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

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Out of both Sides of their Mouths

I'm beginning to accept the premise that they really don't get it.

The Roanoke Times editorial team this morning:
For decades, federal spending has buoyed Virginia and its credit rating. Investors knew that cash flowed freely across the Potomac River and that many federal workers chose to live in the commonwealth.

Virginia receives more federal spending per capita than any other state except Alaska. It is one of the lucky states that is a net recipient of federal spending. Other states subsidize us and boost our economy.

Given that relationship, it behooves Virginia to promote a reasoned compromise in Washington.

In the meantime, Virginia must continue to invest in economic development that fosters a diverse economy throughout the commonwealth. The greater the dominance of Northern Virginia, the more susceptible we are to being caught up in the financial woes of Washington.
Got that?

We need to find a compromise so that government can do "more of the same" (i.e., shower money on us). And it's that "more of the same" that is going to ruin us.

For the love of God.

You Be The Judge

Is Senator Mark Warner right when he says:

"I think it’s just plain wacky, some of these folks who [are] saying, ‘No way, no how, bring on the default. It’s crazy."

Before visions of Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor pop into your brain, you might want to consider this:

Mark Warner - your beloved and really bipartisan Mark Warner - had the chance to stave off default but instead voted with his Democrat Senate majority against a plan that would have prevented default.   On Thursday.


His definition, not mine.

Mr. Warner is scheduled to be on "Face the Nation" this morning.  Expect him to repeat his definition of crazy.  Expect the bobbleheads in attendance to agree with him.

Without ever realizing just how hypocritical such idiocy is ...

Uh Oh

I didn't have anything to contribute on the weblog regarding the scandal that has rocked Britain over the revelation that journalists there had been hacking into citizens' phone voice mail accounts and bribing police officers, because I knew it was a British story.  And, therefore, I didn't care.  This despite the fact that leftists in this country so wanted it to bring down the central character in the story - Rupert Murdoch - and with his demise, the elimination of their dreaded enemy - Fox News.  (To those reading this on other planets, don't try to make sense of it - News of the World ... Rupert Murdoch ... Fox? There is none to be made.)

But now the story becomes an American story.  But not in the way our always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history lefties wanted it to be:
CNN Host Is Dragged Into Phone Scandal
By Don Van Natta, Jr. and Ravi Somaiya, New York Times

London — It was perhaps inevitable that the phone hacking accusations in Britain would cross the Atlantic and reach Piers Morgan, the flamboyant former Fleet Street editor who is now the host of “Piers Morgan Tonight” on CNN.

James Hipwell, a former journalist at The Daily Mirror, a tabloid edited by Mr. Morgan until 2004, now says that phone hacking was “endemic” at the paper. “Piers was extremely hands-on as an editor,” Mr. Hipwell, 45, told the British newspaper The Independent in an interview published Saturday. “I can’t say 100 percent that he knew about it. But it was inconceivable he didn’t.” [link]
Uh oh.  That wasn't supposed to happen.

And Morgan isn't alone.  It turns out that authorities are looking at potentially illegal activity on the part of a host of British news outlets and attached journalists.  None of which are associated with the hated Murdoch.

So watch this story die.  Quickly.

It's one thing to be outraged by outrageous behavior.  It's another thing to be outraged when it's your kind who are doing the outrageous.  Suddenly, it ain't quite as outrageous any more.

Sorry, fellas.  You'll have to stifle free speech and block the dissemination of views opposed to yours in some other way.

Campaign finance laws and the leftist movement that claims "Balance is Unnecessary for Good Journalism" are still your best bets.

On The Norway Massacre

This is interesting.  Some leftist who writes for the far-left weblog FireDogLake sees in that mass murderer in Norway - the one who, it seems, is virulently opposed to Muslim assimilation into Norwegian society - a similarity to ...

... Sarah Palin?

EdwardTeller (obviously someone who is too cowardly to write under his real name) makes this startling statement:

"The bombing-shootings took up enormous bandwidth in our media machine until it came out that the alleged perpetrator has more in common with Sarah Palin and Alan Dershowitz than with Rachel Corrie or Furkan Do─čan, both of whom have been labelled terrorists by Dershowitz."

I'd love to see this nitwit make that case.

But then, he and I both know that there's not really a case to be made; it's not something that he, in truth, meant to be taken seriously.  It's just more PalinHate.  An expulsion of an inanity that makes the author, consumed with an irrational tendency toward anger and fantasy, feel good.

Anders Behring holds some commonality with Sarah Palin?

Good grief. What a moron.

Newspapers? Tax Them & Subsidize Drudge.

I'll be honest, I really don't want to live in this New York Times columnist's Amerika:

This from a guy whose income depends on the destruction of the world's forests so that his printed words can be slapped to paper and then - on or near the very day they are set to print - are tossed into our proliferating muckle of environmentally degrading landfills.

Of course he's too damn dumb to see where his attitude toward liberty takes him ...

Let me start that conversation: Newspapers?  Tax them, and subsidize Drudge.

What The Left Doesn't Understand

And may be incapable of understanding.

The debate in Washington goes well beyond the "debt ceiling."  It goes to our ability to keep the country from collapsing under the weight of mountains of soon-to-be worthless dollars being shoveled into the pockets of millions of Americans who don't contribute in any way to their creation.

We conservatives want there to be some substance to - and strength within - that which Richard Nixon called "the pillar of monetary stability around the world."

The mountains of cash spilling out of Washington are growing dramatically.  As dramatically as the number of non-productive people who hold their hands out, waiting for gifts to be dispensed.

The trend is unsustainable.  The gift-giving - one way or another - is soon to cease.*

Mark Steyn, in referring to the West in general (in "Western World Operating On Shaky Business Model"), speaks of the USA in particular when he writes:
As Obama made plain in his threat to Gran'ma recently that the August checks might not go out, funding nonproductivity is now the principal purpose of the modern state. Good luck with that at a time when every appliance in your home is manufactured in Asia.

The problem is structural: Not enough people do not enough work for not enough of their lives. Developed nations have 30-year-old students and 50-year-old retirees, then wonder why the shrunken rump of a "working" population in between can't make the math add up.

As I said, these are structural problems. In theory, they can be fixed. But, when you look at the nature of them, you have to wonder whether they ever will be this side of societal collapse.
We are on a glide path to self-destruction. And the debate centers around who should pay more to put more band-aids on the system that is bleeding from all pores.

- - -

* Speaking of gift-giving, the basic reason why most Americans are opposed to Obamacare doesn't have to do so much with the fact that it won't do what it's intended to do; it's because it is - in all truth - just another welfare program - another gift to those who don't contribute in any way to the sustenance of our country.   Another freebie.  One of many.

** Obama's name is used above but this crisis didn't begin with him. He's only sped our demise. I remember when George W. Bush called us to war in 2002 and told us that we'd all have to "sacrifice," my immediate response was: "No we won't. He will simply add the cost of 'the war on terror' to the national debt."  He did.

What a Waste

Drug addict dead at 27.