Whorled View

September 29, 2008

Subprime Woes: You can thank the Democrats – repost

Filed under: Blogroll,economy,media,Politics — lullabyman @ 2:10 pm

While democrats have been trying to get political advantage from the current financial crisis the underlying facts belie their position. It was democrats, not republicans, that set the ball in motion and pushed it faster and faster until it crashed into wall street and shattered the market. A few videos to help describe how it happened:

That said, I don’t think anyone should make a vote punitive. Look what happened 2 years ago … the public sent the republican congressmen packing for purely punitive reasons and has the democrat congress done any better? Ask yourself, “am I better off than I was 2 years ago before they were in power?”

If you want results then make your vote constructive not punitive.  If you make it punitive though, make sure you know who’s really to blame.  This all started long before Bush, and democrat congressmen were as much or more to blame as republican congressmen.

Advertisements

Identifying racism or sexism … A Test

“… I won’t necessarily think you’re racist or sexist, but … some of your other recipients might not be as forgiving as me.”

My last entry was critical of Obama.  I’ve been just as critical of McCain (see “McCain debates Hillary, lovingly“).  Honestly, I would be equally critical of both more often if I found an excuse to do so, but I feel compelled to help even the playing field, and unless you’ve been hiding under a rock you have to admit that the MSM has been one sided.  If, for example, Palin had said that FDR did the fireside chats by TV then NBC, CBS, and ABC would have had a field day about it, but when Biden said that exact thing last week the only place you heard about it was on Fox news – a news outlet that liberals spitefully despise because they feel it tramples on their rights to deceive distort and dissuade the public on an otherwise monopolized news market.

But I’m getting off topic.

Sexism and Racism still exists in the media … and especially in non-professional media, such as grassroots email campaigns.  There are guilty people on all sides of the fence, and I think it’s pretty despicable whenever I see it regardless of who does it.  By the same token there’s a lot of posturing by calling certain comments or positions racist or sexist, as was recently done by McCain’s Fiorina when she freaked out about the “lipstick on a pig” comment- that she acted so offended was also despicable in my opinion.  Then there’s even posturing by accusing whole parties of posturing when it was only one person, as was done by nearly all liberal leaders accusing the republican party of posturing when it was only Fiorina who was freaking out.  That, in my opinion is equally despicable.  Now I’m just waiting for someone posturing by accusing me of posturing by accusing liberals posturing about Fiorina posturing about Obama’s benign “lipstick on a pig” comment.  If you’re not thoroughly confused now … let me just say this: there’s been way too much posturing on the issue of sexism or racism if you ask me.

“If you don’t really care whether people think your racist or sexist then you might not care to do this test. Maybe you’re confident that none of the recipients would ever consider you racist or sexist. Don’t be so sure.”

The bottom line is that there needs to be some kind of simple method whereby one can easily detect and determine the level of racism or sexism in a given comment.  I think I’ve come up with such a method:  You must imagine the comment in a completely sex / race neutral setting then ask yourself “is it just as funny or does it make just as much sense as before?”  If it is just as funny and makes just as much sense then it’s neither racist nor sexist.  If however, if it seems to loose some of it’s edge then perhaps it has some sexist or racist overtones.

For example: You get an email where a photograph shows Obama and Palin photoshop’ed in, and the photo is supposed to be funny.  Now imagine that Hillary had been nominated and so she was in that picture instead of Obama.  Does the picture still make sense? Is that photoshop’ed photo just as funny, or did it totally loose it’s edge?  If it’s just as funny then congratulations … what you have there is a genuinely funny article, otherwise it’s probably just racist or sexist (or both) and if you spread it around you will offend a lot of people – don’t kid yourself.

“… let me just say this: there’s been way too much posturing on the issue of sexism or racism if you ask me.”

So what?  Well, this method could be useful if you forward a lot of political opinions or content to friends and family.  Before you forward on that cartoon see if it passes the above test.  If you don’t really care whether people think you’re racist or sexist then you might not care to do this test.  Maybe you’re confident that none of the recipients would ever consider you racist or sexist.  Don’t be so sure. Most people live by the motto “actions speak louder than words” and many think that forwarding someone else’s words makes them your words.

I won’t necessarily think you’re racist or sexist, and in fact I’m more likely to conclude that you simply didn’t think twice before sending on that email with little regard to how it might offend others.  We all do thoughtless things, and it doesn’t make you a bad person to do so, myself being the prime example as I do thoughtless things all the time … but like I said, some of your other recipients might not be as forgiving as me.

September 26, 2008

Obama the hypocrite

Just posted this on YouTube…

With everything he says he’s obviously more interested in throwing blame, but then he accuses others of doing the same.

Conversely, grown ups put aside their differences to solve problems in person, rather than debating who’s to blame. Kind of like what McCain is trying to do.  Funny how Obama points this out, but can’t follow the advice himself.  Do I want to vote for someone who’s all talk and no action?  Do I want to vote for someone who can’t focus on solutions and feels he has to leave the kitchen because he’s causing problems by being there?

I ask, do you want such a person for your President, your Commander in Chief?

September 18, 2008

In 2030 Japan will have the most powerful WMD, and in Space

I’ve previously posted about space based Solar Power, which converts sunlight into ludicrous-power lasers that are beamed back to earth.  We’ll, Japan is serious about doing it:

http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Solar_Space.pdf

Now, of course, this is intended to be a technology to save the planet (it’s solar power for heaven’s sake), but will require little to no effort to instantly start using it to selectrively fry whole neighborhoods without any warning and with breathtaking accuracy.

It seems this is a technology we should be working on – if only to safegaurd ourselves against others with this ability.  Remember Japan is still the only country which attacked us on our soil in the 20th century.  They’re utterly peaceful now, but that’s not stopping them from building the world’s first Star Wars technology death ray.

Here’s the amazing thing … by thier own admission it will cost much more per MW than conventional earth-based Solar plans so is there an alterior motivation here?  Let’s just hope that Iran doesn’t start building one of these.

There is one good thing about having a geostationary death-ray, though.  They are easy to shoot down (provided that you send enough bombs it’s way to make the death-ray too weak to defend itself).

September 16, 2008

Bush-Doctrine Schmoctrine

I learned something pretty funny that I thought I’d pass on.  If you caught Charlie Gibson trying to be a barely-tolerant condescending snob to Sarah Palin for not knowing what the “Bush Doctrine”, you’ll think this is hilarious: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

“… if Charlie Gibson using a more obscure definition for “Bush Doctrine” isn’t funny enough … Gibson got the document wrong and Palin got it right, and after reading it I can only guess he’s never read it himself.”

In short, according to the originator of the term “Bush Doctrine” (coined even before 9-11) the definition Gibson used in the interview is NOT the original definition (Bush Doctrine: one-sided foreign policy), neither is it even the most widely understood definition (Bush Doctrine: spreading democracy throughout the world).  It is however the moveon.org favored definition (and a mangled definition as I’ll show in the next 2 paragraphs) used by ultra-liberal organizations in a way that misrepresents Bush’s policy on preemptive strikes.

Yes, if Gibson using a more obscure definition for “Bush Doctrine” isn’t funny enough, if you actually read the document to which Gibson refers to for his narrow definition (http://web.archive.org/web/20080307001029/http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html) you’ll discover that the document is more about what Palin said than what Gibson said.  That’s right: Gibson got the document wrong and Palin got it right, and after reading it I can only guess he’s never read it himself.  Palin said the document was about protecting us from extremists, whereas Gibson wrongly thought the document was about preemptive strikes against any nation we found threatening.

“In other words, the document and Bush’s policies have never allowed, let alone advocated preemptively striking simply any nation that we might find threatening.”

Preemptive strikes was just one of the many strategies in that document, including additional strategies such as “enhance diplomacy” and “build coalitions”, but more importantly the document is very specific that it applies only to rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states who target civilians and non-combatants for terrorist activities.  In other words, the document and Bush’s policies have never allowed, let alone advocated preemptively striking simply any nation that we might find threatening.

Kudos to Palin for not being so narrow minded and misinformed and rude as Gibson seemed to be.  Double kudos that she wasn’t a condescending snob about enduring such a tedious interview with someone simultaneously so clueless and full of himself.

“I think we’ll start tuning into CBS, as apparently the ABC anchor is just as misinformed and unprofessional as those found on NBC.”

We’ve been getting our daily world news from Charlie on ABC World news report, but after this shameful display I think we’ll start tuning into CBS, as apparently the ABC anchor is just as misinformed and unprofessional as those found on NBC.

Edit: Sadly, CBS then proceeded with Katie Couric’s heavily edited and one-sided interrogations (Biden nor Obama got any) … seemingly trying to out do ABC in their efforts to sway the public to their opinion.

September 8, 2008

We were Soldiers. Out on Video. It will change you.

Filed under: Blogroll,defense,media,Politics,Sociology,war — lullabyman @ 7:01 pm

It’s actually been out on video for a few years.  I Tivo’d it the other night.

There are a lot of movies I want to watch, not because I look forward to watching them, but because I think I should because I know they will change me for the better.  Schindler’s List for example is one of them …  I don’t want to watch it but I think I should.  I still haven’t seen it.  I probably won’t until I can Tivo it because it’s just not the kind of movie you set out to rent.   When you go to rent a movie you’re typically looking for something fun and entertaining – at least that’s what I do.

“We were Soldiers” is another war movie – but unlike Schindler’s list I didn’t anticipate going away with the sick uneasy feeling expect to have with Schidler’s list.  I’m not sure why … perhaps it’s because I know a lot more about WWII than the Vietnam War.  Perhaps it’s because although 56,000 soldiers were killed in Vietnam, which is an unimaginable tragedy, in WWII 6 million Jews were slaughtered in concentration camps (2 out of every 3 European Jews) which is mindboggling in it’s devastation and then made all the worse because they were all civilians who were mostly women and children.

Anyway, often before I Tivo a show I’ll check out http://www.imdb.com for it’s rating and “We were Soldiers” was rated a 6.9, which is pretty good, but not exceptional, so I clicked on the rating – that will show you a distribution plot to see how people rated it.  Wow.  If you ever check imdb.com you should always click the rating.  I don’t know how they came up with 6.9, but if you look at the distribution you’ll see that 50% of watchers rated it an 8 or higher (1/3 of those gave it a ’10’).  So I then read the comments.  Those who were in Vietnam as soldiers commented again and again that with this film Hollywood finally got it right.  I agree with them that all the romanticizing the directors did with “Pearl Harbor” and other war-movies was distracting if not downright bothersome to me.

In summary, “We were Soldiers” is a true story about a general and his Brigade in Vietnam in 1965 as they were dropped right in the middle of the Viet Cong against some unbelievable odds.  It showed what happened back home with the families on base, and what happened to those who lived through it on the battlefield (mostly young men), and it showed the character of the people who fought it, and how they thought, and exactly what they did.

If you’ve ever wondered about what Veterans think about war in general then it’s probably a good movie to see.  I think with McCain on the ticket, and considering that he was a prisoner of war (although the movie didn’t go into that experience) it might  help you understand his views.  The general impression and understanding that you get at the end is that war Veterans, no matter how they feel about any particular war, will all basically have the same opinion about war in general.  In other words, if you want a president that will only engage in War when absolutely necessary then it seems you should want a man who lived that experience in a very real and personal way.  They all go into war differently with different attitudes and perceptions and goals.  They all come out however with a very similar opinion: War is hell and is something you do not engage in lightly.

One other thing: I don’t care how tough you are.  You’d better have a handkercheif or box of kleenex nearby.

September 5, 2008

Sarah Palin’s a big meany? Yeah, right!

I love watching the ridiculous nature of the MSM (mainstream media) when they pull their keystone-cops routine, just like they’ve been doing with Sarah Palin lately.  I really do.  Sometimes I can’t decide which is funnier … David Letterman (who mirrors MSM political leanings) while he’s trying to be funny, or the MSM while they’re trying not to be funny.

Never is this more apparent than when things don’t go their way.  When things don’t go their way the double standard they set up is hilarious.  Maybe it’s just because I listen to NPR and watch non-Fox channels but I can’t tell you how many times over the last 24 hours I heard pundits disparage Palin for having remarks that were “belittling” to Obama.

Oh No!  Horrors!  She made Obama seem less than what he thinks he is (that is the definition of belittling incidentally)!  She might have hurt his feelings!  Surely he can’t defend himself so that was dirty pool.  Shame, Palin!  For shame!  As a side note: I seem to remember the MSM saying similar things about Romney for attacking his opponents records .. but in the end the MSM got their favorite Republican candidate: McCain, who’s ironically more likely to beat their favorite candidate than Romney was likely to do.

Of course, belittling the opposition is a VP candidate’s main job, and it always has been – it’s called “Good Cop” vs “Bad Cop” and it leaves McCain the role of playing good cop.  Palin was dutifully playing her part … and she did so with amazing alacrity.

Incidentally McCain played the “good cop” very well tonight in dealing with multiple hecklers.  It’s funny how democrats try to crash republican assemblies, but republicans never do the same to democrat assemblies – but again I’m getting off topic.

Yes, there’s hypocrisy in the MSM … feigning shock that she’d desecrate their idol, Obama.  What I found even more humorous though is the MSM was then so foolish as to prove her belittling attitude by showing a snippet where she mocks Obama for saying that small-town people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”.

Okay.  All right.  So … apparently it’s okay for Obama to self-righteously belittle half the people in the US  by making a mockery of their faith and their right to personal defense, but Palin “belittled” Obama!  How could she!

What’s even funnier is all the so-called feminists who’ve ever since have been saying the most sexist remarks about Palin imaginable … claiming that either her kids will get the short end of the stick (ha! as if they really care), or the nation will get the short end of the stick.  Meanwhile I’m sure her husband’s thinking “what am I … chopped liver ?” – can’t he take care of the kids … or is not able, being a man and all – what a sexist assumption!   But the most ironic things is nobody on the left has stopped to ask “Why doesn’t anyone say that about any of the men running for office”?

I mean, aren’t liberal democrats supposed to be the last bastion of equal rights?  Aren’t they the ones who pretend to champion the idea that men should be held to the same familial standards as women (a perspective I actually agree with)?  So why would they say that about Palin, but not Obama.  You know … he has young kids too.

And are they so dense as to think that her kids will sit in squalor without any assistance from Federal staff or more importantly without love and affection from a father who’s been an excellent Mr. Mom for these last few years.  I’m guessing those kids will be doted on no less than were the Bush’s kids, the Clinton’s kids, or any other White House kids.  Sarah Palin’s kids will in many if not most cases receive just as much guidance and care from their father as the others received from their non-political parent.  Hey, wait a minute … Chelsea didn’t even have a non-political parent.  Amazing she hasn’t turned out to be some kind of axe-murderer.

Which brings up the other hilarious point.  I loved watching David Letterman last night – being his funniest (maybe “funny” is too flattering of a word … he was more like “ludicrous”) when he was trying to be his most serious.  You had to watch it to see just how clueless he was.  The audience was shocked really at what he said … his guest, Dr. Phil was a deer-in-the-headlights.  Both Letterman and Dr Phil commented on how silent the audience suddenly was, after which Letterman quickly realized he was way off base from all of his viewers.

I don’t remember Letterman’s exact words but in summary, Letterman was very harshly criticizing Palin for letting her daughter get pregnant.  That’s right folks … it was Sarah Palin’s fault her daughter got pregnant according to Letterman (apparently her husband is off the hook even though he’s been playing Mr Mom – but then I already mentioned the sexist views of the hypocritical left so let’s not delve further into that).  Essentially Lettermen went on to suggest that only an idiot would send their 16 yr old daughter out on a date without a condom (although not in so many words).

Now I’ve seen Letterman say dumb things before where he’s revealed too much about his ridiculous ideas, but even I was a little surprised at these comments, but what’s more I was really dismayed by Dr. Phil’s response.

There was none.  I kept waiting for it but nothing happened.  I kept expecting Dr. Phil to at least fix things a little.  Dr. Phil is generally pretty straight forward even as a guest and will try to nicely shed some healthy balance in such situations like gently mentioning that perhaps not everyone shares Letterman’s wacky views, but Dr. Phil did nothing of the sort.  Instead they both quickly changed the topic and thereby perpetuated a myth that only idiots believe that morality is more important than birth control, and that a baby born into a very loving home where the mother is only 17 is a horrible horrible thing that should be avoided … perhaps aborted at all costs, even if the father is a good reliable kid who loves the daughter and wants to make it right.

So by-in-large I found the MSM responses to Palin hilarious – with a few moments of disgust here and there where I saw the ugly little underbelly and bizarre beliefs that underlie those responses.  It has been overall, delightful to see the MSM squirm and I’m giddy about seeing more throughout the next 60 days … hopefully longer (like 4 years).  Just think … the first woman in an Executive Office will not be of the MSM ilk.  Palin has made McCain a real contender, and in a very real way she is even more capable than their own glorious Obama.  It’s making the MSM and their pundits run around like a bunch of decapitated chickens and I couldn’t be more tickled.

I only wish this show would have started sooner.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.