I really, really hope that a lot of people who voted for Obama are experiencing buyer’s remorse now.
Associated Press, August 26 (emphasis added):
In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.
A new Web site launched Monday by the Obama administration to rebut alleged disinformation about the administration's efforts to reform the health care system claims that reform “would not add one penny to the deficit"--despite the fact that the two health care reform bills that have been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office are predicted by the CBO to increase the national debt by $239 billion and $1.042 trillion respectively.
The administration, meanwhile, has not produced any health-care reform legislation that has been independently determined to be deficit-neutral.
I haven’t been a fan of Saturday Night Live since the original cast moved on to other endeavors, but I’ve gotta say that this clip (from 2005, I think) is a masterpiece.
I’m sure there are others, but I normally have cause to visit Townhall.com every day, and in my opinion, few news/opinion websites are as difficult to read as that one. Here’s a random screenshot taken today:
Click the image to view it full-sized, or go to the page itself to get the full effect.
Visually, the page is a riot of images and color. An unreasonable amount of time is required to find the text that the page was created for. Once reading, the reader’s eyes are continually hijacked by the oversized animated ads surrounding the text.
I found one flaw in Townhall’s evil design scheme: As soon as I arrive at the desired page, I can immediately go to the print view, which is far less cluttered and far more readable.
Townhall has one of the best daily collections of conservative opinion; that’s the only reason I go through the trouble to visit at all.
What do you think? Are any other high-profile conservative websites worthy of inclusion in the Web Design Hall of Shame?
This July 29 letter to the editors of the Ventura County (California) Star contains a significant logical fallacy. Do you see it?
Bumper-sticker rage
Knowing the hazards of “road rage,” I recently experienced “parking-lot rage” when confronted by a bumper sticker that read: “I’m a Republican. Not everybody can be on welfare!”
For the person on whose vehicle that appeared: I’m a socially liberal Democrat who’s not spent a single second on welfare.
For those of you on the right whose arch-conservative stance has been allowed to dictate county and city government, nestled as they are in the bosom of the Ronald Reagan Library, who think that bumper stickers are cute and funny and want to know where you can get yours, I proudly pay my taxes, something your respected tea-party people pout about and demonstrate against. How dare you portray me a deadbeat!
I proudly served in the U.S. military, something your recent president and vice president disdained. How dare you question my commitment to this country with your absolutely ignorant bumper stickers! How dare you!
— Bob Jackson, Simi Valley
Lynn Sweet reports that Barack Obama, champion of the common man, will be vacationing with his family next month on Martha’s Vineyard, where the nation’s elites go to get away from the common man.
Well, the elites can’t get away from them completely – who would clean the house, then?
Following the time-honored strategy of trying to accomplish through litigation that which they could not accomplish through legislation, vegan radicals at The Cancer Project are trying to get the New Jersey Supreme Court to force hot dog manufacturers to put scary warning labels on hot dog packages.
"Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer."
That's the label that a vegan advocacy group wants a New Jersey court to order Oscar Mayer, Hebrew National and other food companies to slap on hot dog packages.The nonprofit Cancer Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of three New Jersey plaintiffs asking the Essex County superior court to compel the companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey.
"Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are linked to colon cancer," says Neal Barnard, president of the Cancer Project and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University medical school in Washington, D.C. "Companies that sell hot dogs are well aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same information."
The defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, include Nathan's Famous Inc., Oscar Mayer-owner Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp., Marathon Enterprises Inc. and ConAgra Foods Inc., which owns Hebrew National.
The Cancer Project is an offshoot of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a vegan group that has engaged in, according to PhysicianScam.com, “20 years of animal rights propaganda disguised as medical advice”.
The purpose of The Cancer Project seems to be to go down the list of foods the vegans think we shouldn’t eat, and allege a cancer link for each one.
Well, what about the cancer claim made in the lawsuit? The L.A. Times article linked above says this:
In the lawsuit, the Cancer Project cites the role of nitrites, a preservative used in cured and processed meats such as hot dogs in the development of cancer-forming agents. During digestion, it breaks down into nitrosamines and other N-nitroso compounds that are considered carcinogens.
Although some medical studies link red and processed meats to cancer risk, it's not clear whether it is because of the nitrites or other factors such as the high fat content. "There is speculation that nitrosamines can increase cancer risk when consumed in large amounts and frequently. Occasionally should cause no worry. The stuff people typically have with a hot dog may be a more immediate concern: too many calories from all the fat-laden potato and macaroni salads, sugary drinks and sweet desserts," said Keith-Thomas Ayoob, a nutritionist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
An American Institute for Cancer Research report cited in the lawsuit notes that one 50-gram serving of processed meat -- about the amount in one hot dog -- consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer, on average, by 21%. Colorectal cancer kills about 50,000 Americans annually.
But a 2004 analysis by Harvard University researchers of pooled data from 14 studies in North America and Europe could not find a similar link between various red and processed meats and cancer. But they did find that higher consumption of poultry and fish may be associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer.
If they can persuade the NJ Supremes that the science is settled on this issue – despite significant evidence to the contrary – Al Gore might want to enlist their help.
An open letter to “Paul”, an individual who left a comment on this post yesterday:Paul, you're a real piece of work.
This morning as I got ready for the day, I was pondering the fact that your comment seemed to be written as if you hadn't even read what I wrote.
I knew you had arrived at my site via a "Palin resigns" Google search from your computer at Palomar Community College in California.
Your lengthy response -- only FIVE MINUTES after my post -- impressed me. How quickly I had struck a nerve, and now someone was giving me a piece of his mind!
Something still bothered me, though. As my response to your comment indicated, your rejoinder seemed to ignore the points I was making.
This morning I thought: That was a drive-by cut-and-paste comment. He didn't even read what I wrote. He just found sites talking about Sarah, fired his shot, and sped off.
It took mere moments to confirm my suspicion. Comparing the visitor log to the comment, I saw that your outraged response was posted within seconds of your arrival.
Then I did a Google search on the first sentence of your post. Oops, found it here and here.
Busted.
You are a glittering example of how many on the Left* engage in debate. You're happy to participate, as long as you don't have to actually hear the other person’s side of the issue.
Paul, if you wish to read what I actually wrote, and post a response based on what I actually wrote, I’ll be happy to interact with you on the issue itself – even if you disagree with me.End of rant.
I’m not optimistic that you’ll be back, though. That doesn’t appear to be your style.
You’re more likely part of the defamation machine that has been rolled out against Sarah Palin… in which case your comment does fit in with the topic of my post after all.
Thanks for illustrating my point for me.
nd yet her political enemies (mostly, but not all, Democrats*) are still waging a campaign of frivolous harassment at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.FOR RELEASE: JULY 20, 2009* Sarah’s anticorruption crusade in Alaska stepped on quite a few Republican toes as well, so it’s not surprising that some of the snipers are from her own party.
Another Ethics Complaint Filed Against the Governor
July 20, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska – Once again, an ethics complaint has been filed and publicly released in violation of state law. This is the sixth complaint filed by Ms. McLeod. In addition, she has filed a lawsuit against the Governor's office and multiple public records act requests. All of her prior complaints that have been ruled on have been dismissed. The Ethics Act serves important state interests in ensuring ethical state government and was intended to prevent the various forms of corrupt misconduct that had plagued the Legislature in prior years and which resulted in the prosecution of legislators and others. It is unfortunate that the law has been abused and trivialized in the current manner.
Today’s complaint, filed just six days before the Governor leaves office, alleges that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act by failing to submit complete gift disclosure forms in a timely manner, and obtained “free” services. The apparent primary goal of this complaint has been achieved, namely, an effort to keep the complainant’s name in the paper. We anticipate another dismissal of this complaint as with the complainant’s other complaints. This is the fourth ethics complaint filed against the Governor since the announcement of her resignation on July 3. In every case, the complainers violated the confidentiality provision of the Ethics Act in making their complaints public knowledge.
THOMAS VAN FLEIN—Personal Attorney for Governor Palin
The inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is preparing to submit a report to Congress tomorrow estimating the ultimate cost of all of the financial bailouts currently underway and in the works. Fox News reports IG Neil Barofsky’s stunning prediction in a July 20 article (emphasis added):The total price tag for federal support stemming from the financial crisis could reach $23.7 trillion in the long run, the government's top bailout watchdog says in a new report to Congress.Almost 24 trillion dollars!
Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, plans to deliver his report Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The $23.7 trillion figure is admittedly a high-ball number and reflects the total potential gross exposure, but Barofsky in his prepared testimony notes that the TARP -- which started as a $700 billion bailout -- has expanded well beyond that.
[…] In supporting documentation obtained by FOXNews.com, the inspector general's office explains that the $23.7 trillion spans about 50 "initiatives or programs" created by federal agencies in the wake of the economic crisis.
The estimate covers commitments that could come from programs at the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies.
It’s almost like a reflex. Reuters leads off a July 20 dispatch on the Honduran constitutional crisis in this way (emphasis added):Honduras' political foes are on a collision course after negotiations collapsed and deposed President Manuel Zelaya vowed to return home despite warnings from a defiant de facto government.People who read only the opening paragraphs of news articles will come away with a reinforcement of the oft-repeated – but false – claim that Zelaya was deposed by a military coup.
Zelaya says resistance is being organized in Honduras to pave the way for his return this weekend and that nobody can stop him. The interim government installed after the June 28 military coup has threatened to arrest Zelaya if he returns and crack down on any protesters who stir trouble.
Zelaya was expelled from the textile and coffee exporting country in his pajamas in the middle of the night. He had upset his political rivals by seeking to lift presidential term limits, and the army moved against him after the Supreme [Court] ordered his arrest.So, get this straight: The Honduran Supreme Court lawfully ordered Zelaya’s arrest, and the military lawfully carried out the arrest order. Honduras’ Congress (including Zelaya’s own political party) endorsed this lawful order.
[…] The Honduran coup is an unusual case. Unlike those that battered Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, Zelaya's ouster was approved by the Supreme Court and Congress as well as Catholic Church leaders in the country. There is also no military strongman in the picture this time.
The interim government, which has been denied around $200 million in multilateral aid and $16.5 million in U.S. military aid and is at risk of regional trade sanctions, insists it can and will stand up to the international pressure.Honduras knows that it has few if any friends in this crisis. For some reason, it seems like the whole world – governments and media alike – is determined to snuff out the liberty of this tiny republic. Good on the people and government of Honduras for refusing to refusing to buckle under the unbelievable pressure.
“I do not think it means what you think it means.”‘There's experience for you!’Thank you, Minnesota.
‘I don't know what you mean by "experience",’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"’
‘But "experience" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master -- that's all.’
“Unfortunately, some have sought to twist her words and her record and to engage in partisan political attacks,” Leahy complained. “That’s not the American way. That’s not the Senate way.”Anyone old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings would know that Leahy is not telling the truth here.
Leahy furthered distinguished himself in 1991 as the first senator to come out against Clarence Thomas (this was even before the allegations of Anita Hill). He hammered Thomas relentlessly. At one point, in a typical Leahy flourish, he said, "You describe yourself as a conservative. Well, most Vermonters are conservative, too" — but Thomas, in Leahy's eyes, wasn't the right kind of conservative. Later, in a floor statement, Leahy said, "I cannot promise the people of Vermont that I'm sure this nominee will protect their rights." And he avowed, most richly, "The last thing I seek in a Supreme Court justice is ideology."
Leahy became a major player on the Judiciary Committee in 1987, when Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans. Biden was chairman, but Leahy was named head of a task force to scrutinize (or harass or delay or upend) Republican nominees. At last, he vowed, Democrats would "play hardball" (and this was years before Chris Matthews became a national celebrity). "No iffy nominees are going to get through now," Leahy crowed. The result was that nominees, many of them, were pecked at and left twisting in the wind. Interesting, in light of a later event, is that Leahy, back in '87, faulted the American Bar Association for its recommendations on judicial nominees. He said, "I have often found the ABA process to be perfunctory at best. I've often found it inadequate." According to the Washington Post, "Leahy said his task force would interview more lawyers, litigants, and local citizens instead of relying on the ABA." Leahy's entire approach in this period was: go slow, put the screws on, block.
