Here It Is!
That video of Piper smoothing her brother's hair, which was everyone's second-favorite moment from Palin's acceptance speech the other night. (The first one being when Sarah kicked the Dems' asses. Oh, wait: that was the whole speech.)
A Word From Presidential Candidate
. . . Dave Buerge:
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Ooo-oooh, Caribou Barbie makes a funny, hardee-har-har. Well yuk it up now, little miss former junior college baby machine, because your sarcastic attempt to belittle America's community of hardworking professional community organizers is about to backfire -- big time. Because, for your information, I am America's community organizer community.
By now most of you know I am a candidate for President of the United States. What you may not know is that for the past 4 months, I have also been a proud member of Campaign For a Better Humanity, a non-profit community outreach program I created with a joint grant from Johnson County Community Services and the Iowa State Work Release Program.
What do community organizers do? As you know, Americans today are struggling with problems. These problems include rising unemployment, energy cost, alienation, animosity, corporations, and increased death. Like no other time in our history, Americans are staring into an abyss of a hellhole of helplessness. And this is where community organizers like me come in and provide needed solutions. Specifically, America's community organizers:
• reach out and work with communities in various ways;
• liaison with, and for, community agencies for service within affected areas;
• fight to make a difference;
• raise awareness;
• deal with community issues;
• raise awareness in the community of how we are making differences about undealt-with issues;
• when necessary, refer inquiries to outreach coordinators;
• help coordination agency administrators identify and address outreach opportunities;
• model timetables and conceptualize benchmarks;
• issue guidelines for poster contests and interpretive dance festivals;
• gather voter registrations, win valuable prizes.
And that's just the beginning. Let me give you some specific examples of how community organizer organizations like CFBH are making a difference right here in Majestic Oakewoods, a subdivision off exit 242. As you know, in the year since I moved here my community has experienced a rash of crime, despair, and abandoned homes. To address these community problems, I reached out to local groups of disaffected dropout youths who were struggling with unemployment. During a rap-session kegger at my home, I spoke with them about ways they could get involved with the community and help protect the environment. Together we organized an innovative free community bicycle / metal recycling program. I am proud to say that it has been so successful that our private-sector partner, Kyle's Salvage, has encouraged us to create an expanded free community car program.
I am also proud to report that my outreach efforts have also helped get local disadvantaged youths involved in the community through politics. We met with local elected officials and showed them how successful programs piloted by ACORN in Chicago and Milwaukee could be adapted to keep local youths off the streets. The result is CFBH's wildly popular Beer and Smokes for Votes program.
So take that, Governor Bimbo—I mean, Mayor Bimbo.
(But do read the whole thing. As usual, I was tempted to quote it all, but I once got busted by Treacher for doing that . . . So, go. Now.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.
"If IÂ’d had a crystal ball a few years ago, I might have asked a few more questions when Sarah decided to join the PTA. It wouldnÂ’t have mattered, though; when my wife starts talking about reform, corruption and making government work for the people, itÂ’s just best to get out of the way."
Todd Palin
Speaking about his wife Sarah Palin
September 3, 2008
Oh, Yeah. Friendship.
Harrell on friendship, which he claims to be rather bad at:
If I can’t have friends, and I can’t just give up on friendship, then can’t I at least — please — learn better to recognize the point at which I should stop throwing good money after bad?
It happens to me every time, man. Things go very well for a while. But then they turn sour, and then they suck. And eventually I reach a point where I just have to say “This isn’t going to work, give up on this, try to forget this and move on.” But I always seem to do it about a month after I should have done it in the first place.
A month? Some of us do it for years or decades. Harrell—you might be a more prudent emotional investor than you think.
I'm good at friendship, because I share who I am relatively easily, and I can be extraordinarily open with people from the get-go. And I'm fiercely loyal.
I've been hard on my friends for the past year or two, because I've been so unhappy; that's hard for people to watch. But after years of making deposits, it's not a horrible thing to withdraw from a handful of accounts for a period of time.
* * *
Why did I remember to go to Harrell's blog, though I haven't been there for a while? Ah, yes: today's tweet from him:I'm doing my part to take us into a post-racist century by trying to bone as many bi-racial chicks as possible.
It reminds me of something Professor Fractal once said, back when he was single: "Not only do I think the races should be mixed, but I want to mix them personally. I doubt he remembers saying it, either. I should remind him, maybe via one of his students, or his wife (who would get a good laugh out of it).
* * *
My father once told me that the most important things in life are friendship, money, and sex. Before you jump all over that, let me just point out that the man knew what he wanted; many people, after all, don't.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.
Oh, Yes. McCain Gave a Speech Tonight.
It's hard to write about it; one fears coming across as a bit sappy.
I believe a few years ago, aggravated by the good Senator's stances on the Bill of Rights (in particular, the First and Second Amendments), I was ready to write in a ham-and-cheese panino if Johnny Mac were to secure the nomination this year.
Certainly, it was no secret that I was a Thompson girl, and that my second choice was Rudy Giuliani, if only to finally have a cross-dresser in the White House.
I spent a few weeks or months in the Coulter camp, convinced that Hillary Clinton was the closest thing either party had any chance of nominating that fit in with my particular brand of conservatism. (Which is rather muddy, but has something to do with government incentives to get Chrysler to manufacture flex-fuel Cruisers, and a methanol pump in every pot, or possibly around the corner, or perhaps an outlawing of the use of normalcy as a noun, or any other part of speech for that matter. Guns, free markets, democracy, whiskey, and sexy. You know.)
James Joyner, with his military background, was able to talk me into taking McCain seriously last winter. Prosecuting the War on Terror, James pointed out, was something that Hillary might do well—but mechanically, and without the level of heart, commitment, and intuition that McCain could bring to the job. With her, it would be a matter of politics. She might put on a show, but it would only be that.
And so I began to consider The McCain Idea. And I was ready to vote for him, finally, but with a heavy heart and plenty of libertarian reservations—even after I heard that Johnny Mac had definitely passed on Governor Palin as his Veep pick, despite what I felt to be her pragmatic approach to helping us through the energy transition.
And, yeah, I do have Palinmania. It isn't all a matter of XX team-spirit, either, and I shan't dissect it completely right now. It can wait.
The fact is, Palin gave a great speech last night, though I think it took a lot out of her; she looked really uncomfortable tonight, looking around as if to say, "are the spotlights still on? I thought if I did well, they'd go away." But she knows they won't go away for a little while. Maybe not ever. It's the burden she's taken on.
McCain, though, took my breath away—not because it was a great speech, but because it was a good speech. And because he was willing to speak frankly about how his military family and his POW experiences had shaped him, and because he showed millions of people something he doesn't like to wear on his sleeve—that he is a good man. And that he exposed his basic goodness while giving a speech, which seems to rank a bit lower on his "good time" scale than getting a root canal, impressed me a lot.
And I wept to see it. And I wept that he could go through the hell he went through, and come out of it without bitterness. And humbled. Humbled? I would have become an axe murderer, myself.
This project is not about John McCain's ego; it is about stepping up and doing something that needs to be done right now.
He had kind words for Senator Obama, and he repeatedly declined to throw red meat to the crowd. He aimed, instead, for something higher: rather than devoting ourselves to a political party, he seemed to ask, couldn't we reach a bit higher? And he made it clear that "country first" is not, for him, a matter of nationalism as it has traditionally been understood. But just as a true public servant serves the people, a nation can the world. Directly, and by example.
Not all at once, and not perfectly. But by using some of what we've been blessed with to show other people and other nations what happened when those crazy loons signed that document in 1776, and why some of what that gave us might help them as well.
And it all changed for me tonight. I still disagree with McCain on several policy issues. And I'm sure I'll find plenty to disagree with when it comes to Sarahcudda, too.
But one has to start with the people who are doing this with a minimum amount of ego, and with a vision unobstructed by the remnants of murderous Marxism.
John McCain didn't pander to the crowd tonight. Instead, he chose to bare his soul, and I'll never forget having witnessed it.
1
I'll agree, Palin is a powerful speaker (or is that reader? who wrote that speech?). But her record is not quite as impressive, as anti-lobbyist, as anti-waste, as she'd like you to believe. And by the way, her newfound passion for special needs families is counter to the GOP tendency to slash special education funding.
A brief article of interest:
Attacks, Praise Stretch Truth at GOP Convention
Wednesday 03 September 2008
by: Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples: PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere." THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars." THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state --- by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC. THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin." THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
Posted by: rin at September 06, 2008 09:53 AM (f8xXa)
2
McCain voted last year for an amendment that would have effectively abolished the federal minimum wage, leaving states to set their own. How would that help the economy or the poor and working people of America? What does that say about his attitudes toward business and a laissez-faire economy? With no minimum wage, what's to prevent any state, especially a "right to work" state, from allowing employers to pay 2 or 3 bucks an hour? In today's economy, how far is that from starvation? Is abolishing a federal minimum wage a question of states' rights, or a question of unadulterated rapacity and greed?
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Allard Amdt. No. 116 )
Vote Number: 24 Vote Date: January 24, 2007, 05:11 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 116 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2
Statement of Purpose: To afford States the rights and flexibility to determine minimum wage.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---28
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Posted by: rin at September 06, 2008 11:37 AM (f8xXa)
3
Did you ever watch "Deadwood" Rin? Can you imagine their response to slimy politicians that pander to the electorate by always pushing the minimum wage fallacy?
"Cocksuckers!" Can you imagine their response to the AP acting as the arbiter of non-partisan truth in any matter given the state of their credibility? "Cocksuckers!" Given that businesses are already cutting back on costs (including workers) and that for EACH State, increasing the minimum wage by $1 increases unemployment by some 15,000 workers, what do you think they would say? Do you know that raising taxes to business increases the cost of everything those businesses sell? To you. And to me. That recovering their costs-- including taxes-- is part of the price of all goods and services? Did you know that wages are set by the market--by supply and demand--and labor is no more sacred than goods? Did you know that the primary beneficiaries of minimum wage changes are the union members that already receive multiples of the minimum wage and have contracts that link their wages to the minimum wage giving them a raise with every increase? Do you know that the irony of minimum wage increases is that they may hurt the people they are designed to help—namely the least-skilled workers? That employers that face mandated wage hikes often try to offset higher employment costs by hiring more-productive workers? If $7 and change is good, why not $100/hr? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that eliminate the need for other social programs? Except unemployment compensation, of course.
What would the Deadwoodians say to the gutless SOBs that are always stuck on the same page? And the ones that couldn't get cabinet positions because they never even paid the required Social Security portion of their help? I would think they would be paying a visit to Mr. Wu's pigs, don't you?
Posted by: Darrell at September 06, 2008 02:14 PM (PHm1M)
4
Larry Elder likes to talk about how, when he was growing up, every time the minimum wage was raised his parents would sit down at the kitchen table and talk about whom his father was going to have to lay off from the restaurant.
I like the fact that ACORN once filed a request for exemption from the minimum wage . . . because they pointed out that they could hire more leftist activists if they got a waiver . . .!
Minimum laws ALWAYS hurt the people they are supposed to help. Always.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 06, 2008 02:30 PM (TpmQk)
5
How can you say labor is no more sacred than goods? Labor is human beings, and goods is just the stuff they make.
Big business is posting record profits while people with jobs are living in homeless shelters, their cars, or a cousin's garage. Labor does not pay enough in America, despite the fact that productivity has gone up decade after decade.
If employers will not pay a living wage on their own, and will not reward increased productivity with an increased share of rising profits, then it seems entirely fair to me for government to stipulate some minimum acceptable wage.
Even at the California minimum wage of 8 bucks an hour, full-time work pays only 1280 a month... before taxes. Not a living wage!
Never mind that it's unfair and obscene. Does the economy really benefit from having millions of people living on subsistence wages, choosing between ramen and mac'n'cheese for dinner, going without shoes and dental work?
Surely trickle-up economics would work better than the trickle-down kind? If minimum wage workers took home 12 or 14 bucks an hour, so they could buy shoes and cookies and the odd pizza or dvd, wouldn't that help the economy directly, infusing cash into small businesses all across America?
We look at countries that have no minimum wage, or where it's 89 cents an hour, and we call those countries fascist or communist or vile. Those workers are starving.
But by first-world standards, with our cost of living, our minimum wage workers are practically starving. And it's not right.
The perfect free market economy, with employers paying as little as they have to to maintain the worker's ability to continue to work, is slavery. Bread and a smock in exchange for labor.
I'd like to see a maximum wage law, personally.
;-)
Posted by: Rin at September 08, 2008 08:51 AM (54frj)
6
A rise in the minimum wage sometimes leads to temporary layoffs.
The restaurant you mentioned above might well lay off a worker initially in response to rising payroll.
But when they see that the neighborhood is prospering, that all the local workers have more money to spend locally, at the restaurant and the shoe store and the donut shop and the doctor's office, and that their sales and income are rising, they'll hire that laid off worker back... and add another worker in addition.
Raising the minimum wage boosts the economy in the long run.
Posted by: Rin at September 08, 2008 09:54 AM (54frj)
7
supply and demand only works when you can choose to do without something.
If the price of apple pie is too high, I can withhold my custom until it drops.
But labor cannot withhold its labor, cannot refuse to accept low wages, if all employers collude and pay pretty much the same.
Without the intervention of institutions (government, unions, and similar coalitions) we'd still be seeing 14-hour workdays, 6 and 7 day workweeks, no OSHA protections, child labor, no compensation for injury or death on the job, and starvation wages... or no wages at all.
The most perfect system for maximum profit/minimum expenditure, unhampered by any legal or moral considerations, is slavery. But the most rapacious exploitative impulses of the owner/employer must be checked, and typically the workers themselves do not have the power to negotiate, withhold, or demand improvements. That falls to larger systems, like democratic governments.
If the minimum wage were abolished (as McCain voted to do last year, in the Allard amendment) and large swatches of employers colluded in an area to pay only 3 or 4 bucks an hour, what could local workers do? They are often bound by transportation problems, cultural and regional and family ties, inherited homes they could not sell or replace elsewhere.... They are trapped in a local economy.
The company towns of the 18th and 19th (and 20th) centuries had a captive audience of workers who could not negotiate, could not move, and could only barely survive (sometimes not even that) on what they were paid.
It's wrong, and it's bad economics.
But mostly it's just wrong, repugnant, vile, and counter to human progress and the religious values I bet you espouse.
Posted by: rin at September 09, 2008 10:24 AM (f8xXa)
8
You can always do something! You are free to move to any one of the hundreds of thousand of local employers in a major city. Or millions in the nation. You can apply outside of the food services or retail industries (the principal 'minimum wage' employers) and do better. You can avail yourself to the taxpayer subsidies education programs to advance yourself. Or buy a book and do it yourself. That's the beauty of a free market. No one can control it for long, barring intervention. Collusion breaks down under competition. And I'd like to see you make a compelling case that collusion exists under our current system.
The so-called 'Robber Barons" paid wages well above the typical rates. That's why they were able to attract the best and brightest employees of their time. Let's look at Cornelius Vanderbilt, the Northeast Railroad guy that everyone loves to hate. He made his fortune laying thousands of miles of track and buying hundreds of locomotives. He did it all with 15-25-cent rides, depending on distance. He brought tracks into NY City. above ground, and built a clear-span station, Grand Central, that everybody said couldn't be built. After business people complained about noise, soot, and ashes of the above ground system, he put the tracks under street level with grates to release the smoke--all while the trains kept rolling. He later electrified the system. After an accident that killed 20 or so people, he built two levels for the trains--while the system was operating. He topped it off by building one of the greatest stations in the world, the current Grand Central. He still did it for 15 cents to 25 cents a ride. His worker were paid two to three times the prevailing wage. And his foremen were experts at weeding out the drunkards, anarchists, and malingerers/malcontents of the time. His engineers had little formal education, many were from a practical mining background. He'd choose the man for the job by asking workers "How would you do this?" and chose the one that gave him answers that made sense to him.
I know this will piss you off, but slavery is more a socialist/Leftist concept. And it is one of the least cost-effective systems, despite what you read in Academia. That's why you see it in agriculture and you rarely see Capitalists even try it. Socialists define slaves as people outside of their group. like in the Nazis, Soviet, and Chinese work camps. Or anyone outside someone born in Rome or Athens. In the end, no one worked in Rome, no one joined the army. The empire existed to provide the needs of the citizens--food, clothing, and shelter. Groups in England defined people as being born "selected" by God. Those same sects are left-leaning today, no? And it isn't because of any new-found wisdom. Machines ended slavery for all time. And machines are a Capitalist concept. As is the energy to run them.
Capitalism is NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME. Wealth is created out of thin air by our financial system with money being deposited and loaned, and re-deposited and re-loaned ad infinitum, only mitigated by the reserve requirement at the banks. In a centrally-planned economy, wages go up by some percentage every year with prices doing the same. There are no big price drops like here. Creativity, innovation and competition means sub-$100 DVD players, VCRs, etc when they once started at $1000 or more. That's the real reason Europe needs a bailout. Or needs the US and Japan to join the colllective.
--To be continued to thwart Fluffy. . .
Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2008 01:56 PM (GgvCQ)
9
You mentioned American companies paying 89 cents/hr for labor in their foreign plants. What you don't mention is that is three times the prevailing income or more. For that Nike plant, the prevailing local income was something around $3/month equivalent. And remember that people were able to buy food/live on that amount. In other words, Nike was paying three-months wages every day, assuming a ten-hour shift!!! That's why they had to establish hiring rules about one job/family and they had lines for miles with applicants before the opening. One local managed to earn 'employee of the month' for six straight months when the plant opened. To avoid problems they "retired' his title, making him ineligible for future awards. But they offered him a one-time 'wish', within reason. He asked them to hire his sister saying she is a much better worker than he.
The papers reported afterward that the brother/sister were flooded with offers of marriage/solicitations to court their daughters. And some of the offers came from the elite class, of which the brother/sister were not members! American unions want American wages for these plants so that the plants will be shut down, or not built to begin with. That sounds humane, doesn't it? "Thanks for looking out for me, cocksucker!"
In 1980 or so this guy at work asked to have a friend of his from Yale (that he had not seen for years) join us for a scheduled lunch. He asked about a female that he had once dated that was a relative of this visitor, and asked specifically about her time in the Peace Corp(he last saw her on her send-off). This Yale guy said "She got kicked out, didn't you hear? She created an international incident and everything!" It seems she was sent to a remote African village. In the training sessions, she was told that PC workers were allowed to hire a local to act as a housekeeper and they were to pay them $15/month. Well she had inherited money from two sets of grandparents prior to her graduation(neither liked the spouse of their kid so both left it to the grandchild)so she smuggled cash with her in case of an emergency(forbidden). And she decided to pay her housekeeper $100/month because she thought the $15 wasn't fair(her relative said why not $1200 or what you would pay in the US then and she said "Do I look stupid?') Well, after she paid the $100, word quickly spread and there was a riot. The villagers said it must have been for sex, and she must be a lesbian. The second day her brother facing the crowd smashed her head in with a rock to restore the family honor while denying the charges. The Peace Corp had to bribe a local army commander to come into the village and create a diversion while the PC workers were
hurried out in another direction, and flown out of the country. It supposedly took more than a year and payments for past wages to the chief's daughters (who were also housekeepers) to bring anyone back in. In the meantime, the villagers had destroyed the well and other improvements that past Peace Corp workers had provided.
You abide by local conditions or you'll destroy the local economy and bring misery to everyone. The worst markets for farmers are in areas with foreign food hunger assistance shipments. People won't pay anything when food is available for free. And farmers won't/can't plant a second crop when they can't sell the first. Areas that were once breadbaskets for the continent are now waste lands. It would be better to sell the food at local prices and use the money to subsidize local farmers until they are re-established. Then work that money into the local economy in a way that will help everyone.
Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2008 02:47 PM (GgvCQ)
10
Yeah, what he said.
The essential requirement for free markets to work is COMPETITION. And, one can argue, free flow of information. And I don't think I can add to what Darrell has mentioned, except the fact that suppliers of manpower (ergo, us), are SUPPLIERS. We're part of the economy, and independent contractors, to a certain degree. How do suppliers of manpower flex their muscle? Through guilds and unions, that's how. It's not as if you have a monolithic 'management' and a bunch of small, scrappy worker-fighters. The 'management', guess what, are suppliers of manpower too!
Now, let me give you this; the only time you don't have competition is when you have either a monopoly (in which there are no other providers) or an oligopoly (where there are a small number of providers who are of roughly the same size, roughly control the same amount of market share, and who each supply a significant, but not a majority of the marketplace).
Strangely enough, the government is a monopoly. Oligopolies include the oil, beer, tobacco, accounting and audit services, aircraft, military equipment, and motor vehicle industries - which also, strangely enough, suffer the highest amounts of government regulation and interference, increasing masively the barriers to entry.
And do you know what a union is? Yes, in a union shop, the union is a MONOPOLY. And not a good one for the putative monopolists either.
You have to wonder about that wealth-creation, though, Darrell. It's pretty awesomely jaw-dropping, the way the supply of money goes up simply by banks doing their stuff.
I must wonder, though - Attila, you mentioned that Rin is a friend, and that she's plenty smart. Okay, Rin, will you at least concede that we occasionally make sense, and that we did so this one time?
Posted by: Gregory at September 10, 2008 02:28 AM (cjwF0)
11
Dear Darrell;
Eh? Well...
When I was a high-school student, the 'smart' students went into the pure sciences track (bio/chem/phys), and the 'not so smart) students went into the arts track (acct/eco).
Well, come to uni time, and I did my first economics class EVER. And that's where I learnt the basics of the free market. Of course, no econs lecturer worth his salt is going to avoid discussing market failure, and all the 'opolies', and how government is involved in the whole 'public goods' and 'tragedy of the commons' stuff. But if you're asking about 'enlightenment', that's where.
Most of my circle of friends are interested in earning and spending money; they have an excellent grasp of economics as it applies in their life. The political stuff? I'd say most of 'em prefer if the pollies just stayed the hell away and out of their lives. Kinda how I feel too, most of the time.
You wouldn't want Malaysia as a State, anyway. No welfare, crappy State hospitals (and still some are better than some private hospitals), affirmative action for the majority race, overt racism, teh hate on teh gays (sodomy is still a crime on the books, and still being prosecuted), State and Church (well, Masjid/Mosque in this case) most emphatically NOT separated, dirty, dirty politics, absolutely no Green policies to speak of, Constitution amended more often than underwear changed, 30% flat corporate tax (down to 26 this year), 28% highest personal tax bracket, censorship of TV and all other media EXCEPT Internet, monopoly broadband provider, ~$14,400 per capita GDP - not very encouraging, is it?
Posted by: Gregory at September 11, 2008 02:09 AM (cjwF0)
Because I buy music. I buy it compulsively. I buy more music than I buy premium gin.
I have several of your albums on vinyl, and one on CD, and several more tracks that I got through iTunes. I've been meaning to get Hope and Glory, and was considering picking up another album from the old days of the 1970s. I know I can listen track by track off my computer, or on the iPod, but . . . there's something about listening to an entire album all the way through that really floats my boat. Something about having a Cruiser with a sunroof, I suppose.
I saw you in concert in 1980. Really: I'm that fucking old.
You must reconsider, O My Heart-throbs. There are a lot of Libertarian rock and roll people out there; didn't Reynolds mention recently that he'd just listened to to Dreamboat Annie again, and thought "Crazy on You" was the best song ever written about oral sex? (Oh, sorry: "the best Cold War-inspired song about oral sex ever." My bad.)
Hog Beatty: "Dreamboat Annie? Now that album is great, from beginning to end." The man is a walking encyclopedia of rock and roll, dressed up as a blueprint salesman. I was actually going to ask him to dissect for me the differences between the drumwork in "Barracuda" versus "The Immigrant Song," which of course Ann Wilson covered in Hope and Glory. Both songs depend on drums and superhuman lungpower. When I was in high school I was more of a Queen chick than a Led Zepp girl; something to do with the fact that my friends played chess more than they smoked dope, I suppose. Now that I am putatively a grownup, I can listen to whatever I like.
* * *
And, um, RNC? If we're going to use the song, we should be paying the Wilson sisters something for it; fair is fair.
Can't we find whoever-it-is that negotiated the deal between Rush Limbaugh and Chrissie Hynde, and get this ironed out?
3
Seems to me they were pretty clear about it. After all its their song and I thought you GOP types supported property rights?
Posted by: Scott at September 05, 2008 08:10 AM (4hmSz)
4
Ok, first of all, maybe you hate captchas, but oh boy oh boy it can't be fun having spam all over your blog.
Secondly, to Scott, I dunno about other GOP or conservative types. My take on the matter is that property is yours until you give or sell it away. And if you turn it into a tradeable commodity, don't expect to have too much control over what others do with it.
It would be the same as if the KKK Philharmonic, for example, said they didn't want filthy, uppity, dark-skinned folk playing their music. If they pays the money, they gets their music, ya know? Not that most right-minded artists would turn down any revenue stream. And not that after saying something like that, they'd be getting a revenue stream from said dark-skinned folk. Just sayin; you pay, you get.
And besides, asking people to reconsider a stupid decision is hardly nationalising their 'intellectual' assets, now is it?
Posted by: Gregory at September 05, 2008 08:35 AM (DytQX)
5
Limbaugh cut the deal with Hynde before Limbaugh became a conservative icon. If Limbaugh had to negotiate the deal today, he could not bring it off, because Hynde opposes the things that Limbaugh advocates. (Limbaugh loves that, though. It is one reason he will never change the theme music.)
As for paying royalties, the Republican Party is willing to do that. The Wilsons don't want the money.
It's their loss. Free publicity pays for itself. Especially when you are getting paid every time you get publicized. Some folks are just stuck on stupid.
Posted by: Mark L at September 05, 2008 09:52 AM (2X4q0)
6
Mark, you are incorrect. The Hynde-Limbaugh deal occurred in 1997, and I remember tuning in the first morning that he started a show without "My City Was Gone." Rush was already quite rich, and quite famous, and had been on the air for over a decade.
According to Hynde's Wikipedia entry, she reached an accommodation with Limbaugh when he (1) gave Hynde's royalties to an animal-rights organization, and (2) editorialized about an instance of animal cruelty that they agreed on.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 05, 2008 10:38 AM (TpmQk)
8
1.)License fees were already paid when the songs were played. 2.) No prior permission required. 3.) End of discussion.
Royalties (performing rights payments) were already paid for use of the songs to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC by the venue (Xcel Energy Center) or agent of the venue or an agency hired by Republicans to handle the sound/music portion of the program. Since the venue owns the equipment, I'm pretty sure they supply the personnel or work off an approved list of subcontractors. The Wilsons, like almost every songwriter/performer have sold their rights to publishing companies, mechanical rights organizations, and performance rights organizations (BMI/ASCAP/SESAC). These organizations that administer the rights to millions of songs do not have the time or the inclination to consider special requests as to the song's use-- they simply collect the appropriate license fee.
From the ASCAP website-- https://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-payments.html -- "One of the greatest sources of long-and short-term income for songwriters and publishers is the royalty money received from performing rights societies around the world. Of the $4 billion generated worldwide each year, the three U.S. organizations account for over $1.5 billion in collections, with writer- and publisher-owned American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) accounting for over 50% of the total. These organizations negotiate license-fee agreements with the users of music (radio and TV stations, cable stations, concert halls, wired music services, airlines, websites, etc.), which give the user the right to perform the music and lyrics of any member of these organizations. The fees then collected are distributed to the writers and music publishers whose works are performed in the licensed areas. This performing right is one of the most important rights granted by a country's copyright laws. It's based on the concept that a writer's creation is a property right and that a license must be acquired by any user of music in order for that user to perform a copyrighted musical work."
Seems to me some Christian group tried to sue to stop a strip club from using their work a few years ago unsuccessfully. Good luck on convincing the courts that performing rights organizations has to consider the political/social views of artists in granting blanket licenses "Let's see, they're Vegans, opposing NAFTA and organized religion and ...."
So the Wilson sisters join Bruce Springsteen, who did the same thing to Ronald Reagan; Bobby McFerrin(Don't Worry, Be Happy) to G.H.W. Bush; and John Mellencamp and Jackson Browne who did it to John McCain earlier. McCain/Palin will probably do what the others did and stop using the songs. Even though they didn't have to. Has it come to placing "Left" and "Right" stickers on all media? Sure you want to play that game?
Posted by: Darrell at September 05, 2008 02:39 PM (hs7Fr)
Robin Robinson started by saying that “This was the demise of democracy… The Democrat party forced their delegates to vote against the will of the people.” Robin and Bettyjean were bitterly disappointed. When they heard that Sarah Palin was going to be the Vice-Presidential candidate, “our spirits rose and we headed to St. Paul.”
Robin continued, “We were heartbroken that [the Democrats] were going to do this to a woman.” Bettyjean pointed out that, “they turned against Hillary and then they attacked Geraldine Ferraro.”
Robin and Bettyjean said that “the MSM is hiding us, they won’t cover us.”
“Governor Palin will be able to be Vice President and we’re going to support her,” adding, “when we heard the Democrats’ personal attacks against Palin’s family we decided that this is not a ‘Democratic’ party after all.”
“Women’s issues are human rights issues, and without human rights there is no democracy at all.”
They exhorted Hillary supporters to step in now: “If Palin doesn’t become Vice President, no other woman will feel that she’s going to be able to run again…. look at the candidate, and look at the person. Palin’s real.”
They both ended by saying, “If you want change, vote for Sarah Palin.”
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:12 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
The Moron King
succumbs, and lets the Palinmania wash over him like the water from a natural hot spring deep in the woods of the Northwestern wilderness:
I'm not in this for analysis. I'm in for gloating. And I need to be winning to be gloating.
You ever try gloating when you're getting your ass kicked? It doesn't play.
It's been a while since I could really, genuinely, deeply gloat.
Thank you, John McCain and Sarah Palin, for once again letting me laugh.
And thank you, too, liberals. DKM (Daily Kos Media). Barack "Community Organizer" Obama. Power Glutes Andi. Keef Olbermann. You have played no small role in elevating my spirits and bringing joy into my life again.
In fact, to be honest, it has relatively little to do with McCain or Palin and almost everything to do with you.
You shit-for-brains clown-nosed jerkoffs are just about the best thing I've got going on in my life.
You are the wind beneath my wings. I . . . . I think I love you guys.
Was that too forward? I don't want this to get weird. Let me take back the l-bomb and just say: Don't change. Don't change a blessed thing.
After that, the post gets ugly in a hurry. But the soaring rhetoric above? It was so sweet, so . . . beautiful. I nearly cried.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.
Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.
I mean, if the litmus test is that every member of the family live a letter-perfect fundamentalist/traditional-style Roman Catholic life . . . . Dubya messed up.
In what represents a marked shift from the Republican campaign rhetoric of 2004 – where some George W. Bush advisors stoked anti-gay sentiment in an attempt to drive social conservatives to the polls – Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist for the McCain campaign, stopped by a Log Cabin Republican luncheon Thursday to welcome the group to the convention.
“I just wanted to take a second to come by and pay my respect and the campaign’s respect to your organization and to your group,” said Schmidt, who many view as the new architect of the Republican Party. “Your organization is an important one in the fabric of our party.”
In his brief remarks, Schmidt weaved in a personal anecdote about his lesbian sister and her relationship to him, his wife, and his children. “On a personal level, my sister and her partner are an important part of my life and our children’s life,” he said. “I admire your group and your organization and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come.”
This convention marks the first in history that Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBT rights organization, have been fully credentialed official guests of the GOP host committee, and Schmidt is not the only high-profile party figure to address the group. Sen. Alren Specter of Pennsylvania, RNC treasurer Tim Morgan, and McCain political director Mike DuHaime – the first hire made by Schmidt after he took the helm in July – have all spoken at Log Cabin events this week.
That Republican Party leaders are reaching out to Log Cabin members is another sign that neither side of this pitched battle for the presidency wants to concede a single vote. Michelle Obama, after stumping at the LGBT delegate luncheon during the Democratic convention last week, spoke just last night to about 300 donors at an LGBT reception in Los Angeles.
For his part, Schmidt didnÂ’t miss the opportunity to throw a few zingers at Democrats using the backdrop of vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah PalinÂ’s well regarded acceptance speech Wednesday night.
“You saw one of the great speeches in the history of political conventions last night by an accomplished governor of a state who has just announced herself as a major force in the Republican Party in her own right, and I think the other side this morning, when you consider the backlash that is likely to occur after all the vile filth that’s been thrown at her, they ought to be sitting on the other side saying, Oh – My – God,” Schmidt said to the cheers of some 50 attendees. “I’ve been in some tough political fights in my career, and I will just tell you that over the last 48 hours, the smearing and the defamation of this family is unlike anything I have ever seen.”
Yeah. One of the stupidest missteps I ever saw was when the Dole campaign returned money from the Log Cabin Republicans. For what it's worth, when Reagan got money from them, he was perfectly happy. And I don't even want to talk about how misunderstood Goldwater was on this issue. Now there was a man who wanted to keep the State out of our bedrooms.
Anyway, Schmidt's appearance represents a welcome change; it's nice that I no longer have to hear a lot of high-pitched wailing about "the gay agenda." (Which I always picture as a sort of crododile-hide embossed appointment book, "LGBT" monogrammed tastefully in gold in one corner.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.
Reader-Participation Time!
I'm almost out of multiple vitamins. Please advise. Should I:
1) Just get more vitamins geared toward premenopausal chicks, with the extra iron and calcium?
2) Look into Bausch & Lomb supplements, since my eyesight is my biggest asset? (I am, after all, a proofreader.)
3) Try to get more of my nutrients from actual food, instead of living on breakfast cereal, canned soup and Luna Bars when I get too busy?
Or:
4) Stop taking vitamins. Americans have the most expensive urine in the world, and I'm unlikely to out-live my grandmother, in any event. (At 95, she's the Energizer Bunny of Shell Beach.)
1
Regardless of your eating habits, I would still use a good store brand multivitamin/multimineral supplement--the more comprehensive the better. I buy them when the stores reorganize their shelves and put everything on clearance once or twice a year. If you take one a day or so there is no potential for harm. And if you are missing something, there is the potential for benefit. Easy choice.
Posted by: Darrell at September 05, 2008 02:48 PM (hs7Fr)
Patterico Reads Sully
. . . so you don't have to. Don't follow the links back, though! (Patterico didn't get the memo on that.)
My favorite Andrew Sullivan contradiction WRT Sarah Palin is that the public supposedly needs to see Trig's birth records, to verify that the baby is her own—but he's apparently appalled that Trig was present last night, used "as a prop" for Palin's campaign. Can't we make up our minds about whether Palin's family life is something that needs to be endlessly discussed in the public sphere?
Veep candidates usually bring their families to conventions. Deal. Next, we're going to be hearing about how awful it is that Bristol isn't wearing a scarlet "A" on her maternity dresses.
Though I think it would be awfully nice if we could lay off of Andrew on the gay thing. Were any of us making a fuss about that when he supported the War on Terror? It's beside the point for most of us, and you know it, Boyz.
1
I don't know about the Moron-in-Chief, I really don't. He sounded pretty damned serious to me.
But OK, never mind ol' Ace. You were asking about Patterico. I've got an idea Patterico's pretty much fairly incensed at AS right about now. Treating Sarah Palin's children they way he did, plus calling them 'fair game', I suspect Patterico lifted a page out of Ace's handbook and decided that AS's, erm, ass, is 'fair game' too. Hence the 'Glutes' remark. Could be worse. The post you linked to didn't have Patterico write about the 'milky loads' in the main body. So, not complete all-Acey, if there's such a term. And Beldar's kinda mad at AS too.
I won't lose too much sleep over it. It's just your bog-standard juvenile name-calling; just so happens, the facts are documented on Excitable Andy, is all.
Thing is, I never knew (read) a pre-crazy Andy Sullivan. So it's kinda hard for me to judge, you know? I'm just going with the flow and buying me some Pringles, since popcorn doesn't work out all that well in a muggy climate.
Sarahcudda rocks! is what I think
But the rain washes out my DirecTV
and Vista's networking troubles rears its ugly head again
Posted by: Gregory at September 04, 2008 11:52 PM (cjwF0)
2
I don't believe Ace is really anti-homosexual. I don't believe Patrick is, either. They are both royally pissed off at Sullivan, but it seems to me that this comes about as a result of reading Andrew Sullivan, which is one's first mistake.
Of course, if Patterico didn't have such a strong stomach, he couldn't read the Los Angeles Times and critique it as thoroughly and ruthlessly as he has over the years. So I'm glad that . . . someone's doing it.
But Ace, anti-gay? Doubt it. Patterico, anti-gay? Absolutely not.
They're just fighting dirty--that's all.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 05, 2008 12:42 AM (TpmQk)
3
Argh. I dunno if my post got eaten or not. Stupid argle bargyle whrgrbl Streamyx broadbandmyass connection.
Just in case it didn't get through, yeah, I read it pretty much the same way. Anti-Andy more than anything else.
Posted by: Gregory at September 05, 2008 08:49 AM (DytQX)
The sexism of the media certainly helped stoke the fires that created the rift between Hillary supporters and the Obama campaign. If a rerun does anything, it will remind these same voters of the Obama campaignÂ’s silence in the face of these attacks. And so far, although Obama warned people off from attacking the Palin children, they have said nothing about the audacity of questioning PalinÂ’s mothering skills.
This sends a more subtle message, too. HillaryÂ’s aides certainly came to PalinÂ’s defense rather quickly. They could just as easily have waited to make this point on November 5th. The media attacks certainly help Obama, at least in the short run, to define Palin as some sort of denizen of the double-wides. If they put a stop to that by getting vocal in the early stages of this media mauling, does that signal Hillary supporters to continue rejecting Obama?
Well, Ed. To ask the question is to have answered it. The Clintons will continue to go through the motions of supporting Obama, but they are unlikely to be terribly convincing about it.
Nice Address, Sarah.
I sat down with my husband's two remote controls and figured out how to turn on the television. A few minutes later, I'd persuaded it to snap out of some sort of Charter-stupor and give me a news channel; Palin was at the podium, and about to give her speech.
I had just long enough to run to the restroom and pour myself a Tanqueray on the rocks before she started.
It was lovely; the buzz, of course, was that she'd stick to a sort of "getting-to-know-you" speech, rather than taking on the Veep candidate's traditional "attack dog" role.
No.
She re-introduced her family, focusing on her daughters and on her son, who is about to deploy to Iraq (her future son-in-law simply stood up as his fiancee did, when Palin introduced her daughters). Palin introduced her own baby, and talked about special-needs kids. She spoke about small-town values, and how as a mayor she had to actually make decisions, versus just "organizing." Then she spoke about energy, went on the attack, and finished up by highlighting McCain's biography and his qualifications for the job he's, um, applying for.
It's hard to critique the speech because the Palin-mania in the room was already so strong, but I really think she turned in a nice performance. She lost her place once, for just a few seconds, and made two or three little single-word errors that I doubt anyone noticed.
Mostly, though, she held the room. Again, it's hard to say how she would have performed in a crowd that wasn't already so pumped to see her, but I still think she did beautifully.
The makeover was also brilliant: no "Republican red" for Sarah, although I think she's got a soft spot for strong colors. Rimless glasses (the sides in a soft, translucent blue), subtle jewelry, and a light-blue suit that said, "I'm telling the truth, and I can hold my own; but I don't need to be in the spotlight." Hair both up anddown: down, but with a small bun in the back. (I'm including this information because male politicians sometimes complain that women are permitted greater latitude in how they dress, and this is true. But the McCain campaign toned Sarah down considerably for this speech—right down to the glasses and the barely-there lipstick.)
It was a lovely performance, and I think her attacks on Obama were reasonably effective.
I decided I should listen to some analysis, so I tried to turn to another channel. The television went blue, and wouldn't budge. I turned off it and the cable box, and then turned them both on. This time, no pay-per-view menu. No Charter hell. Just a blue television that refused to pay attention to either of the remotes.
And now I'll have to tell my husband that I think I broke the TV, and he'll laugh and show me what I did wrong. And I won't remember, and I'll ask him to write it down.
But I saw Sarah's speech—with any empty bladder, yet, and some bottled water and Tanq-on-the-rocks by my side.
I really think she struck a balance, there. She killed 'em. Softly.
I Do Not Believe This Is Lisa Nova.
I think it's Audrey Rapaport, who has apparently relocated to New York City.
I can kind of see a ballpark similarity between Audrey and Lisa, but I still think this is an Audrey production because of that distinctive curl of the lips that's much more Rapoport-esque than Nova-ish.
But I cannot be sure.
Will the real fake-Sarah, fake-Hillary stand up? (And, with all due respect for both John McCain and Sarah Palin, I do thing the first clip is hilarious. It's essentially the Republican version of that SNL skit from a few months ago in which Obama gets into the White House—but has to call up Hillary every night to ask for advice. So relax!)
I just wish I could be positive. Lisa, or Audrey?
I still think it's Audrey, because I've seen her in a few plays here in Los Angeles—and I got a good look at her up close once when she was doing improv.
Original Sunset Boulevard clip is here, for reference. Audrey (or is it Lisa?) does a wonderful job. I love Lisa (or is it Audrey?).
And, by the way, I hope the Mad TV fans are not mixing up Lisa Nova with Lisa Arch, (aka Lisa Kushell) who is, of course, also a veteran of that show.
h/t: This whole thing started off via Allah's post at Hot Air earlier in the day. I just can't look at that Palin impression and think it's anyone other than Audrey.
UPDATE: Pwned. It was Lisa, which I would have realized if I'd followed the link back to her playground on YouTube in the first place.
But the resemblance, and the knack for caricature, is uncanny.
Hm. She and Rapaport should do something together: Desperately Seeking Sarah, or something like that.
1
Cute. Now ask yourself, "Who's agenda does this serve?" "Would you vote for either of these candidates?" "Where is the 'gentle' fun being poked at the opposing candidates (not someone who is out of it like Hillary)?"
The "Mission Impossible" ringtone on Sarah's phone is quite accurate, though.
Posted by: Darrell at September 06, 2008 12:55 PM (PHm1M)
2
I have no horse in this race as both candidates favor open borders which will inflate our population and put even more strain on oil, water, infrastructure and housing resources. All more pressing than figuring out which nit wit is the best exquipped to steering our ship of state into the next iceberg.
Political parties exist only to win elections. If it won elections the Republicans would support roasting babies on pitch forks and the Democrats would still be in favor of slavery.
People who object most to Palin seem to have accomplished much less in their lives or owe their position to a rich husband or a rich father or both. Palin and Obama had neither. The argument consists of calling a spade a kettle and crying over spilled sour grapes, the facts and logic are so jumbled as to be ridiculous.
The Democratic party is a coalition of interest groups unfortunately the extreme left of those interest groups is wagging the dog to advance their socialist agenda and using the words of well meaning folk to do it. The extreme left is a minority in the Democratic party like the religious right is in the Republican party but as the Bolsheviks showed in Russia the majority doesn't always rule in the face of an amoral, unprincipled, violent minority that believes the end justifies the means.
Posted by: Sejanus at September 03, 2008 03:56 PM (qfsKL)
1
The Messiah with a thin resume is a frickin joke and the media supporting this no-achievement Barry Hussien Osama/Obama is doubly a joke!
Go Sarah go! In fact, dump Juan McAmnesty.....Sarah for President!!
Posted by: RSG at September 03, 2008 01:06 PM (HH3AB)
2
Sarah Palin could choose Lieberman as running mate and I'd still probably vote for her.
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 03, 2008 01:14 PM (6go9w)
3
Women in the media hate Sarah Palin because most of them are east coast elitists who think one like them should be the first woman to win a national election. An independent, frontier, tough-as-nails woman, educated in Idaho for gosh-sakes, doing so would be just, uh, ridiculous. Too delicious!
Posted by: John at September 03, 2008 01:58 PM (lO8Xg)
4
Where's the damn media investigating Barry's father (muslim-communist), step-father (muslim-communist) and mother (radical hippie communist)?
Posted by: Bruce at September 03, 2008 02:10 PM (HH3AB)
5
In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion
about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking
Barack, what if the development of alternate energy
sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach
to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go
for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between
our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken
us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't
gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes
into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if
it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national
security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy
infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations,
the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take
to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative
fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to
transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely
new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and
goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to
secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale,
while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and
Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way
of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency,
like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad
cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be
playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling
with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences
which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are
extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who
does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as
President of the United States.
Posted by: Howard at September 13, 2008 10:32 AM (VUlvt)
But the rain washes out my DirecTV 
and Vista's networking troubles rears its ugly head again 
