For more than nine years, airline passengers have faced increasing inconvenience and indignities at the hands of airport security, and now it has come to this.
Security is one thing, searches like this are quite another.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Uh, How About Thinking For Yourself?
Obama led House Democrats right into the political "Little Big Horn" of November 2010, and they barely held control of the Senate. So now, to whom are Senate Democrats looking for guidance? Yeah, Obama.
Dems Frustrated With White House Over Tax CutsPerhaps the best choice would be to listen to "The People" a habit that seems to have been lost among Democrats of late. Yes, Obama is the "Leader of the Party", but he's not an emperor, and if he is, he has no clothes.
Senate Democrats remain divided on how to move forward on extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts, and some are pointing the finger of blame at the White House, frustrated at what they see is a lack of guidance or ambiguous guidance coming from the president and his top aides.From a post-election news conference to a "60 Minutes" interview to comments from senior White House adviser David Axelrod, Democrats are scratching their heads trying to figure out what the leader of their party really wants them to do.
"The players on the field want a game plan," said one senior Democratic congressional aide who requested anonymity to be candid about caucus sentiment. "There's an increasing frustration from members that there is not a plan...There is just tremendous frustration. I mean, where are they?"
The aide noted that Senate Democrats, meeting behind closed doors Wednesday and most likely Thursday, intend to discuss the tax cuts, but there is one notable absence.
"Where is the White House? There's no one here talking to us today or tomorrow," the aide fumed, noting that former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would have been here. "Geithner says it's quote quite likely that we'll get this done. That sounds nice, I could say that, too, but what do they want done?"
The only option is to follow their "political gut"; at least for those who have not already sacrificed this organ on the altar of Obama.
Let’s Talk About Privatizing Social Security
From its inception, Social Security has been nothing more than a pyramid scheme that does no more than transfer funds from one generation to the next. It does not create wealth or encourage savings or responsibility; it places retired people on nothing more than another mismanaged government program. At least 12.4% of the wages of every American is being funneled into the massive government bureaucracy that sinks deeper by the day.
This program doesn’t give people “security” at all; it puts all of us on welfare.
Imagine if that money were actually yours, and was being invested in a personal IRA, of sorts. Contrary to what those who wish to keep Social Security as a government program say, financial markets have risen steadily over the long-term. Yes, there are peaks and valleys but when these markets are measured in decades; they are a remarkably safe and profitable repository.
I’ve done some rudimentary calculations on a spreadsheet concerning what could be achieved if the money that is currently being shoveled into the system were actually invested as an IRA and benefitted from compounding.
First, Social Security takes 12.4% of your earnings (6.2% from you and 6.2% from your employer). Let’s raise that to 13% (6.5% from you and 6.5% from your employer). This represents a modest 0.3% increase that, I believe, would be well worth it.
Now, let’s start with a 21 year-old individual, beginning his working career at a somewhat low-paying job that pays $25,000 per year, with 6.5% of that going to his/her account and his her/her employer contributing the other 6.5%, for a total of 13% per year.
To make this conservative, suppose this individual stayed at this low-paying job and received an average 1% increase per year (beginning at $25,000 and ending up 45 years later at $38,733). I think that one would agree that this is close to a worst case scenario for most.
Suppose this money were invested in an account that netted an average 6% per year (for the purposes of simple spreadsheet analysis, I added each year’s amount to the cumulative amount and multiplied it by “1.06”). Actually, this is a fairly conservative expectation for long-term investments.
At the end of 45 years of work, this individual has $840,566 on which to retire.
Then suppose that this individual, at 65, proceeds to retire. He/she is restricted to a payment of 80% of their last year’s income (in the case of this individual, they made $38,733, so their first year’s retirement income would be $30,986). That said, each year this individual would receive a 3.5% increase in their annual retirement income to accommodate for inflation. The balance in the account, of course, continues to grow at a rate of 6% per year, after the payment is made.
This individual lives a long life and dies at the ripe old age of 100. That year, he/she has an annual retirement income of $99,803 (it’s been going up 3.5% per year), he/she has been paid a total of $2,065,984 over the course of their 35 years of retirement, and bequeaths $140,833 (the balance of the account) to a designated survivor.
Yes, I made a lot of assumptions and these calculations were done on a spreadsheet. In addition, it does not consider how disability would be handled or any of the other various functions of Social Security. One must also consider how we transition from the current “transfer payment” system we currently have to one that actually creates wealth and financial security.
All of that said, this is designed to begin the conversation, and it’s a conversation that’s desperately needed.
This program doesn’t give people “security” at all; it puts all of us on welfare.
Imagine if that money were actually yours, and was being invested in a personal IRA, of sorts. Contrary to what those who wish to keep Social Security as a government program say, financial markets have risen steadily over the long-term. Yes, there are peaks and valleys but when these markets are measured in decades; they are a remarkably safe and profitable repository.
I’ve done some rudimentary calculations on a spreadsheet concerning what could be achieved if the money that is currently being shoveled into the system were actually invested as an IRA and benefitted from compounding.
First, Social Security takes 12.4% of your earnings (6.2% from you and 6.2% from your employer). Let’s raise that to 13% (6.5% from you and 6.5% from your employer). This represents a modest 0.3% increase that, I believe, would be well worth it.
Now, let’s start with a 21 year-old individual, beginning his working career at a somewhat low-paying job that pays $25,000 per year, with 6.5% of that going to his/her account and his her/her employer contributing the other 6.5%, for a total of 13% per year.
To make this conservative, suppose this individual stayed at this low-paying job and received an average 1% increase per year (beginning at $25,000 and ending up 45 years later at $38,733). I think that one would agree that this is close to a worst case scenario for most.
Suppose this money were invested in an account that netted an average 6% per year (for the purposes of simple spreadsheet analysis, I added each year’s amount to the cumulative amount and multiplied it by “1.06”). Actually, this is a fairly conservative expectation for long-term investments.
At the end of 45 years of work, this individual has $840,566 on which to retire.
Then suppose that this individual, at 65, proceeds to retire. He/she is restricted to a payment of 80% of their last year’s income (in the case of this individual, they made $38,733, so their first year’s retirement income would be $30,986). That said, each year this individual would receive a 3.5% increase in their annual retirement income to accommodate for inflation. The balance in the account, of course, continues to grow at a rate of 6% per year, after the payment is made.
This individual lives a long life and dies at the ripe old age of 100. That year, he/she has an annual retirement income of $99,803 (it’s been going up 3.5% per year), he/she has been paid a total of $2,065,984 over the course of their 35 years of retirement, and bequeaths $140,833 (the balance of the account) to a designated survivor.
Yes, I made a lot of assumptions and these calculations were done on a spreadsheet. In addition, it does not consider how disability would be handled or any of the other various functions of Social Security. One must also consider how we transition from the current “transfer payment” system we currently have to one that actually creates wealth and financial security.
All of that said, this is designed to begin the conversation, and it’s a conversation that’s desperately needed.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What The Hell Happened?
As a Boomer, life was great in the 80s and 90s, now I look back on it as if it were a dream, wondering “how did it all go so badly, so quickly?”. Alas, the 90′s were a mirage. Everyone (including myself) was trading stocks online finding that you could actually make some money with little effort. Business was good, jobs were plentiful and promotions and raises happened like clockwork. It seemed that it would never end, but we didn’t know that we were building on sand; not only as individuals, but businesses as well. All it would eventually take was a tremor to bring it all down.
On 9/11, the tremor came. The ripples that went through the economy revealed the shallow, and speculative nature of our “bubble economy” and those ripples became waves that toppled the castles of sand that we thought was a stable economy. The upshot for me was that a 30 year career was ended by downsizing in 2004 and, at 50, I had to compete with much younger people who had not yet built a “lifestyle” based upon the “arc of continued success”. The arc, unfortunately, was an assumption based upon what proved to be a flawed vision of the American Dream.
Yeah, I made it for a few years, starting over in a new industry and using what I had left of my youthful ambition, combined with a bit of wisdom and experience. Nothing turned out as planned but, in the end, due to having saved some and resisted the urge to overly indebt myself, I’ll likely be OK. Some of us, however, will not. Shattered dreams litter the landscape as testament to misplaced trust in those willingly and maliciously betrayed it.
I curse those politicians, of both parties, and latter-day robber barons who chose expediency and unrealistic growth projections, funded by debt, over long-term solidity. Their American dream has been realized by way of exorbitant salaries paid for trashing the companies that paid them, while many of ours lat asunder. I curse the boards of directors who paid these scallywags, and the politicians that put the good of their own careers ahead of that of the American people and the American economic system. There’s a lot of cursing to go around, and it goes back for more than a half a century.
America's mistake has been in thinking only about the present as though the future “will just take care of itself”. We’ve kicked so many cans down the road, for so long, that those cans are now confronting us as past-due bills owed by generations not yet born.
A perfect example is Social Security. 60-70 years ago we knew that, eventually, the big chunk of humanity called the Baby Boomers would eventually retire. We went to school and there was a building boom of new schools and, thereafter, we impacted American society with every stage of our lives, just by the sheer numbers of us. Would not retirement and the need for adequate Social Security have been a reasonable assumption?
Decades ago, plans should have been made, but no, the big chunk of money that was being reaped from our paychecks was being squandered on other things. It was like taking what you have in your 401K and buying a Corvette at 35, then wondering where your retirement went when you're 65. That thinking, coupled with absolutely ignoring the fact that Boomers were a time bomb, with the full knowledge of when it was going to explode, is political malpractice of the first order.
Systemically, at the political and corporate level, short-term thinking may well be the most significant reason for our current problems. Politically, it’s all about getting elected, and in the private sector, it’s all about having a better year than the last.
The solution? Well, one would like to think that staring into the abyss would teach us a valuable lesson, but I’m not convinced. Once the “crisis” has been averted, people tend to just fall back into their old habits rather than thinking about the systemic failures that created the crisis in the first place. 9/11 is a perfect example of that.
Some real suffering in the present as a result of the political and corporate failures of the past may well do the trick. Experience is a strern, taskmaster of a teacher, but she’s effective. After the Depression, there were a lot of lessons learned, by some, on a personal level. Politically, however, it saddled us with a burgeoning welfare mentality that has grown into the unmanageable beast we have today. Alas, FDR saw it as an opportunity that does not come often and he seized upon it. If we continue down the road that we are currently traveling, that same malevolent “opportunity” may well avail itself again, and I can only hope that it can be used to make real changes and not repeat the same mistakes.
We need only look to places like Allentown, PA, Detroit and Lansing, MI, to see the ruins of a once great industrial power laid to waste by incompetence and greed at the corporate level, and short-sightedness and expediency at the political level.
Internationally, the once great leader is no more than a follower, being lectured by nations who, just 70 years ago, we decimated in war, then rebuilt into prosperous nations. The irony is that their lectures are sound and their message is correct, but it's falling on deaf ears.
WE, and our insatiable thirst for “easy money” has done what no nation has been able to do in our history; it has reduced us to our knees. Many, such as myself, were raised by parents who weathered the Great Depression as well as World War II. They told us there was “no free lunch” They told us that the quest for “easy money” was a fool’s errand. But we didn’t listen, we just didn’t listen.
We’re listening now. Or are we?
On 9/11, the tremor came. The ripples that went through the economy revealed the shallow, and speculative nature of our “bubble economy” and those ripples became waves that toppled the castles of sand that we thought was a stable economy. The upshot for me was that a 30 year career was ended by downsizing in 2004 and, at 50, I had to compete with much younger people who had not yet built a “lifestyle” based upon the “arc of continued success”. The arc, unfortunately, was an assumption based upon what proved to be a flawed vision of the American Dream.
Yeah, I made it for a few years, starting over in a new industry and using what I had left of my youthful ambition, combined with a bit of wisdom and experience. Nothing turned out as planned but, in the end, due to having saved some and resisted the urge to overly indebt myself, I’ll likely be OK. Some of us, however, will not. Shattered dreams litter the landscape as testament to misplaced trust in those willingly and maliciously betrayed it.
I curse those politicians, of both parties, and latter-day robber barons who chose expediency and unrealistic growth projections, funded by debt, over long-term solidity. Their American dream has been realized by way of exorbitant salaries paid for trashing the companies that paid them, while many of ours lat asunder. I curse the boards of directors who paid these scallywags, and the politicians that put the good of their own careers ahead of that of the American people and the American economic system. There’s a lot of cursing to go around, and it goes back for more than a half a century.
America's mistake has been in thinking only about the present as though the future “will just take care of itself”. We’ve kicked so many cans down the road, for so long, that those cans are now confronting us as past-due bills owed by generations not yet born.
A perfect example is Social Security. 60-70 years ago we knew that, eventually, the big chunk of humanity called the Baby Boomers would eventually retire. We went to school and there was a building boom of new schools and, thereafter, we impacted American society with every stage of our lives, just by the sheer numbers of us. Would not retirement and the need for adequate Social Security have been a reasonable assumption?
Decades ago, plans should have been made, but no, the big chunk of money that was being reaped from our paychecks was being squandered on other things. It was like taking what you have in your 401K and buying a Corvette at 35, then wondering where your retirement went when you're 65. That thinking, coupled with absolutely ignoring the fact that Boomers were a time bomb, with the full knowledge of when it was going to explode, is political malpractice of the first order.
Systemically, at the political and corporate level, short-term thinking may well be the most significant reason for our current problems. Politically, it’s all about getting elected, and in the private sector, it’s all about having a better year than the last.
The solution? Well, one would like to think that staring into the abyss would teach us a valuable lesson, but I’m not convinced. Once the “crisis” has been averted, people tend to just fall back into their old habits rather than thinking about the systemic failures that created the crisis in the first place. 9/11 is a perfect example of that.
Some real suffering in the present as a result of the political and corporate failures of the past may well do the trick. Experience is a strern, taskmaster of a teacher, but she’s effective. After the Depression, there were a lot of lessons learned, by some, on a personal level. Politically, however, it saddled us with a burgeoning welfare mentality that has grown into the unmanageable beast we have today. Alas, FDR saw it as an opportunity that does not come often and he seized upon it. If we continue down the road that we are currently traveling, that same malevolent “opportunity” may well avail itself again, and I can only hope that it can be used to make real changes and not repeat the same mistakes.
We need only look to places like Allentown, PA, Detroit and Lansing, MI, to see the ruins of a once great industrial power laid to waste by incompetence and greed at the corporate level, and short-sightedness and expediency at the political level.
Internationally, the once great leader is no more than a follower, being lectured by nations who, just 70 years ago, we decimated in war, then rebuilt into prosperous nations. The irony is that their lectures are sound and their message is correct, but it's falling on deaf ears.
WE, and our insatiable thirst for “easy money” has done what no nation has been able to do in our history; it has reduced us to our knees. Many, such as myself, were raised by parents who weathered the Great Depression as well as World War II. They told us there was “no free lunch” They told us that the quest for “easy money” was a fool’s errand. But we didn’t listen, we just didn’t listen.
We’re listening now. Or are we?
Monday, November 08, 2010
About Peat
I'm from Louisville, KY. As such, I had never given peat much thought; that is until my wife and I had occsion to visit Ireland, where peat is really an important part of life.
This is a true story about my education in, uh, peat.
As I said, m wife and I were in Ireland. We rented a car and toured the island for about 10 days. We’d pass through the countryside where they still have the little country houses with thatched roofs and a short wall around the perimeter. I noticed these black blocks that I simply could not identify, nor could my wife.
Well, we went on some sort of tour of a castle, and I took the occasion to ask the guide about the curious black blocks that seemed to be everywhere.
Incredulously, he said “it’s peat”.
“Peat?” I said. “What’s peat?
“It’s peat!” He exclaimed. “My God, man, don’t ye know what peat is?!"
“No, I’m afraid I don’t” I replied, “could you explain? Where does it come from?”
Becoming more exasperated by the moment, he said “It’s PEAT, it comes from the PEAT BOG where it’s cut out o' the ground!!!”
Then I asked “So, what, exactly do you do with this peat?”
At this point, he seemed to be gasping for air, and replied “YE BURN IT IN THE FIREPLACE! HOW COULD YE POSSIBLY NOT KNOW THAT! WHAT DO YOU BURN IN THE FIREPLACE IN AMERICA?!?!”
I replied “We burn logs, you know, firewood”.
He ended the conversation by saying “WELL, WE BURN PEAT! YE MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WE HAVE VERY FEW TREES HERE IN IRELAND, BECAUSE THE ENGLISH CUT THEM ALL DOWN! WE BURN PEAT IN IRELAND! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?”
“Thank you very much” I replied, “Yes, that clears it up nicely”
This is a true story about my education in, uh, peat.
As I said, m wife and I were in Ireland. We rented a car and toured the island for about 10 days. We’d pass through the countryside where they still have the little country houses with thatched roofs and a short wall around the perimeter. I noticed these black blocks that I simply could not identify, nor could my wife.
Well, we went on some sort of tour of a castle, and I took the occasion to ask the guide about the curious black blocks that seemed to be everywhere.
Incredulously, he said “it’s peat”.
“Peat?” I said. “What’s peat?
“It’s peat!” He exclaimed. “My God, man, don’t ye know what peat is?!"
“No, I’m afraid I don’t” I replied, “could you explain? Where does it come from?”
Becoming more exasperated by the moment, he said “It’s PEAT, it comes from the PEAT BOG where it’s cut out o' the ground!!!”
Then I asked “So, what, exactly do you do with this peat?”
At this point, he seemed to be gasping for air, and replied “YE BURN IT IN THE FIREPLACE! HOW COULD YE POSSIBLY NOT KNOW THAT! WHAT DO YOU BURN IN THE FIREPLACE IN AMERICA?!?!”
I replied “We burn logs, you know, firewood”.
He ended the conversation by saying “WELL, WE BURN PEAT! YE MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WE HAVE VERY FEW TREES HERE IN IRELAND, BECAUSE THE ENGLISH CUT THEM ALL DOWN! WE BURN PEAT IN IRELAND! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?”
“Thank you very much” I replied, “Yes, that clears it up nicely”
Hats Off to Weston, MO!
Sometimes people stand up when the authorities cannot, and this is one of those cases. The exerable Fred Phelps and his hateful drones of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS are nothing less than a dangerous and disgusting side effect of First Ammendment rights.
There are ways around the allowance of these lowlifes from excercising "their rights" and it would appear that Weston, MO has found the perfect way.
May this practice spread!
There are ways around the allowance of these lowlifes from excercising "their rights" and it would appear that Weston, MO has found the perfect way.
May this practice spread!
Residents of Missouri Town Block Protesters From Picketing Soldier's Funeral
Members of a small Missouri town banded together Saturday to block a controversial pastor and members of his Westboro Baptist Church from protesting the funeral of a fallen U.S. soldier, Fox4kc.com reports.
Hundreds of residents in Weston, Mo. -- as well as people as far away as California and Australia -- rallied in support of Sgt. First Class C.J. Sadell, who died from injuries suffered during a surprise attack in Afghanistan.
The residents sought to block Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., and his followers from picketing Sadell’s funeral, according to the station.
Phelps' church has been the subject of intense criticism for holding more than 44,000 pickets at funerals and other events – including the services of fallen service members.
Citing their First Amendment right to protest, Phelps' followers say they use funerals as an “available public platform” to “deliver the message that there is a consequence for sin.” Phelps is openly opposed to homosexuality and all government policies they he says supports homosexuals.
"We got everybody here early so we could take up all the parking spots," Rebecca Rooney of Weston, Mo., told Fox4kc.com. "We did that so Mr. Phelps wouldn't have a contingency that was really close."
"I'm glad they left, but I'm sad they came," she said.
Sadell, who leaves behind a wife and two sons, was stationed in the Arif Kala region of Afghanistan when his unit was ambushed on Oct. 5. Five soldiers were killed in the attack and Sadell was badly injured.
The 34-year-old died from his injuries on Oct. 24.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Huh?
Unemployment in San Francisco is something like 10%, and California is, as a whole, quickly going broke. Not only did California exhume Jerry Brown for another stint as Governor, one of their largest cities has chosen to busy themselves by pinpointing dangerous social ills.
Those damnable Happy Meals simply must go!
San Francisco bans Happy Meals
Enemy of The State San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
I must say that I have no idea of what "food justice" actually is, but then again, I'm neither a San Franciscan nor a Californian. I am, however, pretty sure that "Happy Meals" are not one of those pressing issues of our time.
Normal people don't live on "Happy Meals", or at least they shouldn't. It's a little treat for the kiddies. As for the "childhood obesity" problem, particularly in low "income neighborhoods", if one is feeding their kids "Happy Meals" on a regular basis, they have more disposable income for fast food that most Americans.
There are a lot of foods out there that are "bad for us". How about that frozen, sugar-laden, congealed fat treat known as Ice Cream? Well, I don't see them banning that any time soon, even though kids absolutely love the stuff.
Liberals are wont to call Conservatives "authoritarian", yet it seems like every time a government brings out the "banning stick", it's a Liberal government. The people who just delight in using laws to enforce their vision of how you should live, are liberals.
Californians, and San Franciscans, can do what they like. They're the ones that have chosen to elect a board of supervisors that feels an obligation to protect you, and your children, from "Happy Meals" under penalty of law.
Just understand who really means to control your life, who have so little respect for you that they will make your decisions for you. It's not Conservatives, my friends.
Is This Trip Really Necessary?
I'm all for taking every necessary step in protecting the President of the United States, but isn't there a point where the steps become so ridiculous that one must examine if it's really worth it?
New Delhi: The White House will, of course, stay in Washington but the heart of the famous building will move to India when President Barack Obama lands in Mumbai on Saturday.
Communications set-up, nuclear button, a fleet of limousines and majority of the White House staff will be in India accompanying the President on this three-day visit that will cover Mumbai and Delhi.
He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.Arrangements have been put in place for emergency evacuation, if needed
Obama is expected to fly by a helicopter -- Marine One -- from the city airport to the Indian Navy's helibase INS Shikra at Colaba in south Mumbai.
From there, he will drive down in Lincoln Continental -- the Presidential limousine -- to the nearby the Taj Hotel.
Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obamas convoy.
Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.The President's "entourage" will consist of some 3,000 people, and the trip is expected to cost $200 million per day. I strongly suspect that the 34 warships are not included in this price tag. Do the math.
So, what does the United States hope to gain from this trip? Well, Reuters says "Obama India's visit may be more style than substance":
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A weakened U.S. President Barack Obama visits India this week to counter perceptions he has relegated the Asian power behind rivals China and Pakistan, but he may struggle to seal deals to help usher in billions of dollars of business.So,"ties are booming" and "outsourcing in cities such as IT hub Bangalore is worsening mass unemployment in the United States", and the trip is "aimed at boosting U.S. exports and jobs".
Economic ties are booming but Obama's visit from Saturday to Monday may fail to live up to President Bill Clinton's 2000 trip that helped break the diplomatic ice, or President George W. Bush's visit in 2006 when a civil nuclear deal was hailed as a landmark in ties.
Obama's drubbing in the mid-term elections may also tie his political hands when it comes to bold policy moves on India as growing worries emerge that outsourcing in cities such as IT hub Bangalore is worsening mass unemployment in the United States.
It was a sign of the times that Obama told the Press Trust of India that India should open up its markets to U.S. companies, a stance that may dominate a 10-day trip of Asia aimed at boosting U.S. exports and jobs, crucial for his presidency's fate.
"Obama is going to be too preoccupied domestically, and you won't see a more aggressive foreign policy going forward," said Amitabh Mattoo, professor of international politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
"On his upcoming trip, I think that the best India can hope for is a consolidation of the relationship established under President Bush."
The average Indian exists on less than $2 per day which is exactly why U.S. companies are outsourcing jobs there. So, again, what is the upside to us? I still don't see it. Again from the Reuters piece:
A bilateral trade boom has seen total flows treble to $36.5 billion in goods in the decade to 2009-10, but the United States slipped from number one to three in India's trade partners. India lags China, the United States' third-biggest trading partner.
Washington faces a host of hurdles, including Indian worries that signing defense pacts -- which are necessary for the U.S. arms sales to go through -- may land New Delhi in a wider entanglement with the U.S. military.
The civil nuclear deal with the United States was signed to great fanfare, but it struggled through parliament and now the accord has sparked criticism that U.S. companies in the sector will be discouraged to invest due to high liabilities.
Obama has already played down ending a ban on U.S. exports of dual-use technology, telling the Press Trust of India it was "very difficult and complicated" to meet Indian expectations.
Obama may offer some support for India's place for a permanent seat on the U.N Security Council, but he will likely step short of a full endorsement.
"It will be the opportunity to consolidate all that we have built in the past decade," Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was quoted as saying in the Indian Express. "We are not in a stage in our relationship for dramatic breakthroughs and big-bang."
For its part, India will be wary of perceptions it is putting its eggs into one U.S. basket despite Obama's personal ties with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Any sign of India's sovereignty being undermined can rally political opposition against Singh.
Singh leads a coalition of fickle regional allies and his Congress Party has had its roots in statist and non-alignment policies since independence in 1947, policy vestiges that still remain among some of its most powerful politicians.
After being thoroughly repudiated by the American people, President Obama heads to India, hat in hand, in an effort to restart the American economy with the assistance of an impoverished country which is clearly unwilling to give that assistance. Furthermore, even if they were, American companies are reluctant to invest, due to the unfavorable climate. A climate that is highly unlikely to change.
The sad part is that the India portion of the trip comprises only two days of a 10 day excursion of Asia. The rest of the trip will be spent in basket case hell holes that make India look like Japan.
Maybe, just maybe, President Obama's time (and our money) would be better spent in developing a coherent strategy, with the Republicans, for getting the American economic house in order. In two months, a reshaped Congress will be seated and there's every indication that they intend to hit the ground running; in the interim, the American people expect, and deserve, that those two months be spent planning for that eventuality.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
About Last Night
Some very valuable lessons were learned last night and I have no doubt that they are being taken to heart on a number of fronts.
The Tea Party succeeded by, for the most part, finding the pulse of America. They realized that they can give voice to many people who felt they had none, and have a major influence on elections.
The GOP, whether they want to admit it or not, are well aware of the influence of the Tea Party and are realizing that they are a double-edged sword that must be handled carefully. Politicians are, at their roots, politicians, and this morning they are examining what worked and what didn't. What they are finding is that there is a new "interest group", the People, and their voice is the Tea Party - this is a marvelous tool that can be used to bring them back to their core principles, or discarded, and used against them. I would see the former as being the choice of the pragmatic as it is the shortest distance between two points. Trust politicians to choose the easiest course.
The Democrats are wondering why their "50 year majority" evaporated in only 24 months, and they can look no farther than the White House. Those who are left will try to push Obama to the center in an effort to salvage what's left of their careers, yet they will find it a hard sell; Obama's no triangulator, he's a hard left ideologue. Even if he moved to the center, it would be seen as acquiescence to the Republicans, and the Republicans win the philosophical battle and, in the process, Obama loses his base - the far left. If he doesn't, he tends to lose the majority of the American people.
While all of this is being played out, the Republicans will be grooming their bench, which has become quite deep, for the battles that loom ahead. The Democrats, in contrast, are beginning to look a bit frayed and long in the tooth. The talk of Hillary as some sort of savior of the party underscores the desperation that they must be feeling right now.
My oh my, how fortunes can change in only two years. We must, however, be ever mindful that they can change back in an equally short period of time.
The Tea Party succeeded by, for the most part, finding the pulse of America. They realized that they can give voice to many people who felt they had none, and have a major influence on elections.
The GOP, whether they want to admit it or not, are well aware of the influence of the Tea Party and are realizing that they are a double-edged sword that must be handled carefully. Politicians are, at their roots, politicians, and this morning they are examining what worked and what didn't. What they are finding is that there is a new "interest group", the People, and their voice is the Tea Party - this is a marvelous tool that can be used to bring them back to their core principles, or discarded, and used against them. I would see the former as being the choice of the pragmatic as it is the shortest distance between two points. Trust politicians to choose the easiest course.
The Democrats are wondering why their "50 year majority" evaporated in only 24 months, and they can look no farther than the White House. Those who are left will try to push Obama to the center in an effort to salvage what's left of their careers, yet they will find it a hard sell; Obama's no triangulator, he's a hard left ideologue. Even if he moved to the center, it would be seen as acquiescence to the Republicans, and the Republicans win the philosophical battle and, in the process, Obama loses his base - the far left. If he doesn't, he tends to lose the majority of the American people.
While all of this is being played out, the Republicans will be grooming their bench, which has become quite deep, for the battles that loom ahead. The Democrats, in contrast, are beginning to look a bit frayed and long in the tooth. The talk of Hillary as some sort of savior of the party underscores the desperation that they must be feeling right now.
My oh my, how fortunes can change in only two years. We must, however, be ever mindful that they can change back in an equally short period of time.
Monday, November 01, 2010
So, Where Do We Go From Here?
Assuming that tomorrow will bring the tsunami that is being predicted, it's not too soon to talk about what we will do with our new majority.
I think that Republicans need to focus on what we will do, rather than what we won’t do. It completely neutraizes the “party of NO” meme and people tend to react far better to positive messages than negative ones.
We also need to be of good cheer while highlighting the defficiances of the left, what comes to mind is Reagan’s “there he goes again!” retort, that came across as good spirited and friendly debate while reminding people that the Dems are offering nothing but warmed-over “same old crap”.
Reagan is a perfect model that we need to emulate. We needn’t mobilize against Obama personally, but ideologically; relentlessly reviewing the past two years with indesputable facts and figures, while always offering doable alternatives.
Put them, and particularly Obama on the defensive, again, with good humor, armed with the truth, and allow Obama’s legendary petulance to show through for all to see.
People are tired of the dirt, the lies, and the broken promises. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel, they long to be inspired…hell, I long to be inspired.
The reason that Reagan is still popular to this day is that, regardless of his treatment by the media, he inspired people and even his political foes found it very difficult to dislike him. In the end, politics has a huge personal element. Reagan found a way to circumvent the media and and appeal to each American with charm, as well as logic.
Reagan is gone, but he has left us a roadmap of how it is done.
I think that Republicans need to focus on what we will do, rather than what we won’t do. It completely neutraizes the “party of NO” meme and people tend to react far better to positive messages than negative ones.
We also need to be of good cheer while highlighting the defficiances of the left, what comes to mind is Reagan’s “there he goes again!” retort, that came across as good spirited and friendly debate while reminding people that the Dems are offering nothing but warmed-over “same old crap”.
Reagan is a perfect model that we need to emulate. We needn’t mobilize against Obama personally, but ideologically; relentlessly reviewing the past two years with indesputable facts and figures, while always offering doable alternatives.
Put them, and particularly Obama on the defensive, again, with good humor, armed with the truth, and allow Obama’s legendary petulance to show through for all to see.
People are tired of the dirt, the lies, and the broken promises. They are looking for a light at the end of the tunnel, they long to be inspired…hell, I long to be inspired.
The reason that Reagan is still popular to this day is that, regardless of his treatment by the media, he inspired people and even his political foes found it very difficult to dislike him. In the end, politics has a huge personal element. Reagan found a way to circumvent the media and and appeal to each American with charm, as well as logic.
Reagan is gone, but he has left us a roadmap of how it is done.
"I Have a Dream" As Well
No major change is made without a certain amount of pain and suffering, and God knows we have all had our share, not only at the hands of Obama, but at the hands of those who would maintain blacks as the perennial underclass. Blacks have been at the forefront of the pain and suffering and I would think, at some point, they would be tired of it.
The growing black middle and upper class must feel particularly embarrassed to be portrayed as a race always in need of assistance, unable to think for themselves, and the focus of the race industry headed up by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.
Over the years, we have seen blacks rise to the top in the corporate world, we have seen black congressmen, senators, SecStates and now a black president, yet blacks are still condescended to. Black children who choose better, and attempt to walk in the footsteps of these numerous role models, and attempt to raise themselves up are accused of “acting white”, and black on black crime continues unabated. None of this is the fault of whites trying to “keep them down”, it’s the fault of the liberal race industry who are in dire need of an eternal underclass as a constituency.
At some point, blacks will come to the conclusion that they have been duped for generations, at some point they will determine that “the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Perhaps the election of Obama, while painful and destructive for us all, may bring about that seminal moment. Two years ago he was revered as a god, and two years hence, people are in worse shape than they were before. Their beloved Democrats, led by a black man, have had free rein for two years and the “Hope” and “Change” has become despair and more of the same. Their lives have not been magically transformed, and their savior has been revealed as a charlatan.
Maybe, just maybe, blacks will come to see that salvation does not come from “benevolent” Democrats but rather, it comes from in one’s self. Perhaps blacks will finally cast off the chains of “black leaders” and come to realize that King was correct when he asserted that what matters is ‘not the color of one’s skin, but the content of one’s character’.
The growing black middle and upper class must feel particularly embarrassed to be portrayed as a race always in need of assistance, unable to think for themselves, and the focus of the race industry headed up by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.
Over the years, we have seen blacks rise to the top in the corporate world, we have seen black congressmen, senators, SecStates and now a black president, yet blacks are still condescended to. Black children who choose better, and attempt to walk in the footsteps of these numerous role models, and attempt to raise themselves up are accused of “acting white”, and black on black crime continues unabated. None of this is the fault of whites trying to “keep them down”, it’s the fault of the liberal race industry who are in dire need of an eternal underclass as a constituency.
At some point, blacks will come to the conclusion that they have been duped for generations, at some point they will determine that “the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Perhaps the election of Obama, while painful and destructive for us all, may bring about that seminal moment. Two years ago he was revered as a god, and two years hence, people are in worse shape than they were before. Their beloved Democrats, led by a black man, have had free rein for two years and the “Hope” and “Change” has become despair and more of the same. Their lives have not been magically transformed, and their savior has been revealed as a charlatan.
Maybe, just maybe, blacks will come to see that salvation does not come from “benevolent” Democrats but rather, it comes from in one’s self. Perhaps blacks will finally cast off the chains of “black leaders” and come to realize that King was correct when he asserted that what matters is ‘not the color of one’s skin, but the content of one’s character’.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Happy Halloween!
From Higgins ("The Scottie Dog of War"), the infidel's wife, and myself, please have a happy and safe Halloween, All Hallows Eve, Samhain, or All Saints Eve.
Alas, summer has reached its end, but may the chill of fall and winter cripple the current regime and place our country on the road back to the prosperity that is our legacy, as Americans.
 |
| Higgins; the Weeks family's formidable "Scottie Dog of War" |
48 Hours
In 48 hours, our nation will decide whether to continue on the road of radical, hard left progressivism or, at the very least, to stem the tide and give voice to those who feel that there is a better way.
President Obama will have you believe that Republicans are ultimately responsible for our current economic troubles, but unemployment has risen and the annual deficit as increased more than three-fold in the nearly two years of the Obama administration. President Obama will have you believe that congressional Republicans are guilty of "obstructionism" and that is the reason for our troubles. The fact is that Democrats have controlled both houses of congress for four years, and the presidency for the last two. President Obama has had the luxury of getting virtually everything he has wanted in that Congress has rubber-stamped his every whim. The fact that he has done all of this without Republican support has been of no hindrance whatsoever.
The "obstructionism" of which the president speaks was no more than a attempt by the minority party to slow the juggernaut but, alas, it was not slowed; it has continues apace.
As Democrats, and President Obama, have had free rein over the government, America's situation and prospects have become increasingly worse. The president announced the "recovery summer" of 2010 yet now, on October 31, we are no better off than we were in the spring, and in many ways we are in far worse shape. They ignored the will of the people in jamming through a massive healthcare overhaul without a single Republican vote. These same Democrats who passed this bill are now running away from it as they realize that it will not only dramatically increase our costs, but it will dramatically decrease the quality of our care.
The reign of Democrat control must end, and it must end now. We have the opportunity to slow, and eventually reverse, the destructive effects we have reaped as a result of leftist, one-party rule. We can ensure that the next two years will be better than the last.
Our situation is dire, but not irreparable. We must, however, begin now. We may not get another chance.
President Obama will have you believe that Republicans are ultimately responsible for our current economic troubles, but unemployment has risen and the annual deficit as increased more than three-fold in the nearly two years of the Obama administration. President Obama will have you believe that congressional Republicans are guilty of "obstructionism" and that is the reason for our troubles. The fact is that Democrats have controlled both houses of congress for four years, and the presidency for the last two. President Obama has had the luxury of getting virtually everything he has wanted in that Congress has rubber-stamped his every whim. The fact that he has done all of this without Republican support has been of no hindrance whatsoever.
The "obstructionism" of which the president speaks was no more than a attempt by the minority party to slow the juggernaut but, alas, it was not slowed; it has continues apace.
As Democrats, and President Obama, have had free rein over the government, America's situation and prospects have become increasingly worse. The president announced the "recovery summer" of 2010 yet now, on October 31, we are no better off than we were in the spring, and in many ways we are in far worse shape. They ignored the will of the people in jamming through a massive healthcare overhaul without a single Republican vote. These same Democrats who passed this bill are now running away from it as they realize that it will not only dramatically increase our costs, but it will dramatically decrease the quality of our care.
The reign of Democrat control must end, and it must end now. We have the opportunity to slow, and eventually reverse, the destructive effects we have reaped as a result of leftist, one-party rule. We can ensure that the next two years will be better than the last.
Our situation is dire, but not irreparable. We must, however, begin now. We may not get another chance.
Friday, October 22, 2010
You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up
Harry Reid takes credit for saving the world from an economic depression. Yes, that's right, not just the country, but the entire world.
I had no idea he was such a reservoir of power and intellect. Perhaps world peace will ensue as hosannas of thanksgiving are emitted from every corner of the globe.
Henceforth he shall be known as Harry The Deliverer.
Like I said, you just can't make this stuff up.
I had no idea he was such a reservoir of power and intellect. Perhaps world peace will ensue as hosannas of thanksgiving are emitted from every corner of the globe.
Henceforth he shall be known as Harry The Deliverer.
Like I said, you just can't make this stuff up.
Union Facism Running Amok
Well, this seems quite the red letter day for unions.
In this instance, a union employee was fired for wearing a Bush sweatshirt and hat. No, this had nothing to do with politics (at least on the part of the fired worker) since it was a sweatshirt and hat from the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier on which his son is currently serving. This fact was pointed out to the union that fired him, yet he was fired anyway!
Ironically (or perhaps not) the man who was fired was setting up for President Obama's visit to Los Angeles.
I wonder if there is a union you can join to protect yourself from Unions.
The story:
The video:
In this instance, a union employee was fired for wearing a Bush sweatshirt and hat. No, this had nothing to do with politics (at least on the part of the fired worker) since it was a sweatshirt and hat from the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier on which his son is currently serving. This fact was pointed out to the union that fired him, yet he was fired anyway!
Ironically (or perhaps not) the man who was fired was setting up for President Obama's visit to Los Angeles.
I wonder if there is a union you can join to protect yourself from Unions.
The story:
Obama’s visit to Los Angeles today has stirred controversy even before he arrived.
A stage worker setting up the stage was fired for refusing to remove his hat and turn his sweatshirt inside out and the reason? The shirt hat and shirt both had the name “Bush” printed on them but not just any Bush but, that of George H.W. Bush.
The IATSE (Local 33) union fired the worker even after he explained the shirt to his bosses. The shirt didn’t explicitly support George H.W Bush but that of the aircraft carrier named after the former President and the aircraft carrier his son has served on for the past many years and is currently deployed. The union worker was interviewed on KTLA Channel 5 locally in Los Angeles.
The stage hand was identified as Duane Hammond and a distraught Hammet can be seen during his interview very distraught as his support for his son and his service becoming the center piece to his firing.
The video:
Unions and Government: It's NOT YOUR MONEY!
Wow. If there has ever been a case of a bizarre financial infestation of parasites draining the very life from the American body politic, this must be it.
So, we have a public employees union, spending their members' money, made from public taxation, in order to elect more Democrats, so they (Democrats) can spend more of the American people's money (presumably) on behalf of public sector employees.
First, most state and local governments are even in worse financial shape than the federal government, if that's possible. They're literally broke, with some facing default. How are these state and local governments dealing with these shortfalls? Among other measures, they're attempting to curb spending on their largest expenditure; employees (that would be AFSCME members).
Secondly, most of the legislators (those who control the spending) of those state and local governments are Democrats, who the AFSCME is spending $87.5 million to assist on local, state and federal levels. AFSCME seems to be succeeding in not only screwing its own members, but more importantly, the American people.
I would submit that the very existence of AFSCME gives government employees unhealthy influence over their employers - The People.
The idea of public sector employee unions is distasteful to me. After all, these people are public servants, are they not? Governments are not (or should not be) autonomous entities; they are duly elected representatives of The People. All of the money to operate government ultimately comes from The People. The idea of these public sector unions using employee dues to affect the political constitutions of the governments (The People) for which they work seems a form of dangerous political incest, since the money originates not from free enterprise, but from taxation of The People, at large.
If one worked for a private corporation, one would not have a say in how that corporation's money is spent unless one was on the board of directors or was a direct owner of the enterprise. Why should public sector employees be any different? It could certainly be argued that, in a private corporation, employees can belong to unions and those unions can utilize union money (alas) for political purposes. The difference is that in the corporate example, the money is ultimately the result of private enterprise, not public taxation.
The political inbreeding that unions and Democrats have fostered in this country is odious, and particularly so in the case of AFSCME. Union meddling in the affairs of private enterprise is one thing, public employee unions meddling in the affairs of The People is quite another.
If you think I'm off base, just ask France how that public employee union is working out for them.
Public Employees Union Spends Huge to Save Dems"Big Dog", indeed. Hubris comes easy to those spending other people's money.
Government Union Thug Wants Your Money
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
So, we have a public employees union, spending their members' money, made from public taxation, in order to elect more Democrats, so they (Democrats) can spend more of the American people's money (presumably) on behalf of public sector employees.
First, most state and local governments are even in worse financial shape than the federal government, if that's possible. They're literally broke, with some facing default. How are these state and local governments dealing with these shortfalls? Among other measures, they're attempting to curb spending on their largest expenditure; employees (that would be AFSCME members).
Secondly, most of the legislators (those who control the spending) of those state and local governments are Democrats, who the AFSCME is spending $87.5 million to assist on local, state and federal levels. AFSCME seems to be succeeding in not only screwing its own members, but more importantly, the American people.
I would submit that the very existence of AFSCME gives government employees unhealthy influence over their employers - The People.
The idea of public sector employee unions is distasteful to me. After all, these people are public servants, are they not? Governments are not (or should not be) autonomous entities; they are duly elected representatives of The People. All of the money to operate government ultimately comes from The People. The idea of these public sector unions using employee dues to affect the political constitutions of the governments (The People) for which they work seems a form of dangerous political incest, since the money originates not from free enterprise, but from taxation of The People, at large.
If one worked for a private corporation, one would not have a say in how that corporation's money is spent unless one was on the board of directors or was a direct owner of the enterprise. Why should public sector employees be any different? It could certainly be argued that, in a private corporation, employees can belong to unions and those unions can utilize union money (alas) for political purposes. The difference is that in the corporate example, the money is ultimately the result of private enterprise, not public taxation.
The political inbreeding that unions and Democrats have fostered in this country is odious, and particularly so in the case of AFSCME. Union meddling in the affairs of private enterprise is one thing, public employee unions meddling in the affairs of The People is quite another.
If you think I'm off base, just ask France how that public employee union is working out for them.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Bush Gets the Blame, Obama Takes the Credit
Not surprisingly, it looks like the administration is using some of the Bush numbers to pad it's own. I seriously doubt this is unintentional; their pathetic record is not improving and it's becoming increasingly obvious to all, even MSNBC, the source of this story.
It does make one wonder what other numbers these incompetents are fudging, no?
It does make one wonder what other numbers these incompetents are fudging, no?
Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed. ( See a list of the projects here.)
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs. He acknowledges that these figures were provided by a wind industry trade and lobbying group. The trade group, in turn, cites a government study, which found that most of the jobs are short term.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University fact-checked that claim, using the federal government's own documents. Not only were 19 of the wind farms already in place before the first stimulus payments were made, but 14 of them were already sending electricity to the grid.
NPR: Unworthy of Taxpayer Support
Well, in all honesty, they have been unworthy of taxpayer support for quite some time. No more than a government-funded mouthpiece of the Left, they have rarely tolerated conservative thought, and thus have been a sanctuary for those who simply do not want to be bothered by opposing views.
Now, in an attempt to cast their intolerance in stone, NPR has chosen to fire long-time Senior News Analyst, Juan Williams. His crime? According to the New York Times:
Juan Williams The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.
He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.
Juan Williams is a liberal, but in my mind, he's a commodity that's scarce among liberals these days; a reasonable individual. For that reason, I enjoy hearing his take on Fox News, though I don't always agree. His reasonableness is on display in the views he expressed on O'Reilly and I thoroughly concur. Not surprisingly, NPR saw it differently:
NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
First, given the long history of worldwide Islamic terrorism, it is difficult, if not impossible to argue with what Juan Williams said. The fact that his remarks were "inconsistent with" NPR's "editorial standards and practices" says more about NPR than Juan Williams.
Secondly, what part of "News Analyst" does NPR not understand? Their claim that he "undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR" clearly illustrates the leftist nature that NPR wants to preserve. He's an editorialist giving his opinion! Again, it appears that any opinion other than that of NPR's management will simply not be tolerated, even though NPR's middle name is "Public":
Mr. Williams’s contributions on Fox raised eyebrows at NPR in the past. In February 2009, NPR said it had asked that he stop being identified on “The O’Reilly Factor” as a “senior correspondent for NPR,” even though that title was accurate.
Alicia C. Shepard, the NPR ombudswoman, said at the time that Mr. Williams was a “lightning rod” for the public radio organization in part because he “tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.”Ms. Shepard said she had received 378 listener e-mails in 2008 listing complaints and frustrations about Mr. Williams.
378 complaints over an entire year is only one per day! Let's face it, this is not exactly a groundswell of discontent on a national radio network in a country of more than 300,000,000 people. Rush Limbaugh likely gets more death threats than that from disgruntled liberals than that in a given day, and he is not partially funded by taxpayer dollars.
It's the same old story; those who bemoan the lack of tolerance are the least tolerant of opposing views. In Juan Williams, liberals have a voice of reason; one that can be respected by liberals and conservatives alike. In the final analysis, Fox News can handle principled, diverse viewpoints, yet NPR can not
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)