Sarah Palin vs. the so-called "Feminists"

I've been meaning to blog about McCain's choice of running mate since she was announced on Friday, but I got busy. Then in four short days, all hell broke loose on the loony left and now I find I can't just post about how ECSTATIC I am that McCain has made it possible for me to vote this year at all, I have to post about the insanity (or the "Palinsanity" as Althouse calls it) that's infecting the blogosphere and our political discourse in general. All I know is, if Palin were the "right" kind of woman (or rather the left kind), the kind of heinous hate-filled garbage masquerading as "information" about her would not be tolerated. Oh, who am I kidding, it wouldn't exist b/c we on the right have better things to do with our time (and our obviously higher IQs) than sit around and conjure up tinfoil-hat stories about faked pregancies, botched mid-air manslaughter via premature rupture of membranes and imaginary abstinence hypocrisy.

But I don't WANT to post about that shit, better minds have done it already, ad nauseum I'm afraid--fighting the good fight, but at what cost to their own sanity I wonder?

I do, however, want to focus on one angle of the whole mess that interests and concerns me most: The rabid SEXISM of all of it. I won't bother going into that in any further detail because Melissa Clouthier has done far too fine a job of it already.

Read what she says and you'll know what I think and feel about all this.

I pray I wake up tomorrow to find it was all a bad dream and the news is instead filled with tales of Gustav and the sputtering RNC, you know, the stuff that should've been the bad news this weekend, but was edged out by this crap.

The speech Obama should give (but won't)

As John McCain would say, "My friends," this is the only speech that really needed to be given in the past three days. It hasn't been given yet, and I daresay Barry Hussein Obama won't be giving it tonight. Don't get me wrong, you won't hear anything like it from the GOP either, but let me tell you, if they were smart, they would give this speech--it would be more like them in the first place, but even they don't have the guts.

I wrote this. I stand by it. I would promise my vote and undying support for anyone who would say it. I share it with you all now in the hope that you will keep these ideas in mind when you're listening to the speech you WILL hear from the podium tonight. Because the truth is "my friends," he's right about one thing: "Yes we CAN" fight the bullshit, we just choose not to.

And now, without further ado, the speech you should hear tonight, but won't:

"Democrats? Sometimes life hands you lemons, and our job is to figure out how to make lemonade out of 'em. And the government can be your partner in that endeavor, SOMETIMES, but most of the time it's up to you, and what we're going to do is stop bs'ing you, and stop spending your money unwisely to fatten our own wallets and get our own fat-asses elected, and butter up our future library donors and increase our future speaking fees....Our job is to protect you from enemies, foreign and domestic, and we'll do that, but we're not gonna pretend we'll be successful all the time, enemies are enemies b/c they want to hurt us, and they aren't going to stop just b/c we tell them to, or ask, or pay them. Our goal will be to make sure no one is actively trying to take advantage of you--least of all US, your leaders--and that no one is getting rich hurting, poisoning or lying to you, again, least of all US. Beyond that, we're counting on you to do your job, and you know what that is? Hold US accountable for what we just promised you right now. If you don't, no one will. Thank you and goodnight!"

Here's looking at you kid!

I do good work, don't you think?

What's the opposite of a "real" person anyway?

I thought this was frackin' brilliant!

Here's the money quote, but do read the whole thing:

One of the low points of the 1988 Democrat Convention was when Anne Richards read out a letter from a constituent about how bad her life was. Looks like history is repeating itself:

An Indiana railroader, an Iowa mother and a Michigan truck driver are getting a moment at the Democratic convention to help portray Barack Obama as the people’s champion and counter GOP characterizations of him as an out-of-touch celebrity.

The idea is for these “real people,” as the campaign calls them, to share personal stories about why they are supporting the Democratic presidential candidate and how they think he will help folks like them and the more than 20 million expected to be watching the convention at home.

Bringing in "real people" to show that you understand them is the clearest sign possible that you yourself are not a "real person." In conservative America, we refer "real people" as "people."

You know the answer to my title question? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "O."

Robama Hood?

Just please don't make me look at his spindly organic little legs in green tights, I beseacheth thee!!!

I would love to hear from some Obama supporters (well, not really, rhetorical question coming up) why this should not terrify the living SHIT out of me?

Like Father, Like Son By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama's economic blueprint sounds like one his communist father tried to foist on Kenya 40 years ago, with massive taxes and succor shrouded as "investments."

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan government there to "redistribute" income through higher taxes. He also demonized corporations and called for massive government "investment" in social programs.

Barack Obama Sr., who died in 1982 at age 46 in a Kenya car crash.
Writing in a 1965 scholarly paper, Obama's late father slammed the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for moving the Third World country away from socialism toward capitalism. He chafed at the idea of relying on private investors — who earn "dividends" on their venture capital — to develop the country's fledgling economy.

"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."

"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Continue reading "Robama Hood?"

Obamamania brought to you by insomnomaniac at: 2:26 PM |Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sore loser much?

Oh for the love of Pete!

So far, it hasn't been Obama himself who has made this accusation, but he sure isn't stopping his staff from perpetuating this rumor.

So is that how he rolls? When someone else who gets the same questions seems to do better than he does in front of the same audience, he just MUST have cheated. "The One" could not POSSIBLY fail to impress or just not do that well *in that forum,* no of course not.

What a bunch of whiners! McCain has been running for President for what, like 20 years? His stump speeches are pretty consistent and with few exceptions, his anecdotes haven't changed that much. Just b/c he was able to capitalize on that and come off better doesn't mean he cheated, maybe he just WON!

But I can see it now.......If Obama loses this election, it will only be b/c those nasty evil sneaky corrupt republicans STOLE IT FROM HIM

What-ever.

I think McCain should tell Obama he'll do it again! A more neutral audience perhaps, mix of both parties, but not invited by either candidate, maybe a random drawing or something, same deal with the same questions for each guy, and this time they can literally create the "cone of silence" like on those game shows and they can have cameras around recording that the person who's in there is in there. And maybe McCain can go first too.

But this won't happen, neither will any Town Hall meetings b/c this "cheating" story is just the excuse for why he won't be doing those. The truth is, without a teleprompter, Obama's inexperience shows too much.

The purpose-driven debate

Anyone watch the Saddleback forum last night? It was great, really great. Certainly turned the klieg light of reality on both candidates, as well as the fact that the crap the networks pass off as "debates" are nothing more than tv tabloid shows with lower-paid celebrities.

I learned more about each of these guys and who they really are, and why they really want to be President in two hours than I've learned in all the months of this stupid campaign season! Kudos to Pastor Warren, that's for sure. Talk about a study in contrasts!!

I posted live about it in my discussion forum, so rather than extrapolate from those remarks, I'll just give 'em to you here in all their stream-of-consciousness glory! Please forgive me if they are hard to follow, but here goes!
------------------------------
Q: Who are the wisest people in your life, who would you look to for advice in your administration (I took it to be one question not two, Obama felt differently I guess)
Person number one: Michelle
Person number two: his Grandmother (the typical old white one tee hee)

Let's see...So far, the first two people on his list for advice on his administration are FAMILY....Mmmmkay, scary, but ok....

Oh, he finally realizes he better mention some names that are not related to him
Dick Luger, Sam Nunn...Oh, now he's spinning, wants a round table of a bunch of people....Can't limit it to three, or refuses to....Going on and on, blah blah...The non-answer, he never gave a third person.

Next question: What would be the greatest moral failure in your life, and the greatest moral failure in America?

His life: He's talking about experimenting with drugs, drinking, being obsessed with himself (unlike now of course ), couldn't focus on other people (me me me) oh, but it's not about me ()....Still not answering the question....Unless rank narcissism IS his answer

America's: We still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew: Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. OK, true, but I don't recall Matthew saying that we need to provide ways for people to get into the middle class (via gov't). Can't recall that

Next question: Lots of good legislation gets killed b/c of party loyalty...When did you go against your own party for the good of the country?

Answer: Campaign finance reform (um, and then he refused public financing! HUHWHA??), eliminating meals and gifts from corporate lobbyists, but big-time $2,000 a plate fundraisers are ok? Opposing the decision to go to Iraq (but that wasn't opposing the party, there were plenty of Dems who were opposed to that).

Next question: Re: Flip-flopping, sometimes it's smart if the position is better...What's the most sig. position you changed b/c you actually changed your mind? (GREAT QUESTION!!)

Answer: Welfare reform. He always believed welfare had to be changed....10 years ago he was concerned when Clinton signed the bill....Wanted to make sure the IL legislature was supporting people still....It worked better than anticipated, and one of the things he's absolutely convinced of is that we have to have work as the centerpiece of any social policy (A-FRIGGIN-MEN!! But working for whom? Tax biz more, they hire less, ask Duval your buddy, he'll tell you )

Next question: Toughest decision you had to make

Opposition to the war in Iraq b/c Saddam was a really bad person, but we didn't have evidence of WMD, and he had a lot of questions about how it was going to go, did we KNOW how everyone was going to get along in a post-Saddam Iraq, will this affect terrorism (note: I HIGHLY DOUBT he asked that question, very few people thought this would strenghten Al Qaeda, I doubt he did, hindsight is 20/20--now he's spinning based on present day knowledge. I think it's crap that he thought of all this when making the initial decision).

Next segment...World view.
Dang, he's getting to the meaty stuff now Christianity, abortion, marriage, stem cell research!

So far, his answer on how Christianity impacts his daily life is pretty meh, stuff you could get from a Hallmark card ("I know I don't walk alone...If I can get out of the way, maybe I can do some good in the world...")

Abortion: He's pro-choice, but refused to answer the question which was "When does it become a human rights issue?" (Which I took to mean at what point in gestation and number of abortions--he never answered). He's for helping mothers keep their kids and birth control.

Marriage = One man one woman, but he's pro-civil union, does NOT support amendment to the Constitution to define marriage that way

Stem cells = he supports it, can't give you whole answer...

OH SNAP, question: Which supreme court justice would you not have nominated?

Answer: Clarence Thomas, Scalia because he disagrees with Scalia's positions (uh-oh), Roberts....tough question, he's smart, thoughtful (please note, he voted against confirmation of him, and he stands by that still), but he's glad he voted against confirmation b/c one of the most important jobs of the SCOTUS is to guard against encroachment of the executive branch, he's been too willing to give the administration more power (note, the SCOTUS doesn't GIVE power).

Question: Faith based programs have the right to hire people who believe as they do (guaranteed right by the civil rights act btw). Would you require them to hire anyone to get fed. funding to help in the community?

Answer: Blah blah blah, they are always free to hire when it comes to who their own mission is, but it comes to programs that are federally funded, we have to be careful that people are being discriminated against (I.e., YES ).

Oh SNAP!!

Question: "Define 'rich'?"

(LOVE IT!!!)

Answer: Here's how I think about it, and this is reflected in my tax plan...If you are making $150K/year as a family, you are middle class..."

Ok, I can get behind that

Pastor: OK, but in this region you're poor (CA)

Obama: If you're making above $250K, you're doing pretty well....I'm not suggesting everyone who's making that are living on easy street, but [sic] we've got to pay for these things...And I believe it's irresponsible, intergenerationally, for us to spend $10Bil/month on a war and not have a way to pay for it."

Says people below $150 will get a cut, people above $250 get a tax increase....Um, what about that HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE???

Question: What's worth dying for, as an American?

GREAT QUESTION!!

Answer: Our freedom, yada yada....

Question: Would you commit troops to stop genocide?

GREAT QUESTION!!

Answer: Sorta yes, but weird answer...Says if the "international community committed to act, we should act."

HUH?

Question: Something about orphans (sorry, missed the question)

Answer: We should try to prevent people from becoming orphans (????)

Question: What should the US do to prevent religious persecution around the world?

Answer: Speak out, bear witness, not pretend it's not taking place (OK, can we start with THE MIDDLE EAST AND ISLAMIC NATIONS AND THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF DHIMMITUDE?????? Sorry, back to him! )

He wants to fixate on China...Trust me, theirs is NOT the worst religious persecution, but what-evah....

Also he says we have to lead by example, have religious tolerance here in the USA, mentions torture and habeas corpus! WHAT THE f**k??? We do NOT torture people for their religion! DID HE JUST JUXTAPOSE DETENTION WITH RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION?

WHAT THE f**k?

Dear Al Jazeera, here's your headline, Love Barack

Is he insane???

Question: What should we do about human trafficking
Answer: Long-winded answer about how much human trafficking sucks (duh)

Question: Why (in a minute) do you want to be President?

Answer: He remembers what his mom used to tell him....She would get really angry if she thought if he'd been mean to anyone, the basic idea of empathy....What makes America special it's that we care for others. He wants to be President b/c that's the American he wants to see, and he wants to build bridges across partisan lines, etc....

('course, I can't recall any bridges he's built so far of any significance....are they across rivers, brooks, streams?)

He wants people to know him well.

Question: What would you tell the American people if you knew there would be no repurcussions?

Answer: Solving the energy problem won't be easy (NO s**t). Invokes the depression to say that we need to be willing to make sacrifices to get to the next level in energy.

That's confidence inspiring! (not) Probably TRUE, but scary nonetheless, so I guess he answered that honestly

Here comes John McCain for the handshake--we're halfway through.

Now I get analysis...Oh, they are reminding me that Obama was asked if evil exists and he pointed at US, never mentioned Al Qaeda (yeah, bad move).

Also the point has been made that saying Thomas didn't deserve to be SCOTUS justice b/c of lack of experience is a bit IRONIC, no?

Same questions for McCain...

Three wisest people:
1) General Petreaus - one of the great military leaders of today
2) John Lewis (war vet)
3) Meg Whitman, CEO of E-Bay, because there are so many people who make a living off e-bay, and in these challenging economic times we need to call on people like her who have been able to make so many Americans successful

What's been your greatest moral failure and that of America?

Answer (punctuated by a joke, very funny).
His: Failure of my first marriage--greatest moral failure
Americas: We have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self interst enough, we are the best at it, but we still don't do enough. INstead of telling people after 9/11 to go shopping, we should have told people to join the Peace Corps and the military and so on....Serve a cause greater than your self-interest.

Love that answer.

Question about party loyalty and partisan politics, where did he lead against his party's interest?

Answer (OH HOW WILL HE CHOOSE??? ) More joking!!!! "By a strange coincidence, I was not elected Miss Congeniality in the US SEnate again this year, I don't know why..."

HAHAHAHA!!!

When he was a new member of Congress, Reagan wanted to send troops to Beirut, McCain was against it (BRAVO, GREAT ANSWER!! It was a huge mistake). He went against his party and his President--one he really admired.

Question: What's the most sig. issue you changed your mind about (flip-flopping question)?

Answer: Offshore drilling. We gotta drill now, and we gotta drill HERE, and we gotta become independent of foreign oil. He knows there are some here in "Cullyfornia" who disagree with him, but this is a national security issue...WE send over $700Bil each year to countries that don't like us...We can't allow this transfer of wealth to continue to be a threat.

We gotta do everything, solar, wind, electric cars, etc... AND NUCLEAR POWER (he was emphatic not me )

And (joke) if you hadn't noticed, we have a pro-American president of France which shows if you live long enough, anything can happen! HAHAHA!

Question: What was your most gut-wrenching decision you had to make, and what was your process.

Answer (here it comes): When the Vietnamese said he could leave the prison early. He said no, and the officer said it was going to be very tough on him. But he was happy with that decision and it was the best of his life. It took a LOT of prayer.

NOTE: I gotta say, he is KICKING ASS AND TAKING NAMES! McCain can't read off a prompter worth s**t, but he can talk off the cuff sooooo well! HE's funnier than s**t, I didn't realize!

More after commercial break...

Continue reading "The purpose-driven debate"

He wants WHO to do WHAT?

OOPS!

Obama called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Russia for their recent "violence" (um, it's called an INVASION Barry ;) ) in Georgia, forgetting apparently that Russia has veto power in the Security Council!

So the point of doing that would be what exactly?

Meanwhile, McCain rightly calls for NATO to convene an Emergency session b/c Russia is NOT part of NATO (and if the free world has any sense at all, they never will be either).

ERIE, Pa. (AP)--John McCain and Barack Obama agree on how to deal with the fighting between Russia and Georgia.

Both want a multi-prong diplomatic effort and are warning Moscow that it's relations with the rest of the world are at stake.

John McCain wonders if Russia didn't feel freer to attack Georgia after NATO put a "membership action plan" for Georgia on hold. McCain and Obama both think NATO should reconsider that decision.

McCain also believes NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene an emergency session to demand a cease-fire, and begin talking about a peacekeeping force for South Ossetia.

Obama thinks the U.N. Security Council should pass a resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. He also thinks a U.N. mediator should join efforts to try to end the fighting.

Oh, p.s., Obama's early comments called for "restraint on both sides."

HUH?????

So Georgia gets invaded, and they should show "restraint" while defending themselves and their citizens? That's like telling David to show restraint towards Goliath!

Now he calls for an end to the "violence???"

This isn't "violence" this is WAR and it's a war started by RUSSIA through INVASION.

Not everything is a little skirmish caused by a disagreement that can be resolved by a UN slap on the wrist! (Wait, I can't think of any "violence" never mind war between nations that has been solved that way....)

Hat-tip to LGFfor the link.

Happy Birthday Barack, love your pal Lindsey Graham

(Bangs head against wall.....HARD!)

AAAAARGH!

Look up "DUMBASS" in the dictionary, and you'll see Lindsey Graham's face.

It really is ASTOUNDING how STUPID some people can be. I mean, never in my wildest imagination would I have figured that Graham would do something MORE self-destructive to himself and his party than the immigration bill fiasco.

Just shows I'm not very imaginative.

But all I can say is, McCain kinda made his own bed.....If Graham learned to be a "maverick" from anyone, it was McCain! Guess he forgot to teach him about the importance of TIMING!

(Wonder if they gift-wrapped this since Obama couldn't have received a better B-Day present than this):
[From the WSJ]

POTOMAC WATCH
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Republican Energy Fumble
August 8, 2008; Page A13
Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election.

It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines.

Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang's bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the bill. But he's only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang's efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf.

Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP's most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they're fighting on the merits.

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him.

Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

Eviromaniacs (no relation, I swear)

Speaks for itself.

Enviromania
August 7, 2008; Page A11
For years, hyperactive environmentalists have burned votive candles to the spirit in the sky, hoping she'd levitate energy prices high enough to make alternatives to oil economically feasible. That day has come. Result: The oil has hit the fan.

With gasoline over $4 and with life as they love it in the suburbs being shut down, did people call for the windmills? Nope. A heavy majority want to drill the bejeezus out of anywhere in America we can find familiar black slop.

Barack Obama would sacrifice our economy for his environmentalism, Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger tells Kelsey Hubbard. (Aug. 7)
No one has been hit harder by this unexpected truth than Nancy Pelosi and her green brigades.

Fearful of an up-or-down vote on drilling for oil in, of all places, our own country, the Pelosi House and Harry Reid's Senate shut down Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner calls drilling the greatest issue Republicans have had in his political lifetime. A party flat on its back is ready to run on oil pumps.

Why stop there?

Republicans shouldn't settle for making the world safe for SUVs. What's going on here is about more than $4 gasoline.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats spent a week holding the people's chamber under house arrest, they made plain a political vulnerability beyond drilling. To achieve greenhouse gas goals in the out-years, they are willing to risk a slowdown now in the American economy. How else can you interpret what happened this week? These Democrats aren't environmentalists. They're enviromaniacs.

An environmentalist with two feet on the planet is someone who admits that fixing what economists call "externalities," such as air pollution or climate effects, requires a balance between those goals and protecting the productive economy.

AP
An enviromaniac is the sort of person who would say: "Breaking our oil addiction . . . will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy." The complete transformation of our economy?

So said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his major energy statement this Monday. Though the speech had hedged bows to oil, coal and nuclear, it was overwhelmingly a Goreian jeremiad about "building" a new economy on a promise called renewables.

"We can see shuttered factories open their doors to manufacturers that sell wind turbines and solar panels that will power our homes and our businesses," he said. "We can watch as millions of new jobs with good pay and good benefits are created." This will "meet our moral obligations to future generations."

Whoa. "Millions" of new jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, and this is to "meet our moral obligations?"

Virtue aside, here's the biggest problem with Sen. Obama and Democratic enviromania: It's a risky roll of the dice with the U.S. economy.

The economy we've got works. We know that carbon makes the U.S. economy run like a Swiss watch (transportation, distribution, production, commuting). The bet between carbon inputs and growing American outputs is virtually 1:1.

Mr. Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress want a "complete transformation" of an already successful economy. Not partial. complete. Can any of them say what the odds are that all this economic activity, including the nation's electrical grid, will work as well with their new fuels? Assuredly, growth's odds aren't as good as the ones we have now.

Sen. Obama: "I will not pretend we can achieve [my goals] without cost or without sacrifice." Might this mean foregoing some GDP for five to 10 years? "Growth" appears in Mr. Obama's speech only to describe the "clean energy sector."

The problem with Democratic enviromania is that it's uncoupled from the realities of a nation whose economy has to compete now with the Chinas and Indias of the world, whose high growth rates use proven energy sources.

Republicans this fall should push their argument beyond drilling. Drilling is mainly a proxy for one's understanding of the U.S. economy. The Democrats and Mr. Obama showed this week they are so in thrall to Al Gore's big climate bet that they'd risk having a slow-growth economy. The GOP should run on High Growth America as a better bet than Democratic Slow Growth.

Instead of enviro-messianism, they should propose a drill-to-transition for whatever energy source can prove it works at a nonsacrificial price -- shale, coal gasification, nuclear, solar or some combination. (Windmill farms are a pox on the land.)

Don't be oil-industry deniers. Mr. Obama and Rep. Pelosi want to hammer and punish the only players on the field who actually know how to put massive amounts of energy on the grid. Don't we want them using their resources to drill here, rather than off in some godforsaken place producing gushers of cash for people who want to pound us into a hole? We need Smart Oil on our side for at least 10 years.

Democrats this week chose the prayer of alternative energy over proven prosperity. They've handed prosperity in the here-and-now to the Republicans. Run with it.

Obama the Superhero?

I'd really like to hear Obama addresss each and every one of these points with a counter-argument that actually includes FACTS not just statements about what we should do or what only HE can do, that is unless he really has superpowers (or maybe it's just the pigs that can fly suddenly)

From the WSJ:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Green Hornet
August 6, 2008; Page A14
Al Gore said the other day that "the future of human civilization" depends on giving up fossil fuels within a decade -- and was acclaimed as a prophet by the political class. Obviously boring reality doesn't count for much these days. Even so, when Barack Obama wheels out an energy agenda nearly as grandiose as Mr. Gore's, shouldn't it receive at least some media scrutiny?

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the U.S. must "end the age of oil in our time," with "real results by the end of my first term in office." This, he said, will "take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy." Mark that one down as the understatement of the year. Maybe Mr. Obama really is the Green Hornet, or some other superhero of his current political myth.

The Senator calls for $150 billion over 10 years to achieve "energy independence," with elevated subsidies for renewable alternatives and efficiency programs. He also says he'll "leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy," euphemistically referring to his climate plan to tax and regulate greenhouse gases. Every President since Nixon has declared "energy independence," as Mr. Obama noted. But this time, he says, things will change.

They won't. And not because of "the old politics," or whatever. Currently, alternative sources -- wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal -- provide less than 7% of yearly domestic consumption. Throw out hydro and geothermal, and it's only 4%. For the foreseeable future, renewables simply cannot provide the scale and volume of energy needed to meet growing U.S. demand, which is expected to increase by 20% over the next two decades. Even with colossal taxpayer subsidies, renewables probably can't even slow the rate of growth of carbon-based fuel consumption, much less replace it.

Take wind power, which has grown rapidly though still only provides about two-thirds of 1% of all U.S. electricity. The Energy Department optimistically calculates that ramping up merely to 20% by 2030 would require more than $2 trillion and turbines across the Midwest "wind corridor," plus multiple offshore installations. And we'll need a new "transmission superhighway system" of more than 12,000 miles of electric lines to connect the wind system to population centers. A mere $150 billion won't cut it. Mr. Obama also didn't mention that this wind power will be more expensive than traditional sources like coal.

Wind, too, is intermittent: It isn't always blowing and can't be accessed on demand when people need electricity. Since there's no cost-effective way to store large amounts of electricity, wind requires "spinning reserve," or nonalternative baseload power to avoid blackouts. That baseload power is now provided largely by coal, nuclear and natural gas, and wind can't displace much. The same problem afflicts solar energy -- now one-hundredth of 1% of net U.S. electric generation. One of the top uses of solar panels is to heat residential swimming pools.

Mr. Obama also says he wants to mandate that all new cars and trucks are "flexible fuel" vehicles, meaning that they can run on higher concentrations of corn ethanol mixed with gasoline, or second-generation biofuels if those ever come onto the market. Like wind and solar, this would present major land use problems: According to credible estimates, land areas larger than the size of Texas would need to be planted with fuel feedstocks to displace just half the oil America imports every day. Meanwhile, the economic distortions caused by corn ethanol -- such as higher food prices -- have been bad enough.

And yet there's more miracle work to do. Mr. Obama promises to put at least one million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015. That's fine if consumers want to buy them. But even if technical battery problems are overcome, this would only lead to "fuel switching" -- if cars don't use gasoline, the energy still has to come from somewhere. And the cap-and-trade program also favored by Mr. Obama would effectively bar new coal plants, while new nuclear plants are only now being planned after a 30-year hiatus thanks to punishing regulations and lawsuits.

Problems like these are the reality of "alternative" energy, and they explain why every "energy independence" plan has faltered since the 1970s. But just because Mr. Obama's plan is wildly unrealistic doesn't mean that a program of vast new taxes, subsidies and mandates wouldn't be destructive. The U.S. has a great deal invested in fossil fuels not because of a political conspiracy or because anyone worships carbon but because other sources of energy are, right now, inferior.

Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold. That's because energy use is tethered to growth, and the economy continues to innovate and expand. Mr. Obama seems to have other ideas.

"Where have you gone, Ms. Pelosi-Oh...

...this nation turns its lonely eyes to you, oo oo oo, oo oo oo!"

Slobo stayed up all night last night making this movie about the GOP's protest in the House chamber yesterday (oh how I would love to have been there!)

Sorry, still haven't come down from my rage-a-thon yesterday

I think the American people need to see things like Slobo's movie, and need to understand what's really going on here: that their representatives are NOT representing them, either because they won't, or because they are not being allowed to do so.

The American people also need to understand that this kind of behavior on the part of the Speaker is not just bullying, it's DICTATORSHIP. What else do you call it when the person in control says "I don't care what the people want, I'm doing what I want!"?

The Congressional approval rating is currently 14%, that is the lowest percentage in the history of the approval rating poll. So I'm not sure who Pelosi thinks she's pleasing with her actions, cuz it sure ain't the majority of Americans!

Is she so gutless that taking a stand--even in support of what she *claims* is what Americans want (i.e., no drilling)--will cost them votes come election time? If your answer is yes, you know what that means don't you? That she not only doesn't care about what's good for the country (a.k.a. the majority of people who WANT drilling), she only cares about what's good for *their side.*

I'm sure she sees this as a way to launch Baby Barry's adminstration....If we're still in a criss, and they suddenly allow drilling, they'll be able to give credit for the move to Obama, he'll be hailed as the great leader who got it done, not Bush (whose legacy they are bound and determined to tarnish).

Whatever her grand evil plan, one thing is certain, the American people don't like being jerked around. They want something done, and they want ut now.

I personally think Bush should order them back to work. He has the power, and I think it would be great if he used it, after all, his approval rating is still better than theirs!

"Home Sweet Hospital" for the Homeless

I wonder how this will mesh wih "universal health care?" How will they fit all the sick into the hospitals that are filled with the homeless accumulated over time? I gather once a homeless person is admitted he is in for life, since, as a homeless he person, he has no place to be discharged to!

A new city ordinance, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, makes it a misdemeanor for health facilities to transport a patient to a place other than his or her residence without written consent.

Hospital administrators fear that a conviction could trigger an automatic exclusion from government health programs, a financial blow few hospitals could survive. They also worry about the cost of keeping patients who are healthy enough to be discharged but have no place to go.

In hospitals, patients have a "nice, warm bed, three meals a day and maybe even a television and people waiting on them. They are literally saying to us, 'I don't want to go. If you discharge me, I will call the L.A. Times,' " says Carol Meyer, director of governmental relations for the Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services.

When will the taxpayers of CA revolt and put a stop to this kind of insanity??? I'm thinking the first time someone who could PAY is turned away b/c the hospital is full and some homeless person refuses to give up his room. In other words, in a few months or so.

Our "Do-Nothing" Congress

I AM FURIOUS. I mean spitting mad, fire coming out my ears, laser beams shooting from my eyeballs ANGRY!
Nancy Pelosi has *literally* turned off the lights and shut down debate on the subject of allowing ANY domestic drilling, and Congress is adjourned for vacation!

She has ordered the A/C shut off, C-SPAN to leave, etc...And has literally left her GOP counterparts IN THE DARK to continue discussing the issue ALONE. Dennis Kucinich (bless his heart) was the only one who hung around for a while, and even he left.

I don't care who you are or what your politics are or how you feel about drilling on the outer continental shelf as a means of alieviating the energy crisis, THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY! THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP!!! This is BULLSHIT, that's what it is!

The people have a right to have their interests represented dammit! We have an interest in finding a solution to this problem in the short run, not JUST a long-term alt. fuel solution, but a short-term "bridge" as it were so we have enough money and time to AFFORD to find that long-term solution g-dammit!

You know why she shut it down don't you? Because there are moderate Dems who SUPPORT DOMESTIC DRILLING IN SOME FORM OR OTHER!! Hers is NOT the majority opinion AND SHE KNOWS IT. Same with Harry Reid! They won't even allow a VOTE on ANY of the proposals, even those put forth by these moderate Dems or co-sponsored by them!!!

That is unconscionable! That is not doing their job! I am LIVID! This is no better than playing schoolyard bully! "Nana nana POO POO, we're taking our toys and going home b/c you have the biggest kids on YOUR team and we can't win with our scraggly lot, but we own the ball and bat, so EFF YOU! Have fun playing air-ball with yourselves! :P "

No joke, that's exactly what she did!

And why? I'll tell you the OTHER reason why...Because she is protecting her candidate for Prexy! She knows he has said countless times on the stump that he opposes drilling, and she didn't want him to be forced to vote "No" to most proposals put forth b/c all involve SOME drilling (albeit in many cases only as a last resort if prices reach above a certain floor, some of those numbers were pretty high too). She knows the avg. voter won't parse it out and will just see that he voted "No" to drilling, OR if he voted yes on one proposed amendment but not others, it would count as a generic "Yes" vote which would make him a "flip-flopper" in the eyes of some. So rather than LEAD the Congress, she's circled the wagons to protect him from having to do HIS primary job in the Senate. Even if he didn't vote it would look like he didn't step up to lead on one of the most important issues facing us today while he's still representing the people of IL, and at least they would be pissed.

And even though word this week is he *would* support some form of drilling as a "compromise," that's not a compromise the Speaker wants him to make! The whole thing disgusts me UTTERLY.

In the interest of full disclosure, I actually SUPPORT drilling now that I've learned that (contrary to popular myth) the drilling companies have said they could be pulling crude out of some of these areas in ONE YEAR if allowed to drill there. Brazil is drilling like CRAZY off their coastline and they're not worried about their beaches, and we can sit and boo hoo all day long about fossil fuels, but I think we can all agree that as yucky as they are, we are gonna need them for at least the next decade...Do we want that to be a decade in which we are STILL totally beholden to people who hate our living guts and want to kill us (and who'll use the money we spend on their oil to buy explosives and weapons and fake IDs with which to do so)???? DO WE???

I sure as shit don't!

The FACT is that the Congress (and Obama btw) is NOT with the American mainstream on this. MOST Americans support some drilling, esp. if the price hits a certain level. Pretty hard to "solve" the economy (whatever that means, his words, not mine) without making it easier for people to afford FUEL--be they individuals or businesses. Good luck with that buddy!

I can almost GUARANTEE that we will be drilling within the year ANYWAY, but they'll wait until AFTER Obama is elected for him to flip that flop, you watch! Only by then many Americans will have lost their jobs, businesses will have gone under and it will take that much LONGER to get the oil out of the ground b/c we delayed. And if I'm wrong about this, well then, woe is us b/c we'll be in for a heaping helping of $hit from the oil producing nations. Won't they just LURVE to take advantage of a new, untested, neophite in foreign policy disputes President when we need their product most! Oh I bet they are just SALIVATING at the very thought!

If Pelosi and her fellow bullies really want to HELP Obama, they'd help him by making sure IF he gets elected that he can effectively LEAD. Not having to worry *as much* about dependence on foreign oil would be a giant leap in that general direction.

But hey, if they'd rather just make sure he gets elected, if that's the brass ring and being a successful leader ain't worth diddly (which it seems is their attitude given their behavior tonight), keep at it botox face!

Sorry I'm sooooo worked up but nothing boils my blood more than paying a-holes to work for me and having them NOT DO THEIR JOBS. Go ahead, vote in ways I don't like, have at it, but f-ucking VOTE!!! Don't be gutless wussies and go home b/c you think your POV will LOSE or your candidate will have some 'splainin to do after-the-fact.

AAAARGH!

A$$HOLES!

(breathe Deb, breathe.....)

Next time some "Frog" lectures you about human rights...

Just throw this in their face.

Almost 10 years after a book on overcrowding, rats and disease at Paris's La Sante prison shocked France, conditions in the nation's 195 jails are worse, social activists say. On July 28, Justice Minister Rachida Dati presented a bill to build more jails and increase use of electronic bracelets to keep inmates at home to ease congestion in cells, some of which have barely twice the space France's animal rights society recommends for a dog.

So now that France has set the bar for "human rights" somewhere below "dog rights" can we let ourselves off the hook about GITMO? (Although depending upon who's locked up in those French jails, I might be able to concede that the dogs deserve better treatment and accommodations!