his treatment and physical rehabilitation. He chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and was a strong Obama backer during the 2008 campaign.****


3348  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: March 03, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
This article is interesting.  Some of my Indian doctor friends and colleagues will be the first to tell you that the situation is now reversed.  Many Indians came to the US to practice medicine because it was better here for doctors than India.
The situation is now reversed.  They say doctors in India are better off, get more respect and have more autonomy.
Not that anyone is going to care about doctors one way or the other but this article falls along this topic:

With BO's war on success in this country why would anyone want to come here like they used to.... except low wage, uneducated, low skilled immigrants coming in for the benefits.

****Why Skilled Immigrants Are Leaving the U.S.
Vivek Wadhwa
Tuesday March 3, 2009, 8:08 am EST

As the debate over H-1B workers and skilled immigrants intensifies, we are losing sight of one important fact: The U.S. is no longer the only land of opportunity. If we don't want the immigrants who have fueled our innovation and economic growth, they now have options elsewhere. Immigrants are returning home in greater numbers. And new research shows they are returning to enjoy a better quality of life, better career prospects, and the comfort of being close to family and friends.
Earlier research by my team suggested that a crisis was brewing because of a burgeoning immigration backlog. At the end of 2006, more than 1 million skilled professionals (engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers) and their families were in line for a yearly allotment of only 120,000 permanent resident visas. The wait time for some people ran longer than a decade. In the meantime, these workers were trapped in "immigration limbo." If they changed jobs or even took a promotion, they risked being pushed to the back of the permanent residency queue. We predicted that skilled foreign workers would increasingly get fed up and return to countries like India and China where the economies were booming.

Why should we care? Because immigrants are critical to the country's long-term economic health. Despite the fact that they constitute only 12% of the U.S. population, immigrants have started 52% of Silicon Valley's technology companies and contributed to more than 25% of our global patents. They make up 24% of the U.S. science and engineering workforce holding bachelor's degrees and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs. Immigrants have co-founded firms such as Google (NasdaqGS:GOOG - News), Intel (NasdaqGS:INTC - News), eBay (NasdaqGS:EBAY - News), and Yahoo! (NasdaqGS:YHOO - News).

Who Are They? Young and Well-Educated

We tried to find hard data on how many immigrants had returned to India and China. No government authority seems to track these numbers. But human resources directors in India and China told us that what was a trickle of returnees a decade ago had become a flood. Job applications from the U.S. had increased tenfold over the last few years, they said. To get an understanding of how the returnees had fared and why they left the U.S., my team at Duke, along with AnnaLee Saxenian of the University of California at Berkeley and Richard Freeman of Harvard University, conducted a survey. Through professional networking site LinkedIn, we tracked down 1,203 Indian and Chinese immigrants who had worked or received education in the U.S. and had returned to their home countries. This research was funded by the Kauffman Foundation.

Our new paper, "America's Loss Is the World's Gain," finds that the vast majority of these returnees were relatively young. The average age was 30 for Indian returnees, and 33 for Chinese. They were highly educated, with degrees in management, technology, or science. Fifty-one percent of the Chinese held master's degrees and 41% had PhDs. Sixty-six percent of the Indians held a master's and 12.1% had PhDs. They were at very top of the educational distribution for these highly educated immigrant groups -- precisely the kind of people who make the greatest contribution to the U.S. economy and to business and job growth.

Nearly a third of the Chinese returnees and a fifth of the Indians came to the U.S. on student visas. A fifth of the Chinese and nearly half of the Indians entered on temporary work visas (such as the H-1B). The strongest factor that brought them to the U.S. was professional and educational development opportunities.

What They Miss: Family and Friends

They found life in the U.S. had many drawbacks. Returnees cited language barriers, missing their family and friends at home, difficulty with cultural assimilation, and care of parents and children as key issues. About a third of the Indians and a fifth of the Chinese said that visas were a strong factor in their decision to return home, but others left for opportunity and to be close to family and friends. And it wasn't just new immigrants who were returning. In fact, 30% of respondents held permanent resident status or were U.S. citizens.

Eighty-seven percent of Chinese and 79% of Indians said a strong factor in their original decision to return home was the growing demand for their skills in their home countries. Their instincts generally proved right. Significant numbers moved up the organization chart. Among Indians the percentage of respondents holding senior management positions increased from 10% in the U.S. to 44% in India, and among Chinese it increased from 9% in the U.S. to 36% in China. Eighty-seven percent of Chinese and 62% of Indians said they had better opportunities for longer-term professional growth in their home countries than in the U.S. Additionally, nearly half were considering launching businesses and said entrepreneurial opportunities were better in their home countries than in the U.S.

Friends and family played an equally strong role for 88% of Indians and 77% of Chinese. Care for aging parents was considered by 89% of Indians and 79% of Chinese to be much better in their home countries. Nearly 80% of Indians and 67% of Chinese said family values were better in their home countries.

More Options Back Home

Immigrants who have arrived at America's shores have always felt lonely and homesick. They had to make big personal sacrifices to provide their children with better opportunities than they had. But they never have had the option to return home. Now they do, and they are leaving.

It isn't all rosy back home. Indians complained of traffic and congestion, lack of infrastructure, excessive bureaucracy, and pollution. Chinese complained of pollution, reverse culture shock, inferior education for children, frustration with government bureaucracy, and the quality of health care. Returnees said they were generally making less money in absolute terms, but they also said they enjoyed a higher quality of life.

We may not need all these workers in the U.S. during the deepening recession. But we will need them to help us recover from it. Right now, they are taking their skills and ideas back to their home countries and are unlikely to return, barring an extraordinary recruitment effort and major changes to immigration policy. That hardly seems likely given the current political climate. The policy focus now seems to be on doing whatever it takes to retain existing American jobs -- even if it comes at the cost of building a workforce for the future of America.****

3349  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: March 03, 2009, 11:23:06 AM
Pitchfork Time
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

03/03/2009


In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the Right.

The real Obama has stood up, and lived up to his ranking as the most left-wing member of the United States Senate.

Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred -- the September collapse of Lehman Brothers and the market crash.

Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d'etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.

We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.

Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.

Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?

As Americans save only a pittance and have lost -- in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets -- $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?

In his speech to Congress, Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We're going to find a cure for cancer.

Who is going to pay for all this?

The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

Those paying a federal tax rate of 35 percent will see it rise to near 40 percent and will lose a fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Yet, two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals. Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week.

At year's end, the couple finds they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary.

What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary?

Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6 percent.

Their California income tax will have hit 9.55 percent.

Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243.

In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work.

From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25 percent, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home. And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20 percent, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut -- i.e., a fat little check -- in April.

Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a "lead indicator" of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?

Having fallen every month since Obama's election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.

Good. Let's give him one.

3350  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives/the American Creed on: March 03, 2009, 10:19:33 AM
Of course everone has heard of the Steele Limbaugh thing and of course all the Democrat bent talk shows are having a field day with this. 

I agree with those who say listen to Limbaugh and the Rebs are doomed to minority status. Rush is not going to win anyone new over with this stuff.  But if the economy continues to tank and BO gets the blame than there is a chance for a Republican come back.  The only one of prominence who I see gets it is Newt who was on the other day saying that we need new ideas, we need to take conservatism, Reagonism to the next level.  We can't just throw out the same old song and dance. Newt is the only one of prominence who I agree with.  I think Steele is on the right track but I don't think he is quite level of spokeperson needed.  Only Newt can IMO that I can see.  Romeny might be able to but I am not sure if he can attract new faces.
 
****RUSH: I was not going to talk about Michael Steele. I have had e-mails from the Drive-By Media. I have had interview requests to be on television shows to talk about Michael Steele and what he said about my speech Saturday night. He was on CNN and I was going to ignore it, but so many of you are e-mailing me asking me to respond to this that I have changed my mind and I'm going to do so. Here is what has prompted all of the irritation at Michael Steele. He was on the D. L. Hughley show on CNN Saturday night, and the other voice you'll hear is the other guest, the rapper Chuck D. They had this exchange about me.

HUGHLEY: Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party --

STEELE: No, he's not.

HUGHLEY: Well, I'll tell you what, I've never --

STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

HUGHLEY: Then you know what? Then I can appreciate that, but no -- no one will -- will actually pry down some of the things he says, like when he comes out and says that he wants the president to fail, I understand he wants liberalism to fail.

STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency? Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly --

RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start. 
 
 
My parents taught me when I was growing up that you always stood behind people who defended you, you never abandoned people who stood up for you and who defended you against assault. Michael Steele was a candidate for the Senate in Maryland. Michael Steele was on this program, he got airtime on this program to attempt to refute the lies being told about him by Michael J. Fox in those famous ads way back when that were also run against Jim Talent in Missouri. I personally took time to defend Michael Steele and to rip the substance of those ads, had him on the show. I went after Chuck Schumer when Chuck Schumer's former employee stole Michael Steele's private credit record information and released it. When I went to Washington a couple years ago for a personal appearance from my station there, WMAL, WMAL arranged for a number of dignitaries to meet me backstage. One of them was Michael Steele, who thanked me very much for coming to his defense. Something's happened. Now I'm just an entertainer and now I am ugly and my program is incendiary.

Michael Steele has been around long enough to know that the liberal media will use him by twisting what I say or what others say. He took the bait, he bit down hard on the bait, he launched an attack on me even though the premise of what was said to him was false. He took the bait and he went for it. Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it's your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do. Why are you running the Republican Party? Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda. I have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail.

This isn't complicated stuff here, folks. It's difficult to organize the defeat of Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2012, if we want to. It's going to be difficult enough, but on one hand it shouldn't be difficult at all. But it's going to be really hard, Mr. Steele, if you, as the chairman of the RNC, want Obama to succeed. Where does the Republican Party go if you, who are supposed to be redesigning our primary system and helping reestablish our grassroots movement, how are we going to retake elective office if you want this agenda of Obama's and Pelosi's and Reid's to succeed. My colleagues in talk radio can attest to this next point. We get press release after press release after press release from the Republican National Committee attacking the Democrat agenda. They send us points of refutation. I never use them 'cause I don't need them. But they send out all these points of refutation about how this part of what Dingy Harry wants or Pelosi wants is wrong, is wrong, is wrong. Why are you sending out these things, Mr. Steele? Why is your office sending out all these talking points to defeat the Democrat agenda in Congress if your position is you want it to succeed? And I don't understand why you're asking Republicans to donate to the Republican National Committee if their money is going to be spent furthering the agenda of Barack Obama.

If we don't want Obama and Reid and Pelosi to fail, then why does the RNC exist, Mr. Steele? Why are you even raising money? What do you want from us? If I want Obama and Democrats to succeed, I suppose we should be sending the RNC donations? You know, these people, it's a bizarre discussion to have because there's a news story on this, on this feud now between me and Michael Steele. And listen to this. This is a quote from RNC spokesman, Alex Conant, I'm not sure how he pronounces his last name. "The feud between radio host Rush and Rahm makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by congressional leaders like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi."

Mr. Steele, your spokesman sounds like the RNC wants 'em to fail, to me. You're opposing 'em. You say the American people are growing weary of it, getting suspicious of it. But it's not just Pelosi's spending. It's Obama's. Where are your guts? Why can't you tie Obama to these policies? They're his! Where are your guts? (interruption) Snerdley, they don't want me doing the dirty work because when I go out there and, quote, unquote, do the dirty work, they try to cut me off at the knees for doing so. The point is, when you read that statement from Alex Conant, they're opposed to the Obama agenda, too, they're just too gutless to say so, and they get frightened when they hear the words, "I want Obama to fail." "Oh, no, no, no, we can't be associated with that." Yet you're sending out all these talking points designed to help people explain to other people why the Obama agenda is wrong. So I think it's bizarre. They put out statements and press releases damning Obama and Pelosi policies and they object when somebody like me says he doesn't want them to succeed.

Now, if it's the purpose of the Republican National Committee to urge the success of the Obama and congressional agenda, then stop sending these press releases here. I don't want 'em anymore. Stop sending all these quotes and facts and figures to prove how the Obama and Pelosi agenda is full of lies. I don't want to see it anymore, because you don't believe it. Why are you even sending these things out, Mr. Steele? It's amazing how many Republican politicians contact this show wanting on it. It's amazing how many Republicans want to come on this show. It's amazing how many send this show an endless number of press releases, their PR flacks are constantly sending me press releases and points, Congressman X saying this, special interest group X saying that, hoping I will mention it, hoping I will promote their cause. Why do they work so hard to be on this show? Why are they so eager to get me to take up their cause? I'm just an entertainer, ugly, incendiary, they say. We don't discuss current issues or policies or history or economics. So on the one hand, they had their PR flaks inundating me every day with this group or this congressman's doing that. I'm supposed to take it and make this or that congressman look good or this or that RNC chairman look good. And then they do what they do.

They chicken out when I happen to articulate exactly what their agenda really is. They don't have the guts to admit it, and I do. I'm going further and telling you today it's not that I want Obama to fail; that's not it anymore. The president is presiding over economic failure. The president is watching it, doing nothing about it. He's watching unemployment grow; he's watching the stock market plummet; he is watching people sign up for unemployment. The president of the United States is doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of this economy. He has no economic recovery plan. The truth is, the president of the United States and Rahm Emanuel, who, remember, said, "Crisis is too great a thing to waste." What does that mean? They want you suffering, they want you miserable, they want it worse, they want you rejecting conservatism. They want you rejecting capitalism. They want you turning to them in fear and desperation and angst for an immediate fix to the problem. They want you thinking you have no ability to fix your own problems. They think you have and they want you to have no ability to take care of yourself. So as the stock market now approaches minus 2,800 since Obama was elected, the statement today is to speed up the economic recovery, we're going to focus on health care. Ask yourself how that is going to get you your next job.

One other thing. Mr. Steele, if you want to lead the Republican Party, as you say you do, then you need to run for and win the presidency. You are chairman of the Republican National Committee. That is your job. To run the Republican establishment bureaucracy and prove you can defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, to come up with a new primary system that eliminates Democrats participating in ours and choosing our candidates and getting the grassroots revved up again. This is how you're going to be measured, not by how entertaining or cute you are on talk shows. By the same token, I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years. I certainly couldn't say I am proud of the Republican Party, as I am leading the Republican Party. Right now the Republican Party needs to be led, and it will be. The next Republican president is going to be the head of the party. Last time I checked, I don't think Mr. Steele is running.

And finally, Mr. Steele, we do like to entertain people here. The audience is very smart, sir. They know the difference between entertainment, and they know the difference between deadly serious issues that affect their country. Don't underestimate the intelligence of this audience or Republicans and conservatives generally. The biggest problem with all of you who live inside the Beltway is you look out over America and you think you see idiocy and unsophisticated people, ignorant people, and when you're looking at liberal Democrats, largely you're correct, but your own voters are every bit as informed, involved, engaged, and caring, if not more so than you are. We don't care, first and foremost, about the success of the Republican Party. We care about the United States of America and its future, because we cherish it and love it, and we know what it is that made it the greatest nation on earth, and we don't hear you articulating that you understand that, not just you, Mr. Steele, but hardly anybody else in Washington, DC. So send those fundraising requests out, and, by the way, when you send those fundraising requests out, Mr. Steele, make sure you say, "We want Obama to succeed." So people understand your compassion. Republicans, conservatives, are sick and tired of being talked down to, sick and tired of being lectured to, and until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you're going to have a tough time rebuilding your party.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
 
 
RUSH: Hey, psst, folks, just a little secret between us. Don't tell anybody, all right? This is just between us. Don't tell the Drive-Bys. The Drive-Bys were tuning in for that because they've been asking me for quotes on this. So the way they're gonna interpret -- and really don't tell anybody, this is between us, because I don't want this getting out beyond the show -- the way they are going to interpret what I just did in response to Michael Steele is, "Oh, this is great, this is great! Emanuel's strategy is working great, the Republican Party and Limbaugh are splitting apart, there's a feud, there's infighting." They will miss the whole point, and even if there are any Drive-Bys listening while I tell them the real point, they will reject it because it doesn't fit their template. What happened starting Saturday -- actually, CPAC started on Thursday, but what culminated with my speech on Saturday at CPAC was the reawakening of a huge sleeping giant that is ready to rumble, and that is American conservatism, which is found in the Democrat Party, it's found among independents, and it's found in the Republican Party.

More Americans live their lives as conservatives than you would believe. They don't get their paychecks and walk down the street and say, "Hi, you want some of this?" They'll vote for people who will do it for them, but they're trying to raise their kids right and make money, save money. They've got morality and values, most of them, not all, but most, they may not vote that way, but they live that way. They're waiting to be awakened and that awakening has started. The pressure is on the Republican Party to be more Democrat Party-like, and too many Republicans in Washington want to make that happen. Well, just the opposite is going to happen. The sleeping conservative giant has been awakened here. It's a beautiful thing. ****
 
 
END TRANSCRIPT
 
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 80
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!