Hopefully, this is a harbinger of the left's loss of the Midwest, as Hollywood continues to idolize liberal causes, Gore, et. al.
"WarmBoy" Al attempted to make his movie 'more than a political cause,' according to his speech, but it's clearly not. There is no convincing evidence that a) his outrageous claims are likely to occur, and/or, b) that humans are responsible for causing more global climate change than is naturally occurring over time.
In fact, if you think about it, the left has misnamed its cause rather intentionally. They castigate humans for "global warming," when it's not the recent, possibly temporary, warming trend that is debated. It is whether we know that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming. There is considerable evidence that CO2 levels were higher in prior epochs, without warmer temperatures. Climatology is far more complex than Al and company would have you believe.
At least the good news is, most people pay zero attention to Hollywood's latest causes for very long. In some ways, this 'award' probably diminishes WarmBoy in the eyes of those who might have taken him seriously as a politician. In fact, as Al tried to make light of the fact, the truth is, he hopes this pandering to the left on environmental issues may re-ignite his political career. Thus the joke about intending to read his announcement of another run for the Presidency.
Isn't it funny, that politics, being so, or almost purely, emotional, leads people to behave in ways that they cannot help? You knew the Hollywood crowd would give Al this Oscar. Despite how it reinforces the extremely liberal bias in Hollywood, and Gore's sucking up to this community. They just can't help themselves, no matter how obvious their motives are to other Americans.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Will Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Switch Parties?
I read or heard a news story this weekend concerning Joe Lieberman's possible party switch, which would trigger a change in control of the Senate.
One editorial by a flaming liberal, David Sirota, on the Huffington Post, here, ends thusly:
"So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty."
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Mr. Sirota. I think the Republicans would make substantial hay out of the conversion of a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, and prominent Jewish Senator. Plus, Lieberman might actually provide some spine to the Republican Senate team, and could probably write his own ticket. Think, Senate Majority Leader.
I have not yet written about Lieberman's prospective switch, but I've thought about it for some time. It would not surprise me at all. Ever since the Jeffords affair, the Senate's razor-thin margin of plurality has made this sort of thing entirely plausible. Rarely in the chamber's history has such a narrow margin of party votes allowed single Senators to temporarily wield such power.
How much do the Senate Democrats like their current perks? Enough to try to dissuade Lieberman, whose departure would mean the loss of so many recently-regained spoils?
In this case, unlike Jeffords, the Republicans would actually get an intelligent, respected Senator with strong and sensible opinions on some topics. Like Iraq.
Should be an interesting next few months.
One editorial by a flaming liberal, David Sirota, on the Huffington Post, here, ends thusly:
"So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty."
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Mr. Sirota. I think the Republicans would make substantial hay out of the conversion of a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, and prominent Jewish Senator. Plus, Lieberman might actually provide some spine to the Republican Senate team, and could probably write his own ticket. Think, Senate Majority Leader.
I have not yet written about Lieberman's prospective switch, but I've thought about it for some time. It would not surprise me at all. Ever since the Jeffords affair, the Senate's razor-thin margin of plurality has made this sort of thing entirely plausible. Rarely in the chamber's history has such a narrow margin of party votes allowed single Senators to temporarily wield such power.
How much do the Senate Democrats like their current perks? Enough to try to dissuade Lieberman, whose departure would mean the loss of so many recently-regained spoils?
In this case, unlike Jeffords, the Republicans would actually get an intelligent, respected Senator with strong and sensible opinions on some topics. Like Iraq.
Should be an interesting next few months.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Why Are There Any Intelligent Liberal Democrats?
Today I was shopping with my daughters, observing and enjoying the bounty and selection of products in some of the larger American retail stores- Target and Costco, to be specific.
My younger daughter was looking for an iPod, and we went to the electronics section to view the various models. On the way there, we passed the youth clothing section. Spring clothes are already on display.
What caught my eye is how stylish and varied the selection of tops, skirts and pants was for young girls and boys of a pre-teen age. Back in the day, when I was young, things were much more basic, even at a mid-line department store. Youth clothing was rarely the province of fashion, let alone in a more mass-merchandised retail outlet, like Target.
As I surveyed the many lower- and middle-class shoppers in both stores filling carts with merchandise, I wondered, why would anyone would ever think government could create such spectacular advances in the provision of high-quality, broad selections of goods for the general American public?
Who do liberal Democrats think have wrought such economic miracles? Central planners in Washington, D.C.? The lifetime civil servants over at Commerce, Labor, or the FTC?
Congress didn't create jobs. Neither did any President. The best they can do is set stable, dependable rules for treatment of capital and income, as well as Federal spending and taxation, then get out of the way.
Companies like Target, Costco, and many others like them will do the rest. They provide improved standards of living with their lower prices and wider assortment of products than were available even five years ago.
So why do I have liberal, intelligent, educated friends and acquaintances who vote for regulation-loving, income-leveling, tax-and-spend liberal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents? How is this possible?
What do these liberals think drives our economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living? Congressional witch hunts and higher taxes?
Truly, this mystifies me. I will never forget watching an interview with George McGovern sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, post-Reagan. He had attempted to run a bed and breakfast after retiring from the Senate, but it had failed. George regaled the interviewer with tales of over-regulation and the high costs of compliance with various local, state and Federal authorities. It was touching to see him admit, on camera, that, while a Senator, he had no idea of the awful, stifling impact on economic activity many of the bills for which he voted actually had.
One liberal possibly converted, a few hundred million more to go.....
My younger daughter was looking for an iPod, and we went to the electronics section to view the various models. On the way there, we passed the youth clothing section. Spring clothes are already on display.
What caught my eye is how stylish and varied the selection of tops, skirts and pants was for young girls and boys of a pre-teen age. Back in the day, when I was young, things were much more basic, even at a mid-line department store. Youth clothing was rarely the province of fashion, let alone in a more mass-merchandised retail outlet, like Target.
As I surveyed the many lower- and middle-class shoppers in both stores filling carts with merchandise, I wondered, why would anyone would ever think government could create such spectacular advances in the provision of high-quality, broad selections of goods for the general American public?
Who do liberal Democrats think have wrought such economic miracles? Central planners in Washington, D.C.? The lifetime civil servants over at Commerce, Labor, or the FTC?
Congress didn't create jobs. Neither did any President. The best they can do is set stable, dependable rules for treatment of capital and income, as well as Federal spending and taxation, then get out of the way.
Companies like Target, Costco, and many others like them will do the rest. They provide improved standards of living with their lower prices and wider assortment of products than were available even five years ago.
So why do I have liberal, intelligent, educated friends and acquaintances who vote for regulation-loving, income-leveling, tax-and-spend liberal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents? How is this possible?
What do these liberals think drives our economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living? Congressional witch hunts and higher taxes?
Truly, this mystifies me. I will never forget watching an interview with George McGovern sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, post-Reagan. He had attempted to run a bed and breakfast after retiring from the Senate, but it had failed. George regaled the interviewer with tales of over-regulation and the high costs of compliance with various local, state and Federal authorities. It was touching to see him admit, on camera, that, while a Senator, he had no idea of the awful, stifling impact on economic activity many of the bills for which he voted actually had.
One liberal possibly converted, a few hundred million more to go.....
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Liberal Cat Fight: Hillary, Obama & Hollywood
OK, yes, it was supremely gratifying to see this happen. As a conservative, could I wish for a more public display of liberal Democratic dysfunctionality?
David Geffen switches alliances and backs Obama in his first major fundraiser. The Hollywood glitterati set turns out, virtually guaranteeing, as usual, more solid Midwest support for whomever opposes Obama. But then it gets really brutal.
Geffen, according to one paper,
"Once a top donor to former president Bill Clinton and a favoured guest in the Lincoln bedroom, (Geffen) then trashed the couple in a New York Times interview, branding the former president "reckless" and calling the senator dishonest and "an incredibly polarizing figure." "
It goes on to say that Hillary and Obama personally remained cool, but their minions immediately began lobbing grenades at each other in the media. But then that changed.
This piece, here, recounts some of Obama's recent barbs directed at Hillary.
Mind you, aside from the money and glamor, it's not actually clear how much value Hollywood will be to the eventual Democratic nominee for President. It may have helped Clinton, but, then again, it may not have. He was running against a tired George Bush, Sr., and a luckless and uninspiring Bob Dole. Gore and Kerry went down in flames with the ultra-left Hollywood crowd misbehaving on their behalf. If I were Obama or Hillary, I'd think twice before accepting that kind of "help."
Goodbye, possible Hillary-Obama dream minority ticket in November, 2008. Goodbye, Hillary trying to edge too far to the center on Iraq and national defense. Now, she'll be attempting to paint herself more left/liberal on Iraq, even as that opens the center for McCain in the general election.
Yes, the Chinese have it right..... to the confusion of our enemies.
David Geffen switches alliances and backs Obama in his first major fundraiser. The Hollywood glitterati set turns out, virtually guaranteeing, as usual, more solid Midwest support for whomever opposes Obama. But then it gets really brutal.
Geffen, according to one paper,
"Once a top donor to former president Bill Clinton and a favoured guest in the Lincoln bedroom, (Geffen) then trashed the couple in a New York Times interview, branding the former president "reckless" and calling the senator dishonest and "an incredibly polarizing figure." "
It goes on to say that Hillary and Obama personally remained cool, but their minions immediately began lobbing grenades at each other in the media. But then that changed.
This piece, here, recounts some of Obama's recent barbs directed at Hillary.
Mind you, aside from the money and glamor, it's not actually clear how much value Hollywood will be to the eventual Democratic nominee for President. It may have helped Clinton, but, then again, it may not have. He was running against a tired George Bush, Sr., and a luckless and uninspiring Bob Dole. Gore and Kerry went down in flames with the ultra-left Hollywood crowd misbehaving on their behalf. If I were Obama or Hillary, I'd think twice before accepting that kind of "help."
Goodbye, possible Hillary-Obama dream minority ticket in November, 2008. Goodbye, Hillary trying to edge too far to the center on Iraq and national defense. Now, she'll be attempting to paint herself more left/liberal on Iraq, even as that opens the center for McCain in the general election.
Yes, the Chinese have it right..... to the confusion of our enemies.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Who Wants To Rule The World? Or At Least Organize It?
I was chatting recently with an online acquaintance from Greece.
She can't understand why the US cares about Iraq or Iran...or anywhere else, for that matter. My pointing to the religious war going on, whose earlier shots were fired in lower Manhattan, made no impact on her whatsoever.
Then I realized something- most countries are doing well to just survive. They are smallish, without significant power, and literally cannot imagine trying to influence global conditions.
So they suspect the US when it does. When I suggested we just want peace, in order to have the maximum economic trade and prosperity worldwide, she did not believe me. This stunned me.
It seems that, like during the Pax Romana, while, on one hand, the smaller societies enjoy economic benefits, they simply distrust the country strong enough to provide the 'peace.'
Perhaps my Greek acquaintance is projecting, seeing as how all the other, prior global dominators were from Europe, and have had acquisitive histories. Whereas the US tends to just want to trade and open up markets. Consider the post-WWII environment, when the US spent millions to resuscitate Europe, Greece, et. al., in order to keep Communism at bay, and rebuild markets and societies.
When the rest of the world has this attitude, nothing we do or say will ever satisfy them, other than becoming totally isolationist. I think this includes any of the liberal Democrats who like to blame other countries' attitudes toward the US on conservatives, and our current President. Short of totally throwing ourselves on the UN for guidance, I doubt that the other larger countries will ever be satisfied with US behavior for very long. They love us when we protect their citizens and energy sources, then they forget all about that and rail at our strength and leadership
We simply can't afford to do let the fears of others, or their own isolationism, govern our need to enforce a global peace that promotes worldwide trade, prosperity, and freedom.
She can't understand why the US cares about Iraq or Iran...or anywhere else, for that matter. My pointing to the religious war going on, whose earlier shots were fired in lower Manhattan, made no impact on her whatsoever.
Then I realized something- most countries are doing well to just survive. They are smallish, without significant power, and literally cannot imagine trying to influence global conditions.
So they suspect the US when it does. When I suggested we just want peace, in order to have the maximum economic trade and prosperity worldwide, she did not believe me. This stunned me.
It seems that, like during the Pax Romana, while, on one hand, the smaller societies enjoy economic benefits, they simply distrust the country strong enough to provide the 'peace.'
Perhaps my Greek acquaintance is projecting, seeing as how all the other, prior global dominators were from Europe, and have had acquisitive histories. Whereas the US tends to just want to trade and open up markets. Consider the post-WWII environment, when the US spent millions to resuscitate Europe, Greece, et. al., in order to keep Communism at bay, and rebuild markets and societies.
When the rest of the world has this attitude, nothing we do or say will ever satisfy them, other than becoming totally isolationist. I think this includes any of the liberal Democrats who like to blame other countries' attitudes toward the US on conservatives, and our current President. Short of totally throwing ourselves on the UN for guidance, I doubt that the other larger countries will ever be satisfied with US behavior for very long. They love us when we protect their citizens and energy sources, then they forget all about that and rail at our strength and leadership
We simply can't afford to do let the fears of others, or their own isolationism, govern our need to enforce a global peace that promotes worldwide trade, prosperity, and freedom.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Carper's Ill-Informed Lament
Last week saw Tom Carper, the newly-elected Democratic Senator from Delaware, subject Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a long-winded monologue on the state of the Delaware auto worker.
Among Carper's more ill-informed contentions were that the US needs to retain more manufacturing jobs, and especially more auto manufacturing jobs. He babbled on ad nauseum, "carping" about how well his Delaware auto workers work, and what high quality vehicles they produce. Then he began the sob story about Daimler planning to idle or close those plants in his state.
It's a shame when elected officials like Senators, who can really affect the economy, have absolutely no economic sense whatsoever.
Does anyone really believe that we need or want more semi-skilled auto assembly work, rather than knowledge-oriented jobs? If Carper really wants Delaware's residents to have higher incomes, how about accepting the decline of auto production in this country, and shifting his constituents, now, to higher-paying jobs in growth industries. Maybe even trying to attract said industries?
What a concept.
Among Carper's more ill-informed contentions were that the US needs to retain more manufacturing jobs, and especially more auto manufacturing jobs. He babbled on ad nauseum, "carping" about how well his Delaware auto workers work, and what high quality vehicles they produce. Then he began the sob story about Daimler planning to idle or close those plants in his state.
It's a shame when elected officials like Senators, who can really affect the economy, have absolutely no economic sense whatsoever.
Does anyone really believe that we need or want more semi-skilled auto assembly work, rather than knowledge-oriented jobs? If Carper really wants Delaware's residents to have higher incomes, how about accepting the decline of auto production in this country, and shifting his constituents, now, to higher-paying jobs in growth industries. Maybe even trying to attract said industries?
What a concept.
The US House of Representatives' Non-Binding Surrender...er...Resolution
Well, 'Frisco Nan has done it again. Conservatives could never convince voters that the Democrats, in the majority, could behave as unpatriotically and spinelessly as Nan has demonstrated that they can.
With this week's 'non-binding resolution,' or, shall we say, surrender, on Iraq, the House Democrats (and a few fellow gutless Republicans who should be turned out in 2008), have shown themselves to be totally lacking in the courage of their convictions.
By the way, I caught a few minutes of some discussion of this on one cable program- either Kudlow, O'Reilly, or Hannity & Colmes- and as a conservative guest kept calling it "surrender," a Democratic strategist guest furiously screamed that it was no such thing. Guess you know when you've hit home, eh?
By making the resolution non-binding, they hope, of course, to have it both ways. Vote down further activities in Iraq calculated to win, but not actually force the issue and take responsibility.
The Senate version of this resolution failed on Friday.
Personally, I think this is an ideal counterpoint for conservatives who appreciate Bush's steadfast leadership on the issue.
For instance, when the Democrats complained that the war wasn't going well, Bush switched tactics and leadership. Now that Casey, whose strategy they say failed, is out, the Democrats are quoting him left, right and center to allege that Bush is wrong for now fixing what was wrong before. Petraeus is seen as catering to Bush's whims, while Casey is now lionized by the Democrats as a sort of victim of Bush's tyrannical personality.
Really, you can't win either way with the obstructionist Democratic Congress. Don't listen to them, and you are inflexible. Respond to them, and those who delivered failure are suddenly dethroned heroes and experts, while the newly-appointed commanders must be political patsies.
This is going to seriously hurt all the Democrats come November, 2008. The House will probably lose a lot of seats over this- more than enough to offset the ouster of the Republican turncoats. The Senate, from which most of the Democratic Presidential contenders hail, will have this stuck in their throats, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. If they move to hamper funding, it will be doubly bad for them. A victory, or improving situation, will show them to be cowards. A worsening situation will make them liable for the defeat. Just like ....ah.....yes, Vietnam!
There's that old aphorism again, that from which you do not learn, you are destined to repeat. And the Democratic liberals are about to repeat their failure in Vietnam, only in Iraq this time.
With this week's 'non-binding resolution,' or, shall we say, surrender, on Iraq, the House Democrats (and a few fellow gutless Republicans who should be turned out in 2008), have shown themselves to be totally lacking in the courage of their convictions.
By the way, I caught a few minutes of some discussion of this on one cable program- either Kudlow, O'Reilly, or Hannity & Colmes- and as a conservative guest kept calling it "surrender," a Democratic strategist guest furiously screamed that it was no such thing. Guess you know when you've hit home, eh?
By making the resolution non-binding, they hope, of course, to have it both ways. Vote down further activities in Iraq calculated to win, but not actually force the issue and take responsibility.
The Senate version of this resolution failed on Friday.
Personally, I think this is an ideal counterpoint for conservatives who appreciate Bush's steadfast leadership on the issue.
For instance, when the Democrats complained that the war wasn't going well, Bush switched tactics and leadership. Now that Casey, whose strategy they say failed, is out, the Democrats are quoting him left, right and center to allege that Bush is wrong for now fixing what was wrong before. Petraeus is seen as catering to Bush's whims, while Casey is now lionized by the Democrats as a sort of victim of Bush's tyrannical personality.
Really, you can't win either way with the obstructionist Democratic Congress. Don't listen to them, and you are inflexible. Respond to them, and those who delivered failure are suddenly dethroned heroes and experts, while the newly-appointed commanders must be political patsies.
This is going to seriously hurt all the Democrats come November, 2008. The House will probably lose a lot of seats over this- more than enough to offset the ouster of the Republican turncoats. The Senate, from which most of the Democratic Presidential contenders hail, will have this stuck in their throats, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. If they move to hamper funding, it will be doubly bad for them. A victory, or improving situation, will show them to be cowards. A worsening situation will make them liable for the defeat. Just like ....ah.....yes, Vietnam!
There's that old aphorism again, that from which you do not learn, you are destined to repeat. And the Democratic liberals are about to repeat their failure in Vietnam, only in Iraq this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
