I learned this in the SIXTH FREAKIN' GRADE! Now Playing: Top Chef: Just Desserts Topic: Politics
If you can't stand the drone andfinger-wagging of President Obama’s overrated oratory, jump ahead to 22:30 of this tiresome address and watch the Vacationer-in-Chief omit a few crucial words from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
Can watching too much MSNBC affect a person to the extent that he acts in a completely irrational manner? According to a Tampa Tribune story, a Florida man convicted of threatening death upon a congresswoman for her opposition to ObamaCare believes the answer would be yes:
TAMPA - A Spring Hill man who threatened U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite during the health care debate will spend more than two years in federal prison.
Eric Lawrence Pidrman, 66, claims he was in an alcoholic blackout when he telephoned Brown-Waite's office about 6:30 a.m. on March 25 and left a message saying he had 27 people who would make sure she "doesn't live to see her next term."
"I'm terribly sorry that it ever happened," Pidrman said this morning before he was sentenced. At the time of the morning he made the call, he said, "I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC."
When agents questioned Pidrman in April, he said he was upset about threats reportedly made against Democrats during the health care debate. He said he probably thought, "Let me scare one of those righties."
<edited to add>
Didn't take long to ad more TODAY!
NAZIS GATHERING AT REP. DEBBIE HALVORSON’S (D-IL) OFFICE IN CHICAGO? I hate Illinois Nazis. Shouldn’t Debbie Halvorson?
It's something I stress to ALL of my classes. And I quote Twain: The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and the lightening bug.
So here we go as we head into the November elections. First from Lachlan Markay over at NewsBusters.org:
In general, there are two major sides to the tax cut debate.
One believes that Americans are entitled to keep what they earn, but that they cede some money to the government with the understanding that funding is necessary to enable the state to safeguard citizens' rights - the state's most fundamental function.
The opposing side holds, in short, that Americans are entitled to their wealth only to the extent that the rule of the majority - i.e. the government - allows them to keep it
Then there's
WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery, for instance, believes that every dollar not collected in taxes is a dollar of which the federal government has been "deprived." Or, put another way in her Wednesday article, she rejects the notion that every dollar collected in taxes is a dollar of which taxpayers have been deprived:
Next, Thomas DelBeccar provided these "Through the Looking Glass" obeservations:
1. Extending the current rates = a Tax Cut. It is not so much a subtle tactic by the Democrats to frame the discussion by claiming that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage. Remember that he who frames the argument often wins the argument. The literal and basic premise of this Demo-nomics subtlety is that the rates, by all rights, should be higher. By pedaling their line of argument, however, the status quo becomes change - and it is they who are heroes for cutting them again from where they think ”should” be.
In truth, who is to say tax rates should be this high? After all, when the income tax was ushered in by Democrat Woodrow Wilson the top rate was only 7%. Shouldn’t the question be: Why are we keeping rates so very high? Obviously not in the world of Demo-nomics.
2. Tax Cuts Are A “Windfall” for the Rich. This too is a brilliant job by the Democrats of framing the issue. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” Incredibly, so pervasive is this canard that one of the examples Websters uses for the word windfall is: “They received a windfall because of the tax cuts.” Of course, in 99%.9 of the cases, a tax is a government taking of money you have earned and probably not so suddenly but after a year of hard work. A tax rate cut, therefore, does not result in a gain – what it really represents a smaller loss for you – just not in the world of Demo-nomics.
3. Tax Cuts “Cost” the Government Money. According to Obama in Wonderland, not extending the tax cuts to the wealthy – read raising taxes – “would knock hundreds of billions of dollars off the cost of extending the cuts.” This is a favorite tax folly of the Democrats, i.e. that tax cuts COST the government money. Perilously referencing Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary again, we find that the definition of a “tax” to be: “a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” As you can see, the charge that is imposed is imposed ON US and therefore COSTS US – not the government. If they are charging us less it means that it is costing us less – it does not cost them at all – not to mention that lower rates foster higher economic activity and, therefore, greater revenue.
as Linda Ellerby used to say .... "and so it goes".
<edited to add>
this just in:
There's an effort underway amongst Democrats to re-brand the Bush tax cuts (except for those that apply to the top two brackets) as "the Obama tax cuts":
At her weekly press conference this afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted that Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income will be extended. But she was unable, or unwilling to say whether the top-bracket tax cuts benefiting only the wealthy will be renewed.
"Without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we're going to do is to say: At the end of the day the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place," Pelosi said. [emph. added]
Damaging this old earth is, Laughlin says, “easier to imagine than it is to accomplish.” There have been mass volcanic explosions, meteor impacts, “and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor.”
Laughlin acknowledges that “a lot of responsible people” are worried about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This has, he says, “the potential” to modify the weather by raising average temperatures several degrees centigrade and that governments have taken “significant, although ineffective,” steps to slow the warming. “On the scales of time relevant to itself, the earth doesn’t care about any of these governments or their legislation.”
Seems that's what everybody's favorite Nobel Prize winner in Economics thinks. As observed at krugman-in-wonderland:
Krugman writes:
A straight Keynesian analysis implied the need for a much bigger program, more oriented toward spending, than the administration proposed. And people like me said that at the time — we’re not talking about hindsight.
If, indeed, an economy were a mechanistic operation in which we robotically put inventory on the shelves and then "spend" so we can clear the shelves (so we can put more stuff on the shelves again), then Krugman would be correct. A government program to encourage spending would do the trick.
However, because what Krugman calls spending actually involves purposeful behavior by individuals, we are dealing with different perspectives on the matter. Krugman implies that an economy is made up of two detached arms, one that produces and the other that spends. They are disassociated from one another, and if spending does not occur in large enough amounts or quickly enough, then the other side breaks down.
as always ...read the whole thing : http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2010/09/spending-versus-consumption-does.html
Today is Constitution Day, when we commemorate the formation and signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787 -- as good a time as any to consider what the Constitution is. In fact, it’s a better time than most, because we are a nation increasingly divided by pressing constitutional issues, especially of the powers and limits of the federal government. From the corporate bailouts of 2008 to the health-care legislation of this year, the question has become whether the Constitution still applies, as it is written, or whether it has been overtaken by events. We have heard federal representatives treat questions about the constitutionality of their actions as hopelessly naïve or irrelevant.
One simple question Now Playing: Rush Topic: Media
from Pat Sajak (who's a REALLY god writer)
Why have you homophobic, Islamophobic climate change deniers who would send our fighting forces to die to protect oil interests...oppose equal rights for women and people of color...callously ignore the health care needs of our most vulnerable citizens...condemn our children to live on a planet ravaged by the effects of pollution... force young, inner-city women to choose between having more unwanted babies or obtaining life-threatening, back-alley abortions...spread malicious lies about people and policies you oppose...push for huge tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class...support laws that would punish the children of undocumented workers who have come here to make better lives for their families only to be exploited by big business...oppose any attempts by workers to organize themselves in order to stand up to greedy corporations...continually criticize public-sector workers who selflessly toil on behalf of all Americans...promote gender and racial stereotypes...advocate huge budget expenditures for weapons while ignoring the needs of average citizens...and conspire to steal elections through manipulation and intimidation...become the party of fear and hate?
a little late, but Now Playing: Bengals / Pats Topic: Football
here's my College Top n list, after two weeks of play
1. Oregon. Yes. Really
2. Alabama. Looked good vs octogenerian JoePa this w/e
3. Ohio State. Good but not as good (right now) as those other two, can still get there if they run the table and get some help. Golden Goophballs loosing to the Fighting Sigh -ooks does NOT count as help.
4. I kinda like the Gators here but they'll drop when the tide roll's 'em. LSU? Not after the near debacle vs UNC. Cal looks good but they'll stumble. Let's give it to Texas.
5. South Carolina? LOL. We'll put Boise State here although the road win over Va Tech doesn't look NEARLY as good now.
This morning I walked to the store to pick up a few basis for todays viewing (lunch meat, cheese, ice cream, etc.) The sky was a beautiful shade of blue with a few streak of white. My i-pod was playing music from NFL films. My old HS beat the rival on Friday night and Saturdays games were pretty satisfying.
I'm now home and settled in. Nice cup of coffee. Browser opened to all appropriate pages. Phone turned off. “Recall” button on the remote programmed. Windows are open and the neighbor has fired up the grill.
It's all I can do not to weep that my life is so good.
Real Now Playing: The Edge of Love Topic: Politics
Peter Schweitzer's friend Marc Thiessen uncovered this gem in Tony Blair’s new memoir. President George W. Bush is at the G-8 summit with Tony Blair and they are listening to the prime minster of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, drone on about global warming. Blair writes:
George had arrived bang on time for this first discussion and had not fully said hello to all the participants. He didn’t know or recognize Guy, whose advice he listened to with considerable astonishment.
He turned to me and whispered, “Who is this guy?”
“He’s the prime minister of Belgium,” I said.
“Belgium?” George said, clearly aghast at the possible full extent of his stupidity. “Belgium’s not part of the G8.”
“No,” I said, “but he is the president of Europe.”
“You got Belgians running Europe?” He shook his head, now aghast at our stupidity.
![](https://blog.angelfire.lycos.com/adm/common/js/tiny_mce/themes/advanced/images/spacer.gif "src:'<object width=\"){kind=spacer}