April 15, 2009
— Ace Some pictures at Instapundit. A few sent to me below the fold.
Howard Kurtz is briefly sane before turning back into a lunatic hack. He notes the media blackout on tea parties...
Most of the mainstream media fell down on the job, ignoring the growing movement or mocking it as a bunch of wingnuts.The New York Times has run zero stories (the only mention was Times columnist Paul Krugman taking a brief swipe at the parties.) The Washington Post has done zip until today, with a story on two planned D.C. parties on Page B-4. The Chicago Tribune ran a 300-word story and an item on postal workers mistaking tea for a hazardous substance. The Los Angeles Times did a 500-word piece on a small protest in Hermosa Beach and has a media piece today. The Boston Globe, published in the city famed for the original tea party: nothing. CNN ran its first news story on the protests Monday (followed by a piece by me on the coverage). MSNBC's coverage had consisted of Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox mocking the "teabagging" until Chris Matthews held a more serious debate Monday.
That's "the other side" of the story he gives you for balance, in a "to be fair" type one paragraph diversion. The main side he pushes is that FoxNews is too much the cheerleader for tea parties -- arguably true, yes, but given that FoxNews' mission is to be a tonic and corrective to the lapses and biases of the MSM, ought we not dwell on the MSM black-out of the movement rather than FoxNews' "overcaffeinated" reportage?
I know for a fact that when 50 or so professional leftist protesters congregate to protest, say, the Asian Dawn ("I read about them in Time Magazine"), the MSM covers the story, often prominently. CNN's top headlines never fail to include some small potatoes lefty protest. And yet when millions of amateur protesters get together, the MSM deems it unworthy of mention.
steve_in_hb made that point to me yesterday: the left protests on a near-daily basis, because they're students or permanent casualties of the acid-fueled Summer of Love. As a general matter, they are underemployed; they don't usually have to get away from the office to protest. Furthermore, it's largely the same people week-in, week-out protesting; as such, these are largely social gatherings, street parties with placards.
They know each other. They share sticky-icky with each other. They, excuse my language, fuck each other.
Now the Tea Party movement represents millions of people who've never protested before, or who have rarely protested. And these rallies are huge -- 5000. 10,000. 15,000 strong. Not the 50 or so clump-bearded old hippies repurposing their Giant Paper Machier Dick Cheney Puppets as Giant Paper Machier Rush Limbaugh Puppets to agitate for "localism" on the radio.
And yet the media steadfastly refuses to cover the rallies. The left's rallies are "dog bites man" stories, the expected, the mundane, the frankly unimportant. The Tea Party rallies are "man bites dog," the unexpected, the novel, the... newsworthy.
And yet the blackout continues.
But FoxNews must be criticized for overplaying the events.
While the MSM makes crude, disrespectful jokes about the the protesters being enthusiasts for the deviant sexual act of lowering one's testicles into another's mouth. That's blog type snark -- and fine for blogs. But for CNN?
Let me ask MSNBC and CNN -- if a FoxNews reporter, covering a pro-choice rally, should look at a group of woman and remark, "Well, I guess we know the right place to be if you want to get laid," how would they react?
Would it be termed some harmless joke? Or would be taken as crude, demeaning, and absurdly unprofessional?
As mentioned, a couple of pictures sent to me.
Posted by: Ace at
09:52 AM
| Comments (5)
Post contains 698 words, total size 5 kb.
— Ace 46% think it's too high.
Gallup forgets to mention an important fact: 38% pay no income taxes whatsoever. Add them into another 10% who pay a trivial amount, and you can easily understand why they're so psyched about the current tax code, and don't mind "the rich" (i.e., the other 52%) paying more.
There's another point here too: Observe the graph. When was it that this sea-change in the public's attitude about tax burdens actually occurred?
Yes, that's correct: The public went from thinking their taxes were too high to about right at the exact same time as Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
He deserves credit for that -- if credit is indeed due. Personally, I thought then -- and think even more strongly now -- that while removing millions of taxpayers from the tax rolls and cutting down to almost nothing the taxes paid by millions more was popular, Bush actually cut lower- and middle- class taxes too much, to the point where nearly half the country had no stake in the tax rate argument whatsoever. (By the way, I also think he cut taxes on the highest bracket by a point or two too much.) *
It's impolitic as hell to suggest it, but Ari Fleisher is right: Almost everyone should pay some amount in income taxes, even if it's a trivial amount, if only to not divide the public absolutely between tax-payers and tax-consumers.
Gallup also tries the spin the poll as somehow a positive reflection on Obama's policies. But note, again, the chart: The major change in the balance of opinion occurred due to Bush's tax code changes, with only the most trivial shifting of a point here and two points there since. Here's Gallup:
Since 1956, there has been only one other time when a higher percentage of Americans said their taxes were about right -- in 2003, when 50% did so after two rounds of tax cuts under the Bush administration.The slightly more positive view this year may reflect a public response to President Barack Obama's economic stimulus and budget plans. He has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, while cutting taxes for lower- and middle-income Americans. The latter has already begun, as the government has reduced the withholding amount for federal income taxes from middle- and lower-income American workers' paychecks.
Later, Gallup opines:
As the remaining U.S. tax filers prepare to send their income-tax returns before the April 15 deadline, Gallup finds Americans' views of their federal income taxes about as positive as at any point in the last 60 years. This may reflect the income-tax cut that was part of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, as well as a continuing sense of patriotism with the country fighting two wars.
The income tax cut that was part of Obama's stimulus was, what, that $13 per week cut for some tax payers? Gallup is pretty sure that that's the cause of the current mood on taxes, rather than the huge cuts Bush enacted.
This is some seriously strained analysis. Gallup bends over backwards to credit minor shifts in opinion to Barack Obama's prospective, hypothetical future tax cuts (which will remain purely hypothetical, of course) while studiously ignoring the major impact of Bush's actual tax cuts. Current attitudes about taxation should be shaped mostly by actual current taxation levels, no? And yet in Gallup's view, it's a toss-up as to whether opinions are more shaped by Bush's actual, real, on-the-books tax cuts, or Obama's imaginary future tax cuts.
And they are purely imaginary, wholly fantastical. Obama's not going to cut taxes for the middle class. He has created a staggering, unprecedentedly large, jaw-dropping, eye-popping structural deficit...
...that can only be reduced by going where the money is: The middle class, which has both the huge numbers of tax-filers to make a difference, as well as enough money to pay more.
The poor have the numbers but not the money, the rich have the money but not the numbers. Only the middle class has that wonderful combination of big numbers and ample income.
Yes, it's coming. As the ship's architect said in Titanic about the sinking of the ship: It is purely a simple mathematical problem at this point with only one solution. "It is made of iron; I assure you, it will sink."
The Obama administration will be hard-pressed to avoid raising taxes on the middle class, according to economists crunching federal budget numbers in the lead-up to tax return day — today, April 15.President Obama’s proposed changes to the tax code, combined with exploding entitlement costs, will lead to ever-growing debt, according to independent estimates. The big question for Obama and his economic team will be whether he can meet the rising costs with increased tax revenue only from small slices of the electorate. …
“You just simply can’t tax the rich enough to make this all up,” said Martin A. Sullivan, a former economic aide in the Reagan administration who said he backed Obama last fall.
“Especially just for getting the budget to a sustainable level, there needs to be a broad-based tax increase,” said Sullivan, now a contributing editor at Tax Analysts publications. “If you want to do healthcare on top of that, almost certainly, it just makes [a middle-class tax increase] all the more certain.”
This is the most bizarre part of Gallup's analysis, crediting Obama with the public's less-peevish mood about the tax code. If they're happy now, that means they won't be happy with changes, changes that can be made in only one direction -- increasing taxation. If they're content now, that means they will be less content as Obama raises taxes, as he has deliberately overspent to be "forced" to do.
Gallup knows this, and knows that the public's less-disgruntled mood on taxes should not be taken as some sort of endorsement of Obama, but rather a large warning to Obama should he begin undoing the very tax cuts -- Bush's -- that created the generally positive public mood on taxes in the first place. Bush created the tax tranquility (pax tax?); Obama will undo it; and yet Obama is somehow to be credited for it.
What?
Thanks to Warden.
* I think he got to fixated on having tax rates set at multiples of five -- 10, 15, 35... If it were 11, 16, and 36, he might have avoided most of his own much-smaller structural deficit. Yes, that's a point higher and all -- but still a tax cut, and without as much of a built-in structural deficit, which was used an issue against him, again and again.
Back when a $350 billion structural deficit actually mattered. Now, of course, Obama sells us $1+ trillion deficits per year and we're told it's no big deal.
Posted by: Ace at
09:43 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 1148 words, total size 8 kb.
— LauraW The beeb brings teh funny with this piece headlined Fighting Off The Somali Pirates:
They use grappling hooks and ladders to board it at the most vulnerable point - where there is least distance between the height of the deck and the water level.Some vessels have strung barbed wire at those points, as recommended by the International Maritime Bureau in London. In some cases, say experts, this has proved effective.
Slippery foam sprayed onto the deck can also present a further barrier to pirates taking over.Other possible solutions include electric security fences and blasting the pirates with water from fire hoses.
Cripes, sounds like they're trying to keep deer out of their garden, not 'fight' pirates.
Controversial, though, is any proposal to arm crews.
Well of course. That would be aggression.
No, far better to stick with the fences and banana peels and playing Barry Manilow real loud. Winning strategy there. But I think they need to change that headline.
UPDATE: Bibliophile, in the comments.
Sorry to be a killjoy -- I am a big fan of guns and self-defense -- but I have to point out a few things as someone who works in logistics, and deals with container shipping on a daily basis.There are good reasons for not allowing crews to be armed, some of which include the fact that the vessel could then be categorized as military. The insurance issues alone of this are so complicated I can't even describe it.
Also, crews do not sign up to be part of a defensive force. Pay, etc., would have to change, as would screening. What if another boat was under attack? Under maritime regulations if you are in a position to assist you are obligated to do so. Would an armed container ship then be legally and morally obligated to save an unarmed ship? Or armed ship that was still being attacked? Perhaps from another country?
As you can see, it's unfortunately much more complicated than it seems. Like almost everything.
That said, Rock On US Navy! And it's time to start destroying the ports that host the pirates.
Well said, and thanks for the clarification!
More (and funny) suggestions in the comments.
Posted by: LauraW at
07:49 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.
— DrewM It's all about the bipartisanship love here at the HQ, so we've agreed to let Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have a moment to talk to you about taxes. Remember, he's in charge of the IRS.
If you have an Tea Party stories, this is a good place to share them.
Also, Patterico asks, "Today, Tea Parties. What Tomorrow?" Any thoughts?
As always, Slushop courtesy of The Man, The Myth, The Legend...Slublog.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:47 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.
— DrewM Sort of a follow up to yesterday's pre-announcement. I thought it was going to be a slow roll out but nope, he's in. Website is up and donations are being accepted.
I missed this yesterday but John Cornyn of Texas, head of the Republican Senatorial Committee, says he is backing Specter.
"My job as head of the NRSC is to guide the GOP back to a majority in the Senate," he added. "I can't do that without Arlen Specter. With him as our nominee, I can target our campaign resources toward beating Democrats and growing the Senate Republican Conference."
Cornyn's in a tough spot. It's hard to imagine the "Republican Senatorial Committee" going after a sitting member of the party and yeah, Specter wouldn't consume as many resources and is a better bet to win the general than Toomey.
That said, it's Arlen Fucking Specter and he's gots to go. There's no guarantees that he won't go Linc Chaffee or Jim Jeffords on the Republicans after taking all the party's money and the support.
Cornyn does make a good point when he says, "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania."
I'm a big fan of running the most electable conservative possible, not the most conservative imaginable. That said, nominating Toomey is more of a risk but one that's worth taking. It's not like Pennsylvania has never elected a conservative before, remember they sent Rick Santorum to DC not too long ago. Yes, it will be hard given recent outcomes in the state but the conditions may be right for a Republican in '10 and therefore it's worth the risk. It's not just to getting rid of RINO but to moving the Senate Republican caucus to the right.
Cornyn however is as wrong as could be when he says, "A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate."
Remind me again who voted for the stimulus?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Buh-bye Arlen.
More: The Weekly Standard blog has a quick chat with Toomey.
Posted by: DrewM at
05:49 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.
— LauraW
Get your mind off your fiscal suffering for a moment with some weird news. Snow-wop couple gets pinched for humping at 123 km/ hr:
After filming the incident for evidence, they [the police] finally pulled the car over.Police officer Tor Stein Hagen told ABC Nyheter that the driver had the woman "on his lap" while the car was moving.
"It was creating a various dangerous situation...in my pants," Hagen added.
Quote deliberately tampered with to reflect a Higher Truth.
Thanks to Matt Miller.
And hey, best wishes to all those attending the Tea Parties.
Please keep your head on a swivel, bring video equipment if you can, and keep it running as much as possible.
Posted by: LauraW at
05:14 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
— Purple Avenger The eco whiners object to solar on the ground saying it will disturb desert ecosystems, so PG&E plans to put the damn things in orbit where there aren't any desert tortoises or gila monsters to upset.
...PG&E is seeking approval from state regulators for a power purchase agreement with Solaren Corp., a Southern California company that has contracted to deliver 200 megawatts of clean, renewable power over a 15 year period...There are a few obvious advantages to space based collectors:
They're sabotage free, earth bound eco-nutters will have a hard time getting to your orbital shit to fuck it up, and they'll hesitate to go near the ground based transmission stations for fear of being cooked like bacon by the power coming down.
There's more power per square meter available in space (no atmospheric heating effects and reflectivity to sap it), and there's a broader spectrum available to tap as various atmospheric gases filter out some of the spectrum before it reaches the ground. Essentially, there's a big boost in defacto cell efficiency to be had here if your cells can operate outside the visible spectrum.
Lighter, flimsier materials can be used in construction. On the ground, whatever you build needs to be able to handle gravity + localized mechanical load disturbances due to weather, earthquakes, birds sitting on stuff, etc. In space you're going to get penetrations and erosion from micrometorites and shit like that though, but it will take a while for significant damage to accumulate.
The big objections will come from the "OMG, if its alignment goes berserk, it'll cook a whole town like bacon!" crowd. Of course building suitable fail safes and self destruct/retarget to deep space/panel feathering/etc on the transmitter should it lose lock aren't all that difficult, in fact they're rather trivial.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
04:52 AM
| Comments (1)
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.
— Gabriel Malor The tax man cometh...and we will stick his head in a toilet? For funzies?
And while I'm thinking of it, twenty bucks says that in twenty years a standard pre-hiring question for federal employment will be "Have you ever organized or participated in a tax protest?"
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
04:00 AM
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
April 14, 2009
— DrewM Please, please, please let this arrogant douche run. Yes, it's from the NY Post's Page Six but I Want To Believe!
BEHIND Eliot Spitzer's flaccid attempt at re-erecting his public persona is a plan to run for state attorney general in 2010, sources told Page Six.After launching a column on Slate.com, and giving interviews to National Public Radio and the "Today" show, the sources say, the disgraced former governor told friends: "My record as governor was disappointing, but the voters will remember my excellent two terms as attorney general."
The sources say Spitzer, forever tarnished as Client No. 9 of a prostitution agency, expects Andrew Cuomo to run for governor next year, leaving open the AG job.
Here's my suggestion for his campaign slogan and poster:
Alternate slogan: Spitzer 2010....Ashley Needs Her Sixteenth Minute Of Fame.
(As always, image courtesy of the Slublog collection)
Posted by: DrewM at
07:13 PM
| Comments (2)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
— Open Blog Your nightly campfire to gather around. Though you guys usually forget to bring the ingredients to make sÂ’mores. Which is fine since theyÂ’re over-rated anyway.
Item #1: From Bruce (there are actually two Bruces that run the shop there) at And Still I Persist comes an updated and corrected analysis from USAToday regarding the events surrounding the Columbine massacre as we approach its 10-year anniversary. The article dispels a lot of the myths and mis-reporting that have occurred in much the same way that Popular Mechanics did a few years back in their report debunking most of the 9/11 Troofers claims. An excerpt:
” A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.”
After the “incident,” practically every grievance or interest group in the country (regardless of political leanings) tried to latch on to the story to grind whatever axe they had and push their particular agenda. I seem to recall there might’ve even been a “documentary film” on the subject. At the moment, I can’t seem to remember who did that film though. Turns out most of these groups were making their arguments based on faulty information, but when has that ever stopped them before? Anyway, as usual “And Still I Persist” is chock full of other interesting links, so please to go visit.
More busty lesbian pr0n below the fold if you wishÂ…
more...
Posted by: Open Blog at
06:37 PM
| Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 4 kb.
43 queries taking 0.3585 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
