Today I was reading the horrible story in the New York Times about prison rape in Iran. It’s been a problem for a long time and largely ignored by the state of Iran. This isn’t very surprising; Iran turns a blind eye toward a lot of human rights violations. The Times discusses how young women are raped prior to execution so they “don’t go to heaven.” It’s a very disgusting practice.
At the end of the story are the usual comments, and that’s where the self-loathing begins.
Those who try to picture America as high on the horse of morality are fools that are being led blind by their low instincts, not civility. Let’s stop trying to diabolize others, when here, we are worst that all the Arabs put together. Their capacity to do evil is not as big as ours, ergo, evil didn’t meet evil until it met us. — Fathertime4
Why do some members of the left hate the United States so much? This story has nothing to do with the United States but most of the comments are from leftists complaining about the United States. If the United States is so horrible why are these clowns in favor of larger government?
Guess what, the U.S. is not the becon on the hill in terms of human rights or democracy anymore. We advocate prisoner rape, torture, and hold suspects indefintely without due process or the right to challenge evidence against them. The becon on the hill torch has been passed to progressive northern European nations (Canada?). Human rights must apply to all if they are to apply to anyone. The biggest shame for me is the fact that we have to explain away our endorsement of abuse. — James
The United States advocates prisoner rape and torture? I guess if this is a person’s worldview I could understand why someone would hate the U.S. It’s a ridiculous statement by any stretch of the imagination. These self-loathers all need to take a class on and in reality. This isn’t a perfect world and there are no perfect countries. Liberals have perfected the the faux parallel. Governor Mark Sanford is a scumbag who cheated on his wife, so he shouldn’t be in public office. President Clinton is absolved because Thomas Jefferson slept with his slave. Senator Helms was a terrible politician because he was from North Carolina and he must be racist. Senator Kennedy was a saint, and if you want to talk about manslaughter don’t forget Laura Bush. Oh yeah, Senator McCain lied about being a POW.
Why haven’t liberals used this same standard for the country they live in? The United States isn’t perfect, but neither are the Germans, Japanese, French, English, and Italians. The sin of slavery didn’t start in the United States. Racism isn’t just an American problem. What is the model nation for these liberals? The closest I can come to is My Little Pony Land, but the land would end up decimated in a long and bloody war when the ponies were forced to live under the rule of a bunch of left-wing Utopian wackoes.
Have you ever wondered if John Lennon’s death was an elaborate conspiracy? The answer to this question should be a resounding no. Unfortunately, our celebrity culture breeds this kind of insanity. A friend of mine here in Sarasota saw a van driving around that had in big letters lennonmurdertruth.com. This website is a classic example of the type of bizarre celebrity conspiracy fantasy that exists on the web. Here’s just a taste of the craziness:
The story about Mark Chapman is a cover-up. Bold print government cryptographic codes that include the killer’s face and true identity, the killer’s alleged name and letter to the editor printed before the murder and Richard Nixon’s book, The Real War, in back issues of Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report magazines printed before, during, and after the night of December 8, 1980 prove that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan arranged for the author Stephen King, then barley famous, to assassinate John Lennon. That King’s writings draw, dramatically, from the crime and that he taunts us all in his interviews and comments only makes this the story of a lifetime. My 24-page booklet contains everything you’ve seen here and much more. Please order your copy. I guarantee it is the absolute truth about what really happened to John Lennon. Happy Code Cracking!
Evidently, Nixon and Reagan decided to kill John Lennon because of his songs and lifestyle. They hired Stephen King to do it. Not content to pull off the weirdest assassination of all time, they also published codes about the murder all over popular newspapers and magazines. The only person who has noticed the codes is a guy named Steve Lightfoot. The poor guy doesn’t understand why no one else cares.
I worry about all of you people for having to have me tell you why this is important and vital to begin with. When I started I assumed everyone would know that this expose will unleash more power to the people than at any time in our lifetimes. If you are not excited by that fact you, indeed, need my prayers too. Thank you for visiting my website. Only you can expose this story. It will never be told until you people change, first, deep inside. Don’t keep me waiting. I need your help and support. BREAK THIS STORY, PLEASE!
Yes, please break this story. I’m trying to imagine watching Anderson Cooper explain this crazy conspiracy. I’ve read it a couple of times already and I don’t think I can explain it. Why isn’t Jimmy Carter in on this elaborate plan? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by wacko theories about Lennon’s death. There are conspiracy theories about JFK, RFK, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and even John McCain’s time as a POW. There’s no evidence to prove any of these theories, but the lack of evidence only makes people believe more that it happened.
Michael Tomasky has an op-ed in The Guardian lamenting the fate of the health care takeover being pushed by “progressives.” The article is full of generalizations, mischaracterizations, and historical inaccuracies. The piece is truly difficult to read. Tomasky’s aura of faux intellectualism is so strong he doesn’t have time to look at the details. Most liberals have this problem. It’s why Reagan said that “it’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, they just know so much that isn’t so.” However naïve Tomasky is, he does have some self awareness.
What a change from just six to nine months ago. During that period, from the wake of Barack Obama’s victory through the first 100 days, liberal optimism was higher than it’s been in this country for 40 years. One could believe, on a good day, not only that America would pass healthcare reform and climate change bills (that’d be the easy part), but that Israelis and Palestinians and Iranians and Syrians and Indians and Pakistanis and North Koreans and you-name-it just might all wake up one day and text one another: you know, Obama’s win suddenly makes us aware of how silly we’ve been all these years. Let’s grow up and make peace.
There’s no doubt American liberals completely misread the tea leaves regarding the election. The unfortunate truth is liberals are just as naïve about health care. Unable to clearly deliver an argument about how this utopian program will ever work they’d rather complain about the opposition. At the prospect of the losing the debate Tomasky would rather complain about “a historic victory for the birthers and the gun-toters and the Hitler analogists.” Look down at the birthers all you want, and there’s plenty of reason to do so, but what can you say about someone who is well-educated like Tomasky who can’t even adequately explain how health care can work?
Maybe “well-educated” is a generalization. What can we say about an education system that continues to create people who are woefully ignorant about economics and history? Before we endorse changing one of the largest parts of our economy shouldn’t we have some evidence that it might work? Why should we trust people who don’t even have a firm grasp on history? Look at Tomasky’s insight about FDR:
Ditto with Franklin Roosevelt, to whom Obama is often unflatteringly compared. FDR, the comparers say, fought the right tooth and nail, took no prisoners and was unapologetically liberal, even leftwing by today’s standards. Many very important points are left out of this comparison. Roosevelt made lots of mistakes – the bill he’d intended as the landmark legislation of his first year, the national industrial recovery act, was an abysmal failure, eventually struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. Unlike Obama, he didn’t have to worry about Senate filibusters, which weren’t really invoked in those days but which are a constant threat today. And while the right wing he faced was real, it wasn’t nearly as well-financed and orchestrated as today’s version, which even has its own national disinformation “news” network.
According to Tomasky FDR was able to pass the New Deal because no one used filibusters, the opposition wasn’t well financed, and FOX News didn’t exist. Frankly, Tomasky should be embarrassed by that paragraph. He obviously has no idea about the history of the Great Depression. Four years of depression and super majorities in both the House and the Senate are the reason the New Deal passed. Furthermore Obama hasn’t faced a filibuster for any of his key agenda. Again, Tomasky displays his naivete in regard to history. He’s got all the people in the right period but all the facts wrong.
Despite all of his talents, FDR would not have been a match for FOX News.
Liberals like Tomasky are shadowboxers fighting an invisible enemy. The liberal’s true enemies in the health care debate are facts, and one of those is that we have no way to pay for health care reform. We can’t afford Medicare, the Prescription Drug Plan, or Social Security. In the grand scheme of things I don’t really care if liberals think that health care is a right. We can’t afford it, and until someone has a plan that’s worked somewhere else we should move forward with real reform.
What is Ted Kennedy’s story? On the night of July 18, 1969 Senator Ted Kennedy swam away from a car he had driven into Poucha Pond. Kennedy swam away to safety and left Mary Jo Kopechne to die. Kennedy walked past four houses where he could have phoned for help, but he did not do so. He didn’t report the incident to the police for nine hours. This is the defining story of Ted Kennedy.
The only reason this man was allowed to continue as a politician is because his last name was Kennedy. All of Kennedy’s sins were forgiven since he’s a liberal. Not just any liberal; an extremely partisan Democrat who made a career out of smearing the opposition.
Our President is currently taking a vacation not far from Kennedy’s defining moment. The White House released this statement about Kennedy’s death:
For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.
….
An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.
This is the liberal standard of greatness; a partisan devotion to well intentioned bad policies. What is the lasting legacy of Ted Kennedy? He got his seat because of his brother, and kept his job because of his last name. There’s no joy in death, but there’s nothing remarkable to celebrate about Ted Kennedy. His story is sad, his achievements are few, and his legacy is nothing that should be emulated.
All you have to do is believe. Believe that once everyone has access to free health care everything will be in its right place. Who will pay for it? Don’t ask tough questions; faith is enough. Why should we ask? Health care is a right. Sure it’s not mentioned in the Constitution, but when has that ever been a problem? It’s all relative anyway, so who cares?
It doesn’t matter that there’s not one example of state-run health care that’s proven to be sustainable. The reforming may never end, but our faith will see us through. Welcome to the Church of Public Health Care. Our most devout members are “progressives” who turn their nose at those crazy flat earthers that don’t believe in evolution or global warming. Why don’t they believe? It’s science! However, when it comes to the economics of health care we can’t let things like facts and economic analysis bog us down.
It all boils down to feelings. It is better to support universal health care than to donate to charity. It is better to support universal health care than to volunteer one’s time. Once you’ve converted it’s like a clean slate. You can look down at the people who shop at Wal-Mart, drive pickups, and watch NASCAR. Now you can sleep well knowing that at least they have access to free health care if the New Left starts bombing Wal-Marts all over the country.
Just remember, if you decide to start planting bombs, do it while you’re young. Give yourself time to reform. Time heals all wounds. One day you can be labeled a member of the terrorist group the Weather Underground and a few decades later you can be a friend of the President of the United States. What? You don’t believe me? I will cite from scripture. The prophet Bernadine Dohrn once said of the Manson murders:
“Dig It! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!”
That might seem like crazy talk, but Dohrn was just an impassioned member of the New Left. It’s kind of like Jihad, but without a god. The point is that Dohrn isn’t a political liability thanks to the Church of Public Health Care. All sins can be forgiven except common sense and a belief in the free market.
The Economist – The size of your pay packet may be important, but so is its purchasing power. Helpfully, a UBS report published this week offers a handy guide to how long it takes a worker on the average net wage to earn the price of a Big Mac in 73 cities. Fast-food junkies are best off in Chicago, Toronto and Tokyo, where it takes a mere 12 minutes at work to afford a Big Mac. By contrast, employees must toil for over two hours to earn enough for a burger fix in Mexico City, Jakarta and Nairobi.
Cash for Clunkers will be remembered for being one of the stupidest government programs ever. The program was sponsored in a bipartisan fashion. The Senate version of the bill was sponsored by Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). Why was the program so terrible? I’ll let Chris Edwards tell the story.
- A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
- Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.
- Taxpayers were ripped off $3 billion. The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!
- The federal bureaucracy has added 1,100 people to handle all the clunker administration. Again, taxpayers are the losers.
- The environment was not helped. See here and here.
- The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.
The biggest lesson that should be learned here is that this program is far less complex than health care and look at the mess. To believe that the government can do a better job with health care requires a complete separation with reality.
Three years ago I purchased a 30 GB iPod to use at work. I love it. It’s been a great purchase. Unfortunately, one of the problems with iPods is that the battery starts to lose its charge after about two years. Apple offers a battery replacement program, but it’s really just an iPod swap and it costs around $80. Plus, you have to wait for a couple of weeks.
Before my annual trip to Priest Lake I decided to replace the battery myself using iPod Juice. iPod Juice is a Texas-based company that supplies iPod batteries. They have a couple of different options: replace the battery yourself or send it in. Their prices are a lot more reasonable. I purchased a new battery and it came with a kit with detailed instructions on how to replace the battery.
It took me about 15 minutes to complete the switch and the iPod is working like a champ. The best part is it only cost $30 and it’s a better battery than the Apple counterpart. However, I’m not sure everyone will be able to replace the battery themselves. It might be daunting for people who are not used to taking things apart. I’d still recommend using iPod Juice’s battery replacement program. It’s much more cost-effective than going through Apple.
Recent Comments