and language and stuff .... others are beginning to take note of something I first observed during "Campaign '08."

Our president relies heavily ... perhaps TOO heavily ... on several tried and true rhetorical devices. 

“There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits…and investing in job creation and economic growth,” President Obama said last week. “This is a false choice.” During the same speech, he asked his audience to “let me just be clear” that his administration, having racked up the biggest budget deficits ever, is embracing fiscal responsibility, as reflected in his vow that “health insurance reform” will not increase the deficit “by one dime.”

For connoisseurs of Obama-speak, the address featured a trifecta, combining three of his favorite rhetorical tropes. There was the vague reference to “those who” question his agenda, the “false choice” they use to deceive the public, and the determination to “be clear” and forthright, in contrast with those dishonest naysayers. These devices are useful as signals that the president is about to mislead us."

Go read the whole thing

I've heard this usage three times in the last 24 hours in what I normally consider well written TV shows:

"2am in the morning"  or "1pm in the afternoon"

OF COURSE it's 2am in the morning - that's what the AM refrences.

 STOP THIS!

Bill of Rights Day

body {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt; margin:0; padding:0; background:#fff; color:#000} td,form {font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif; font-size:10pt;} A {color:#66c; text-decoration: none;} A.black {color:#000; text-decoration: none;} A:hover, A:active {text-decoration: underline;}

A Moment of Reflection for Bill of Rights Day: We're Screwed

Tim Lynch at Cato pisses in our cornflakes on the morning of Bill of Rights day with his sad but true reflection on the state of our constitutional rights. Some excerpts: The First Amendment says that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to mention the name of a political candidate in an ad in the weeks preceding an election. They also insist upon gag orders in thousands of federal investigations. The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms.... The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can storm into homes in the middle of the night after giving residents a few seconds to answer their “knock” on the door. The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for a public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can take away our property and give it to others who covet it.... The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that jailing people who try in ingest a life-saving drug is not cruel. The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are to be reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers are reserved to the states, or to the people.

 

Since Harry Reid saught to bring it up.

"When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'" 

Yes, Senator, they were called Democrats. It was a Republican President that freed the slaves.

"When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.”

Yes Senator, they were called Democrats. Former Republican Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party (not the Democrats or the Republicans) was the first major national party to support women's suffrage.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today." 

Yes Senator, they were called Democrats. It was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, who is now the longest serving Senator, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours in 1964. 44 Democrats (66%) and 27 Republicans (90%) voted to end that filibuster. 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted to sustain it. The Democrat's Majority Leader, Richard Russell, opposed the bill. The Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, was one of the Republicans who joined with Democrats to end the filibuster after the Civil Rights Act had been on the Senate floor for 57 days. Both men now have Senate office buildings names after them. Also included in the list of those Democrats who opposed: Sen. Al Gore, D-TN.

You want more? How about a little Middle Eastern revisionism?

From President Obama's NPP acceptance speech: “Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.”

Really, Mr. President? The vote in the Senate on the authorization of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which took place on January 12, 1991, was 52-47. The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time; they voted 45-10 against the "consensus" on "the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait." John Kerry, Joe Biden and 43 other Democrats voted to let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait and expand his control over Middle Eastern oil from there, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons--which, we later learned, he would have had by 1992 or 1993, at the latest. In the House, the story was similar. The vote was 250-183, with a large majority of Democrats voting with Saddam Hussein. Sure, it would be possible to be more pathetic on national security than the Democratic Party, but it wouldn't be easy. What is interesting about all of this is the Democrats' need to rewrite history. Can anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate in 1991, he would have joined 45 of his Democratic colleagues in voting for Saddam Hussein's control over the Middle East? Of course not. Yet today, Obama is forced to pretend that ousting Saddam was a "consensus" decision taken by "the world." Thus does truth force itself on even the most unwilling auditors.

Want one more?

We've heard the President spend quite a bit of tie complaining about the profligate spending of the Bush Adminstration and the terrible situation it passed on to him. Obama was in the Senate for the last 19 spending proposal from the Bush Administration. He voted in favor of ALL of them. So did his Vice President. So did his Sec of State. So did his Chief of Staff! NONE of these budgets passed by more than 6 votes. In other words – had Obama, Biden, Clinton and Emmanuel voted AGAINST the spending, they could have prevented!

I'm posting this link for several reasons:  so I can find it later, because it's good and useful, and because the few of you who visit here regularly will apprciate it for edumacational purposes.

FABLES OF THE RECONSTRUCTION: IowaHawk Explains Climate Math.

I'm a denier. I've been ridiculed and razzed by the media and by friends and family for it. But most of them don't know what it even means to be a denier. So this is my effort to set the record straight as to what I DO believe.

1. I believe that “Global Warming” as presented by the DMC and the lunatic left is a hoax.

2. I believe that the earth gets warmer and the earth gets cooler and it's been doing it for eons.

3. I believe that there are far greater influences on said warming and cooling than “us.”

4. I believe that the science is NOT settled on this issue

   1. I believed this before Climaquiddick. Any statistical model for earth temperatures that does not take the sun's radiation into account should be void ab initio. I defy ANY “Warmist” to tell me with a straight face that the sun doesn't have an impact on the earth's temperature.

   2. I believe that the recent “CRU-ups” and peeks behind the curtain did a LOT of harm to the Warmist religion. Any study or legislative proposal which was based on these numbers or the work of this handful of scientist should be immediately voided and any conclusions derived therefrom should need to be reproven.

   3. After almost a decade of the left decrying the right's “anti-science” attitude I believe the left needs to take a HUGE step back and re-evaluate the science it was relying on.

1. I believe it is the height of arrogance to assume that the temperature range established by the Warmists is the “correct” temperature for the earth.

2. I believe that the Warmists are perilously close to being classified as a religion, thus loosing their claim on billions of dollars or research funds.

   1. Said belief stems from the similarities of the recent approach to Climaquiddick and religious belief.

   2. Warmists are insisting that we accept not only their premises but also their conclusions based on faith, not on fact. We are asked to accept ALL studies which claim to prove AGW on faith without access to the underlying data and without subjecting their findings to VALID peer review.

Since science and policy have been seriously intermingled and since trillions of dollars are at stake in order to “convert” me from a denier to an AGW-ist, I would need to see the following

1. Access to ALL data used in EVERY study which purports to “prove” AGW.

1. Ability to question ALL data used as above. (the website “Wattsupwiththat.com” has done yeoman's work demonstrating that data collection among Warmists has been woeful.)

1. An admission from the Warmists that GIGO.

1. No more acceptance of “science” on faith.

2. A serious examination of any proposed solutions stemming from the above without the religious overtones.

I fully expect to alter and improve this statement over the coming months.

Was at a VERY nice party last weekend .... pleasant conversation in the living room .... one of the strange theater people there (ok, they were ALL strange theater people, including D and I) took a shine to my footware.

"So, you're a cowboy?" he asks.

I've been wearing cowboy boots since ... well ...since I was big enough to wear cowboy boots.  Except the 70's.  That was the decade of walabys and running shoes and another story alltogether.

I glanced at an old friend across the room  who was watching the scende with a grin, waiting to see where this went.

"I guess so."

"So how high up do they go?"  he asked.

Mid-shin.

"Do they take a long time to put on?"

"I can go from naked to kicking your ass pretty damned quick."

And THAT was the end of THAT.