So, now we know.
Even Jesse Jackson disapproves of the junior Illinois Senator Obama's treatment of other blacks. And Obama is his Senator, too.
Yesterday's comments on an open mike in front of Jackson revealed his true feelings about his fellow black and Presidential hopeful.
He said Obama treats blacks badly. Here's a YouTube video including Jackson's actual remarks, and some coverage of them, including his lame, post-incident apology.
Even other blacks don't trust Obama. And Jackson's 'apology' really simply means Jesse will back any black, just to get a black President.
Shameful!
But the bottom line is, there is no 'unity' over Obama, even among his own kind. As I wrote here in a prior post in May, beware the Obama brand of unity- and pay attention to the honest reactions and comments of people like Jackson regarding the Black Adder.
Obama's brand of 'unity' comes at too high a price. When even usually mouthy, agenda-bearing gaflies like Jesse Jackson kowtow after expressing their honest views, you know we'll be in trouble if Obama is elected.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
What Does "Hard Working" Really Mean?
Has it really been three weeks or more since I last posted? My apologies. Work and other summer events have intervened.
But, I'm on the road now, and actually better able to focus on a backlog of post topics. Election topics, of course, will be prominent.
Today, I want to have a little rant on one of the rookie Senator from Illinois' favorite phrases, 'hard working families,' or 'hard working Americans,' etc. Hilary used to bang on this one a lot, too.
Actually, every Democratic Presidential candidate does- perennially and quadrennially.
So, just what is a 'hard working' American?
Am I one? I worked last night, and this morning before breakfast. I work for myself, with a partner. From my home office.
Are you a 'hard working' American?
See, whenever I hear the freshman Senator from Illinois use the term, my mind conjures up grungy, grimy-looking, non-college-educated poor people in small towns throughout America. And they must have at least two jobs.
Preferably divorced, with about three children, and no health care.
If you aren't a personal wreck, you just aren't 'hard working.'
Is the graduate-school educated hedge fund manager who makes 40% returns annually for institutional investors such as blue-collar union pension funds a 'hard working' American?
Or the CEO of a large-cap firm which employs tens of thousands of Americans? Is he 'hard working?' Or does his seven-figure compensation disqualify him, even though he's probably divorced from a wife who tired of his career focus. And his health is probably marginal, because his lifestyle actually sucks from constant stress and travel on behalf of his shareholders.
Why isn't 'hard working' associated with Americans who have sensible plans, personal lives with limits on boneheaded behavior, and a desire to become educated and make more money?
Why must they always be painted as having children they can't afford, uneducated and, thus, requiring two low-paying jobs to pay too little for the life they lead, and always seeming to have at least one relative with a serious health issue?
This kind of black crepe paper-hanging notion of Americans who are 'hard working' really burns me.
Hopefully, as I'll write about in an upcoming posts, this portrait resonates with sufficiently few Americans that it will cause the Black Adder to lose in November.
But, I'm on the road now, and actually better able to focus on a backlog of post topics. Election topics, of course, will be prominent.
Today, I want to have a little rant on one of the rookie Senator from Illinois' favorite phrases, 'hard working families,' or 'hard working Americans,' etc. Hilary used to bang on this one a lot, too.
Actually, every Democratic Presidential candidate does- perennially and quadrennially.
So, just what is a 'hard working' American?
Am I one? I worked last night, and this morning before breakfast. I work for myself, with a partner. From my home office.
Are you a 'hard working' American?
See, whenever I hear the freshman Senator from Illinois use the term, my mind conjures up grungy, grimy-looking, non-college-educated poor people in small towns throughout America. And they must have at least two jobs.
Preferably divorced, with about three children, and no health care.
If you aren't a personal wreck, you just aren't 'hard working.'
Is the graduate-school educated hedge fund manager who makes 40% returns annually for institutional investors such as blue-collar union pension funds a 'hard working' American?
Or the CEO of a large-cap firm which employs tens of thousands of Americans? Is he 'hard working?' Or does his seven-figure compensation disqualify him, even though he's probably divorced from a wife who tired of his career focus. And his health is probably marginal, because his lifestyle actually sucks from constant stress and travel on behalf of his shareholders.
Why isn't 'hard working' associated with Americans who have sensible plans, personal lives with limits on boneheaded behavior, and a desire to become educated and make more money?
Why must they always be painted as having children they can't afford, uneducated and, thus, requiring two low-paying jobs to pay too little for the life they lead, and always seeming to have at least one relative with a serious health issue?
This kind of black crepe paper-hanging notion of Americans who are 'hard working' really burns me.
Hopefully, as I'll write about in an upcoming posts, this portrait resonates with sufficiently few Americans that it will cause the Black Adder to lose in November.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama on Public Funding of His Campaign: Change You Can Bet On
It's official. Obama's latest lie is a matter of record.
Last summer, the rookie Senator from Illinois promised to restrict his Presidential campaign, if he became his party's nominee, to public funds, if his opponent would agree to do so as well.
Today, Obama 'changed' his tune. And lied. He demonstrated that what he says at one point in time about something he can control, can change whenever it suits him.
Is this change you can believe in?
Or merely politically expedient change you can count on?
The latter, I think is now clear.
Obama's a liar and a conventional backroom-dealing, expedient politician.
Last summer, the rookie Senator from Illinois promised to restrict his Presidential campaign, if he became his party's nominee, to public funds, if his opponent would agree to do so as well.
Today, Obama 'changed' his tune. And lied. He demonstrated that what he says at one point in time about something he can control, can change whenever it suits him.
Is this change you can believe in?
Or merely politically expedient change you can count on?
The latter, I think is now clear.
Obama's a liar and a conventional backroom-dealing, expedient politician.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Why The Fuss Over Tim Russert?
Okay- Tim Russert died. Big deal.
I don't understand what all the hoopla is about.
Like his Irish Liberal Democratic media colleague in the NBC/Universal world, Chris Matthews, Russert apprenticed to a well-known Irish pol- Pat Moynihan.
But Russert is no Pat Moynihan, just like Matthews is no Tip O'Neill.
Being part of the ultra-liberal NBC family of media brands, Russert never got much viewership from me. I think the most I ever saw of him was with Tom Brokaw on the election night coverage of November, 2004.
What I saw turned my stomach so badly that I never bothered to view Russert for more than a few seconds of accidentally running across his Sunday morning interview show.
Every time that Brokaw, the prototypical NBC liberally-biased news anchor, would solemnly intone some liberal opinion about Kerry's evolving loss to President Bush, as if it were fact, Russert's jowly face would nod vigorously up and down like some big, live bobble-head.
If he were smaller, he could have sat on Brokaw's lap and looked like Charlie McCarthy. As it was, he just aped whatever Brokaw said or did, grinning in that somewhat idiotic fashion he seemed to sport the few times I saw him on air.
Just because Russert grew up in a non-white collar family in Buffalo, and wrote a book about his father, people seem to feel he has some special claim on how 'America' feels.
Well, judging by his politics, he never represented my feelings. And I was not from a particularly wealthy or elite class, either.
Instead, rather than being raised in the type of blue state liberal household that blamed others for what we didn't have, I came from a Midwestern home where education and opportunity were seen as there for the taking, to do with what you would and could. Lack of performance was and is seen as a failure of the individual, not the system.
Thus, Russert's tear-jerking rise from humble origins was nothing special from where I hail.
It's not like he was, say, David Brinkley or Chet Huntley- real NBC news titans. Russert seemed to me to be just another one of those modern day, pale, third-generation talking-head descendants of the once-great, first television newsmen of the 1950s and '60s.
Perhaps that's why I find the sentiments over his death so misplaced.
I don't understand what all the hoopla is about.
Like his Irish Liberal Democratic media colleague in the NBC/Universal world, Chris Matthews, Russert apprenticed to a well-known Irish pol- Pat Moynihan.
But Russert is no Pat Moynihan, just like Matthews is no Tip O'Neill.
Being part of the ultra-liberal NBC family of media brands, Russert never got much viewership from me. I think the most I ever saw of him was with Tom Brokaw on the election night coverage of November, 2004.
What I saw turned my stomach so badly that I never bothered to view Russert for more than a few seconds of accidentally running across his Sunday morning interview show.
Every time that Brokaw, the prototypical NBC liberally-biased news anchor, would solemnly intone some liberal opinion about Kerry's evolving loss to President Bush, as if it were fact, Russert's jowly face would nod vigorously up and down like some big, live bobble-head.
If he were smaller, he could have sat on Brokaw's lap and looked like Charlie McCarthy. As it was, he just aped whatever Brokaw said or did, grinning in that somewhat idiotic fashion he seemed to sport the few times I saw him on air.
Just because Russert grew up in a non-white collar family in Buffalo, and wrote a book about his father, people seem to feel he has some special claim on how 'America' feels.
Well, judging by his politics, he never represented my feelings. And I was not from a particularly wealthy or elite class, either.
Instead, rather than being raised in the type of blue state liberal household that blamed others for what we didn't have, I came from a Midwestern home where education and opportunity were seen as there for the taking, to do with what you would and could. Lack of performance was and is seen as a failure of the individual, not the system.
Thus, Russert's tear-jerking rise from humble origins was nothing special from where I hail.
It's not like he was, say, David Brinkley or Chet Huntley- real NBC news titans. Russert seemed to me to be just another one of those modern day, pale, third-generation talking-head descendants of the once-great, first television newsmen of the 1950s and '60s.
Perhaps that's why I find the sentiments over his death so misplaced.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Liberal Energy Policy Lies
I was reading Outside magazine this weekend while on a train ride home from NYC. Being such a liberal rag, I don't find all that much of the monthly very appealing. I originally subscribed for the outdoor activity and adventure coverage, then for some of the physical conditioning articles.
However, this month's issue contained an article that really caught my eye.
Recently, as I discussed in this post, on my business blog, Boone Pickens extolled the potential of wind power in the American west. He estimated it could replace up to 20% of American electrical power generation by other fuel sources.
The Outside magazine piece alleged that number is 33% from North Dakota alone.
Now, when a capitalist like Pickens actually puts his money down on a project, I'm going to tend to believe his outlook more than a bunch of wild-eyed Geenies writing for Outside.
The difference is very important, because, by extension, the Outside piece, if accepted uncritically, sort of has you imagining that, gee whiz, maybe could replace all our electrical generating capacity with clean wind, instead of smelly, polluting coal and natural gas!
Not likely in the real world.
Then the Outside piece dismissively noted,
"Despite a few certifiably crackpot questions- for example,
'Didn't the eruption of Mount St. Helens spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than mankind has ever produced?' - everyone seems to be genuinely interested in finding the best solution."
While I doubt that the question's ultimately true answer is 'yes,' the question and the person who asked it raise a reasonable point.
Even the also-liberally-tilting History Channel has recently aired a few programs noting that mega-volcanoes which have reshaped our planet would simply wipe out nearly all human life if one occurred now or in the future.
So the point about volcanic eruptions is well-taken. Nature can actually quite easily offset anything man can try to do to influence the Earth's climate.
It's quite possible that a huge amount of the effects of converting human energy sources from petroleum-based to renewable could all be erased in one good blow of a volcano.
To ignore these realities seems to be a hallmark of the Green movement. Overstate, i.e., lie about, the benefits of the green movement's proposals, then catcall and discredit legitimate questions as to just how much control man really has over nature.
It seems liberals now do this all the time in the area of energy policy.
However, this month's issue contained an article that really caught my eye.
Recently, as I discussed in this post, on my business blog, Boone Pickens extolled the potential of wind power in the American west. He estimated it could replace up to 20% of American electrical power generation by other fuel sources.
The Outside magazine piece alleged that number is 33% from North Dakota alone.
Now, when a capitalist like Pickens actually puts his money down on a project, I'm going to tend to believe his outlook more than a bunch of wild-eyed Geenies writing for Outside.
The difference is very important, because, by extension, the Outside piece, if accepted uncritically, sort of has you imagining that, gee whiz, maybe could replace all our electrical generating capacity with clean wind, instead of smelly, polluting coal and natural gas!
Not likely in the real world.
Then the Outside piece dismissively noted,
"Despite a few certifiably crackpot questions- for example,
'Didn't the eruption of Mount St. Helens spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than mankind has ever produced?' - everyone seems to be genuinely interested in finding the best solution."
While I doubt that the question's ultimately true answer is 'yes,' the question and the person who asked it raise a reasonable point.
Even the also-liberally-tilting History Channel has recently aired a few programs noting that mega-volcanoes which have reshaped our planet would simply wipe out nearly all human life if one occurred now or in the future.
So the point about volcanic eruptions is well-taken. Nature can actually quite easily offset anything man can try to do to influence the Earth's climate.
It's quite possible that a huge amount of the effects of converting human energy sources from petroleum-based to renewable could all be erased in one good blow of a volcano.
To ignore these realities seems to be a hallmark of the Green movement. Overstate, i.e., lie about, the benefits of the green movement's proposals, then catcall and discredit legitimate questions as to just how much control man really has over nature.
It seems liberals now do this all the time in the area of energy policy.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Obama's Corrupt Inner Circle
The freshman Senator from Illinois hasn't even been the official nominee of his party for President for a month and already his campaign is beset by corruption and appallingly bad judgment.
Jim Johnson, a prominent uber-liberal and Obama's handpicked aide to screen potential VP candidates has been forced to resign from the junior Senator's campaign over undisputed evidence of the financier's conflicts of interest and corruption while an officer at Fannie Mae.
What is ironic, of course, is that, while Obama has pilloried Countrywide Mortgage for allegedly causing the housing finance situation of the past nine months, Johnson, while with Fannie Mae, accepted a sweetheart jumbo mortgage from the California mortgage giant. Moreover, the loan was personally arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo, raising red flags about improper behavior on Johnson's part while at the quasi-government mortgage finance institution.
Obama's now-typical excuse for such poor judgment in choosing as a close aide someone who was actually instrumental in the mortgage finance mess which the Democratic Presidential candidate so vehemently criticizes was, to paraphrase,
'How can I vet the vetters? It's not my fault. Everyone I would choose to be in my campaign has ties to someone.'
Great. The guy hasn't been an offical nominee for President for two weeks, and he's already excusing more of his bad personnel choices and inept vetting of his own staff.
Exhibiting yet another common response, Obama claims that the situation is not his fault, so it's not fair for anyone to castigate him about it.
If that were true, would Johnson have resigned? Not likely.
This latest example and evidence of Obama's not-yet-ready-for-prime-time campaign staff antics clearly show that he in now way represents 'post-partisanship' politics or any kind of clear, detailed constructive change from past partisanship.
Rather, Obama has demonstrated how well he learned Chicago-style politics-as-corruption.
Change we can believe in? Looks more like no change at all from Democratic party politics as usual. The wealthy Democrats tax other Americans, distribute the largesse to poorer Americans and call it progress, when it's just old-style pork barrel politics of the old-school variety.
Jim Johnson, a prominent uber-liberal and Obama's handpicked aide to screen potential VP candidates has been forced to resign from the junior Senator's campaign over undisputed evidence of the financier's conflicts of interest and corruption while an officer at Fannie Mae.
What is ironic, of course, is that, while Obama has pilloried Countrywide Mortgage for allegedly causing the housing finance situation of the past nine months, Johnson, while with Fannie Mae, accepted a sweetheart jumbo mortgage from the California mortgage giant. Moreover, the loan was personally arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo, raising red flags about improper behavior on Johnson's part while at the quasi-government mortgage finance institution.
Obama's now-typical excuse for such poor judgment in choosing as a close aide someone who was actually instrumental in the mortgage finance mess which the Democratic Presidential candidate so vehemently criticizes was, to paraphrase,
'How can I vet the vetters? It's not my fault. Everyone I would choose to be in my campaign has ties to someone.'
Great. The guy hasn't been an offical nominee for President for two weeks, and he's already excusing more of his bad personnel choices and inept vetting of his own staff.
Exhibiting yet another common response, Obama claims that the situation is not his fault, so it's not fair for anyone to castigate him about it.
If that were true, would Johnson have resigned? Not likely.
This latest example and evidence of Obama's not-yet-ready-for-prime-time campaign staff antics clearly show that he in now way represents 'post-partisanship' politics or any kind of clear, detailed constructive change from past partisanship.
Rather, Obama has demonstrated how well he learned Chicago-style politics-as-corruption.
Change we can believe in? Looks more like no change at all from Democratic party politics as usual. The wealthy Democrats tax other Americans, distribute the largesse to poorer Americans and call it progress, when it's just old-style pork barrel politics of the old-school variety.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Congressional Pork In Green Wrapper
The Wall Street Journal's editorial in last Monday's edition, entitled "Cap and Spend," pretty thoroughly eviscerated Barbara Boxer's Senate carbon bill. It's notionally authored by Lieberman and Warner, but Boxer is said to be real driver behind it.
Perhaps the saddest aspect of the legislation is not even its grotesque misrepresentation of the bill as doing 'something' about carbon and global warming, never mind the bad science on that.
No, it's Congress creating an immense $3Trillion slush fund to use to reward some interest groups, and punish others. This is a mind-boggling sum which voters truly do not yet fully comprehend.
Since the carbon permits and capping don't have any solid basis in their origin, this, of course, invites large amounts of corruption and undue influence to favor various groups. And other taxes aren't being cut to offset this magical new tax on a heretofore simple energy/raw material business input.
One of the more hilarious Senate inclusions, which I saw lamely defended on CNBC last week, is $190B for 'green collar jobs.'
When asked if the Senate was now in the business of job creation, whichever Senator Foghorn was speaking began to sputter and insisted that these jobs were necessary to offset the ones they'd kill with this enormous tax.
Fortunately, George Bush will veto this green pork bill.
And, as much as I respect Joe Lieberman for some things, he lost a lot of that when, in reply to criticism for it being such a bad bill, he replied, to paraphrase,
'That's okay. It doesn't really take effect until 2012!'
Great. Bad legislation is okay if it's delayed sufficiently for everyone to forget what a major error it will be.
God deliver us from Congress- both parties!
Perhaps the saddest aspect of the legislation is not even its grotesque misrepresentation of the bill as doing 'something' about carbon and global warming, never mind the bad science on that.
No, it's Congress creating an immense $3Trillion slush fund to use to reward some interest groups, and punish others. This is a mind-boggling sum which voters truly do not yet fully comprehend.
Since the carbon permits and capping don't have any solid basis in their origin, this, of course, invites large amounts of corruption and undue influence to favor various groups. And other taxes aren't being cut to offset this magical new tax on a heretofore simple energy/raw material business input.
One of the more hilarious Senate inclusions, which I saw lamely defended on CNBC last week, is $190B for 'green collar jobs.'
When asked if the Senate was now in the business of job creation, whichever Senator Foghorn was speaking began to sputter and insisted that these jobs were necessary to offset the ones they'd kill with this enormous tax.
Fortunately, George Bush will veto this green pork bill.
And, as much as I respect Joe Lieberman for some things, he lost a lot of that when, in reply to criticism for it being such a bad bill, he replied, to paraphrase,
'That's okay. It doesn't really take effect until 2012!'
Great. Bad legislation is okay if it's delayed sufficiently for everyone to forget what a major error it will be.
God deliver us from Congress- both parties!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
