Apparently the Obama Administration is flirting with using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to manipulate oil prices instead of for it’s actual purpose, an emergency reserve in case of supply disruption. This is obviously a betrayal of their offices, to use it in this way, but it’s also incompetent because it will have a very temporary effect. If they do it now, it won’t last until the election (it would be lucky to last until April), but if they do it just before the election too many voters will be paying attention. I admit I engage in the “they’re economic ignoramuses” but I used to think it obvious hyperbole. But eventually you start to wonder…
Yet another example of how the MAL takes a real problem and proposes a solution so extreme it’s worse than the original problem, compounded by a faulty implementation.
The Dignity Act is Albany’s response to the suicide last September of an openly gay Buffalo area teen taunted by other students. […] All the state Dignity presentations point to a model state code of conduct that does not yet exist on the NYSED Dignity website. [faulty implementation] […] “everyone has the opportunity to positively express themselves without fear or judgment, harassment, or intimidation” [emphasis added to highlight the extreme part]
“without judgment”. I don’t know what to write. Justified disdain for our “intellectuals” is called being “anti-intellectual”, but this seems to me to be true anti-intellectualism, to have legislation making the use of your intellect illegal.
Why Democratic Party voters keep voting for legislators who so obviously hold the voters and democracy in such contempt, I can not understand.
I heard a story last week on NPR about the brave Montana stand against the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. I was left wondering, would they have been so positive had Montana decided to flout Roe vs. Wade? Or Brown vs. the Board of Education?
Here’s an interesting question —
But executives warned that the trouble in Athens was only one part of a malaise that was forcing them to cut back their balance sheets. “We have reduced the balance sheet of RBS by over £700bn of assets”, says Stephen Hester, chief executive of RBS. “That is roughly twice the size of the entire national debt of Greece”.
I won’t begin to pretend that I know what is going on here, so can only express a rank outsider’s perspective, hazarding the comment that, if a bank can write down £700 [b]illion – and the world does not stop spinning – what is the big deal about Greece doing the same with a much smaller sum?
I think that’s an excellent question. I suspect the answer is the domino effect on sovereign bonds.
Even though rising energy costs were part of President Obama’s plan his Administration is upset that people are blaming him. To me the most interesting bit of the latter link is this
For Politico, the reason more politicians don’t discuss these ideas more favorably is that they have something called a ‘survival instinct’. Politicians who boast about their successful initiatives to raise the price of gasoline don’t last. If you are a politician who wants to raise the price of gas, you have two choices in America: you can persuade the military leadership to install you in office through a coup d’etat, or you can lie to the voters and pursue your agenda on the sly.
A number of Democrats seem to have chosen the second option.
For all the claims of popularity and solidarity with the “common man”, the MAList agenda is received with a lot of quite justified hostility by the masses which, as this points out, that misdirection and lying are fundamental to their politics. Look no further than President Obama himself, who claimed many conservative policies which he then did the opposite. That’s why MALists are so disdainful of history, to the extent of simply memholing it or arguing about word definitions.
Is there any support for this judge to not be impeached?
Beyond the obvious, I find yet another example of the perniciousness of considering foreign law in American courts. There’s also the success story of the defendant who is so well assimilated he honestly thought insulting Mohammed was illegal. At what point to we admit we have a problem in that area?
The logical endpoint of “hate crimes” laws — which no small number of conservatives warned of from the beginning. Hate crime laws make thoughtcrime part of our legal system and should be abolished.
P.S. There are those who claim that someone on our Secretary of State’s staff hates her and has been setting her up repeatedly (e.g., the Reset Button).
First Harry Reid tells me paying taxes is voluntary because I can always choose to go to prison, and now this Wisco jackass tells me tithing is “cumpulsory”[sic] because it’s something church members are supposed to do.
Hey, wasn’t Barry a member of a church at one time? Does he still tithe to Trinity? Those white people aren’t going to just hate themselves, you know.
It’s the narrative that needs to be respected, not the facts. Classic example of modern political tribalism in action.
P.S. More “leaks bad against our team” as governments go after the East Anglia email leakers rather than the people who actually committed the fraud.
When a government runs a deficit, the conventional wisdom is “you must raise taxes to cover the deficit”. There are those, like me, who claim that it is frequently the case that raising taxes makes the deficit worse, because it relieves the pressure to clean up the budget and encourages additional spending due to the expected revenue increase. One need only look at my home state of Illinois for precisely this dynamic in action. Yet I am sure that the pro-tax crowd will pay any attention because the results they want is not a balanced budget, but simply more state control of the economy. Budgets issues are just a pretext.
On this subject, I have no doubt that most (if not almost all) MALists believe, if they think about it at all, that a government is only allowed to require things like this in private insurance, and would never consider the idea that such control means the ability to forbid.
P.S. May I note that comments about how the Catholic Church (and to some extent other mainline Christian sects) are getting hoisted by their own petard? They’ve supported overreaching government intervention, and by and large support POR-care, both of which lead directly to this result. What does it say of their morality if their position is “sure, micro-manage everyone else as long as we get a waiver”?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: “You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say ‘we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.’ What we do know is, we don’t like yours.”
I like this comment on Turbo Timmy’s statement
Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the “do nothing,” intransigent, “party of no.”
What type of concern for the poor and middle class is it to willfully drive the ship of state in to a debt based collapse? Doesn’t this also demonstrate how completely unconcerned the Democratic Party and MAL are about anyone but themselves in the ruling class? One need only look at the results of the so-called “stimulus” from three years ago to see how unaccountable our new nomenklatura is as they spend so much of our wealth for basically nothing (if not making things even worse for everyone else).
Here’s something that Santorum said in an interview recently:The hypocrisy in this case, I think, is pretty obvious and we’re going to stand up and articulate what the truth is, which is, in this case, as in many cases, my personal feelings and personal moral judgments are not those that are going to be reflected in public law, nor should they all the time. Not everything that is immoral in this country should be illegal or should be within the governance of the federal or state government, or any government. [emphasis added]I would think that a politician merely expressing a sentiment that people disagree with is not as tyrannical as, say, imposing a mandate that all institutions must offer contraception coverage, or which mandates what kids have in their lunchboxes. But based on what I have seen in other places around the dextrosphere, I guess we’re supposed to hyperventilate just as equally.
Finally, a candidate who can actually articulate a key element of modern conservatism. I am not sure, based on Santorum’s record, that he really means this, but it’s a start.
The idea that news coverage in Old Media is driven by some conspiracy is considered laughable, but what does it mean that exactly that sort of thing keeps turning up? Townhouse, Journolist, and now Media Matters. I think it’s another sign of the intellectual decay of the Modern American Left that it now needs this sort of crutch to continue to have any cohesion. When such people don’t have that, you get the Occupy Designated Location results. So at least Media Matters is helping keep street crime down.
I have to cite “this from Samuel L. Jackson”::http://www.ebony.com/black-listed/entertainment-culture/samuel-l-jackson-says-i-voted-for-barack-obama-because-he-was-black
“I voted for Barack because he was black,” the actor said candidly to Ebony magazine. “That’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them. That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean sh*t to me.”
It’s not so much that Jackson said this (he’s just a movie actor) but the lack of blowback for it. Sure, right wing death beast websites like mine will call it out, but none of the glitterati who claim to care so much about racism will even blink.
The Occupationists plan actual violence against CPAC. But somehow, I am sure this is former Governor Sarah Palin’s fault, not to mention an example of how those conservatives at CPAC are fomenting a climate of violence. It’s certainly not evidence of the Occupationists being thugs from the beginning.
I agree with Hot Air that the ACLU’s active support for the recent mandate on contraceptive coverage demonstrates that the organization puts actual Constitutional rights second to its ideological imperatives. I wonder if this is their first step along the road that NOW traveled when the latter made it plain that it as a Democratic Party auxiliary.
P.S. I have to note how much more corrupt this is when you consider all of the waivers that have been issued. De facto, the Department of Health and Human Services is now creating bills of attainder by issuing these rulings and then exempting political allies of the President. Any one who paid attention realized this was probably the most pernicious result of POR-care and as far as I can tell it was considered a feature by supporters. They want an Aristocracy of Pull with themselves as the aristocrats and they’ll destroy whatever rule of law and good government it takes to make it happen.