Archive for June, 2011

June 30, 2011

IMAGINE — JOHN LENNON A REAGAN DEMOCRAT?

Ohhhh! It is not a good day to be a progressive liberal. Heads on the verge of full implosion. Songs undergoing reinterpretation. Albums being shelved. It turns out John Lennon was sooo disillusioned with Carter that he couldn’t imagine conceive voting for him again. In fact, he was giving serious consideration to voting for RONALD REAGAN! Imagine Fancy that. Reagan? As in Ronald. As in the man who represents all that is evil and wrong with the world, according to the progressive mindset.

To be fair, it is hard to imagine conjure.

Hey liberals: What’s the only thing more annoying than all the above strikethroughs? How much I’m enjoying this! Progressives, socialists, liberals, and democrats…..lend me my redistributed income! I come to praise John Lennon, not to call him a bona fide Republican (though, it must have ticked off the Obama White House to no end that carrying pictures of Chairman Mao meant they weren’t going to make it with Lennon anyhow). This wallpaper is for you libs:

Advertisements
June 30, 2011

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “I ADMIT THERE’S A MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SORT OF FAVORITE” — Hardball anchor says media pulled for Cuomo, Powell, and McCain (for awhile)

On Hardball Chris Matthews just admitted that the American Press plays favorites. According to Matthews, the MSM had crushes on Mario Cuomo, Colin Powell, and John McCain. Presumably, the McCain affair ended when Matthews and the Journolisters found a tingle thrill up their leg for a younger congressman from Illinois.

Chris Matthews (“Hardball” on 6/30/2011): (underline and italics added for emphasis)

“It seems to me over the years the media has been falling in love with – and you’ve been correct – people like me have always loved Mario Cuomo. We thought he was a true believer. A really good, progressive liberal guy.  And a good man. A good man. And then we all fell for Colin Powell. A lot of us. We thought Colin Powell would be great. None of these guys go anywhere. And then we all were — for awhile there — for John McCain.

Matthews continues, “I’ll admit there’s a mainstream media, sort of favorite at the time — but they never win.” During the crosstalk Matthews laughs and says, “Well, Obama! Obama won.”

It goes without saying that the media and their penchant for falling in and out love is a problem. The MSM needs to be the physician administering an exam in a calm, professional manner. Not fondling the hell out of one patient, and administering an unnecessary rectal exam on the other. It’s called being a professional.

NOTE: Matthews admits the MSM was rooting for a progressive liberal. Then he switches to Colin Powell who is obviously not a progressive liberal. So why root for him then? He’s a good man and he’s got military credentials, but I suspect liberals like Chris Matthews root for Colin Powell partly for the same reason someone like Barack Obama caught their eye to begin with. They want the big racial story. Wouldn’t it be great if…? Wouldn’t it be historic if…? Matthews and his ilk look at the optics and never wonder about policy and principles (I assure you Colin Powell and Mario Cuomo are quite different in this regard and it would be inconsistent to support both). Why did they like McCain? Because he ripped on his party I suppose, and that held some appeal for the MSM (for awhile there).

I think Matthews catches himself before he says, ‘I admit there’s a mainstream media bias.’ He knows he can’t say bias. And then he tries justifying his mistake by basically saying: well, they never win, so who cares if there’s a MSM bias anyway?

Someone might want to forward this to Mr. Jon Stewart to address his discussion with Chris Wallace. Stewart’s view of so-called Left bias in a nutshell:

uhh, yeah, MSNBC sort of leans angles crouches to the slightly  ever-so slightly left not right of center. hey look! i’m making a funny face!

June 30, 2011

OBAMA GETTING US OUT OF THE SAND TRAP? (OR DRIVING US INTO THE WATER HAZARD?)

REASON: “Mired in excruciating negotiations over the budget and the debt ceiling, President Barack Obama might reflect that things didn’t have to turn out this way. The impasse grows mainly out of one major decision he made early on: pushing through a giant stimulus.

When he took office in January 2009, this was his first priority. The following month, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag eventually put at $862 billion.

It was, he said at the time, the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history,” and would “create or save three and a half million jobs over the next two years.

[READ Steve Chapman’s “Stimulus to Nowhere” at reason.com]

Two years later…..ehhh, not so much. But he’s trying sooo hard!

June 30, 2011

OBAMA PULLS OFF EDDIE HASKELL IMPERSONATION?

What Obama said in his presser yesterday: “ “The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owner. . . . Before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

Captain Awesome LOVES his false choices.

June 30, 2011

IS OBAMA LEADING FROM THE BULLS*** PULPIT?

IBT: “If President Barack Obama was hoping that his scolding of Republican lawmakers on Wednesday would spur action to the stalled debt talks, the GOP response made clear that the gulf between the two sides is larger than ever.

The latest US business and financial news as well as issues and events Sample

Democrats are demanding tax hikes via closing loop-holes for certain corporations and upper-income Americans, including oil/energy companies and owners of corporate-class jets, as part of the deal to increase the amount the nation can borrow by an Aug. 2 deadline; the Republicans categorically refuse. And the GOP didn’t take too kindly to the president comparing them to his two children, whom he says don’t wait until the last minute to finish their homework.”

[READ “Obama’s Verbal Lashing of Republicans Inflames Debt Talks” at International Business Times]

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD:” “I think members of Congress need to understand, we are going to, you know, start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done,” [Obama] said, days before the July 4 Independence Day holiday.

“They’re in one week, they’re out one week, and then they’re saying, ‘Obama’s got to step in.'”

….does that mean he’s going to cancel golf?

[READ  “Obama vents at Washington games” at the Syndey Morning Herald]

June 30, 2011

DRAMATIC POETRY READING OF Lindsey Piscitell’s “The Blue Light (from the gas stove)” (‘er whatever the hell she calls this drivel)

Just to show Ms. Lindsey Piscitell (or is it Lindsey Jean now?) that we’re not totally heartless, we’ve decided to highlight her poetry. Please pass this on to all of your friends and post it on your facebook, because there’s actually a tremendous amount of entertainment value in this very serious piece of…..work.

I believe this poem is called “The Blue Light From the Gas Stove” and if it isn’t well, hell, we’ll just call it that. I’ve contacted noted Columbia English professor Dr. Seamus McDermott, PhD to interpret this poem for the neanderthals amongst us who have no appreciation for arts, culture, poetry, and manscaping.

Dr. McDermott: Clearly this piece references a failed relationship of a short-term and exclusively physical nature, likely brokered over the casual encounters section of craigslist. It’s middle afternoon, so obviously the narrator is an unemployed single female. Either she’s unemployed or she was able to cut out of work because her father, who is the head of the company, let her off early. She’s in the bedroom of a much older person who has lived in the City for quite some time, and the reason you know this is from the line: “the quiet pace of the clock-tick”. Single people in their 20s own digital clocks, NOT analog clocks that go tick. She adds “the mantle, stoic, approving”, therefore, she is in the presence of a man who is stoic and approves of her. Perhaps he’s a blind, older gentleman who isn’t too particular.

“married airshafts” — this is a crude copulation reference that needs no explanation. But, clearly, this gentleman is married. The immature writer, showing her disdain for his not having left the wife, explicitly states that he’s married, as if to shame him in a passive-aggressive manner. Figuratively, the narrator sees herself as the teapot/blue light: “grew much older”, “demonstrating determination”.  The narrator is impressed with her growth, maturation, and evolution, though, for some reason, the rest of the world isn’t able to see her as she is able to, and this is a source of much consternation on her part.  “The blue light danced…with its reflection…to the delight of the hall mirror” — she installed a stripper poll for her older, blind craigslist lover, and now she performs a lap dance for him on a webcam. Disturbing stuff really. The poem is one of triumph. She’s no longer going to live off her parents. No. She’s determined to find a proper sugar daddy. She will survive.

DARJEELING EXPRESS: Dr. McDermott, what do you make of the writer’s skill as a poet?

MCDERMOTT: Listen, I’m going to be honest with you. Poetry is crap. 99.99% of it is garbage, but what do you expect in a field with no barrier to entry and all kinds of hacks like this one calling herself a poet. I read thousands of these poems from my pretentious students, and if I’m lucky, out of those thousands, maybe one will actually make me feel something. And usually it’s something the student copied from an actual poet. Point is, this person is no different from the thousands of 20something females in NYC — they adore the smell of their B.S. first thing in the morning. I don’t even know how half of them afford to live in this craphole of a city.

DARJEELING EXPRESS: Thank you for your time, doc.

Again, this is the interpretation of one Dr. Seamus McDermott, Professor of English at Columbia University. We’re more than happy to hear your interpretations. We at the Darjeeling Express are asking you, our readers, to go through Ms. Piscitell’s poetry — New York Times & Palin Email style — and tell us what you think. Interpret it for us.

June 30, 2011

BACHMANN NOTES — THE PALINIZATION BEGINS

Note some of the similarities in how the MSM went after Palin and Bachmann.

1. Mountain out of a molehill: Take little side-issues no one cares about (or should care about) and magnify them until they scare away independent voters. Manufacture the appearance of impropriety.

With Palin the media poured over her every word, every clumsy phrasing, every stammer. They went through all of her language and they isolated a few subjects to pick on. Examples, the troopergate issue, the “book banning” non-issue, her characterization of the role of the vice president, as well as the tanning bed, and the amount of money the RNC allowed her to spend on her wardrobe, and all the fantastical garbage regarding the birth of Palin’s baby. Three years later, has anything come of these issues? No. But at the time in ’08, whenever the anchors discussed these topics they used their serious Edward R. Murrow news voice, as if they’d just stumbled upon Watergate, Part Deux.

(In the case of Charlie Gibson’s question to Palin about the Bush doctrine, Gibson asked an unfair question. Who knew there was an official Bush doctrine that had been outlined and critiqued by historians for decades? Krauthammer didn’t even know what the hell Gibson was talking about. Apparently Gibson just meant neoconservatism. In any event, it made Palin, to the public at large, look unsure of herself and gave the appearance of incompetence.

In the case of the Russia from her house comment, that wasn’t something that Palin even said. But the Fey caricature became so embedded in the mind of the public (thanks in no small part to the MSM replaying it as if was something Palin had in fact uttered), that, for all intents and purposes, it became fact that she’d said it.)

For Bachmann, the press is already trying to trip her up on all these comments about the Founding Fathers, is Barack Obama un-American, John Wayne (?!?). The John Wayne issue is a great example. How does that little blip of a non-issue take up so much air time in the mainstream press? But it does because they made it so. It serves no other purpose but to give the appearance that Bachmann is incompetent. How do you go Defcon1 on the John Wayne bit, but then have no comment on Obama not knowing how old one of his daughters is?

The press is already aware that Bachmann is craftier than Palin was in 2008 at handling questions. They know she can handle herself. So the point won’t be to catch her in a question they think she won’t know the answer to. Their objective will be to focus on questions the press can harp on and blow out of proportion. They’ll focus on Tea Party areas, Obama’s background, the abortion issue, gays, and also try to get her to talk about socialism. Any topic that makes her look like a right wing radical (refer to Rand Paul’s troubles with MSNBC). Anything, as long as they avoid substantive discussions about the economy (i.e. Obama’s glaring weakness).

It’ll be interesting to see how they attack her on the abortion or even the gay marriage issue given her principled position on the rights of the states to determine their laws (even if they run contrary to her own beliefs).

They’ll certainly go after her on details and particulars. Some part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  Refer to Palin’s recent media drama over the Paul Revere issue. The truth is, most MSM reporters and journalists don’t seem to have as nuanced an understanding of their history as they should. They themselves don’t know the difference between myth and reality, so how they can judge a GOP candidate’s knowledge of history. My fear is that all this great discussion about nuance and details from the past will only serve to make candidates less willing to have a dialogue about them. If Obama trips on important facts and details, it’ll be swept under the rug. If Bachmann messes up on something trivial, it’ll be front and center and it will be overhyped until apolitical Americans simply assume out of shear exhaustion that she doesn’t know anything.

2. The specter of shady dealings: Take some part of the GOP candidate’s past and imply nefarious intent. Cover the story to make it look like the candidate is hiding something even if she is being forthright and transparent.

The other thing the media attempted to do with Palin was stain her with what they portrayed to be the seemingly serious promise of scandal and corruption from her tenure as Governor of Alaska. None of these issues came to anything. There was Troopergate, there was Todd Palin’s role in some administrative tasks, etc. etc. Has anything stuck? Has she been found guilty of anything?

At least with the Clinton’s where there was smoke there actually was a huge forest fire! Whitewater (someone went to jail), Travelgate, Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, etc. If there was the whiff of impropriety in the Clinton administration, chances were Billy was being a bad, bad boy.

Palin and Bachmann? Not so much.

(I’m going to guarantee there’s going to be some kind of investigation regarding Bachmann’s 23 foster kids. The legitimacy of the paper work, any information on each child as a reflection on Michelle Bachmann’s worth as a President. And look for this Minnesota RNC guy, and ex-Bachmann staffer, Ron Carey, to be the press’s new favorite interview and character witness over the next few months. How has he not already showed up on CNN or MSNBC??)

Already the media is going into “serious investigative journalist” mode with these stories about how Bachmann’s husband accepted Medicare payments at his clinic. (Oh, the horror! Bachmann shouldn’t be accepting any form of payment for services rendered!). What’s the endgame of this story? To prove that Bachmann is a hypocrite about her desire to decrease the scope of government?? So her husband shouldn’t accept Medicare payments?

Where is the big  five-part investigation on Michelle Obama’s Urban Health Initiative, aka Michele Obama’s role in a shady patient dumping scandal? Where’s Anderson Cooper, Keepin’ ‘Em Honest? Where’s Diane and George with the hard-hitting investigation? Or are they just outsourcing Democrat scandals to the National Enquirer as they did with the John Edwards’ love child? Still waiting for ABC’s hard-hitting exposes on criminal mobster and convict, Tony Rezko, and that land deal with Obama in Chicago.

June 29, 2011

IN MAINE OBAMA CAN’T EVEN GIVE AWAY OBAMACARE (BUT I’M SURE IT’LL BE SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES ANY DAY NOW)

BANGOR DAILY NEWS: “Barely a dozen Mainers have signed up for an insurance plan that covers pre-existing conditions, which has been available in the state for nearly a year.

The Portland Press Herald says only 14 people have subscribed to the plan, which was created by the national Affordable Care Act and is administered in Maine by Dirigo Health.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the plan, is trying to get the word out that the coverage is available. But interest by subscribers has fallen short in Maine as well as the rest of the country.

[Read Peter Suderman’s “In Maine, ObamaCare’s New High Risk Pool Attracts Just 14 Enrollees”  at reason.com]

June 29, 2011

THE FREEMAN: THE VIRTUE OF MARKET INEFFICIENCY

FREEMAN: “Markets are often rightly characterized as extraordinary problem solvers. Under the right rules of the game (including private property, free exchange, and the rule of law) people following their own self-interest can coordinate their plans with one another more or less successfully, generating an overall order without being aware, or needing to be aware, of how it all gets done.  That’s why economists sometimes say that markets are a lot “smarter” than any single person.

But I think markets are more important for the problems they create than for the problems they solve.”

As marvelous as the market economy is at problem solving, in a sense the real genius of the market process is in how it brings problems to people’s attention in the first place.  Before you can solve a problem, you have to be aware that there is a problem.  This, I believe, is the great insight that Israel M. Kirzner, beginning in the 1970s, contributed to our understanding of the market – in particular, that it is a process of entrepreneurial discovery of error.”

An economy without inefficiencies is either one where knowledge is so perfect that no one ever makes a mistake, or it’s one in which government policy has effectively foreclosed the very possibility of inefficiency.  In a world of surprise and discovery, of experiment and innovation, the former is impossible; the latter sort of economy, as Mises showed almost 100 years ago, is impossible as well as intolerable.”

[READ MORE of “The Virtue of Market Inefficiency” at thefreemanonline.org]

Tags:
June 29, 2011

FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING AMERICA? AMERICAN THINKER — Obama isn’t un-American because he’s black. He’s un-American because his statist/centrally planned/Marxist ideology is…well, NOT AMERICAN!

Jay Clarke: “Something is wrong with Barack Obama.  We all know it.  We all see it.  When he speaks about America, Americans cringe.  There is a strangeness to his manner, an unease when he talks about America.  He appears awkward and uncomfortable.  His speech seems performed and practiced yet, oddly halting.  It’s reminiscent of American POW’s in Vietnam or Iraq reading a forced confession.  His eyes, expressions, and vocal tone are disconnected from his words.  The words themselves often sound American, but the delivery is clinical and detached.  His attempts at patriotic sentiment ring hollow and phony.  “Once again, with feeling!” is how Americans are left feeling.  He just doesn’t seem right.  He doesn’t seem like, well…one of us.  

Before anyone “goes there” and makes accusations of racism, this is about a pervasive, nagging, national perception that Barack Obama does not intuitively understand or appreciate America or Americans.  Not our past.  Not our present or future.  He just doesn’t act or sound like an American.  In fact, there are good reasons and ample evidence for why.

[READ Jay Clarke’s “The Un-American American President ” at American Thinker]

Tags: