Archive for March, 2009
Bookworm
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009Economic Collapse Predicted in 2001
Anatomy of a giant Ponzi Scheme
Business Week
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009We Need An Ethics Czar
Why not? We have every other kind of czar now. What we need is an ethical President.
President Obama’s “Multitrillion-dollar Tax Hike”
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009How does Barack Obama increase your taxes without obviously increasing your taxes? He taxes the lucky Americans who have health care, that’s how. He also makes veterans pay for their own care (more here, here, here and here). What I want to concentrate on today, though, is how the vast majority of Americans will be taxed. The Washington Times reports:
Neither Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, nor Lawrence H. Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, ruled out a plan to tax employee health care benefits to help pay for the president’s overhaul of the system. They said Mr. Obama is open to all ideas on his health care plan, so long as they fall within the principles outlined in his budget.
And yet, this is what President Obama campaigned on, “”On health care reform — two extremes. On one end, government-run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong.”
Suddenly, government-run health care and higher taxes are looking better–unless you’re a vet and you pay for your own health care. President Obama’s plan seems to be the same as it always has been: take from those who produce and/or serve and create a health care system that’s mediocre for all:
Like Ms. Romer, though, he did not directly answer an invitation to take taxes on health care benefits off the table.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama took a much harsher tack, running a spate of ads denouncing Republican opponent John McCain’s health care plan on precisely those grounds – that it was partially financed by taxes from counting the value of medical insurance as taxable income. He called the McCain proposal a “multitrillion-dollar tax hike.”
When asked about a report in Sunday’s New York Times that the president was considering such a move, Austan Goolsbee, also of the Council of Economic Advisers, said, “The president has laid out a series of clear principles on the health plan that we will do whatever it takes to get affordable quality coverage to all Americans.”
Well, it’s not a tax hike if he does it. It’s a “health care for all” on the backs of the few.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
KausFiles
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009“The Uninvited”
Sour grapes and rotten tomatoes about JournoList
Lost In “Manslations”
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009I was sent the following article by someone who remembered my April Fools post about what men need to do to keep their relationship hot. That article set off the most bizarre set of circumstances. People believed I was serious. Men sent me adoring letters and thanked me for sharing the truth. It was amusing and disturbing all at once.
So a new book “Manslations” has been released. Here’s a snippet of a review from CNN:
Actions speak louder than words. Sure, not a novel idea, but this “duh” lesson is one that can take years to learn. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
Mac’s Golden Rule? Whenever there is any conflict between what a man says and what he does, always, always ignore what he says.
There is no such thing as a man dumping you because he is afraid of getting hurt, is frightened that his feelings are too strong, or because he finds you intimidating. Mac says to think of the simplest solution — is it that this man sensed you were the perfect woman for him, who touched him so much in deep, important places that he couldn’t handle? Or was he just not feeling it?
It’s OK to call him first — and if you get blown off, it’s not because you called first. This is my favorite piece of advice from Mac, who says the mistaken conclusion women come to when they call first post-date and get blown off is that the call made them look clingy and spooked the guy.
“This is not how it went,” says Mac. “If you called him and he blew you off, it went like this:
1. You had a great date, and he did not.
2. He planned to blow you off.
3. You called him, and nothing changed.”
Good to know about the calling part. Men aren’t all that complicated to me. But women are all unique, I readily admit. Robert Stacy McCain wrote a piece about the differences between men and women and this part was especially insightful:
Words like “thoughtful” and “sensitive” describe the qualities necessary to cooperate effectively with women. One must carefully monitor one’s interactions with them, gauge their reactions and adjust accordingly. For most men, and especially for hyper-rationalizing men like Ziegler, this is a terrifying tightrope walk across an abyss.
Most men are not naturally thoughtful and sensitive in that way, and they resent having to devote effort to “relationship management”—a task at which they suck— when it would be a far more productive use of their time to concentrate on doing the things they do best.
And yet, men want access to women so they make the effort, or sometimes do. Many men give up. The benefits of companionship don’t outweigh the challenges the relationship brings.
This natural mysterious back in forth will continue forever. What does disturb is the impulse by feminists to want to remove the masculine. There has been a concerted attempt to demonize typically masculine behavior. Worst of all, many men seem to have conceded the argument. Says McCain:
All we ever hear from them is bitch, bitch, bitch—especially when a man dares call attention to their faults. Gentlemen, you are guilty of cowardice for not speaking out more strongly in your own defense, and in defense of your fellow men.
What I wonder is if the crisis in American leadership can be traced to the crisis in manhood.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
Republicans Even A Newspaper Editor Could Love
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009It started yesterday with this funny NY Post article (via Conservative Grapevine:
Dear Mainstream Media:
I’m a conservative who believes that other conservatives are fat, drug-stuffed, money-grubbing warthogs like Rush Limbaugh, or scary inbred backwoods retards like Sarah Palin.
So can I please be your go-to guy whenever you need a conservative viewpoint?
Today, John Hawkins has a list of Republicans even Republican-haters love (need I remind everyone of the super-secret email list of Democratic politicians, media types and academics–so diverse a group ideologically). Here’s my favorite:
Andrew Sullivan: Sully was generally considered to be left-of-center, but built a name for himself on the right by supporting the war in Iraq. However, after Bush supported a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, “Excitable Andy” turned on the war, Bush, his former conservative allies, and Christians with a vengeance.
Ironically, even as he aimed frothing hatred at all things conservative, Sully claimed to be a conservative. Of course, no conservative I know of considers Andrew Sullivan to be conservative and most people on the right consider him to be a far left-wing crackpot.
Personally, I think Sully personifies a quote from Thomas Sowell’s magnificent book, ‘The Vision Of The Anointed’
“Many of these “thinking people” could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind may historic catastrophes.”
Sullivan is indeed very articulate, but he’s also the most inconsistent, scatterbrained, haphazard writer in politics today — and even most liberals, after years of insisting that he was a conservative, will now admit that he’s actually a fellow liberal. Tragically, Sullivan now embraces wacky conspiracy theories as well and his sentiments are generally indistinguishable from the kookiest diarists on the Daily Kos once you get beyond the exceptional quality of his writing.
Go read the whole thing. David Frum and Kathleen Parker receive my #2 and #3 spot. Why? Because they don’t respectfully disagree. They tore down their own for their own careers. It’s pathetic. They need to go away.
Brutally Honest
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009First They Came For AIG Executives
By the way, Obama knew about the payouts before the bill was signed.
Would You Like A Gitmo Neighbor?–UPDATED AND BUMPED
Tuesday, March 17th, 2009UPDATED: Yesterday, I wrote about this. Today, Reuters is confirming the concern. President Obama plans to release terrorists into the United States population. Yes, you read that right. It’s worse than you think:
“For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country,” he said.
Holder said it was possible the 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held for years at Guantanamo, and two or three others prisoners, could be freed in the United States.
The 17 members of the Uighur ethic group have been cleared for release but have nonetheless remained at Guantanamo while the United States tries to find a country willing to take them. The U.S. government has said it cannot return them to China because they would face persecution there.
“We’ve been trying to come up with places for them,” Holder said of the Uighurs. Their lawyers have asked Obama to bring them to the United States.
So, no one in the world wants them. The natural solution? Release them in the United States! My only request of Attorney General Holder: Please, please just release them to Berkeley, California. Or better yet, I’m sure the Kos kids will take ‘em.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Why will Holder consider releasing them in the US? The Obama administration found out that talk is cheap among our European allies. Most of the detainees can’t return to their home countries, because their home countries will either kill them (Saudi Arabia, China), torture them and then kill them (Egypt), or send them straight back to al-Qaeda with lovely parting gifts (Yemen). Obama wants Europe to take them, since most of Europe spent the last seven years criticizing Gitmo and demanding their release. Now that Obama actually called their bluff, Europe suddenly discovers that they don’t want dangerous terrorists in their back yards, either.
Is Obama calling the Left’s bluff? That would actually be pretty smart–except I can totally see him releasing these people on American soil. Like I said, Berkeley sounds like a good place for ‘em.
**********************
No one wants a Gitmo detainee for a neighbor and for good reason. In January, I wrote about the problems that the terrorists would present if they sat in American prisons:
What do you do with murderous and suicidal terrorists intent on killing prison guards or killing themselves? What do you do with a bunch of crazies who wish to spread a virulent ideology to any discontent who will listen? What do you do with dangerous people possessing dangerous secrets where the secrets, if leaked in a court battle, would endanger those in the court, the local populace, and the world at large? What do you do enemies who would provide a target-rich environment for those who would “save” them from prison? How do you keep those around these targets safe?
And of course, this is the problem with that vague European solution:
So some European countries might accept these powder kegs. Seems they don’t want the innocent lambs among their prison population and population in general, either. They want to snipe at President Bush for vague human rights concerns but they don’t want to expose their own populations to the risk these guys present. How very typically hypocritical.
Why would the brave Europeans balk at these guys? Maybe this is why:
This video illustrates why President Bush created Guantanamo. He’s looking smarter by the day.
