Sunday, June 28, 2009
One thing about being over 40 is that I am a lot less tolerant of ignorant behavior and a lot less self conscious about letting people know it. Anybody who knows me knows that I believe everyone is entitled to my opinion.
Diego: Sporting events are current events and announcing an outcome is not necessarily a rude thing. I'm not sure of the circumstances in your case but a game is much more like an election result and not a newly released movie, 99% just want to know who won. If you let it be known ahead of time that you do not want to know the result, that is a whole different story.
Friends don't let friends be Cubs fans
My favorite sign of the series.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Two Republicans with promising futures commit political suicide this week
Labels: Mark Kirk
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Lake Winnemac Returns
Friday, June 19, 2009
Root, Root Root for the WHITE SOX!!!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Republicans Must Learn the ABC's of Propaganda
Since ABC is planning on airing what looks to be an Obama infomercial soon the Republicans, or at least conservatives, had better be prepared to offer a counter argument to the health care takeover that the Democrats are trying to sell to the public. The response must be timely and reach as many people as possible. I realize that this poses a problem since ABC is refusing to air opposing views but a poor effort on the Republicans part will not cut it.
At the very least a Youtube video outlining their opposition should be ready to go. As Karl Rove points out:
"Republican credibility on health care depends on whether the party offers positive alternatives that build on the strengths of American medicine. As long as the choice was between reform and the status quo, the public was likely to go with the reformers."Republicans/conservatives must have their voice heard.
If the Obama sales pitch is as expected then poking fun of the MSM by pointing out the absurdity of their bias by offering a Billy Mays spoof on the O-pitch (or maybe even better still get that Sham-Wow guy) could be pretty funny.
I hope conservatives learned their lesson during the Republican primaries when the MSM hijacked the process and shaped the debate to their liking. If Republicans don't fight then conservatives must fight on their own with or without the GOP.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The crisis in Iran in a nutshell
I think this picture does the best job of showing the conflict within Iranian society. More at the link.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Obama's reaction to Iranian chaos is familiar
Welcome Instapundit readers! And now for all the usual blather about how happy I am to have visitors and please feel free to peruse the blog when we all know you are here for a quicky. (Sigh.)
Update: A few, well most, commenters think I am too harsh on GHW Bush. Not really. All I ask is for a comment about the importance of far elections and how it is never right to violently attack peaceful protests. Reagan did this when the Polish communists cracked down on Solidarity. Voicing our committment to democratic principles is extremely important to our standing in the world and heartening to those facing repression. IMHO, Bush could have said as much without any risk to the disolution of the Soviet Union.
What about same-sex marriage, another key issue for religious conservatives? Doesn't the "leave us alone" tack militate against banning gay unions?
That one is more wrapped around the axle. And the reason is sometime around 1600s, religion allows the state to nationalize marriage. So when people say, "We can't let the state change a sacrament by allowing same-sex marriage," I go, "Where were you 300 years ago, when you handed the state control of this issue?" So the proper political answer is: Churches, synagogues, and mosques should write marriage contracts, and the state should enforce contracts. You shouldn't have sacraments organized, managed, and defined by the states.
Communities of faith ought to be into denationalizing marriage, just as I want to denationalize healthcare and education, rather than trying to get the federal government to run the post office correctly or manage marriage correctly.
Marriage is in trouble because the state's definition of marriage, the only marriage available, is a sham. Any contract that can be broken by one party without penalty is worthless. Norquist's argument is simple and elegant. The problem I have with Gay marriage is not that a same sex couple should have a union which allows them inheritance rights, the right to see their partner in a hospital, or the right to share health insurance if a company will insure them. My problem is that a one size fits all, gov't sanctioned marriage will give same sex couples the right to force religious institutions to accept Gay marriage. Religious institutions shouldn't be forced to perform same sex marriages or to cater to same sex couples if it violates their tenets; i.e., adoption services.
Decoupling the state and marriage will create a market for marriage in which couples can chose the type of contract they want to sign. I believe this will lead most couples to chosing a stronger contract than the one that is currently available and that will be good for society.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Obama T.V. tax, Non-payers shut off tomorrow
I suggest you also register your displeasure at having to pay this tax. But really what can you say, you voted for him, moron.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Men 'live longer' if they marry a younger woman
A man's chances of dying early are cut by a fifth if their bride is between 15 and 17 years their junior.
Scientists say the figures for men may be the result of natural selection – that only the healthiest, most successful older men are able to attract younger mates.
"Another theory is that a younger woman will care for a man better and therefore he will live longer," said institute spokesman Sven Drefahl.
Either way I am happy to take the extra few years.
Labels: everybody wants to live forever
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
A/V day on Brain Droppings
Mark Levin rips Newt for his lack of message discipline. Something that has plagued Newt for awhile.
Finally, Daniel Hannan, MEP, summarizes the results of the 2009 EU parliamentary elections in his inimitable way.
Monday, June 08, 2009
SMD unveils production ready OLED-Tvs and AMOLEDs at SID 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Lifehacker: Essential Free Windows Downloads
I would say the security programs are the ones you want to look at first.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Devotchka-How it ends
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Jamie Dimon's fighting words
This week, though, he has taken another swing at government intervention, first by reading out a fictitious letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at a conference: "Dear Timmy, we are happy to be able to pay back the $25 billion you lent us. We hope you enjoyed the experience as much as we did".
That's no more than a bit of ribald humor, perhaps. But he later followed it up by saying the U.S. should cancel half the warrants tied to Tarp investments in banks "out of fairness." That may resonate with some -- why should a bank that didn't need Tarp cash and that should be one of the first to pay it back be forced to make good on one of the attached strings that will dilute its shareholders?
But it's not as clear cut as bashing barmy changes to Tarp and PPIP. The warrants were part of the original Tarp package back in October -- and, all else aside, JPMorgan has enjoyed almost nine months of cheap money from the taxpayer.Perhaps it's just another bold Dimon gamble -- and if the U.S. caves and cancels a portion, he'll be hailed as a hero. But sometimes staying silent on some issues can be the greater virtue.
I couldn't disagree more with the conclusion to this article. The gov't is trying to force the banks to accept terms which will give the gov't ownership over those banks for absolutely no reason. Many banks took TARP money because they were pressured to do so by the Fed and Treasury even though they did not require the capital. Hmmm, why would the gov't want to force banks to keep taxpayer money? Could it have to do with wanting to have a say in how these banks are run? That is the only thing that makes sense. Bankers need to loudly complain about the Obama administrations not so stealthy attempts to force themselves on the banking system. Well capitalized banks should be celebrated.
I just saw this over at Hot Air and I swear I did not know they were going to post this. Ed Morrissey makes the point that TARP and the strong arm tactics began with the Bush administration. I would be remiss if I didn't add that this was a horrible precedent and further evidence that George W Bush's conservative convictions were only an inch deep.
Some of these wanted to opt out of the TARP program earlier this year, notably Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan. The Obama administration has thus far rebuffed those efforts, claiming that they’re not healthy enough to pay back the money. If they weren’t sick enough to need it in the first place, why can’t they pay it back now? Simple: the Obama administration likes this tool, and doesn’t want to surrender its leverage until they’re finished overhauling the American economic system to their liking.
I would love to know what Bush, Paulson et al. think about the Obama administration's use of their creation. Unfortunately, I am not sure that they would disapprove.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Bow down before the one you serve...
Seriously, did Bush ever get this kind of respect/devotion from the media?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama