Oh my, what a slacker I am! It is after noon on Friday and I've yet to post the BFFFFA....
Well, here it is, people.
And for those keeping score, 187, down 9.5 since Jan 1.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Nancy Pelosi Vexes Me
In this performance Madam (Former) Speaker lectures Republicans on fiscal responsibility. This, from the leader of a body that punted on passing a budget last year because it was politically inconvenient in light of the myriad political miscalculations she and her cohort made in their two years of conspiring with the White House to enshrine the federal government even deeper in everyday life.
This is a breathtaking performance, political cynicism of the highest order.
HT--Hot Air and Instapundit
This is a breathtaking performance, political cynicism of the highest order.
HT--Hot Air and Instapundit
A Moment for Art
H/T: The Browser
On Japan
We are seeing a great civilization in action in Japan, one in which its social mores, its respect for authority, its reverence for the whole, and its profound orientation to action are on full display. The scenes of what everyday life has become for many of its citizens are tough to watch; the poise with which this great people currently face their task is admirable.
I will leave it to others to delve into the comparative reactions of regional populations to natural disasters. And I am not ignorant to the great wrongs perpetrated by the Japanese on each other and on others across the centuries.
I will only sit back in this modern age and witness a strong, proud people soldiering on in the face of great adversity.
CORRECTION: On Monday night's radio show, I made reference to what I took to be China's inactivity in coming to Japan's aid. I have since corrected my under-informed condition and acknowledge that China has been quite active in coming to Japan's aid.
I will leave it to others to delve into the comparative reactions of regional populations to natural disasters. And I am not ignorant to the great wrongs perpetrated by the Japanese on each other and on others across the centuries.
I will only sit back in this modern age and witness a strong, proud people soldiering on in the face of great adversity.
CORRECTION: On Monday night's radio show, I made reference to what I took to be China's inactivity in coming to Japan's aid. I have since corrected my under-informed condition and acknowledge that China has been quite active in coming to Japan's aid.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Separated At Birth: Greenshoots Edition
Irrationally exuberant former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan, and....
Creepily exuberant Six Flags guy.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Just Say No To Libya
The scenes of rebels bravely taking on Colonel Qaddafi's Army in the struggle for who will rule Libya pull at ones's heart strings. How can it be so that we are not actively supporting people dedicated to overthrowing a man who murdered our sons and daughters in discos and on airliners? How can it be so that the world's largest military is not providing a "no fly zone" over Libyan skies and actively supplying the rebels with guns and butter? Have we walked away from our responsibility as the world's standard bearer for democracy?
These are hard questions, and they deserve serious consideration. That said, the United States should not become actively involved militarily in Libya for a very simple reason--there is no compelling national interest to do so.
Americans are stuck in a 20th Century mindset, when there were only two competing governance visions--communism and democracy (oh, and a handful of dictators beholden to the superpowers). When we look at independence movements around the world and see the bright faces of people streaming into public squares in protest of dictators with decades of tenure, we assume that they want what we want, that when they've unhorsed their dictator, they will ride into the loving arms of freedom loving capitalist world. This is simply not the case anymore in a wide swath of the Arab-Islamic world. There, unhorsing the dictator is just as likely to bring about theocratic fascism as it is anything resembling market oriented democracy.
We have no ties to Libya, save for ties of mistrust and vengeance. We have little in the way of economic exchange. American personal and corporate interests are few and far between there, though they have been on the increase since relations with Qaddafi warmed late in the Bush Administration. Those seeking Qaddafi's overthrow must remember that late last decade, things between our nations moved in a different direction when Qaddafi renounced his WMD program. Those who cite Qaddafi's past terrorist actions as rationale for intervention, they conveniently forget that as far as the US government is concerned, all is forgotten vis-a-vis Lockerbie, et al.
Those who would have us intervene in Libya by imposing a no-fly zone must answer to the question of escalation. What happens when they shoot back? Once we've bombed their surface to air missile sites and destroyed their air force, will we then destroy their mechanized units on the ground? How big a step is it to providing the rebels with air protection to then providing them with ground protection?
Those who would have us intervene (yet again) in the Islamic world must account for the return on investment we receive from our two ONGOING interventions there--Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a trillion dollars into those two wars and 4000 lives--and while I do believe we are marginally safer at home as a result, to say those margins could only have been gained in costly ground wars there strains credulity. All the while, our economy has tanked and China has ascended. We are intelligently backing our way out of these two costly land engagements as we try to mend our economy--taking on a third is simply reckless.
If one looks at Qaddafi's sins against us and the world, and then compares them to Saddam's sins, there is no comparison. Saddam was a world menace on a scale that Qaddafi can't even approach--yet many of the same people kvetching for intervention in Libya scorned such intervention in Iraq. Why? Because George Bush was at the helm, and because there is an insidious strain of thinking on the left (especially) that certifies the holiness of military interventions based on the LACK of national interest--that the only military interventions are ones we undertake in a spirit of selflessness and at the service of mankind. Bunk. We go to war (and make no mistake--a no fly zone over Libya is an act of war) in support of enduring national interests, or we sit on our hands and wish that there were more that we can do. We don't and shouldn't go to war because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
Are there things we can do in Libya IF we feel it is in our interest to do so that are short of war? Surely. We can funnel arms through intermediaries. We can train others to do our bidding. But first, we must figure out what our bidding is. In the old days, the overthrow of a dictator more often than not meant the rise of a government more in keeping with our interests and values. This is no longer the case. We must know more about the nature of the uprising; that it opposes the present government is insufficient. We should not act without insight into the direction it wishes to take the country. That's right--"freedom" is insufficient, if that freedom means only the freedom to overthrow a dictator in favor of an Islamic Theocracy. We are far too overstretched to assuage our national conscience in order to fertilize yet another Islamo-fascist field.
These are hard questions, and they deserve serious consideration. That said, the United States should not become actively involved militarily in Libya for a very simple reason--there is no compelling national interest to do so.
Americans are stuck in a 20th Century mindset, when there were only two competing governance visions--communism and democracy (oh, and a handful of dictators beholden to the superpowers). When we look at independence movements around the world and see the bright faces of people streaming into public squares in protest of dictators with decades of tenure, we assume that they want what we want, that when they've unhorsed their dictator, they will ride into the loving arms of freedom loving capitalist world. This is simply not the case anymore in a wide swath of the Arab-Islamic world. There, unhorsing the dictator is just as likely to bring about theocratic fascism as it is anything resembling market oriented democracy.
We have no ties to Libya, save for ties of mistrust and vengeance. We have little in the way of economic exchange. American personal and corporate interests are few and far between there, though they have been on the increase since relations with Qaddafi warmed late in the Bush Administration. Those seeking Qaddafi's overthrow must remember that late last decade, things between our nations moved in a different direction when Qaddafi renounced his WMD program. Those who cite Qaddafi's past terrorist actions as rationale for intervention, they conveniently forget that as far as the US government is concerned, all is forgotten vis-a-vis Lockerbie, et al.
Those who would have us intervene in Libya by imposing a no-fly zone must answer to the question of escalation. What happens when they shoot back? Once we've bombed their surface to air missile sites and destroyed their air force, will we then destroy their mechanized units on the ground? How big a step is it to providing the rebels with air protection to then providing them with ground protection?
Those who would have us intervene (yet again) in the Islamic world must account for the return on investment we receive from our two ONGOING interventions there--Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a trillion dollars into those two wars and 4000 lives--and while I do believe we are marginally safer at home as a result, to say those margins could only have been gained in costly ground wars there strains credulity. All the while, our economy has tanked and China has ascended. We are intelligently backing our way out of these two costly land engagements as we try to mend our economy--taking on a third is simply reckless.
If one looks at Qaddafi's sins against us and the world, and then compares them to Saddam's sins, there is no comparison. Saddam was a world menace on a scale that Qaddafi can't even approach--yet many of the same people kvetching for intervention in Libya scorned such intervention in Iraq. Why? Because George Bush was at the helm, and because there is an insidious strain of thinking on the left (especially) that certifies the holiness of military interventions based on the LACK of national interest--that the only military interventions are ones we undertake in a spirit of selflessness and at the service of mankind. Bunk. We go to war (and make no mistake--a no fly zone over Libya is an act of war) in support of enduring national interests, or we sit on our hands and wish that there were more that we can do. We don't and shouldn't go to war because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
Are there things we can do in Libya IF we feel it is in our interest to do so that are short of war? Surely. We can funnel arms through intermediaries. We can train others to do our bidding. But first, we must figure out what our bidding is. In the old days, the overthrow of a dictator more often than not meant the rise of a government more in keeping with our interests and values. This is no longer the case. We must know more about the nature of the uprising; that it opposes the present government is insufficient. We should not act without insight into the direction it wishes to take the country. That's right--"freedom" is insufficient, if that freedom means only the freedom to overthrow a dictator in favor of an Islamic Theocracy. We are far too overstretched to assuage our national conscience in order to fertilize yet another Islamo-fascist field.
Too Big To Fail: The Musical
No wonder arteests are always crying for more government patronage:
"Six out of every seven musicals fail to recoup their investment."
Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark may make that seven.
Agenda for Tonight's Conservative Wahoo Live! Internet Radio Program
Tune in tonight to The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM Eastern, where our agenda will be:
• Disaster in Japan
• Future of US Nuclear Power industry
• Wisconsin update: Walker reigns, Fleeing Fourteen return
• NPR
• President Obama wishes he were Hu?
• March Madness
Call in at 347.637.2203 to participate or listen in at the link above.
• Disaster in Japan
• Future of US Nuclear Power industry
• Wisconsin update: Walker reigns, Fleeing Fourteen return
• NPR
• President Obama wishes he were Hu?
• March Madness
Call in at 347.637.2203 to participate or listen in at the link above.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Signs of the Apocalypse Department
Wisconsin legislators who skipped town rather than do their jobs, welcomed by thousands back to Madison, WI.
I remain transfixed by the moxie of those on the left who believe that Governor Walker's initiatives were anti-Democratic. He and a Republican majority were swept into office last fall to do EXACTLY what they've done. The cowardice of the "Fleeing Fourteen" was a naked attempt to derail the will of the people as expressed in THE ACCEPTED, LEGITIMATE manner--elections, not polls.
This statement--from one of the cowards--galled me: "So people think this is a picnic for us - they're wrong," he said. "We did it for the right reasons. We stood up for our working men and women in the state." Since when did "working men and women" come to be synonymous with union workers? Or blue collar workers. My weekly time sheet and the glares I get around the house lead me to believe I work PLENTY.
Also, I love the farmers joining in. Farm subsidies should be next....
I remain transfixed by the moxie of those on the left who believe that Governor Walker's initiatives were anti-Democratic. He and a Republican majority were swept into office last fall to do EXACTLY what they've done. The cowardice of the "Fleeing Fourteen" was a naked attempt to derail the will of the people as expressed in THE ACCEPTED, LEGITIMATE manner--elections, not polls.
This statement--from one of the cowards--galled me: "So people think this is a picnic for us - they're wrong," he said. "We did it for the right reasons. We stood up for our working men and women in the state." Since when did "working men and women" come to be synonymous with union workers? Or blue collar workers. My weekly time sheet and the glares I get around the house lead me to believe I work PLENTY. Also, I love the farmers joining in. Farm subsidies should be next....
Saturday, March 12, 2011
E.J. Filet
It's always nice to see other folks beat up on everyone's favorite paste-eating liberal columnist, E.J. Dionne.
The NFL Lockout--Who Cares?
So, the NFL players have been "locked out". Just a quick question for you rabid NFL fans.....who cares? Certainly not Tom "Carnival" Brady, who apparently was "locked out" so effectively that he ended up in Brazil. This "strike" (because that's the word we use to describe stuff like this) causes me angst only from the standpoint of not knowing which side is less right.
There are so many issues on the table here, dissecting any one of them leaves so much uncovered that it isn't worth going into. Do I feel really awful about players who wind up in long term medical care because of multiple brain injuries? You betchya. Do I think the owners are money-grubbing cartel-ists? Yep. Do I think the season is already too long? Yep. Do I think players make too much money---er, no, not as long as the market can stand it.
What IS silly though is this statement by the player's union (well, former player's union) rep: "I will tell you this: Any business where two partners don't trust each other, any business where one party says, 'You need to do X, Y and Z because I told you,' is a business that is not only not run well, it is a business that can never be as successful as it can be," Smith said. The NFL players and the owners are NOT partners. Owners are owners and players are labor. Pure and simple. Whether in the auto industry or the NFL, a business cannot long prosper which forgets that labor and capital are different and ultimately have different interests, some of which are antithetical.
I'm sure there are plenty of lost souls whose fall and winter will be made even more desolate without the chance to put on their Steeler jersey on a Sunday before they go to the Giant, or the inconsolable folks who thought to drown their loss of collective bargaining rights in beer, brats, and foam cheese headware, or those who will no longer be able to cheer on animal abusers. But I will be none the worse for a football season lost to history.
There are so many issues on the table here, dissecting any one of them leaves so much uncovered that it isn't worth going into. Do I feel really awful about players who wind up in long term medical care because of multiple brain injuries? You betchya. Do I think the owners are money-grubbing cartel-ists? Yep. Do I think the season is already too long? Yep. Do I think players make too much money---er, no, not as long as the market can stand it.
What IS silly though is this statement by the player's union (well, former player's union) rep: "I will tell you this: Any business where two partners don't trust each other, any business where one party says, 'You need to do X, Y and Z because I told you,' is a business that is not only not run well, it is a business that can never be as successful as it can be," Smith said. The NFL players and the owners are NOT partners. Owners are owners and players are labor. Pure and simple. Whether in the auto industry or the NFL, a business cannot long prosper which forgets that labor and capital are different and ultimately have different interests, some of which are antithetical.
I'm sure there are plenty of lost souls whose fall and winter will be made even more desolate without the chance to put on their Steeler jersey on a Sunday before they go to the Giant, or the inconsolable folks who thought to drown their loss of collective bargaining rights in beer, brats, and foam cheese headware, or those who will no longer be able to cheer on animal abusers. But I will be none the worse for a football season lost to history.
Friday, March 11, 2011
WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
The pressures of the job are apparently taking their toll on The One:
"Mr Obama has told people it would be much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahir Square.'"
-- The New York Times, March 11, 2011
No one drafted you for this job, Mr. President - remember, you sought it out. But look on the bright side, I'll bet you Hu Jintao never has time for golf.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Here it is folks, that time of the week where you can bitch, bitch, bitch!
I'm going to bitch about MUD again. My God, when will it stop raining! Mud everywhere, made no better by the renovation traffic. Oh--the renovation you ask? Don't ask. Into month 8 of our 7 month renovation.....
I'm going to bitch about MUD again. My God, when will it stop raining! Mud everywhere, made no better by the renovation traffic. Oh--the renovation you ask? Don't ask. Into month 8 of our 7 month renovation.....
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Military: Too White, Too Male
..at least according to the study cited in this story.
I guess the question to be raised here--and I'm sorry to be Clintonian--is what the meaning of the word "too" is.
I guess by the meaning I discern--that because the proportion of women and minorities is less than what they represent in the general population, the following can be assumed:
1. Congress is too white
2. Congress is too male
3. The NBA is too black
4. The NFL is too black
5. MLB is too hispanic
6. Fortune 500 boardrooms are too white
7. NASCAR is too white
8. NASCAR is too male
9. The View is too female
The silliness continues....
I guess the question to be raised here--and I'm sorry to be Clintonian--is what the meaning of the word "too" is.
I guess by the meaning I discern--that because the proportion of women and minorities is less than what they represent in the general population, the following can be assumed:
1. Congress is too white
2. Congress is too male
3. The NBA is too black
4. The NFL is too black
5. MLB is too hispanic
6. Fortune 500 boardrooms are too white
7. NASCAR is too white
8. NASCAR is too male
9. The View is too female
The silliness continues....
Beating Obama
I've written here before--and we just talked extensively Monday night--about the difficulty of beating Barack Obama in 2012. Not impossible, just difficult.
Some interesting numbers here reinforce the notion that he can be beaten. Sixty four percent of the American public think we're on the wrong track--and the President's support among "independents" has slipped from 47% to 37%.
Some interesting numbers here reinforce the notion that he can be beaten. Sixty four percent of the American public think we're on the wrong track--and the President's support among "independents" has slipped from 47% to 37%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
