People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

On Obama's Speech

Well, this will piss off every Democrat in America.  The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin declares:

"George W. Bush certainly must be smiling ..."

Smiles all around, truth be told.

Along with more than a small amount of confusion.

Smiles all around except in anti-war land, that is.  There is no joy there.  Peace Warrior Obama has turned out to be War God Obama. 

My. oh, my.

I'm Not Alone

Over at Powerline there's an interesting discussion about the mannerisms Barack Obama exhibited in the (illogical) speech he offered up last night. Steven Hayward is annoyed by The Messiah's hand gestures and distracting desk-thumping.

He has a point.

I was admonished many years ago to make sure, when I'm writing a business letter or memo to employees, to see to it that there are no grammatical, spelling, or syntax errors contained therein that might distract from the message.  Distractions making the effort counterproductive and, therefore, a waste of time.  Excessive use, or inappropriate application of hand gestures when delivering a speech also falls into that category.

It was in the follow-on comments to the weblog post that I found something that was even more interesting.  It has to do with something I've mentioned before.  Something that should be - admittedly - unimportant.  But it's distracting just the same.  And, to me, just as annoying.

Obama whistles his "s's."

The comment:

"I find Obama's whistling 's' sounds to be very distracting. Every time he pronounces a syllable ending in an 's,' he includes a high pitched whistle. Anybody else find his whistling diction annoying?"

I sit in front of the TV and wonder: How does he even do that?  While the president of the United States is telling me why he is sending brave American men and women into harm's way, I'm trying to whistle my words like he does.

I don't think that's why Obama wanted me listening to his speech.

But there it is.  Criticize me for being petty if you want.  Or, better yet, get the dude to quit whistling his "s's."

- - -

I remember being equally distracted by then-presidential contender John Kerry's penchant for swaying back and forth, left to right, as he was delivering speeches.  What was that all about?  I remember nothing about the words he spoke, but I remember vividly his rocking to and fro.  If only Aerosmith had been playing in the background.

Speaks volumes.

Beam Me Up, Scotty

From the Future Leaders of America file:
Deputies: 17-year-old girl assaults mother with gun to get new vehicle
The News-Press

A 17-year-old girl was charged Friday with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm and battery after deputies say she pulled a gun on her mother during an argument.

Rachel Anne Hachero was upset because her mother wouldn't co-sign on a vehicle purchase, according to a Lee County Sheriff's Office report.

The teen's mother told investigators Hachero threatened to kill her when she refused to co-sign for the vehicle.

Hachero then confronted her mother at home with a gun and pistol-whipped her head, according to the report.

After pistol-whipping her mother, Hachero pointed the gun at her mother's head and stomach and told her she was going with her to sign for the car, according to the report.

The mother told investigators she went through Hachero's purse Friday while Hachero was at school and located the gun, drugs and drug paraphernalia.

The mother told investigators she did not want to press charges against Hachero, because she had recently been accepted to several Ivy League colleges. [link] [emphasis mine]
Idiocy. Drugs. Guns. Assault. Pending criminal record. A résumé any Harvard recruiter could love.

Expect this gal to be making decisions for us when we get old and feeble.

And may God be there to watch over us as she does so.

The Evil Koch Brothers

As a followup to yesterday's post about liberal paranoia and the Koch brothers, give this from Greenpeace a read and you'll understand what I was getting at:

It's revealing that the Greenpeace "report" that the article cites begins with a quote from an employee of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company.


The exhaustive study exposes all those scientists who have discovered global warming theory to be ... flawed as being shills of Big Capitalism  - the Kochs! - because they receive funds from companies and associations that are companies and associations, and are, therefore, to be rejected. 

That makes one wonder, of course, where that leaves Greenpeace, since it isn't self-funded either.  I'm sure the folks there would argue that they are not at all influenced by the mountains of cash that are dumped on them  by the "save-the-planet" crowd.  Unlike skeptics who are more than susceptible to such enticements.

Look up the definition of the word paranoia.  Somewhere in it you'll surely find another word: Greenpeace.

The Obama Doctrine

Try not to read too much into what I tell you is U.S. government foreign policy.

The president of the United States last night, trying to explain why he sent American planes to attack Libya:

“I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests ..."

Which part of that "our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests" does a foreign country's internal civil war fall into? It is a mystery to all. It can't be one of the first three. So, if Obama is telling us that we have a "core interest" in stopping repression of citizens by foreign governments, let's start a list of countries he will then surely need to invade. Starting with Sudan. And North Korea. And Cuba. And Syria. And Bahrain. And Iran. And Saudi Arabia. And Russia. And China.

Besides that, he really isn't attempting to stop repression. By not putting "boots on the ground," he'll at best make it more difficult for Khadafi to kill those who oppose him. From 10,000 feet.

But the killing will continue just the same.

Had Obama made the case that the USA had a vital interest in keeping Libya's oil flowing freely, there'd be some weight to his argument. And I would be enthusiastically supporting his enterprise.

But no. We, apparently, have a core interest in stopping bloodshed.

Good luck with that doctrine, Mahatma.