Bam's Jobs Bill Jam

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

____________________________

Same body, different suit?

Same septic tank, different commode?

(Make up your own and insert here).

Senator Mike Lee (R, Utah) used the phrase "Old wine in old bottles."

Last week’s jobs bill speech by President Barack Obama should have all but pounded the final nail into the pine box of Obama's presidency - that is, if there is any sense of order, common sense and justice to the universe. 

How bad is it for the president?

A Republican has just won Anthony Weiner's old seat in Congress here in New York City - a district that hasn't gone Republican since before anyone ever heard the term "social security." 

Babe Ruth was only in his fourth season with the Yankees the last time the Ninth District went GOP.  

The first licensed commercial radio station in the United States had been on the air only three years.

Ronald Reagan was not yet a teenager.

In bluer-than-blue New York, in a district that is at best 4 to 1 Democrat over Republican, that's how bad it's getting for Bam.

The Obama "jobs speech" - the highly anticipated, built-up-beyond-proportion, latest-in-a-long-string-of-America-saving-jobs-speeches from Brack Obama - was yet another one of those head-shaking "just wow" events. (I have them cataloged and meticulously cross-referenced using sophisticated database software).

Not that any of us in the thinking class expected anything less than what we received from the Chief Executive. Not that any of us believed for one moment that anything other than the same-old, same-old was coming our way from the podium of the House chamber.

It was simply one of those, "Wow, I can't believe that this guy is in charge of the whole shootin' match" moments.

If it weren't for the fact that the economic well-being of the nation hangs in the balance, one could almost feel sorry for the man being so far out of his league. If it weren’t for the fact that his experiments in nation transformation have resulted in the highest poverty levels in decades, one could almost take him by the hand, slap him on the back and say, “You tried, kid. But we gotta get some people in here who can fix this. Now, let’s go get some pancakes.”

All that's missing at the White House these days are the antlers and headlights.

While Barack Obama continues to make the job of conservative talk radio hosts tremendously easy, he makes America's economic recovery more difficult. It’s almost inconceivable to believe that he cannot see what he and his ever-encroaching big government ways are doing to this country. But once again, he’s peddling the same spend-spend-spend, expansive policies that have already failed - policies that also stunk up the joint when his predecessor, George W. Bush, implemented his own inane "stimulus" package. It was stupid then; five times as stupid when Obama did it the first time; and even more stupid now that the president wants to try it again.

If ever a man has personified - in spades (no slur intended) - Albert Einstein's over-quoted definition of insanity, it is President Barack Obama. If Obama's proposed jump start to an economy already paralyzed by the ropes of big government is to be taken seriously by anyone not under the influence, then Einstein truly had it pegged.

The logic of the President's thinking would have us handing out shots of Jack Daniels at alcohol anonymous meetings.

Seriously, are we to believe that nearly a half-trillion dollars in additional spending is all we really needed to get us over the hump? That the first Obama stimulus was almost the fix we required to bring us back to economic health? Were we really that close to the fix? Just a half billion dollars off? Did we miss it by that much?

Why not get this economy roaring back with a vengeance? Why not a trillion dollars more? Or five trillion more? While we’re at it, why not raise the minimum wage to $18.50 an hour? And tax the rich at a 70% tax rate? (Even if those Americans making $500,000 a year or more were taxed at a full one hundred percent, revenues wouldn’t even cover the entirety of this year’s deficit. There’d still be $500 billion left to fund somehow).

We already tax the rich in this country.

Yet, there’s a block of taxpayers – approximately 47% - who pay no federal income tax.

“Fair share” anyone?

The President’s rhetoric is tired. He talks about tax cuts in his new plan to get Americans working again, but what he’s proposing aren’t genuine tax cuts. They are temporary tax credits (which means the money is being swiped from elsewhere only to be redistributed) to the tune of approximately $500 a year for the average middle class American family. That’s a whole $500 a year. That’s about $42 dollars a month, or about $10 extra bucks a week.

Shopping malls beware. The stampede’s a-coming.

How does taking money out of the economy and returning it in nearly infinitesimal chunks to other people who did not earn it jump start a flailing economy? When did it ever?

The last Obama tax credit – the one that brought the payroll tax down from 6.2% to 4.2% - really got things moving, didn’t it?

And now, he wants to do it again?

Genuine tax cuts are obviously great - nay, necessary ... but they have to be the right kind of tax cuts. Minuscule credits at the expense of the job creators in this country will prove to be, as it always does, nothing more than ineffective, feel-good, campaign-fodder class warfare. 

It will solve nothing.

And don’t think for second that Democrats will back this “jobs bill” without additional stimulus spending tacked on.

Bank on it.

And why didn't the President actually - and finally - define what "fair share" means in regard to taxing "the rich?" What an opportunity it could have been for him for set the parameters of the debate. He could have told us once and for all what the fairest level of taxation for the "fortunate" among us is.

And notice how the President used the word "fortunate" to describe the wealthiest Americans, as opposed to "hard working," "creative" or "successful."

That simply would never do. It would alienate and/or offend.

That's because good fortune suggests randomness and chance - the luck of the draw.

Creativity, innovation and hard work, on the other hand, place the onus directly on the individual. It suggests that wealth may actually be deserved and earned - an anathema to Obama and his equality-over-liberty ilk.

Think about this: The left believes that government is the answer to almost everything, that only government can get things right. But look around. Government is practically everywhere in the form of taxation, over-regulation, the takeover of private industry, and so on. The size of government continues to grow. Yet, there are now 22 million children living in poverty, according to Government figures. There are now more people without health care coverage than there were last year. Unemployment is fixed at around 9%. There was absolutely no job growth in August.

And yet, the President wants more government?

Oh yeah, it's bad.

Paging Mr. Einstein.

-

Modern liberalism with Paul from the Times

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_____________________

Generally speaking, to me, Paul Krugman – the ever-embittered Princeton professor and New York Times columnist - is a largely irrelevant, morally-bereft wordsmith whose perpetual lack of depth is equaled only by his moral depravity.

His hatred of anything and everything on the right, without ever acknowledging that perhaps conservatives sometimes have genuinely noble motives, is so overt that he has become both the living embodiment and a parody of the twenty-first-century liberal. It is impossible to imagine a conservative satirist who could be any more outrageous than the embarrassingly “legitimate” Krugman. He is a genuine humiliation - a knee-jerk emoter of fast fodder and ideological graffiti ... and now, a bona fide coward to boot (which I will explain in a moment).

To be a conservative in Krugman's pitiful and morose universe means that one's motives are always sinister - inescapably driven by selfishness, greed and any number of phobias and "isms."

In a blog posted Sunday, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Krugman wrote:

"What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons." 

While I consider myself a reasonably intelligent human being, capable of grasping even the most shallow concepts of today’s leftist, I have no idea what he is talking about in most of that paragraph, even after reading it several times.  I mean, literally, I haven't a clue what he is saying.

“Deeply shameful?”

What was deeply shameful? Who was deeply shameful?

What is it I'm supposed to know but won't admit?

Huh?

My inability to comprehend him aside, I would like to help Mr. Krugman out on one point that I can speak to. For the sake of accuracy, I ask: Who really made 9/11 and its aftermath a "wedge" issue?

Let’s summarize with these two rhetorical questions: Wasn't it just about every Democrat who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? And wasn't it just about every Democrat who supported military action against Iraq until it occurred to them that George W. Bush was a member of the other party?

A rudimentary look at the record will show, unmistakably, that it was the left that made 9/11 and its aftermath political, not the right.

Next, what does he mean by the revolting phrase "fake heroes?"

Again, "What?"

What a disgusting, reprehensible term to use to describe honorable and noble public servants faced  with the monumental task of having to maintain order, protect citizenry and stand strong after the worst terrorist attack in this nation's history. It takes a special kind of piece of crap (pardon me) to call these men who put their country first as "fake heroes." It is absolutely disgraceful, by any reasonable measure.

Honestly, it's difficult to take anything seriously from a columnist who comes across more as a sulking, narcissistic adolescent than a thinker. Hell, Krugman himself couldn't even handle the "shameful" ceremonies and commemorations surrounding the ten year anniversary of 9/11, as evidenced by his pathetic blog, without sounding like he needed a lexapro milkshake; how do you think he would have handled the mayhem and carnage a decade ago? And what would he have done to make the ceremonies on Sunday more palatable to him?

Additionally, what would the criteria be for a real hero according to the Krugman Handbook of Life and Other Maladies?

Note Krugman never defines what he actually means by "fake heroes." 

Not that it matters.

The phrase is catchy enough to serve as intellectual ammunition for the bumper-sticker and college-debate-team set.

And what's this "raced to cash in on the horror" stuff?

Again I ask, "What??"

Krugman sounds like a hormonal teenage girl emoting into the pages of her diary.

How exactly did Kerik, Giuliani and Bush "cash in" on the deaths of nearly 3000 innocents? And what does Krugman mean that they raced to do so?  

Is Krugman suggesting that all three were too quick to respond to the horrors of that day? That they (and presumably others) were fueled by selfish and sinister motives in putting themselves out in front of the cameras and microphones as much as possible during an ongoing state of national emergency? That they were in it for personal gain while attempting to lead in a time of crisis?

What a sack of excrement Paul Krugman makes himself out to be.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but isn’t one of the liberal anti-Bush talking points the fact that the president actually  took too long to react to 9/11? Wasn't that the complaint? That he spent too much time reading to the children before doing anything?

Krugman continues:

"A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?"

This passage might as well be comprised of random consonants and hodgepodge vowels strung together in some sort of semi-coherent cadence, because, once again, I truly don't know what the hell he is saying.

Who behaved badly? In what way? In what context?

And what was "happening," according the Krugman? What was it the pundits should have understood?

"Corruption"?

What in the world is this man talking about? I'm not kidding. A raccoon with a brick tied around its tongue, submerged in a vat of canola oil would be more coherent. 

Mr. Krugman calls this particular blog entry "Years Of Shame."

Again, what "shame," Mr. Krugman?

Being the leftist he is, he undoubtedly meant to say that any shame surrounding the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath should rest with us, the United States of America (or at the very least, conservative Americans). 

But if there is some sort of shame to be had, shouldn’t it sit with the Islamic world? After all, is it unreasonable to think that good Muslims would be ashamed of what evil Muslims did in the name of their religion?

And that’s the key: “Committing evil in the name of Islam.”

You'll never hear anything like that from the left, however. 

It was the Germans who bombed London in 1940.

It was the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.

It was the British who attacked colonial positions at Breed's and Bunker Hills in 1775 .

But it was generic "terrorists" who hijacked four airplanes and used them as missiles against targets in the United States in 2001.

Krugman goes on to say that the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned, but never explains how. He says the nation, in its heart, knows it.


We do?

What do we know?

What a miserable, angry man Paul Krugman is. 

Unfortunately, his "everyone-on-the-right-is-bad" routine is not an isolated way of thinking on the modern left.  How many major liberals (from politicians to pundits) actually believe conservatives want to do what's best for the country but are simply going about it wrong? 

Go ahead and make the list. I'll wait.

It's always personal with Krugman and his smear merchants. It's always about greed. It's always about people like me hating some group. It's never just a plain old disagreement in policy.

By contrast, I (and every other conservative I know) do not think everyone on the left is sinister simply because they lean that way.  We do think, however, they are damn wrong ... and we have history on our side to prove it. (Remember, many on my side were opposed to both stimulus packages: Obama's and Bush's. Liberalism is wrong, even when implemented by Republicans).

I will give credit where credit is due: Both former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden gave moving and perfectly appropriate speeches on Sunday.

Good for them. Well done.

By the way, is it any surprise that Krugman did not allow anyone to comment to his "fake heroes" blog? He said he did it that way for "obvious reasons."

A moral moron and a coward.

-

Klaven on the Facts of Life for Liberals

H/T American Power

Quote du jour

Liberals are all for diversity. They will accept anyone who is slightly left of center, moderately left of center or extremely left of center.

-Proof

New York's Same Sex Marriage Law and Libertarians

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_________________________

As the State of New York officially starts recognizing same-sex marriage - and as libertarians and liberals alike continued to sing the praises of the triumphs of liberty - I remain befuddled.

My general opposition to same-sex marriage aside, I cannot help but be puzzled at libertarian support for the redefinition of marriage as it came to pass here in New York.

A few weeks ago, the Mercatus Center - a libertarian think tank at George Mason University – ranked the state of New York dead last in its “Freedom in the 50 States” index. The authors of the report even used the phrase “by far” to show how deep into the cellar the once most-populous state in the nation has descended.

Its contentions were based principally on the Empire State’s sickening levels of taxation.

That higher taxes always mean increased levels of government spending cannot logically be disputed by anyone who claims to be on a first-name basis with their own brains. More government spending - and by natural extension, increased intrusion and control - definitionally means more government.

Period.

How can one deny it?

It's like denying the dampness of water, the uselessness of Keanu Reeves as an actor, or, if you're a liberal, the certainty that the planet is teetering on disaster because of man-induced climate change.

As talk-show host and author Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Indeed, bigger government means less liberty. Again, by definition. (I needn't explain this to conservatives or libertarians). It simply isn't possible for an ever-more intrusive, powerful governing body to spawn more freedom.

How would that work exactly? What model is there to base that fantasy on?

Among other qualifiers to New York’s dubious distinction is the fact that the state has "the strictest health-insurance community-rating regulations in the country.” New York is also an anti-smoking zealot’s Xanadu. The strictest tobacco laws anywhere exist in New York. (That tobacco use has not been found to be an outright act of violence here is still perplexing). Mix in such acts of nanny-statism as mandating what oils restaurants can cook with, barely constitutional anti-gun laws, painfully excessive home schooling regulations, usurping the will of the people on term limits, banning smoking in privately owned bars and public parks, ridiculously stringent motor vehicle laws, rampant "Eminent domain abuse," and the almost obsessive war on salt by the likes of Michael “New-York-City-Welcomes-All-Illegals-To-Come-And-Stay” Bloomberg, and you’ve got a recipe for an ever-growing soft tyranny, a phrase that talk show host Mark Levin has popularized (quite accurately).

Yes, there is a totalitarian tendency in modern liberalism.

To the left, government knows best how to spend your money, feed you, teach you, medicate you, make health decisions for you, and so on. It’s the leftist's impulse to exert more influence in the everyday lives of its citizenry, because, according to them, they know best. That totalitarian inclination instinctively feeds the human being’s native longing for power and control, and helps to exemplify his inherent inability to know when to curtail that power when given more of it.

The term slippery slope comes to mind.

In other words, people just don't know when to stop.

That's why we create laws.

When this report was released last month, co-author Jason Sorens, a University of Buffalo political-science professor, offered an opinion as to how the State of New York could begin the process of healing its freedom-stifling wounds.

Legalize same-sex marriage.

Said Sorens, “"The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind," he said.

The passage of same-sex marriage here in New York continues to be touted as a win for not only supporters of redefining a millenia-old institution but of teeny-tiny-government libertarian types who equate allowing more people to get hitched with less government control.

Hail freedom!  Get out of our lives, you big ol' Government, you!

But this thinking is misguided and hardly libertarian.

New York's sanctioning of same-sex marriage has actually served as an expansion of the government's reach - something that is supposed to be an anethma to a libertarian. With the redefinition of marriage, government is now more involved in our lives.

And yet another powerful lobby has successfully buried its hooks into the soft, fleshy matter of the statehouse.

Where exactly do New York's elected representatives summon the arrogance to believe they can redefine the basic institution of society? What makes them competent enough to do so? Simply because they're elected? Because they say so? Because they want to? Because they feel like it? Beacuse someone has to? Because their collective wisdom exceeds all of the history of humanity that preceded them? Because a given special interest group knows how to bang their cans more loudly?

New York's elected officials have taken a page from Mayor Mike Bloomberg's totalitarian-light playbook. Remember when Mayor Mike decided one day that New York City's term limit law didn't suit him? So he said, in effect, "To hell with what the people want, New York needs me." Likewise, Albany is saying that because a group of people say life is unfair, it has the faculty and qualification to change - literally change - a millenia-old societal institution that transcends every culture and civilization.

Think about that.

That's not a recession of government power - that's a full-fledged expansion of its power.

What will government decide it has the power to change next? What will they decide they need to be involved in after this?

That the question is even being asked flies in the face of libertarian principles.

Twenty-five years ago, the very thought of two people of the same sex marrying was considered one of those, "Don't be ridiculous" notions. Today, proponents of keeping the definiton of traditional marriage in tact are called ridiculous and antiquated. Same-sex marriage is suddenly  - magically - an issue of equality, freedom and civil rights.

And where does it end?

Today, the thought of someone marrying, say, their goldfish or a cup of Snack Pack butterscoth pudding is one of those "Don't be ridiculous" notions.

But will it be in twenty-five years?

If you could go back in time a quarter of a century and tell the citizens of New York City that smoking would be banned in bars and taverns, or that the government would keep free citizens from using perfectly legal cooking oils in privately owned restaurants, they'd look at you as if you had a pulsating basketball-sized goiter growing out of your neck.

The fact is, the loss of liberty is incremental and often barely noticeable.

This is the slippery slope.

When does it end?

And because of the passage of same-sex marriage in New York without a referendum, how could a government ever say "no" in the future when some new special interest group with resonating garbage cans comes a-clanging, making a huge noise about wanting to marry their ink jet printers? Or a jar of pitted olives? Or a sister? Or a dog? Or whatever the hell he or she wants to join in matrimony?

On what basis could the government say "no?"

Is this what New York libertarians had in mind?

This is nothing but government-constructed relativism. That is supposed to be the antithesis of libertarianism.

Proponents of keeping the definition of traditional marriage as it has always been draw the line at one man and one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage draw the line at two individuals, regardless of sex.

By definition, both discriminate. 

Same-sex marriage advocates scoff at the suggestion that this opens the door to allowing such things as multiple spouses or sibling marriage, but on what grounds? Same-sex marriage has its limitations and discriminations, too, doesn't it? Why then is so called "gay marriage" discrimination acceptable and traditional marriage discrimination not?

Why are the inequalities and prejudices of permitting same-sex marriage okay?

And on what do same-sex marriage advocates base their matrimonial line in the sand? On how they feel? On what sounds good? How could they logically argue against a polygamists' movement? Or sibling love?

But what do I know? I've already been told on numerous occassions that I hate gays.

I can only hope my sister knows I don't hate her because of my opposition to sibling marriage.

-

A Little Sprinkling of Civility Anyone?

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

___________________

If I’m not mistaken – and I don’t think I am – wasn’t it America’s ever-caring, people-loving leftists that rebuked conservatives for their incendiary choices in violence-provoking language not too long ago? Wasn’t there a period of time following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords when the save-the-world-from-everything libs went moonbatty over what they deemed as frighteningly provocative fighting words by the thirsting-for-violence-at-all-costs rightists - words such as “targeting”? Didn't they bust a collective pimple and demand conservatives hold themselves to a higher standard of civility over aggression-fueling images such as crosshairs on a political map? (And wasn't the lamestream media right there to help the left carry the load?)

Remember when South Carolina Congressman James Clayburn said that the "vitriol has gotten so elevated that people feel emboldened"?

I didn't understand what he meant when he originally said it, and I still don't.

"Emboldened" to do what?

Was America "emboldened" and pushed toward violent extremes when Barack Obama himself told people to go out and get in their neighbors' faces during the '08 campaign season?

Was America pushed toward upheaval and lawlessness when Republican opposition to ObamaCare was likened to that of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels by Democrat Steve Cohen on the House Floor in January?

When Democrat Massachusetts Congressman Michael Capuano said to Wisconsin protestors that it sometimes becomes necessary to take to the streets and "get a little bloody," did anyone on the left bat a lash or denounce his incivility?

Just two nights ago, a Republican office in Washington, D.C. had its windows shot out to very little news coverage. Police are still searching for the culprits. Certainly, I am not suggesting that liberals were responsible for the act, but imagine for a moment it was a Democrat Party office, or a planned Planned Parenthood office.

By definition, conservatives want less government intrusion in American lives; yet libs love to attach the word "fascists" to us small-government/big-individual types, which is, frankly as wrong as it is dumb.

And how do lefties reconcile such inherent contradictions?

They don't.

They simply find ways of infusing an "ism" or a "phobe" into the dialogue, and the discussion ends.

After all, if they say I am a racist, or I hate gays, or I am an Islamaphobe, it must be true.

Ironically, those who have openly advocated for distributing wealth to the "underclass" (President Obama, for instance) somehow find definitional labels such as "Marxist" and "socialist" distasteful and uncivil; yet, quite literally, that is what their big-government policies are pushing toward.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker

So where exactly is the outrage – the uproar – over Time magazine’s article this past weekend about Wisconsin’s embattled union-busting governor Scott Walker, cleverly titled: “Wisconsin's Governor Wins, but Is He Now Dead Man Walker?"

That's some title.

"Dead Man Walker"?

Not exactly a dose of fuzzy cuddles and squishy hugs, is it?

Not exactly the picture of civility and graciousness, is it?

Did the article's author forget the chords to Kumbaya?

When Giffords was shot by a scum-sucking perpetrator of evil, cries for civility rang out from America's loudest liberal mouthpieces almost instantaneously, aimed primarily at Constitution-happy, gun-loving purveyors of angry right-wing talk radio (to paraphrase the left). They want us to believe that the country is heading down a path of brutality and hostility unseen in all of human history, thanks in large part to America's class of livid white men who want their weapons left alone and the right to beat their wives preserved.

It was all to be expected.

Liberals are painfully predictable, if nothing else.

But who really are the uncivil ones?

What of the greedy, protesting Wisconsin teachers and union thugs who threatened Republicans with death for voting against the interests of the union juggernaut? Where were those headlines? And what about the self-absorbed idiots who effectively shut down state house business in Madison by setting up shop at the capital building? Is that what free speech was supposed to be about? Forcing legislators to enter the building through windows? Disrupting official state business?

Remember, because the news from Wisconsin was brought to us through the lamestream media filter, none of the actions by the spoiled-brat protesting class were ever presented as particularly provocative or controversial. None of the union-thuggery and ugliness were ever reported as being inflammatory or offensive. What happened in Wisconsin, according to the alphabets, was simply a matter of hard-working middle-class folks protecting their "rights" while exercising their constitutional freedoms.

Yet, Tea Parties rallies were almost always portrayed as hostile gatherings of angry right-wing racists and bigots, even though no evidence has ever been presented to verify these claims. Someone somewhere thought they heard a racist remark being uttered by someone at some rally somewhere .... something like that.

It's just another example of how the rules differ depending on what side of the aisle your seat is on.

For instance, when Democrats shove a massive two-thousand-plus page health-care bill through Congress on Christmas Eve that no one has been afforded the opportunity to read and scrutinize - a bill that will effectively change the nature of the greatest health care delivery system the world has ever known - it is called “doing the job they were elected to do” … but when Republicans (elected by the people) pass a budget-curtailing, state-saving bill in Wisconsin - one that doesn’t accommodate the goals of the ever-ravenous teachers unions - it all of a sudden becomes the “nuclear option.”

If Wisconsin had a dollar for every reference to Hitler, fascism and totalitarianism that had been seen at the Madison protests, the state would be so far in the black, they could actually pay the unions exactly what they are demanding and have enough left over to pay six hundred illegal aliens to cleanup the area in and around the state capital. (Liberals are extraordinarily messy when they get together to moan and groan).

(You'll recall that during the height of the Tea Party rallies, the "Obama As Hitler" signs that were showing up - reflexively blamed on bitter racist righties - were actually being supplied by lefty Lyndon LaRouche).


And why is it that the unions and teachers are not considered money-grubbing greedy bastards when they demand more of their fellow taxpayer dollars, but conservatives are labeled as greedy when they try to solicit more hard-earned dollars from citizens through competition in the marketplace?

How does that work?

In short, what the protesting teachers of Wisconsin were saying was: “To hell with my fellow citizens who pay taxes. I don’t care if the state is bankrupt, I want what I want and I’m going to make noise and disrupt things until I get it.”

How is this an inaccurate depiction?

Who exactly needs the lesson in civility?

With the abundance of hypocrisy and contradiction that underscores today's lamestream media coverage of the news, it was actually good to see that the fourth estate was all over the fact that President Bush found time to squeeze in yet another round of golf (his sixty-first golf outing since being anointed). He even worked in a few minutes to appear on ESPN for a little college basketball talk. Meanwhile, deficits continue to explode, Japan attempts to recover from a catostrophic earthquake and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi continues his brutal assault on protesters and civilians. On top of that, the country remains at war.

Surely the press has something to say about the President playing golf while Americans serve in harm's way.

Ooops... did I say Bush?

-

Herman Cain 1, Liberal Shill 0

Over at The Other McCain, Stacy posted this gem about the dynamic Herman Cain confronting a young liberal. The young man pulls out the same tired strawman, that if one is against too much government, then one is arguing against all government. As if to say, if you are a conservative, then you must be an anarchist. Unfortunately for liberals, words mean things.

I blame the public schools.

NPR Doesn't Hate You, Middle America. They Still want Your Money

Typical liberal schizophrenia: "Very little" of NPR's funding comes from the government.
But, if the government funding to NPR is cut off, Big Bird will die.

"NPR would survive without federal funding".

Show us, don't tell us.

H/T Legal Insurrection

The Burying Of The Lara Logan Story: Not Even About Ethics

by guest blogger Andrew Roman
__________________

Paging genuine journalism...

Hello?

If ever there was a "cover-up" that needs to have the light of day cast upon it, this has to be it, don't you think?

An American female journalist is sexually assaulted while attempting to cover the protests in Egypt - assaulted by two hundred men, according to reports - and the incident gets practically no play in the lamestream media, most conspicuously from the news organization that sent her there. CBS actually sat on this story for five days before deciding to "officially" report it.

Keep in mind that habitual Hollywood-loser Charlie Sheen's latest foray into chemically-induced colossal stupidity attracted more media attention than Lindberg's arrival in Paris; yet, a sexual attack on a CBS news correspondent by a mob in Egypt was all but ignored ... that is, until other news outlets finally started talking about it, forcing CBS to finally acknowledge it.

But Egypt is a Muslim country. And there are narratives that need to be crafted and nurtured. There is an American President to prop up, and moral equivalencies to maintain.

The crowd that attacked Logan was characterized as a friendly one, a democracy-hungry gathering, with freedom on their minds and societal change in their sights - exactly the narrative the American lamestream media wanted. CBS even went as far as to say that Lara Logan was covering "jubilation" and "celebration" when she was attacked.

Well, thank goodness for that.

Perhaps it was inevitable that amidst the rifling through of raw footage from the protests, trying to compile as many "Obama is great!" and "Thank God for Obama" soundbites as they could find - of which there ultimately were none - the powers-that-be at CBS decided that they might actually have to report a story of evil-doings in a Muslim land.

That's what this is all about.

And don't give me that "protecting the privacy of the victim" angle as a counter-argument.

What? All of a sudden we are to believe that the dirty-laundry-loving mainstream media, willing to sell out their own grandmothers for a juicy scoop, were suddenly - magically - overcome with a bout of ethics?

(See that bridge over there?)

For those who would say that what happened to Logan has absolutely no business being reported by the news media, I would ask: If a CBS news correspondent were attacked by just ONE person at a Tea Party rally, would you feel exactly the same way?

-