Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Yeah, it's darn near a cacophony. At least 20 to 30 people along that corridor will be using it regularly.
Understand this: It will cost a quarter of a billion dollars (and estimates are always embarrassingly low) to get this project off the ground (or on the rails, as the case may be) and will cost the taxpayers of Virginia and the USA untold millions each decade to keep it operating. This to support the misplaced notion that we "need" mass transit wherever we can stick it. Or, in the case of some misguided Times readers, because Roanoke has a lot of elderly people with free time on their hands. Great.
Then there's the Times editorialists' whining one day that the commonwealth has a colossal transportation budget problem that requires immediate attention and calling the next for massive new transportation spending. Hello?
Perhaps we could learn from the lesson being provided by AMTRAK, America's premier passenger rail service. The federal government can't print money fast enough to keep it afloat. If this were such a neat idea, wouldn't it pay for itself?
Passenger service in Roanoke? Only if it's located here, where it belongs.
If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, and some of the world's most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war would possibly be playing out. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
So by all means, let the journalists of the New York Times paint his visit as an accomplishment of some sort.
Just keep in mind that if we had followed the starter Senator's judgment at any point during his political career, Iraq could have been too dangerous a place for his flight to even consider touching down.
I fear for my country, should this woefully unprepared naif get elected.
Swell. It's sure made my tax bill each April go down. Yours?
- - -
At least we feel better about it. We all hate the rich, right?
Hat tip to Scott Johnson.
That leaves us with the National Enquirer. And who trusts those guys?
But today there's this from Roger L. Simon:
John Edwards in a Feydeau Farce at the Beverly Hilton
I want to start by bragging to you about how discreet Pajamas Media is. Over six months ago, we had wind of the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love affair and love child and did not run with it. Most of this information was hearsay from people here in Hollywood, people who know Rielle. She was a long time hanger on in Hollywood circles before heading East to do political promo videos… and, yes, I had met her myself on a couple of occasions at parties. She was not particularly notable, of the tedious sort that bore you to death about their yoga instructor.
But now that the cat is out the bag, I will say what I wanted to say then. John Edwards–he of constructing a 28,000 square foot home while preaching about the two Americas and remonstrating about the environment–is one of the most reprehensible schmucks to appear on the American political scene in some time. And that’s saying something. That he played this game while his wife had cancer makes it contemptible beyond words. Now we know why he was always primping in the mirror. It is narcissism
While the Enquirer has a reputation for being ... well, what it is, Roger L. Simon is a respected (academy award nominated) member of the new media. He founded and edits the popular and successful Pajamas Media. His word is not to be taken lightly.
So will the mainstream press take up the story?
Sure it will. As soon as the members thereof come up for air after having buried their heads up Barack Obama's ass perhaps.
They are right there when a politician or a Hollywood type slips up and does something bad. When a wrong needs to be righted, you can count on America's editorial pages to light up with righteous fury.
But where are they when one of their own strays?
One loan voice, it appears so far, has come out against the New York Times's decision to not run presidential candidate John McCain's op/ed piece after having placed one just days before from his opponent - Barack Obama.
Here's to Investor's Business Daily:
Open to question? Hardly, any more.
Signs Of The Times
If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.
Times op-ed editor David Shipley, who served in the Clinton administration from 1995 to 1997, insists it was just a request for a rewrite, as is frequently done with other writers. But McCain isn't a freelance writer or NYT staffer. He's a candidate for president of the United States and ought to be able to express his views — unedited and unfiltered.
Shipley wanted McCain to define what he meant by victory and submit a timetable for achieving both victory and total withdrawal. He wanted McCain to write his editorial on Obama's terms.
We suspect the Times was trying to protect Obama, at least during his trip, from reminders that he opposed the surge and the war and was wrong on both counts.
The Times spiked McCain's op-ed, which will now receive wider circulation, because it reminds voters of Obama's dangerous and naive foreign policy that only starts with being wrong on Iraq and the surge.
The judgment of both Obama and his sycophants at the Times is open to question. (link)
But thanks to the boys at IBD, for being true to their word.