« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »
February 27, 2009
The Intrepid Liberal Blogosphere
"Reporter" Zachary Roth tries to create a scandal out of whole cloth. Unfortunately, the facts seem to be against his thesis, but that hasn't stopped him from sticking with his non-scandal story. After all, who needs facts when you're trying to destroy threats to The One?
The same liberal site (which, incidentally, brags about its original reporting) that finds lies where there are none simply ignores actual lies spoken by public officials.
Posted by slublog at 11:11 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Recessions are for the Little People
I called the White House to check if that quote was accurate. It was. An aide explained that first lady Michelle Obama "has taken a particular interest in showcasing the work of young up-and-coming designers who have chosen fashion as their path and who are artists in their own right and who are introduced at places like Fashion Week."We do this a lot, but just imagine if a Republican first lady were so mind-numbingly tone deaf to the mood of the country? Actually, we don't have to imagine. Read the next-to-last paragraph in York's story to find out what the press said when a Republican was in office.It's hard to put Herrera, Karan and Jacobs in the up-and-coming category, but never mind: Perhaps we'll be seeing punky, funky ponchos and Day-Glo metallics at some future White House function. I asked whether the first lady considered Rogers' hitting the fashion shows a little frivolous, given the seriousness of our times. "I think you're assigning a value judgment to the fashion industry," I was told. "She doesn't think it is frivolous at all."
h/t: Allahpundit.
Update - A commenter at Ace of Spades HQ (where this was originally posted) reminds us of a much more recent example of media OUTRAGE! over GOP spending:
Remember the outrage over Sarah Palin's New York shopping spree? Remember the savaging over Cindy McCain's $300K RNC outfit?Can you blame them? Maintaining consistent standards would get in the way of their attempts to make Michelle the new Jackie.Yeah. Neither does anyone else, I guess.
Posted by slublog at 11:06 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Everything is Amazing, and Nobody's Happy
This video is making its way around the web today. Funny and true.
Posted by slublog at 08:19 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
February 26, 2009
Shocker: Maine's Taxes are Too High
The Maine Economic Growth Council released an annual report today that analyzes a number of indicators of progress toward sustainable, long-term growth.Our taxes inhibit business growth?...But it also hands out red flags in several areas, including personal income, high-speed Internet access, manufacturing productivity, health care and energy costs, and state and local tax burden.
I'm shocked, shocked...
Posted by slublog at 10:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 25, 2009
The Punk Presidency
Agreed. Obama needs to start respecting his office and stop using the bully pulpit to take cheap shots at his opponents.
Posted by slublog at 09:53 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Whoa
Words I never expected to read:
Karl Rove (KarlRove) is now following your updates on Twitter.Dude.
And yeah, I'm on Twitter.
Posted by slublog at 09:37 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
On Children's Books
Harvard economist Greg Mankiw lists his favorite children's books. I always pictured him reading Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes to his kids before they go to bed.
Or perhaps what he semi-jokingly calls his favorite economics textbook.
This post got me thinking about my favorite books for kids. Since becoming a dad, I've read or skimmed quite a few of them, and 'below the fold' are some of my favorites to read to my daughters.
One Morning in Maine by Robert McCloskey. This is a great book all around. The illustrations are beautiful, kids can relate to the story and it's fun to read.
Big Red Barn by Margaret Wise Brown. Non-annoying rhymes and detailed illustrations. I think I have the first few pages memorized.
The Going to Bed Book by Sandra Boynton. A very silly book, but fun to read.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle. I've read this book a lot.
Gossie by Olivier Dunrea. Who doesn't love red boots?
Hurry Up, Slowpoke by Crosby Newell. This is a sentimental choice. My grandmother used to read it to us when we were visiting their camp in northern Maine. So reading it to my daughter is kind of surreal.
Posted by slublog at 08:37 PM | Comments (57) | TrackBack
February 24, 2009
Obama's Speech
Listening to the president talk about energy has inspired me...to purchase a pellet stove.
Wind power is great, but it isn't going to make my house warmer. Oil prices are going to be out of control next winter.
Update - Governor Bobby Jindal's response was...odd. Great message, but the delivery was off.
Posted by slublog at 10:13 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Nerdvana
Guillermo del Toro, filming a book written by Dan Simmons?
My geek heart just jumped with joy.
And speaking of geekery, the early reviews of "Watchmen?" So far, so good.
I may actually take time off from work to go see this movie during a matinee.
Posted by slublog at 08:08 PM | Comments (247) | TrackBack
The Speech
Aides say the speech, which will have a heavy focus on the economy, will try and strike an optimistic tone. That's a sign Obama has heard the criticism, including from former President Bill Clinton, that he needs to mix sober talk with an upbeat bottom line.Hm. A non-detailed speech that will "try" to strike an optimistic tone?"He believes we will meet these challenges and lift ourselves out of this," one top aide said of the recession. "He will say, 'The best days are ahead of us.'"
The aides said foreign policy will be touched on lightly in the speech so that the president can focus largely on the economy and related issues, including health care, education, and energy.
Aides stressed the speech will be "thematic" and thus will not get into much detail on the president's plans to deal with the credit crunch and housing crisis.
Haven't they tried that before?
I'm glad he will attempt optimism in this speech, but I have my doubts as to whether it will work because I do not believe Barack Obama is an optimistic man at heart. Sure, he sometimes mouths optimistic platitudes, but his entire campaign was based on the assumption that something was wrong with America and only his election would heal the country. That's not optimism, it's conceit.
Since winning the presidency, Obama has flailed a bit because it's hard to run a country on the vision of not being George W. Bush. As we've seen from the market, part of the skittishness of investors is because of the doom and gloom talk on the part of this administration. We'll see if the president can change that tonight, or whether he'll just keep trying to blame the previous administration for the economy's ills.
Of course, the non-optimistic talk isn't the only thing wrong with Obama's 'cures' for the economy. There's also this:
The joint address to Congress, similar to a State of the Union speech, which presidents traditionally give in subsequent years of their administration, is also Obama's first chance for a formal roll out of nuts-and-bolts policy.We have a serious economic crisis and he's being opportunistic and funding liberal pet projects. Is that what passes for leadership these days?He is set to address healthcare, climate change, energy and education, as he argues that the size of the crisis means his key agenda items are more, not less important than they would have been in sunny economic times.
Obama has already driven a 787-billion-dollar stimulus plan through Congress, unveiled a 275-billion-dollar foreclosure plan and tried, so far unsuccessfully, to steady the banking industry.
Posted by slublog at 07:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 23, 2009
A Gaza Bailout
Oh, this makes me feel a lot better about paying taxes.
Posted by slublog at 08:56 PM | Comments (46) | TrackBack
A Sign of Armageddon?
Chris Matthews critical of Obama.
I can hardly believe what I'm watching on MSNBC right now. Chris Matthews is almost critical — no, not even almost, he's flat-out critical of President Obama on the economic front. He mentions an earlier conversation with CNBC's manic stock analyst Jim Cramer and a University of Maryland professor (Peter Morici?) knocking Obama for several economic decisions — that the stimulus bill needed more real infrastructure and less pork, that the housing bill isn't inspiring confidence and doesn't look like it will work, and that no one has faith in Tim Geithner's solution for the banks.Next: plague of frogs.
Posted by slublog at 08:49 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
February 22, 2009
Worst Movie Ever?
My vote? "The English Patient."
I watched "Silence of the Lambs" instead of the Oscars.
Posted by slublog at 09:37 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack
February 21, 2009
The Oscars
I haven't seen a single film nominated for Best Picture this year. It would be nice to see Danny Boyle win, though, since he's made some great movies.
Still, it doesn't really matter who wins. The Oscars are a meaningless exercise in self-congratulation and good marketing. I haven't taken them seriously since "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan" for Best Picture. Once I realized people like the slovenly Weinstein brothers could purchase the award, it took on less meaning.
So I'll probably watch a DVD tomorrow night.
Posted by slublog at 09:40 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
February 20, 2009
Jindal 2012?
Governor Baldacci, take note.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states…Be still, my conservative heart. If Jindal decides to run, he's got my vote.“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”
Posted by slublog at 10:25 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Will Obama's Mortgage Plan Help the Irresponsible?
So what's the incentive for me to keep paying my mortgage, exactly? When I heard about Obama's mortgage plan, all I could think of was this quote from "Goodfellas:"
For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked sh*tty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers...Every month, we write a check to pay our mortgage. A mortgage payment that we made sure we could pay each month before we signed the papers. I never thought being a responsible homeowner would make me feel like a sucker, but it does. I don't plan to stop paying my mortgage, but I am deeply angry at the president for creating a plan that does nothing to reward people who have done the right thing for years without asking for a handout.
I've got to be honest with both of my readers. I'm finding it difficult to keep my promise not to regard Obama with disdain. I don't hate the man, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by slublog at 09:12 PM | Comments (61) | TrackBack
Union-Funded Group Thinks Maine Needs More Unions
AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine labor leaders and public officials on Thursday called attention to a recent report that predicts Maine's economy would benefit from stronger unions.The story is very short on the details of the report, relying instead on feel-good quotes from union officials and union-supporting politicians.The report by the Center for American Progress predicts that a 5 percent increase in union membership in Maine would funnel $77 million into the state's economy. The authors estimate that newly unionized workers would see their wages increase by 8.6 percent and likely would receive better benefits, particularly in the area of health care.
“Paychecks are shrinking and [the cost of] health care is skyrocketing all across the country, and that is why unions matter,” U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, said at a State House press conference.
A very quick web search shows that the Center for American Progress is funded in part by a group called the Democracy Alliance. Who's a contributor to the Democracy Alliance? The Service Employees International Union. So a more accurate headline to this story would be the title of this post: unions think we need more unions.
They are, of course, quite wrong on that point.
The BDN is never shy about pointing out the fact that the Maine Heritage Policy Center, for instance, is a conservative group. I don't think it's too much to ask that they do the same for groups on the other side of the ideological spectrum.
Posted by slublog at 09:48 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 19, 2009
Just a Bill
How a 'Stimulus' Bill Becomes a Law.
Hilarious. Now I've got the song stuck in my head.
Posted by slublog at 07:11 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Horrifying, Yet Strangely Awesome
(h/t: Hot Air)
Posted by slublog at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 18, 2009
The Keene Act and You
Only a few weeks to go. They'd better not mess this movie up.
Posted by slublog at 08:48 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
February 17, 2009
Thoughts on Bipartisanship
So, who said the following, quoted in this Wall St. Journal op-ed?
"Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.One guess."If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'
"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"
Book cover may be altered to reflect reality.
Posted by slublog at 11:43 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
February 16, 2009
Rating the Presidents
An interesting symposium at NRO. There are some surprising choices on the list.
I've always had a soft spot for Harry S. Truman, a decent man who assumed the office at a trying time. After making the hard decisions that led to the end of World War II, Truman quickly recognized Russia's intentions and made it clear that America would stand against Soviet expansionism and with European democracies.
Truman was the first Cold War president, and the actions he took during his presidency set the tone for America's role in that quiet conflict. His domestic policies may have been awful, but he started this country on the path that eventually led to our 'defeating' the Soviets.
My least-favorite president? Truman's boss, Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the closest America has come to electing a tyrant.
Posted by slublog at 11:00 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Whew: Undermining the President Now a Bad Thing
I have to admit. I thought they'd all be a little more subtle.
(h/t: Hot Air)
Posted by slublog at 10:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 15, 2009
CNN Suddenly Very Concerned About Alaska's Poor
CNN ran this story at the top of its page almost a week ago. In fact, the story is still dated February 9.
It's back up as the main story today.
Posted by slublog at 01:27 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Remember When Presidential Vacations Were Bad?
Now they're a chance for the president to show off his "spiffy" new ride.
Happy days are here again!
Posted by slublog at 01:22 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
February 13, 2009
The Stimulus Cometh
So...that extra $13 a week is going to be awesome, huh?
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a major victory for President Barack Obama, Democrats muscled a huge, $787 billion stimulus bill to the brink of final passage Friday night in hopes of combating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous. The vote in the House was 246-183 for the package of tax cuts and federal spending that Obama made the centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery.Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, predictably, are two of the votes for passage. While I understand their reasons for voting yes (as explained below), I disagree vehemently with their actions on this bill. I still do not believe they should be kicked out of the Republican caucus, but they should face some sanctions from the National Republican Senatorial Committee the next time they run for re-election.The Senate was following suit in a roll call that was without suspense but extended into the night. That was to allow time for Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown to fly back from Ohio, where his mother died earlier in the week. His was the decisive 60th vote for the bill.
Obama is expected to sign the bill soon.
The NRSC should direct funds toward candidates who stand a chance of picking up a Democrat seat in a red state instead of wasting money on a Republican seat in a blue state. Snowe and Collins may be doing their jobs, but that doesn't mean the voluntary donations of Republicans around the country should go to fund their campaigns.
My photoshop above may be humorous, but I don't take today's vote lightly. This bill may stimulate the economy in the short-term, but in the long run, we're going to have to pay for this. With today's vote, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid just ensured that my kids are going to deal with a government that confiscates much of their income.
Posted by slublog at 08:31 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack
Bobby Rush: How About we License the Bitter Clingers?
The debate over the 'stimulus' bill is sucking up most of the oxygen in the blogosphere, but there are other bills worth keeping an eye on. HR 45 is one such bill. What would it do?
U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act." The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme.Here's the text of the legislation. Rep. Rush has been unsuccessful with this bill before, but now he's got a liberal president, a huge Democratic majority and an anti-gun attorney general to help him out.The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!
The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…" [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses.
Just something to keep in mind, and a reminder that we have a lot of battles ahead.
Posted by slublog at 11:03 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
February 11, 2009
So, Who's Up for an Ideological Purge?
The stimulus bill passed the senate? This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
The only purpose there ever was to allowing liberals like Collins, Snowe and Specter in the party in spite of all their wandering off the reservation was that they would still cast a few keys votes when numbers fell at important dividing points – e.g. a Republican as majority leader when the Senate was divided 50-50; with the party when at or near 60-40 to stop or end filibusters.Maybe there's another explanation. Maybe, and stick with me here, Dave...maybe Snowe and Collins are representing the constituents of their state. Like it or not, and I don't, Maine is a pretty liberal state filled with people who stand to benefit from the bill and are likely to call in support of it. Maybe they're doing exactly what the majority of the people they represent have asked them to do. It's unfortunate they didn't stand up for Republican principles, but good that they're loyal to republican principles. Irritating, but it's better than having them ignore the voters.Neither one of these reasons exists anymore. Democrats presently have 58 votes, and with this betrayal, these three have proven they can't even be counted on to uphold filibusters. As such, they have demonstrated themselves to be completely expendable.
These senators have also proven themselves to be liars by claiming a party label to which they have no legitimate right whatsoever. And if they won't be either honest or honorable enough to simply switch to the party with whom they already vote the overwhelming share of the time anyway, then they must be held accountable from without. They can lie to themselves all they want about being “Republicans,” but that doesn't mean anyone else should participate in their ridiculous delusions.
Also, like Allah, I'm not sure what kicking them out of the caucus would actually accomplish. Sure, it would make conservatives feel good for a time, but wouldn't really do much to promote party unity. After all, if we start booting people for not following principles, who gets to decide what principles are the litmus test?
And do we really want to be a party in which everyone is waiting for the axe to fall if they don't toe the line on every vote?
Posted by slublog at 05:45 PM | Comments (69) | TrackBack
Homegrown Terrorists too Close to Home
It's been a long time since our local paper has been able to surprise me with a headline. As I walked to work, I passed by a newspaper vending machine and saw the following plastered above the fold: "Report: 'Dirty bomb' parts found in slain man's home." Well that's shocking. What's more shocking?
The home in question is less than an hour from where I live. Domestic terrorism, indeed.
BELFAST, Maine — James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”Belfast is a nice little coastal town that's managed to mostly resist the yuppie swarm and maintain its blue-collar roots. It's one of the last places in the state where I would have expected to see news like this. Yikes.According to an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center posted online by WikiLeaks, an organization that posts leaked documents, an investigation into the case revealed that radioactive materials were removed from Cummings’ home after his shooting death on Dec. 9.
...It says that four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon were found in the home.
Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika.
Posted by slublog at 08:50 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
February 10, 2009
Obama: Ideology Trumps Economy
No drilling off our coast, says The One. And hey, if the economy tanks thanks to high energy prices, he can always ask for another debt-creating stimulus package, right?
If you're in the north, lock your heating oil prices in soon...next winter looks as though it's going to be long and expensive. And the stock market is just going to love the additional economic burden of high energy prices.
Thanks, Barry!
Posted by slublog at 10:09 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack
February 09, 2009
Democrats, Then and Now
President Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
President Barack H. Obama: 'Do what I want, or the economy will melt, and you'll all die poor and alone.'
Irresponsible fear-mongering is not all that presidential. Now that I think about it, weren't we promised a calm, cool, post-partisan president?
Guess that 'hope over fear' stuff from the inaugural address was "just words."
Although I'm not a big fan of FDR, the man knew that part of leadership was preventing panic. In 1933, during one of his "fireside chats," FDR said the following:
After all there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work.Roosevelt knew panic would only make the problem worse, so while he was honest about the state of the economy, he deliberately tempered his rhetoric. Compare that to Obama's words from last night:It is your problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail.
They can't pay their bills. They've stopped spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements to tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand.HOLY CRAP GRAB THE GUNS AND START STUFFING MATTRESSES WITH MONEY AND STOCK UP ON CANNED FOODS!!!!!!!!!!!As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America. Last Monday, more than 1,000 men and women stood in line for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami [Florida]. Last month, our economy lost 598,000 jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the state of Maine.
And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside-down because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from.
The contrast couldn't be clearer. Roosevelt was deliberate in his attempts to calm. Obama is deliberate in his attempts to induce panic. In many ways, he's like Syndrome from "The Incredibles." *Spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie.* The villain deliberately creates a giant machine designed to attack a city and create panic so he can swoop in to play the part of the hero. He's designed the machine to respond to his commands, so he can 'destroy' it. Unfortunately for him (and the city) his plan goes awry and he can't control the destruction he unleashed.
I didn't say it was a comforting metaphor.
What we've seen over the past few weeks is that Obama's definition of 'hope' is 'not-Bush.' That may have been enough to get him through an election, but it's a poor substitute for the real thing.
Posted by slublog at 10:52 PM | Comments (48) | TrackBack
Return of the "Smallest Graces"
So...anyone got a copy of the 95 Theses handy?
The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: "Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences."I mean no disrespect to Bishop DiMarzio, but indulgences aren't really the answer to sin in the world. That has been taken care of another way.In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church's clout in mitigating the wages of sin.
The fact that many Catholics under 50 have never sought one, and never heard of indulgences except in high school European history (Martin Luther denounced the selling of them in 1517 while igniting the Protestant Reformation), simply makes their reintroduction more urgent among church leaders bent on restoring fading traditions of penance in what they see as a self-satisfied world.
"Why are we bringing it back?" asked Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of New York, who has embraced the move. "Because there is sin in the world."
These modern-day indulgences cannot be purchased with cash (although charitable contributions can help you earn one), but from the perspective of a guy who was raised Catholic, they still seem to be a form of 'earned grace.' Since I believe now that grace or special favor is not something earned, but something given, my faith has much more in common with the document that caused the ultimate church split.
I find this story fascinating, because it shows the power of history and the pull of tradition. It's been almost 500 years since Martin Luther picked up his hammer at Wittenberg, and the church is still debating the issues raised by the document he nailed to a door.
Posted by slublog at 09:56 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Presidential Press Conference
I didn't watch it.
My blood pressure is already high. No reason to make it worse. Watched "Groundhog Day" instead.
Posted by slublog at 09:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 08, 2009
The Autism Deception
So, how many people has this lie killed?
THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.There have been a number of studies that cast serious doubt on Wakefield's work, but there are still parents who diminish the herd immunity by refusing to get their children vaccinated. I hope the discrediting of this study will cause some of them to reconsider. (h/t: Instapundit)Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
...Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.
Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.
Posted by slublog at 10:25 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
February 06, 2009
Frum, Diminished
Allahpundit linked this David Frum article at Hot Air, and it has sparked quite an intense debate. In two threads.
It’s an interesting and thought-provoking article, but would have been more so had Frum displayed more self-restraint. He spends too much time engaged in the same sort of characterization he decries. For example, it seems unfair and untrue to dismiss those who adhere to ideology as "men of wrath."
Frum complains about the unwillingness of ideological purists to compromise, but then spends a good deal of the article clucking at them in a condescending manner. If he were truly interested in party unity, then he’s got to cut down on the subtle cheap shots at those with whom he disagrees and approach the debate in good faith.
Sarah Palin is a gifted politician, but I’m leery of making her - or anyone, really - the face of “true conservatism” since putting an ideology’s hopes in one person is an exercise in inevitable frustration. It’s unfair for conservatives to use her as a measuring stick to measure one's fealty to 'true conservatism,' but it’s also unfair for writers like Frum to regard her as what that ails the Republican party and tsk tsk at voters he clearly regards as the rubes who supported her.
I like Palin and would like to see her succeed politically, but people on both sides of this argument do her no favors by regarding her as a symbol rather than a politician.
What really bothers me about the article, and Frum in general, is that the types of candidates he supports and thinks will form a new majority (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain) have, to put it nicely, 'underperformed' with voters. Moderates are uninspiring because once you get past the 'can't we all just get along' rhetoric, they don't stand for much other than their own ability to sound reasonable.
Posted by slublog at 10:54 PM | Comments (39) | TrackBack
February 05, 2009
Politico Frets for Obama
"Obama Losing the Stimulus Message War." Alternate title? "Requiem for a Messiah's Glory Days."
At this crucial juncture in the push to pass an economic recovery package, President Obama finds himself in the most unlikely of places: He is losing the message war.Oh, that pesky legislative process! It's just so unfair to expect the president to actually convince people of a bill's merits. Isn't it better just to do something now? Where's a good charm offensive when you need it?Despite Obama’s sky-high personal approval ratings, polls show support has declined for his stimulus bill since Republicans and their conservative talk-radio allies began railing against what they labeled as pork barrel spending within it.
The sheer size of it — hovering at about $900 billion — has prompted more protests that are now causing some moderate and conservative Democrats to flinch and, worse, hesitate.
Obama’s campaign was lauded for its visionary use of modern tools for old-fashioned politics. Through the Internet, it recruited supporters, collected dollars, rallied supporters and organized get-out-the vote operations.Sure. As a commenter at Hot Air said, it's not as if they could just Twitter or Facebook away the fact that this just might be a bad bill.But when these modern heroes arrived at the White House, it was like the lights all went out.
Their contact with their millions-fold supporters was cut off, literally, as e-mail systems broke down and ‘The List’ of political supporters was blocked at the iron gate.
To meet government ethics rules, the campaign operation and its grass-roots army were forced to de-camp to the Democratic National Committee, robbing the president of one of his most potent political weapons just as the stimulus bill was under consideration in the House.
The entire article is one long lament for the days when the One could simply control his message. Obama is chided a bit in the article, but only for bad message management. By focusing on that aspect, the writer misses a major point: maybe the president is losing the message war because in this case, Americans are focused on policy instead of personality.
The story doesn't give enough consideration to the idea that the stimulus legislation is simply a bad bill and that Republicans who disagree with it are doing so for sound reasons. No, the blame resides with the fact that Obama is unfairly being kept away from his political staff; or the fact that the White House has ancient computers; or that the One can’t simply dictate policy to the legislative branch.
Here's an alternative hypothesis for Politico to consider: Obama is losing the message war because he's trying to sell us a pork-laden stinkburger of a bill that will do little to stimulate the economy. In this case, the GOP just has the better message.
Obama is also finding out the hard way that bad decisions have consequences. In his first two weeks, Obama appointed three tax cheats to work in his administration, has repeatedly made exceptions to the ethics rules he bragged about imposing, and put the lie to his promise to move past partisanship with his infantile 'I won' attitude. Obama is not losing support because the big bad Republicans and Rush Limbaugh are being mean to him. He's losing support because people are beginning to see that he didn't mean a thing he said while running for president.
That tends to take the bloom off the rose pretty quickly.
Posted by slublog at 11:22 PM | Comments (28) | TrackBack
More Evidence of Obama's Miracle-Working Ability
His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, makes Scott McClellan look like a rhetorical genius.
Memo to Gibbs: Not a good idea to indicate that a reporter's question is somehow not 'pertinent.' As you can see, Jake Tapper was not amused, and I'm pretty sure he almost said a very bad word here.
(H/t: The Corner)
Posted by slublog at 11:15 PM | Comments (65) | TrackBack
February 04, 2009
A LOT of Debt
After hearing this soundbite, my co-worker did the math. A million a day since Christ was born is still $200 billion less than the Democrats want to spend on this stimulus package.
Still, I guess you need to take such drastic measures when the U.S. is losing 500 million jobs per month, right?
Posted by slublog at 11:41 PM | Comments (39) | TrackBack
Cooking with Gordon
Watching "Hell's Kitchen" on Hulu (Shut up. I like to cook and watch raging temper tantrums) raised a few random thoughts and questions.
-These people have watched the show before, right? Why do they always look so surprised when Gordon Ramsay launches into a tirade?
-Who on earth would be willing to subject themselves to that tirade? And why do some contestants feel the need to mouth off?
-Ramsay is a brave man. I'm not sure I could stomach some of the 'signature dishes' he tries at the beginning of the season. For the record, I would probably cook something really simple - grilled salmon with yogurt cucumber dill sauce with tabouli and garlic spinach on the side.
-I would hate having cameras pointed at me all the time.
-These guys use a lot of profanity.
Yeah, there's nothing profound about this post. But now it's stuck in your head, so sorry about that.
Posted by slublog at 11:18 PM | Comments (96) | TrackBack
February 03, 2009
Obama's Love Triangle
Obama...labor unions...Europe.
Someone's heart was bound to be broken.
The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war.Obama is doing the right thing here. He knows American companies simply cannot produce products at a comparable price to those available overseas, thanks to the demands of the unions to which he's beholden. Recessions force changes in spending behaviors, making cheaper products more attractive.The EU threatened to retaliate if the US Congress went ahead with sweeping measures in its $800 billion (£554 billion) stimulus plan to restrict spending to American goods and services.
Gordon Brown was caught in the crossfire as John Bruton, the EU Ambassador to Washington, said that “history has shown us” where the closing of markets leads — a clear reference to the Depression of the 1930s, triggered by US protectionist laws.
Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.
The president's actions are admirable, as long as he can hold the line against the unions.
Posted by slublog at 10:59 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBack