What? We're getting crushed?

On every issue?

Every single issue?

Oh I know what we can talk about.

On the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security law, President Obama pledged Saturday to protect it from some Republicans who he said want to privatize the retirement account system and "place bets with Social Security on Wall Street."

That, the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address, would be a reckless move as the nation's economy struggles to recover from a recession, noting that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security measure into law in the depths of the Depression.

"That agenda is wrong for seniors, it's wrong for America, and I won't let it happen," Obama said of some GOP ideas to turn the system over to the private marketplace. "Not while I'm president."

This from a guy who stole a trillion from Medicare to pay for his new health care scheme. But he's going to protect seniors, eh?

Posted by: Ace at 01:04 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Open Blog: If you want. I guess I could blog today but I know me: If I spend pretty much all day blogging I'm going to hate it tomorrow or sometime during the week.

One bit of blog business: Genghis has agreed to come back as coblogger and share ONT duties with Maetenloch. (I was just mentioning to Maet: How the heck does he do it every day without a single day off? He said, yeah, I could use some help.)

So Genghis will be doing that and pitching in posts too here and there.

I was never happy to lose him so I'm happy he'll be returning.

Now, if I can just get his pass to work, I think he'll be handling the ONT tonight, as Maet is away.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (424)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

This is on the front page; if you click through to the Approval Rate poll, it seems to still have yesterday's 43/48 spilt.

Today it's 42/49.

I think that we're going to see a 39 number by week's end. Obama has removed the mask, crossed the Rubicon. He won't even permit those who wish to convince themselves that they're smart and were not conned by an odious charlatan to keep on believing the lies they're telling themselves.

He wants everyone to know exactly who he is and what he is. The message will sink in for a lot of people this week.

Meanwhile, another poll finds independents itching to replace Democratic rule with one less hostile to their bitter, clingy values.

Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That's way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters....

Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent.

The poll claims that overall, it's 44-41 in the Democrats' favor, but I smell a big Democrat bias there.

And check this out:

There's even erosion among minorities. While 8 in 10 voted for Obama, fewer than two-thirds want a Democratic Congress, and 1 in 9 don't care which party controls.

I can't seem to find what percentage of independents want the GOP to take control -- I see the number for Democrat control is 32%, but a quickie Google search doesn't turn up the other number.

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Could it get worse?

Yes, unfortunately, it can.

You're now a shareholder in AIG. And AIG is in turn engaging in "Sharia-compliant finance," indulging the whims of "sharia advisors" (many of whom are repellent Islamist ideologues).

And here's what that means in practice:

In the insurance business, those who purchase policies pay premiums, which insurers like AIG then invest. To be sharia-compliant, investments must not be made in enterprises Islam forbids, e.g., finance (because it makes money off interest, which sharia prohibits), pork, gambling, alcohol, etc. Sounds harmless enough . . . except forbidden enterprises would also include businesses that support or otherwise work with the U.S. armed forces. Islamists consider our military to be an “infidel force” that is “at war with Islam.”

Because sharia bars interest (although it permits “profits” that Islamic authorities, in their infinite wisdom, deem reasonable), SCF requires that investments be constantly monitored and that any interest payments be purged. This is done by skimming off a percentage that is then channeled — at the direction of the advisory board — to an Islamic “charity.” Of course, as no one knows better than the Treasury Department, many such charities are merely fronts for the financing of terrorist organizations. This is not an accident. When Sheikh Qaradawi speaks of “financial jihad” as an Islamic obligation, he’s not kidding: In Islamist ideology, funding those who “fight in Allah’s cause” — e.g., Hamas — is one of the eight categories of permissible zakat, the Muslim obligation of almsgiving.

So, an American company that practices SCF is, wittingly or not, advancing the jihadist agenda: It will deny financing to enterprises that help our military combat terrorists while running the risk that its sharia advisers will steer funding to those same terrorists. That aside, the portrayal by President Obama and others of zakat as “charitable giving” is a misconception. According to the most influential Islamic authorities, zakat can be given only to Muslims. It is not an extension of one’s hand to the world’s most needy; it is an insular duty to fortify the ummah, the notional Islamic nation. Consequently, the purging of interest is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from non-Muslims to Muslims.

Thanks to steevy.

More on the Mosque: If We Stop the Mosque Osama bin Ladin Wins or Something. Because, like, we wouldn't be supporting "moderate Islam" that builds Triumph Towers upon the bodies of 3000 dead.

This piece, also found at the above JWF link, is worth a read too.

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

There was a better way. It came from Gov. Paterson, whose offer to help the mosque developers find another location held the potential for a harmonious settlement.

But without even a serious conversation, they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan.

It is self-evident that their professed aim, to build bridges across religions, can better be carried out in a spot not in the shadow of the murderous attacks by Islamic fanatics. Moving the mosque would help prove their motives are trustworthy and win a level of public support they won't get otherwise.

Paterson's offer called their bluff. While much about the project remains a mystery, we now know the developers are not the healers they say they are.
Having Obama in their corner doesn't change that. It only raises the stakes for him and America.

No, It's Not: Remember that old New Yorker cover, parodizing the right's supposed view of Obama and Wife?

It's not so funny now, is it?

Posted by: Ace at 09:08 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 659 words, total size 5 kb.

Yesterday when I linked a NYT article it had this "don't wake up; stay asleep" nap-time headline:

Obama Says Mosque Upholds Principle of Equal Treatment

Snoozer, huh?

I noted that ten paragraphs down there was real news: The president's aides whispered to the Times that he "has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque."

Well, if my memory is right, then I found the actual headline before the New York Times did. Because they're now headlining the story:

Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site

...which is accurate. And awful. But that's the headline, and Obama can't escape it. I would make a Kirk Lazarus joke but I'm not in a joking mood.

Correction: I had the order of the headlines wrong: First they said "strongly backs," then, when Obama claimed he was just talking about rights, they said he was defending equal rights. I had it, wrongly, the other way 'round in my head.

So they did not "catch up" with my take as I thought; instead, they retreated from the original (correct) take to spin for Obama and claim "nuance" where none exists.

The original headline was right: He strongly backs the victory mosque.

...

Debra Burlingame, bereaved sister of a victim of expansionist aggressive Islam, and head of 9/11 Families, issued a statement co-written with Tim Summer.

"Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.



"Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a 'deeply traumatic event,' it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.



"We are stunned by the president's willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11--a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in a barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike any this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country's loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.



"We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent."

Noted lunatic Sarah Palin, whose crazy ideas are so odious and insane that only a tiny 70% fringe of the American voting public (including a majority of Democrats) agrees with her, put forth her further deranged gibberings on FaceBook.

Legitimate Questions for the President

by Sarah Palin on Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 3:01pm

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren't you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson's generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven't they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as "hallowed ground"? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

- Sarah Palin
Former Governor of Alaska,
Wild-Eyed Schizoprhenic Delusional

I added her titles at the end.

Democrat and Republican Representatives sparred over this on CNN. One thing Democrats can all agree on -- no one should make a political judgment on the President's or the party's position on this issue. Shocking, I know.

From CNN's "State of the Union:"

VAN HOLLEN, [Democrat]: Candy, first of all, I think that when it comes to 9/11 and the memory of 9/11, we should all agree that it would be wrong to politicize this issueÂ… I agree with the president. I think the issue is one for the people of New York City. And that's why the mayor of New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, put together an inter-faith group -- again, Christians, Jews, Muslims -- and on the 9/11 families, some have been in favor of it, some have been against it. You know, I think it's up to the people of New York. I mean, they are obviously the folks who are right there at the site of the attack of 9/11.

...

MCCARTHY [Republican]: I think the president -- if Chris is saying this is a New York issue, then why did the president engage in it? But if you listen what he first said, he brought up the exact location and said he supported it. Look, you look at the poll. There is a sensitivity to that area. Yes, we have the freedom. Build a mosque; build more than one mosque, but don't build it there. There are other places to build them. And I think that's really what America is saying.

McCarthy, I think, goes on to preview the national advertising campaign against the Democrats. I think this is clever -- they're going to ask Reagan's immortal question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

And yes, it's Congress that's up for reelection, not Obama, and Democrats have controlled Congress for four years.

McCarthy here responds to Crowely's question about taking the issue of the mosque to the polls in November.

MCCARTHY: Well, I think it's an overriding issue. The number one issue is going to be, in this election -- look, the Democrats have been in power, for the House and the Senate, for four years. Are people better off than they were four years ago?

Thanks to DanF. for some of that.

Corrected: Mrs. Burlingame lost a brother, not a husband, to aggressive expansionist Islam. I have corrected my original error.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (125)
Post contains 1309 words, total size 8 kb.

The numbers are around what Rasmussen found last week, so there's a comforting confirmation here.

Republican Marco Rubio has nudged ahead of independent Charlie Crist in FloridaÂ’s nationally watched U.S. Senate race in a hypothetical three-way matchup with Democrat Kendrick Meek, according to a Mason-Dixon poll released Saturday.

Rubio led Crist in the poll 38 percent to 33 percent, with 18 percent for Meek and 11 percent undecided. Â…

CristÂ’s fate depends on whether he attracts large numbers of Democratic voters in the general election, the poll found. The results indicate that Meek is gaining support among Democrats, which could draw votes away from Crist and give Rubio an advantage.

I know, I know: It's early. And, as Mr. Wolf says in his guest appearance on Sesame Street, let's not start soaping each other's backs just yet, gentlemen.

Still, for a race that was trending towards the heartbreaker category, I personally take some joy in this.

Posted by: Ace at 07:44 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I only got through one book this week: Blind But Now I See: The Biography of Music Legend Doc Watson. I've mentioned before, I think, that I'm not normally all that fond of biographies, but I made an exception in this case because Doc Watson has been a hero of mine for years and years. His fabulous guitar-playing was what inspired me to learn the instrument myself, but as I learned of his humility, grace, good nature, and amazing story-telling talents, I began to like the man as much as his music.

Doc Watson was one of the pioneers of the flatpicking style of acoustic guitar (for an example, see this video), and just about every hot bluegrass or country picker who has come along afterward counts him as a major influence. (Many is the night I've spent hours trying to reproduce some lick or other, only to be completely frustrated. One truth I found out about that kind of amazing musical ability: it takes a huge amount of skill to make guitar-playing look that easy. I generally left these sessions with a huge urge to break my guitar over a fire-hydrant.)

The book itself isn't really telling me anything I didn't already know, but for fans of roots, country, or bluegrass music it probably has a lot of interesting background material they've never seen before. (Doc, who has been blind since birth, actually wired his own house for electricity and passed the inspection!) But it's his acoustic guitar-playing that put him on the map, and the book spends quite a bit of time on the 1960's period of Doc's career, when he was moving up through the folk movement. It says something about the man that even a highly-religious and conservative southern man could nevertheless gain the respect and love of such hard-core lefties as Pete Seeger.

I'm always amazed that Doc -- who is now in his 90's -- has managed to retain both his religious beliefs and his good-natured humility after being in the "entertainment business" for so long. I've seen him perform a few times, and I can attest that his wonderful musicianship on both banjo and guitar is only part of the draw: he also has a wonderful ability as a raconteur and humorist. In many ways, he's a throwback to an earlier era in American music before the weirdness and outlandish behavior became de rigeur for "serioius artists". (Actually, the bluegrass genre has never been a haven for glory-hounds or bizarros; one of the benefits of being a fairly niche market, I guess.)

Anyway, it's a good read, especially if you're a bluegrass fan or a guitar player.

Posted by: Monty at 06:14 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

This is why.

I'm so glad our president is taking such a strong stand on this issue. Can't you just feel the leadership?

Posted by: Slublog at 09:02 PM | Comments (186)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Hello, hello all M&Ms. Welcome to your regularly scheduled CatSaturday night ONT.

Trailer: Tucker and Dave VS Evil

What happens when some innocent rednecks meet up with some teens who have seen way too many horror movies? Watch and find out.
Just based on the trailer this movie looks to be pretty damn funny. I just hope this wasn't all the good parts.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:22 PM | Comments (794)
Post contains 215 words, total size 4 kb.

No, it's not a joke. It's real.

Apparently this is supposed to be in the very beginning of RotJ, before R2 and 3PO go to Jabba's door. A short little scene of Vader telepathically calling to Luke, as Luke finishes building his own lightsaber.

It will be yanked soon, so watch quick if you care.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:13 PM | Comments (250)
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.