24.7.08
Howard Stern calls Democrats "Communists", swears he "will never vote for them again"
In an uproar over the delay in the FCC approving a merger between XM Radio and Sirius Radio, Howard Stern swears off ever voting Democrat again. Socialism sounds great until it starts hitting your pocketbook. It's too bad so many out there don't understand that. I'm sorry Stern had to learn his lesson the hard way, but that's what we can expect if Barack Obama is elected in November.
16.7.08
Silly Republicans, Barack Obama isn't the Messiah...
...He's the reincarnation of Muhammad.
Conservatives have roundly criticized what they term as "Obamamania", the almost-messianic obsession too many Americans seem to have with Democrat Barack Obama. From fainting at political rallies, to otherwise-respected new commentators experiencing shivers up their legs when they here Obama speak, to Oprah Winfrey referring to him as "The One", to one San Francisco Gate columnist proclaiming Obama to not really be a mere human, but rather a "light-worker", it appears that many of his supporters attach some sort of quasi-divine attributes to the freshman senator from Illinois.
The controversial cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker has shed even more light on this phenomenon. While many commentators proclaimed the cartoon highly offensive and at least very un-P.C., Obama himself has stepped forward to denounce the cartoon as "offensive to Muslims". And where have we heard condemnation of cartoons as being offensive to Muslims before? That's right, the Danish editorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Nevermind that The New Yorker was actually satirizing all the false rumors that have been floating around about Obama.
Shame, shame on Jyllands Posten for publishing the insulting depictions of Muhammad and shame, shame on The New Yorker for publishing the insulting depiction of Barack Obama, our modern-day prophet.
Well, at least the Democrats aren't criticizing the cartoon because Americans are too stupid to understand the context behind it. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.
Conservatives have roundly criticized what they term as "Obamamania", the almost-messianic obsession too many Americans seem to have with Democrat Barack Obama. From fainting at political rallies, to otherwise-respected new commentators experiencing shivers up their legs when they here Obama speak, to Oprah Winfrey referring to him as "The One", to one San Francisco Gate columnist proclaiming Obama to not really be a mere human, but rather a "light-worker", it appears that many of his supporters attach some sort of quasi-divine attributes to the freshman senator from Illinois.
The controversial cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker has shed even more light on this phenomenon. While many commentators proclaimed the cartoon highly offensive and at least very un-P.C., Obama himself has stepped forward to denounce the cartoon as "offensive to Muslims". And where have we heard condemnation of cartoons as being offensive to Muslims before? That's right, the Danish editorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Nevermind that The New Yorker was actually satirizing all the false rumors that have been floating around about Obama.
Shame, shame on Jyllands Posten for publishing the insulting depictions of Muhammad and shame, shame on The New Yorker for publishing the insulting depiction of Barack Obama, our modern-day prophet.
Well, at least the Democrats aren't criticizing the cartoon because Americans are too stupid to understand the context behind it. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.
8.7.08
Conservatives for Obama?
Thomas Sowell weighs in on the supposed phenomena of avowed conservatives proclaiming such distaste for the actions of Republicans in Congress that they are supporting Barack Obama for President to presumably force a leadership bloodbath within the Republican Party, culling all those addicted to earmarks, and rationalizing that support by citing Obama's doubtful willingness to listen to conservative opinion.
While I am one of those who wholeheartedly supports getting rid of the current congressional Republican leadership, Sowell is absolutely correct in his analysis that presidential elections are too important to cast a vote based on emotional frustration. There are more important things at stake than the electoral punishment of wayward Republicans. While Obama has been rhetorically tacking towards the center in recent weeks in an attempt to attract centrist and center-right voters, that rhetoric is in no way consistent with either his earlier positions during this campaign or his entire political career. Pat Buchanan details Obama's recent political ruthlessness, as does Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, and Bob Herbert of the New York Times.
While this should be of obvious concern to Republican voters contemplating a punishment vote, Democrats who have supported Obama from the beginning should honestly examine that support. Does a candidate who so readily changes his political stripes to suit the target demographic of the week really represent the sort of "Change" and "Hope" they bought into in the first place?
While I am one of those who wholeheartedly supports getting rid of the current congressional Republican leadership, Sowell is absolutely correct in his analysis that presidential elections are too important to cast a vote based on emotional frustration. There are more important things at stake than the electoral punishment of wayward Republicans. While Obama has been rhetorically tacking towards the center in recent weeks in an attempt to attract centrist and center-right voters, that rhetoric is in no way consistent with either his earlier positions during this campaign or his entire political career. Pat Buchanan details Obama's recent political ruthlessness, as does Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, and Bob Herbert of the New York Times.
While this should be of obvious concern to Republican voters contemplating a punishment vote, Democrats who have supported Obama from the beginning should honestly examine that support. Does a candidate who so readily changes his political stripes to suit the target demographic of the week really represent the sort of "Change" and "Hope" they bought into in the first place?
30.6.08
Hate mail to editorial cartoonists?
I stumbled across this article today from Politicker.com about how editorial cartoonists in the United States receive reader hate mail and how that inspires them to keep doing what they do, presumably because they take it as a sign that they're being "edgy" or "controversial" and therefore standing up for "free speech". The cartoonists had a big laugh and shared with each other their favorite reader responses at the annual convention of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists.
Ted Rall took a shot at firefighters in New York, calling them "psychotic" after their vocal response to his cartoon that suggested the New York Fire Department was receiving outrageous amounts of money donated after 9/11.
Well. That certainly makes him a hero in my book, standing up for his freedom of expression like that.
Except maybe these cartoonists would do better to at least attempt to support their fellow cartoonists in Denmark, who, as recently as this February (2008), are still receiving death threats from angry Muslims for daring to publish editorial cartoons satirizing Muhammad, cartoons that were originally published in September 2005. Too bad most publishers in the United States (and for that matter, worldwide) caved in to death threats and sought to appease the Islamist censors. So much for free speech.
These guys can't hold a candle to Kurt Westergaard:
Ted Rall took a shot at firefighters in New York, calling them "psychotic" after their vocal response to his cartoon that suggested the New York Fire Department was receiving outrageous amounts of money donated after 9/11.
Well. That certainly makes him a hero in my book, standing up for his freedom of expression like that.
Except maybe these cartoonists would do better to at least attempt to support their fellow cartoonists in Denmark, who, as recently as this February (2008), are still receiving death threats from angry Muslims for daring to publish editorial cartoons satirizing Muhammad, cartoons that were originally published in September 2005. Too bad most publishers in the United States (and for that matter, worldwide) caved in to death threats and sought to appease the Islamist censors. So much for free speech.
These guys can't hold a candle to Kurt Westergaard:
7.6.08
When Tax-Hikes Make Sense
As anti-tax as I generally am, I have to admit that there are times when tax policy, including significantly increased taxes, can and should be used to provide certain incentives for people to behave in desired ways.
Starkly contrasting Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's idiotic proposals earlier this year to suspend the federal gas tax, Charles Krauthammer proposes further increasing gasoline taxes because, as we are seeing now, higher gas prices cause consumers to alter their driving and car-buying habits, which in turn puts pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. It is a market-based approach that would be much more efficient, and more beneficial to the national economy, than a government-mandated corporate average fuel economy or ethanol mandates or suing the Saudis or whatever politically-inspired energy scam is en vogue this week in Washington, DC.
Will people like it? No. Will it be difficult to adjust to, at least in the short-term? Yes, especially for politicians for whom any tax-hike is a career-killer (which is all of them). But it would be effective.
Starkly contrasting Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's idiotic proposals earlier this year to suspend the federal gas tax, Charles Krauthammer proposes further increasing gasoline taxes because, as we are seeing now, higher gas prices cause consumers to alter their driving and car-buying habits, which in turn puts pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. It is a market-based approach that would be much more efficient, and more beneficial to the national economy, than a government-mandated corporate average fuel economy or ethanol mandates or suing the Saudis or whatever politically-inspired energy scam is en vogue this week in Washington, DC.
Will people like it? No. Will it be difficult to adjust to, at least in the short-term? Yes, especially for politicians for whom any tax-hike is a career-killer (which is all of them). But it would be effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)