#3
Some truly awesome food and wine there. Some really beautiful women. Lovely countryside and some very nice people (outside of Paris). Hell yes its worth saving.
#4
France is worth saving only if we get rid of everyone living within 50 miles of the Eifel Tower. Oh, and its rivers need to be flushed - frequently.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2006 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Belgian food is better, as it should be given the percentage of the resident population eating on expense accounts. The French countryside is much prettier, though.
#6
The French have to relearn their history, to re-discover their inner Charles Martel, CHarlemagne, Roland, and Bonaparte, etc. espec the lesson that there's more to being a Clintonian Male Brute than looking beautiful even in defeat/surrender, that indeed victory and freedom matters more than being pretty andor perfectionist.
Hezbollah members are turning up in the strangest places. Recently they have appeared, as alien visitors, on the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, a territory shared with Colombia.
The Islamic fanatics of Hezbollah are rapidly infiltrating the tribe of the Wayuu. The members of the Wayuu tribe walk across political boundaries without restrain. They were there before Venezuela and Colombia existed and they think of themselves as a nation. Hezbollah militants are indoctrinating the members of this tribe to convert them into Islamic fanatics in charge of disseminating the terrorist message that has already created chaos, death, and misery in the Middle East.
The Hezbollah group invading Venezuela is doing its work openly on the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula. They are disseminating, via the Internet, a strategy "to change Venezuela," including:
Total destruction "of the sex industry" (whatever that means)
Attacking the upper classes, "who are the most corrupt," all white collar criminals and continuing the cleaning downwards
Attacking corruption in government (not such a bad idea) and in the masses, both civilians and military
Attacking false idols and satanic cults, as defined by them
The logo adorning the main page and document is an AK-47 rifle. The propaganda appearing on the Web presence of the Venezuelan subsidiary of Hezbollah [hosted by Microsoft] talks about installing the kingdom of God in Venezuela by imposing a military-theocratic type of government, an explosive mixture similar to what already exists in Iran.
It claims: "The brief enjoyment of life on earth is selfish. The other life is better for those who follow Allah." Where have we heard this before? In the leaflets that encourage the suicide missions of children and teenagers in Palestine.
Is the Venezuelan Hezbollah for real or is it just the product of pranksters with a macabre sense of humor? Available photographs suggest they are for real. This ghoulish presence in Venezuelan territory certainly deserves an immediate investigation and decisive action, if true, to eradicate such a horrible pest from the country. The problem is that Chávez is supporting Hezbollah in the Middle East and will most probably support their criminal work in Venezuela. Will the U.N. or the OAS take note?
Venezuela is deteriorating to the point of no return.
The social and political situation in Venezuela has reached the point in which major action will be required by civilized Venezuelans and their friends, if the country is to be saved from falling irreversibly into the hands of the fanatic and uncultured Chávez gang. Those who are following the Venezuelan situation in detail can see clearly how Venezuelan society is dissolving, turning into a work of horror.
In the domestic scene, democracy and human rights have been roughly and impudently pushed aside, replaced by the abuses of a group of Neanderthal-like bureaucrats moved by social and racial hate. The mayor of Caracas, a man by the name of Juan Barreto, recently exploded out of control on TV, insulting his colleagues in a Stalinist-type of demonstration that left viewers horrified.
A few days later this man went on to issue a decree "expropriating" the golf courses of the two main Caracas private clubs, in order "to build houses for the poor," as if these golf courses were the only available land left in the country for housing.
These are just two examples of how the regime is behaving. The exercise of government, in Chávez's Venezuela, has been converted in a competition among gangsters, to see who are the most corrupt, the most uncivilized, and the most destructive.
While these gangsters roam at will in a country that has become a tropical version of Gotham City, Hugo Chávez is touring the world looking for allies in his quest to create an anti-U.S. coalition. An Aug. 7 Washington Post article said President Bush "does not consider Chávez as a threat." This article reports in detail the attempts Chávez is making at creating the alliance but dismisses these attempts as a "war of words."
I am not so sure.
Chávez has been underestimated for some time now. He is generally perceived as an uncultured clown, as a person with unrealistic dreams of grandeur and as a wasteful political leader with an obsolete ideology. This is all true, but Hugo Chávez is also a very dangerous man, with a big bag of money and a deep inferiority complex rooted in social and racial components. I think he is willing to do anything to leave an imprint in history, no matter what, how, or when.
This is a scenario that has to be taken into account if very unpleasant surprises for the national security of the Western hemisphere are to be avoided.
Today, Chávez is openly siding with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba; four rogue, terrorist states. By creating a mission manager post for Cuba and Venezuela, something only previously done for Iran and North Korea, the U.S. government is finally assigning the Castro-Chavez axis the priority it deserves. This is a move that has both flattered and worried Chávez. Therefore he has decided to accelerate his efforts to create a global coalition against the United States.
#6
If Chavez is facilitating the Venezuelan presence of a terrorist organization like Hezbollah, then he needs to be capped right away. All we need is a staging ground in our back yard so these sick genocidal f&cks can infiltrate into America. Chavez's oxygen consumption license just expired.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2006 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Bring that deep-water Gulf field online, and cut imports from Venezuela. Watch Chavez squirm. Not many people want to deal with Venezuelan heavy crude. Hit him where it hurts the most - in the pocketbook.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2006 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Agreed. Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour, but we have refineries tailored to it. Not too many others do at present. And China will need to ship it a long way if they try to sop up the production.
#10
U. S. has cut imports from Venezuela 25% in the last year though it is still our fourth largest source. I would suspect they will continue to fall.
NOT SO FAST
With polling numbers in the Maryland Senate Democrat primary now showing that relative outsider, former congressman and former head of the NAACP Kweisi Mfume is leading Rep. Ben Cardin in some polls above the margin of error, national Democrats are growing progressively pessimistic that they will make serious gains in the November elections.
Mainstream media outlets have been attempting over the past few weeks to slowly let the air out of a balloon they themselves filled with their abundant hot air about Democratic momentum moving toward a potential retaking of both houses of Congress.
"We probably started that drumbeat too early and we're losing a lot of that momentum," says a Democratic political strategist. "You could blame a lot of things, Howard Dean, and some of our more established candidates, but I would blame the Lieberman/Lamont race and the blogosphere. Things just move too fast nowadays."
The Connecticut Democrat Senate primary put a national spotlight on the inner-workings of the Democrat Party and they weren't pretty. Voters saw a far-left wing of the party with remarkable sway over a mainstream majority with little interest in a fight.
"More important, in most primaries, is that ten to 15 percent of undecided voters have already vented about Iraq," says another Democrat consultant. "The problem is, those voters wanted to express their dissatisfaction with Iraq, but they also want a solution. Pulling out isn't the solution many of them want. They aren't going to be voting for an anti-war candidate. I think my party has overshot its position."
The showing of Republican Michael Steele, as well as others, such as Mike McGavick in Washington, and Tom Kean, Jr. in New Jersey, along with stabilized numbers for Sen. Rick Santorum, have Democrats in the Senate scrambling to find some good news to pass along to their donors.
MAJORITY SHOES
The possibility of failure on the Senate side is one reason for the renewed rumors of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton looking to fill a leadership slot for Democrats in the Senate. Over the weekend, London papers reported that Clinton was looking to fill the minority leader shoes currently filled by Sen. Harry Reid.
Her decision to take a leadership slot, rather than run for the presidency, may in part be determined by the outcome of the Lieberman race in Connecticut, say advisers to the junior senator. "If Lieberman wins, it leaves all of the anger on the far left focused on her," says one New York-based adviser. "It might be easier -- and more appealing -- for her to become leader of the party in the Senate."
FACING THE MUSIC
As Republican House members return home from three weeks in their districts, the news is mixed, according the House insiders. But the news is also more positive than negative. While a number of House seats are in play, GOP House members who were down as much as ten points before returning home, are coming back to Washington with polling data that shows many of them back on solid footing with their constituencies.
"I think there is rightly a lot of anger about the way Iraq and the Middle East is looking," says one House member from the upper northeast. "But I think my poll numbers -- and those of my colleagues -- had a lot to do with being complacent and hesitant to deal with the issues full on. I went home, worked my butt off, and feel like I'm in a better position than I was a month ago."
ROVE TIME
Staffers in the White House have been talking up the possibilities of an "October Surprise" or two leading into the mid-term elections. They say the President feels confident he can still play a role in the election, that he intends to campaign hard for Republicans, and that on the policy front, there are a couple of issues that can be used as wedges along the way.
One priority is to help Sen. Jim Talent in his re-election bid in Missouri. Another is to show some stabilized leadership and focus on the Middle East. But those inside the White House see the attempted diminution by the mainstream media of political adviser Karl Rove as a sure sign that this White House has a shot at having a hand in maintaining Republican control of Congress.
"The New York Times saying that Karl's word isn't gospel tells me that the left wants to try to marginalize him, and that isn't going to work," says a White House staffer. "He's going to have something to say about this election cycle, and so will the President."
The rogues' gallery of those who acted badly in the CIA "leak" case turns out to be different from what the media led us to expect. Note that we put the word "leak" in quotation marks, because it's clear now there was no leak at all, just idle talk, and certainly no smear campaign against Joseph Wilson for criticizing President Bush's Iraq policy. It's as if a giant hoax were perpetrated on the country--by the media, by partisan opponents of the Bush administration, even by several Bush subordinates who betrayed the president and their White House colleagues. The hoax lingered for three years and is only now being fully exposed for what it was. Let's start at the top of the rogues' list:
* Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell, was the first to reveal that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. He blabbed carelessly to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, then to columnist Robert Novak, who mentioned it in a July 2003 column. Armitage, after admitting this to the FBI in October 2003, stood by silently year after year as Vice President Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and other White House officials were blamed for what he had done, and President Bush suffered politically. Loyalty is not Armitage's strong suit.
* Colin Powell, Bush's friend and secretary of state in the first Bush term, knew what Armitage had done and never let on. He met with Bush countless times as the White House was
being pummeled in the media and by Demo crats for outing a CIA agent to take revenge on her husband. Bush called publicly for the leaker to be identified. Powell knew the identity, but remained silent. Some friend.
* Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the "leak" case, was aware of the source of Novak's story when he began his still-ongoing investigation in December 2003. Yet finding that source was supposedly the object of his probe. Now working with a second grand jury, Fitzgerald surely knows the supposed conspiracy to defame Wilson is (and always was) a fantasy. Still he won't let go. Fitzgerald has proved once more why naming a special prosecutor is a colossal mistake.
* The Ashcroft Justice Department. Armitage brought his story to investigators after the CIA requested an investigation when the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, appeared in Novak's column. So when the department decided weeks later to appoint a special prosecutor, it already knew who had "leaked" Plame's name. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself, leaving the decision to his deputy, James Comey. Rather than face a torrent of partisan recriminations for dropping the case, Comey passed the buck to Fitzgerald. There were no profiles in courage at Justice.
* Joseph Wilson, an ex-ambassador and National Security Council official in the Clinton and Bush I administrations, sparked the "leak" controversy in the first place by writing in the New York Times that Bush had lied in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's seeking uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons. The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in 2002 to check out precisely that point, and he claimed to have debunked it. Later, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that nearly everything Wilson wrote or said about Bush, Cheney, Iraq, and his own trip to Africa was untrue. Wilson was a fraud. "It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously," the Washington Post editorialized sorrowfully last week.
* The media--especially the Washington Post and New York Times--relied heavily on Wilson's reckless and unfounded charges to wage journalistic jihad against the White House and Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Reporters and columnists, based on little more than Joe Wilson's harrumphing, bought the line that the White House "leaked" Plame's name to discredit her husband. In an editorial last January, the New York Times said the issue in the case "was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative." The paper's answer was yes.
So instead of Cheney or Rove or Libby, the perennial targets of media wrath, the Plamegate Hall of Shame consists of favorites of the Washington elite and the mainstream press. The reaction, therefore, has been zero outrage and minimal coverage. The appropriate step for the press would be to investigate and then report in detail how it got the story so wrong, just as the New York Times and other media did when they reported incorrectly that WMD were in Saddam's arsenal in Iraq. Don't hold your breath for this.
Not everyone got the story wrong. The Senate Intelligence Committee questioned Wilson under oath. It found that, contrary to his claims, his wife had indeed arranged for the CIA to send him to Niger in 2002. It found that his findings had not, contrary to Wilson's claim, circulated at the highest
levels of the administration. And Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union to the effect that British intelligence believed Saddam had sought uranium in Africa--words Wilson insisted were fictitious--had been twice confirmed as true by none other than the British government.
Worse, Wilson failed in the single reason for his trip to Niger: to ferret out the truth about whether Iraq had sought uranium there. Wilson said no, dismissing a visit by Iraqis in 1999. But journalist Christopher Hitchens learned the trade mission was led by an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat. And uranium, of course, was the only thing Niger had to trade.
The fascination in Washington with the idea of a White House conspiracy to ruin Plame's career and punish Wilson never made sense. If there had been one, it had to be the most passive conspiracy in history. The suspected mastermind was Rove, the Bush political adviser. But all Rove did was to acknowledge off-handedly to two reporters that he'd heard that Wilson's wife, whose name he didn't know, was a CIA employee. And the two reporters were more likely to agree with Wilson about the war in Iraq than with the Bush administration. The conspiracy charge, the Post rightly concluded, was "untrue."
A few diehards in the media have tried to keep the conspiracy notion alive. Michael Isikoff of Newsweek asserts that what Armitage did and what Rove did were separate, and thus a White House smear campaign could still have gone on. Yes, but it didn't. Jeff Greenfield of CNN recalled a Post story in September 2003 that said "two top White House officials" had contacted six reporters "and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." But the Post itself has in effect repudiated this dubious story.
What's left to do? Fitzgerald, in decency, should terminate his probe immediately. And he should abandon the perjury prosecution of Libby, the former Cheney aide. Libby's foggy memory was no worse than that of Armitage, who forgot for two years to tell Fitzgerald he'd talked to the Post's Woodward but isn't being prosecuted. Last but not least, a few apologies are called for, notably by Powell and Armitage, but also by the press. A correction--perhaps the longest and most overdue in the history of journalism--is in order.
#2
Interesting the press is always pounding on Bush to admit his mistakes, but never, ever willing to admit theirs. 'Course, they still think they aren't wrong.
The 2008 presidential race looks to be quite different from all recent contests. Many have noted that this is the first presidential race since 1928 -- 80 years! -- in which neither the incumbent president nor vice president is running.
(Incumbents Harry Truman and Alben Barkley made brief stabs at running in 1952.) But there are two other, more important reasons why this race is different from most other races. One is that the leading candidates are, at this stage, in conflict or in tension with what have been their parties' dominant bases. Two, we have a much better idea of how these candidates would handle crises than we usually do.
Rudolph Giuliani, who runs ahead or at least even in most polls of Republicans, is way off to the left of the party's base. He supports abortion rights and some gay rights measures, and has backed lots of gun-control measures. After his second marriage collapsed, he moved in with a gay couple. Giuliani simply flunks the litmus tests of the cultural conservatives who have had an effective veto on the Republican nomination since 1980.
John McCain, running even or a bit ahead in Republican polls, doesn't flunk most of these litmus tests. But he has been a party maverick, on campaign finance regulation, some tax cuts, climate change and judges. He took some tough shots at conservative religious leaders in 2000, though he's made up for them since.
He's against abortion, but he's never emphasized the issue, and he voted against banning same-sex marriage.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite big leads in polls of Democrats, is also in tension with her party's base. She voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and has not, like many other Democrats, apologized for doing so. She has been attacked sharply for her stands on left-wing Websites like Daily Kos. She sometimes sharply criticizes the Bush administration, but avoids the tone of shrill hatred that dominated the party's 2004 campaign and surfaced again in the defeat of Connecticut's Joe Lieberman.
This tension with the party base is surely a liability for Giuliani, McCain and Clinton. But they each, to varying degrees, have an asset that few presidential candidates have ever had: We know how they handle crises or adversity. Going into the 2000 presidential race, few voters felt sure they knew how George W. Bush or Al Gore would respond to crisis. We could only look for clues and make guesses.
But we don't have to ask how Giuliani would respond.
We know the answer. We saw him on Sept. 11, and during the days and weeks after. That's why Giuliani is getting support from many who don't agree with him on cultural issues. They're confident he'll be a strong and effective leader. About John McCain, we know that he endured seven years as a prisoner of war, went through torture and refused several offers of freedom. We know that he overcame his bitterness over his defeat in 2000 and offered staunch support to the man who beat him. We know he has a temper, but also a gift for self-deprecating humor.
As for Hillary Rodham Clinton, we saw her endure humiliations -- the collapse of her health care plan, the revelations of her husband's infidelities -- that would make most of us want to crawl in a hole. Yet she persevered, concentrating on her work and winning office in the most raucous political environment in America. You may not like her, but you can't deny that she's shown perseverance and grace under pressure -- a good quality for any president.
As it happens, the two major party nominees in 1928 had similar political assets. Americans then knew how Herbert Hoover administered war relief in Europe and Russia and responded to the disastrous Mississippi River flood in 1927.
Many Americans had also observed close-up his opponent, Al Smith, who was the governor of the largest and most visible state for eight years before the election. Both were in tension with their parties' bases: Hoover was a big government man; Smith, as a Catholic, was anathema to many ancestral Southern Democrats. The 1928 election shook up the political map. Hoover carried most border and Southern states, Smith heavily Catholic Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
The 2008 frontrunners aren't sure to be nominated. But a contest between two of them could shake up the political alignments that have been solidly in place for 10 years.
#1
Don't be surprised if there are changes in the line up. It's still very early, and the Democrats especially have a history of nominating unknowns rather than the putative front runner.
#2
I am not sure Rudi is as poisonous as they make him out to be. Yes I disagree with some of his policies but I doubt anyone I agree with 100% is electable. I know a lot of good people, who are divorced, support gun control, and care less about gays. Rudi IS tough on crime/terrorism, is fiscal conservative, understands economics, and doesnt whine like a girl when facing a crisis. Trust me the LLL fever swamp really fears Rudi because he is just the kind of person that would take 40+ states without breaking a sweat. No I am not on the bandwagon yet, but I am picking out my seat.
#3
I like Michael Barone, but he is all wet about this.
This country is at war. Therefore, we will choose a war president. Giuliani has garnered the respect of many of us. During the Crown Heights riots, he set up his command center in an intersection in Crown Heights. He's a serious ass kicker.
McCain who once dispised Kerry for his cowardice, had forgiven Kerry years before Kerry's 2004 run, yet did not defend the Swift Boat group.....shithead comes to mind. He also wrote the McCain/Feingold incumbent protection act, and it was his missle that started the USS Forrester fire that killed dozens of firefighters. He has a habit of shooting his comrads in the foot. Hilldabeast the warrior, eh ? She's a scorpio, so I would be concerned about loyal Americans being shot in the back with her around.
Give me Rudy and sweet victory over Islam. The presidency is where we want our men of action. The Congress is where we want our men of thought and debate. Abortion and gay rights are debatable, war is not.
#5
Not only do they seem fine with losing the war, it looks ripe for becoming a key plank in their platform. "We gott a war to lose! Now who's with me?"
#6
Give me Rudy and sweet victory over Islam. The presidency is where we want our men of action. The Congress is where we want our men of thought and debate. Abortion and gay rights are debatable, war is not.
#7
get used to incumbent re-election. McCain-Feingold takes effect soon and prohibits those nasty ads tearing down an incumbent's voting record. Between that and the MSM suck-fest with "progressives", McCain has sold conservatives and disenchanted others down the river. He should pay with his retirement from politics and the overturning of his restrictive law on our freedom of political speech. F*CK him
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2006 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Rudy with Condi as VP will destroy the dems. Rudy will sweep with his tough leadership and the black vote will go to Condi as will the womens groups, stripping the Dem party. Neither group would want to be on record for not supporting the first black woman.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/05/2006 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
McCain ...it was his missle that started the USS Forrester fire that killed dozens of firefighters. He has a habit of shooting his comrads in the foot.
Wx, where the fuck are you getting your facts from?
1. The missile came from an F-4. McCain flew an A-4. The missile struck McCain's fully-fueled aircraft (there's flight deck video of him climbing out).
2. Many of the deaths came from an unfortunate series of errors.
a. The flight deck was loaded with ordnance.
b. The bombs that exploded just after the missile went off were of an older type that were not resistant to high heat (as were the newer versions).
c. JP-5 is highly flammable. Having several fully fueled and armed aircraft on deck didn't help.
d. The fire-fighting crews on the flight deck were relatively inexperienced (because the regular crews were either dead or wounded). They initially made basic mistakes, such as washing away foam with high pressure water.
I'm not a McCain fan. But I was a former Damage Control Assistant, and the Forrestal fire was one of the mandatory cases we had to study.
Then again, never let a few facts get in the way, huh?
Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.
Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time... the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake.
You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
#2
and Les Aspin didn't put in the armor to support the troops. Who'd he work for? Bill the Clenis. Meh. Nice try
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2006 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
#1
"The Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy."
Yep, he gets is all right.
Hope he watches his back....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/05/2006 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He could have added that that left who prefers bin Laden to the US, who allies withe those who dream of a theocratic unequlitarian, backwards-oriented and racist new order with arab males on the top aqnd dhimmi women on the very bottom has betrayed everything it pretended to defend. That there is no more left but only some frustrated and bored bourgeois playing left.
#3
The contemporary Left stands now only for UNiVERSAL GOVERNMENTISM and HYPER-PC, aka Waffle-ism. Americans' choices in this WOT is to be destroyed either under Global Secular Totalitarianism, i.e. THEY-WHOM-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED; versus Global God/Faith-based Totalitarianism, i.e. 'WE HAVE TO KILL YOU BECUZ GOD = TALKING FRUIT/ANIMALS SAYS SO". And a mighty quandry it is.
Go check out Matt's book! And check out the list of bloggers that are included in the book. We all have our favorite posts from these folks, and you just know, Matt has weaved them together for us to enjoy. Just another way to give recognition to our warriors and their families.
"Can you handle the truth?...The Blog of War (Simon & Schuster) is loaded with firsthand reports from the Internet diaries of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Grab it before the Pentagon orders it burned..." - Vanity Fair, September 2006
It's been a year in the making. And because of all of you readers and supporters, it's become a reality. Finally!
#1
...I think I mentioned a story a few days ago that said this was coming - I don't think CBS is all that upset that she holds those opinions but Rather that she is being so quickly outspoken about them.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/05/2006 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So, FNC is as imporant and has as much stature as See-BS?
#3
But can CBS photoshop 20 pounds off her in real time?
Posted by: ed ||
09/05/2006 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
But can CBS photoshop 20 pounds off her in real time?
That's too 21st Century for CBS. They'll use the old methods of lighting, camera angle and desk. And if you oversize the furniture, it will give the illusion of 'smallness' on the subject. Fake but True. Courage!
A discussion of why the middle-class is shrinking: it's because the upper-middle class is growing. Charts, tables, figures and a promise of more to come. From the American Prospect.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shrinkage in the good, wealth-centric way, not the Commie-Secular regressive, alcoholic, all or most adult men dead by age 50, "permanently poor but optimistic" Soviet way. WEALTH + FREEDOMS > Large families become a joy, just another medium for greater econ wealth-benefit, NOT A LT DETRIMENTAL THIRD WORLD-OR-LESS METHOD NECESSARY FOR BASIC SELF- SURVIVAL.
#4
If you ask some people, they'll tell you this country needs a "redistribution of wealth".
I can't imagine any way to do that except taking money and land from people who have paid or worked for it and giving it to people who havent. Just like Dr. Zhivago, eh?
#7
Had a conversation with a dem last week. I told him about a friend of my wife's, who is a single mother. She and her 'partner' stay unmarried on purpose, so she can still qualify for the 'earned' income credit. She has 3 kids, and last year probably only made 20K. She got a tax refund of over $7000, even though she only paid about $700 in taxes.
In comparison, my wife and I had to write a check to the IRS last year for $1400, after we had already paid taxes of over $7000.
I asked this dem, "You don't think there's something wrong with that?" He said no. Why am I not surprised?
Personally, I'd go for a National flat-rate sales tax, and the elimination of all other federal taxes. Tax consumption, not wealth. But that's just me.
The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector
Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.
It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.
Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.
To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.
Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Traditional poverty, compared to the above discussed 'statistical' poverty, is predicated upon three major causes, although the poverty advocates are sure to drag out some anecdotal heart throbbing exception. It's always exceptions. However, 1) Substance abuse, 2) Single head of household before establishing meaningful job skills, and 3) blowing off one's education are the main sources of traditional poverty. Each and everyone of these points involves human free will to choose or not to choose the action. No matter what sub-group of color, race, or creed one selects, there are those who choose not to do these things and do succeed. And, in the end, that is why all the socialist crap about redistribution of income has been and will remain a failure. From Poor Richards Almanac - You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. You dont penalize the rest and the bulk of society by robbing them for their productivity and sound choices and reward those who take a more destructive path. Reward success, not failure. Youll get more success and less failure.
1) Some in the middle class are experiencing upward mobility - true.
2) The fair tax plan that Linder/Boortz are proposing would vastly expand the spending power of all Americans and would greatly help the mid-class.
3) Those in the middle class that are struggling are usually being undercut or hurt by the illegal cheap labor coming in through our porous borders as well as the repressive tax structure our gov't already has in place.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Hezbollah members are turning up in the strangest places. Recently they have appeared, as alien visitors, on the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, a territory shared with Colombia. 
