Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Today Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has decided that Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is "smart" but "lacks intellectual brilliance."
As she becomes better known, she'll soon be "able to put coherent sentences together" but considered "not very smart."
This one from the New York Times struck me as being a pitiable sign of the times:
New Jersey G.O.P. Candidate Picks Woman as His No. 2
A hint: His running mate is not named "Woman."
Unfortunate, if you ask me.
Kimberly M. Guadagno may be perfectly qualified for the job. In fact, as things stand, she's probably perfectly qualified to be president.
But that doesn't matter.
It's most important that the voters of the state of New Jersey know that she's Woman.
Maybe someday, when we get beyond all this silliness ...
The following is instructive (even if the New York Times headline is completely misleading):
Obama’s Strategy to Reverse Manufacturing’s FallAt this point, you might ask what exactly Obama's "manufacturing policy" is. It is centered around windmills and solar panels and bullshit like that.
By Louis Uchitelle
If the Obama administration has a strategy for reviving manufacturing, Douglas Bartlett would like to know what it is.
Buffeted by foreign competition, Mr. Bartlett recently closed his printed circuit board factory, founded 57 years ago by his father, and laid off the remaining 87 workers. Last week, he auctioned off the machinery, and soon he will raze the factory itself in Cary, Ill.
“The property taxes are no longer affordable,” Mr. Bartlett said glumly, “so I am going to tear down the building and sit on the land, and hopefully sell it after the recession when land prices hopefully rise.”
Though manufacturing has long been in decline, the loss of factory jobs has been especially brutal of late, with nearly two million disappearing since the recession began in December 2007. Even a few chief executives, heading companies that have shifted plenty of production abroad, are beginning to express alarm.
The United States ranks behind every industrial nation except France in the percentage of overall economic activity devoted to manufacturing — 13.9 percent, the World Bank reports, down 4 percentage points in a decade. The 19-month-old recession has contributed noticeably to this decline. Industrial production has fallen 17.3 percent, the sharpest drop during a recession since the 1930s.
“Bush and Obama,” Mr. Bartlett said scornfully, “one is as bad as the other in terms of manufacturing policy.”
He acknowledged that the recession was the immediate reason for the demise of his family’s business. But what really did it in, he said in an interview, was the competition from less expensive Chinese circuit boards — less expensive, he argued, because the Chinese undervalue their currency and this administration, like the ones before it, lets them get away with it.
“I can compete against Chinese entrepreneurs, and Chinese labor cost is not that big a factor,” he said, “but I cannot compete against the Chinese government’s manufacturing policies.” [link]
But to the point: "Chinese labor cost is not that big a factor." "I cannot compete against the Chinese government’s manufacturing policies." That's why we have a government that is there to protect us against such foreign aggression.
Well, part of Virginia anyway.
That part closest to the seat of government.
Looking for work?
Uncle Obama Needs You!
Here's a map showing where all the job postings of late are. "The bigger the dot, the more job postings per capita":
Obama is indeed creating jobs. Government jobs. And lots of 'em.
Map courtesy of The Atlantic.
How Obama Lost Me
What, is she seeking our sympathy now?
This is the same person of intellect who wrote not too many months ago:
"How did McCain lose me?"
"Lost" (along with derivatives) is the operative word here.
She was lost.
She's still lost.
Please. Just go away.
Those are projected health care outlays, by the way.
Here's the president, on the record:
"I want to be very clear: I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. And by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long-term." [source]
Well, you can see for yourself "the long-term" above. Federal spending is going to skyrocket.
So. If spending is going to make that steep climb ...
... and the additional spending will be deficit-neutral, as Obama has promised ...
... how's Mr. Magic going to make it all happen?
There is only one possible way.
Go get your wallet. You're about to pay dearly for that which Obama is going to "save" you.
- - -
Another Obama on-the-record pledge:
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Make it work, magic man.
* It may be argued that Obama could make up the difference by raising tariffs. Can he tax Chinese imports enough to cover the deficit? Would he be that stupid? Stay tuned.
** Chart courtesy of Donald Marron and the Congressional Budget Office.
As in STAND FOR SOMETHING.
I've mentioned here before the fact that I - a conservative in good standing - was so put off by the Dole candidacy (why did he run?) that I decided to not vote that particular slot that year. I skipped it all together and moved on to other races.
And you may remember early on last year that I adopted the slogan here on the weblog, "I'd rather open a vein than vote for McCain," because he was the least Republican of all the Republicans who were running for the presidency. But he was the most "electable." Of course, that was just before it was determined that he wasn't.
So, why bring this up now? Sour grapes?
But there's more.
In order to win, you must get your people to want to go to the polls. If there is no driving force behind one's candidacy (on the GOP side anyway), your candidate is going to lose.
We're now finding - surprise, surprise - that election day 2008, just like election day 1992, was a big put-off for conservatives:
2008 voting rate down as older whites stayed homeI wasn't one of those who stayed home, but I could have been had there been something exciting happening that day on "The Young and the Restless." There wasn't, so I voted. And then I moved on.
By Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer
Washington (AP) - For all the attention generated by last year's presidential race, census figures show the share of eligible voters who actually went to the polls in November declined from 2004.
Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, cast ballots last November. Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters, the turnout was a decrease when taking into account population growth. In 2004, the voting rate was 63.8 percent.
According to the data, more older whites opted to stay home compared with 2004, citing little interest in supporting either Barack Obama or John McCain. [link]
I'm trying to look ahead to 2012 and figure out who it is that the GOP might foist upon us as being the most "electable" but least electable candidate available. Schwarzenegger maybe. Colin Powell. Lieberman!
If they go down that road again, they'll most certainly go down that road again.
And the most conservative candidate out there today? The only one (besides Huckabee, perhaps) who could bring passionate conservatism to the race? The only one who puts fire in the belly? The only one who has a following - legions - that are willing to die for her? She doesn't stand a chance.
She's not "electable."
* Three if we count Bush the Elder, who didn't stand for anything except "Read my Lips," was considered "electable," but managed to win.
* * This isn't to say that either Clinton or Obama meant what they said they stood for. They didn't. But it sounded good and the party faithful ate it up.
*** I don't think I need to take the time to make the argument that "older whites" are the most conservative voting bloc out there, do I?
Poll: Less faith in Obama's economic abilitiesIn response to his plummeting approval numbers, Mr. Wonderful has scheduled another press conference in which he'll try to work some of that hopey changey stuff on us again.
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Washington — Qualms about President Obama's stewardship of the economy are growing, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, as Americans become more pessimistic about when they predict the recession will end.
At six months in office, Obama's 55% approval rating puts him 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures.
The findings forecast the rough patch that probably is ahead for Obama if unemployment continues to increase, as the administration predicts. [link]
It doesn't seem to be working though.
Maybe Obama should try something else. Like giving up on the socialism thing.
Fish are shrinking in response to global warming: study
Fish have lost half their average body mass and smaller species are making up a larger proportion of European fish stocks as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found.
"It's huge," said study author Martin Daufresne of the Cemagref Public Agricultural and Environmental Research Institute in Lyon, France.
"Size is a fundamental characteristic that is linked to a number of biological functions, such as fecundity - the capacity to reproduce."
Earlier research has already established that fish have shifted their geographic ranges and their migratory and breeding patters in response to rising water temperatures. It has also been established that warmer regions tend to be inhabited by smaller fish. [link]
How much would the water temperature have to rise in order for a fish's fecundity to be affected? 10 degree? 15? The best guess anyone has offered to date is that the planet's atmospheric temperature has gone up a whopping 0.6° C. A change that would not even be noticeable.
And temperatures haven't risen at all since 1998.
But why let facts get in the way of emotion?
Weeeee'rrrrree allll gooinng ttoooo diiiieeeee!!!!!
You may quote me in future studies.
Back in 1984, when I lived in San Diego, I attended a dinner at my (now former) wife's request. We were seated with the Director of Planned Parenthood for California.* The name of the person who emailed me is being withheld.
I told the woman that I thought that murdering babies was unconstitutional, since it violates the equal protection clause, along with ignoring the rights of fathers. Her response was that Republicans always want it both ways. We do not want to pay for social programs that take care of the millions of unwanted babies born each year, the millions of drug babies born each year and the millions of illegal alien babies that are born and dumped here each year, yet we oppose their (Planned Parenthood's) efforts to kill-off the source of these future burdens on society.
While I was still trying to digest her response, she added the kicker, "Besides, THOSE people multiply like rabbits!" (Note: In California, "Those people" are Latino, but back East, "Those people" are Negro).
Up until that day, I had never considered that there was a racial component to the abortion issue.
In the years since that time, I have managed to see the issue as a, pay now or pay later proposition. One never hears from our conservative, pro-life citizens how they would pay for the millions of people added to our current population. Some insist, as I used to do, that we might be exterminating our next Einstein, along with those crack babies, but statistically that is a long shot.
So this leaves us with the proposition of offering the poor, the drug addicted, the illegals, free abortions, or we must pay for their offspring via the welfare rolls, most likely for the rest of their lives.
This is a gruesome choice and Americans must come up with a a better solution. Those of us who are, or who once were, on the pro-life side of this issue, need to offer a more comprehensive response that includes how society would deal with sixty to one hundred million additional, mostly drug addicted or unproductive, people added to our current three hundred million citizens.
Perhaps blogs such as yours could convey creative alternatives (if you find any) to abortion that will achieve the necessary reduction in welfare recipients, without murdering babies.