February 18, 2009
— DrewM I wish I could say I was making this up but alas, no such luck.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for honest discussion of racial matters, including issues of health care, education, and economic disparities.
Race "is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."
The idea that we don't talk about race enough in this country is simply laughable on its face. As Ace pointed out after Obama's "Toss Rev. Wright And Grandma Under The Bus Speech" in Philadelphia last March, it's that some things are never on the agenda for discussion that creates problems. more...
Posted by: DrewM at
12:02 PM
| Comments (122)
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.
— DrewM Of course as we know, all Obama statements come with an expiration date so get out your salt and spread it to suit your taste.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues."As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
Of course he was sort of kind of against the Buy America requirement in the so-called "stimulus" bill but that survived.
Given how he's gone back on other campaign promises that his base was counting on, I'm not sure referring to a promise that his opponents likes is the most reasuring thing in the world at this point. Let's Hope this is one thing he doesn't Change his mind on.
Posted by: DrewM at
11:23 AM
| Comments (20)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
— Slublog I fear these children are our future.
In line with Dean HoggeÂ’s observation are Professor GreenbergerÂ’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.With all due respect to Mr. Greenwood, there is something more than effort - results. Effort is certainly admirable, but the purpose of education is to achieve understanding of the material. If a student cannot pass tests or submit papers, they should not be expected to earn high grades.Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”
Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”
The entitlement mentality here is frightening. What will a workforce or voting population full of people with such a mindset look like?
Oh, that's right...we elected...
Never mind.
(h/t: Hot Air)
Posted by: Slublog at
11:15 AM
| Comments (49)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
— Gabriel Malor The opinion was just released. I'm reading through it now (PDF) and will update in a moment.
Okay: A summary of what's going on, cribbed in part from my earlier post on this case:
The military decided in 2003 that ten Guantanamo Bay detainees are not enemy combatants in the War on Terror, but held them for five years nevertheless. Five more were cleared in 2005, but held nevertheless. Another was cleared in 2006, but held. And another this year. The military wonÂ’t repatriate the detainees because it believes there is a very good chance they will be tortured if they are returned to their country of origin. Now a U.S. district court has ordered the military to release all seventeen into the United States.
That decision of the district court was appealed and today's ruling overturns it because the district court has no authority to grant admission to the United States. Here is the key part:
[I]t “is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543. With respect to these seventeen petitioners, the Executive Branch has determined not to allowthem to enter the United States. The critical question is: what law “expressly authorized” the district court to set aside the decision of the Executive Branch and to order these aliens brought to the United States and released in Washington, D.C.?
The answer is that no law makes such an express authorization. The district court pointed to Boumediene v. Bush, but that case only gives federal courts habeas jurisdiction of Guantanamo Bay detainees. It does not purport to allow the courts to fashion novel remedies for unlawful detention. The point is that the military must release them, but nothing gives the district courts authority to order that release be in the United States. more...
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:07 AM
| Comments (2)
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.
— LauraW It's All Downhill From Here
Good Morning, darling hearts and assorted mental defectives.
This week has already seemed long in Mr. O'Spades' continued absence, yes? The cobloggers are mired in despair and feed you only Obamanews and Stimuwoes.
Whither the pooter jokes and accidental lesbo porn links?
Well, you'll have to provide those yourself, I'm afraid.
But here. A kid wrote an essay about his dad that attracted the attention of law enforcement.
The criminal complaint said the father told an investigator he shot the boy after the child didn't move fast enough from blocking the TV. He said he aimed at his son's rear pocket because he thought it would be more padded."I knew right away it was a stupid thing I did," the father said.
It was a BB gun. Is it just me, or is this some more Nanny State nonsense?
He seems like a pretty good Dad. He's even sorry for what he did and called his action stupid.
That's more than my father ever did after he shot me in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun that time for 'dawdling.'
I'll never forget that precious lesson. When Dad says move, you move.
Posted by: LauraW at
07:38 AM
| Comments (25)
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
— DrewM And today's bailout winners are...people who spent too much on their homes compared to their incomes! Congratulations you irresponsible fools, come on down and get your checks!
President Barack Obama's plan to tackle the foreclosure crisis will spend $75 billion in an effort to prevent up to 9 million Americans from losing their homes.In tandem, the Treasury Department said it would double the size of its lifeline to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government, which seized the mortgage finance companies last fall, said Wednesday it would absorb up to $200 billion in losses at each company.
The plan, which Obama is releasing later Wednesday, is more ambitious than initially expected — and more expensive. It aims to aid borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are currently worth, and borrowers who are on the verge of foreclosure.
...Another key component: a new program aimed at helping homeowners said to be "under water" — with dwellings whose value have sunk below the principal still owing on their mortgages. Such mortgages have traditionally been almost impossible to refinance. But the White House said its program will help 4 to 5 million families do just that.
Of the nearly 52 million U.S. homeowners with a mortgage, about 13.8 million, or nearly 27 percent, owe more on their mortgage than their house is now worth, according to Moody's Economy.com
At NRO Jonah Goldberg wonders why upside down mortgages are such a big deal? I'm kind of curious about that myself. (He gets answers here)
I know this situation is painful for a lot of people but absent some compelling reason beyond the "we have to keep families in the homes they can't afford and shouldn't have purchased in the first place" argument, it seems the housing market's price correction is a feature, not a bug of the system.
We don't have the details of the plan yet but if the idea is we have to reinflate the housing market, I'm not quite sure why that's either a good idea or a sensible use of the governments non-existent resources. If creditors want to renegotiate the terms of an agreement that is one thing, if the government is going to do it by fiat (either legislatively or though bankruptcy proceedings) that's quite another.
Based on the events of the last few months, I fear the worst.
*Just saw on FNC that $50 billion is coming from existing TARP money and the remainder is coming from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:33 AM
| Comments (8)
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.
— Uncle Jimbo
President Obama has now taken ownership of the war in Afghanistan and stepped fully into his role as Commander in Chief.
In his first such action as president, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 combat troops to Afghanistan.
The first thing I want to do is call BS on my headline. It was wrong when the anti folks on the left talked about W's war, Iraq and Afghanistan are both America's wars and have been from the start. It was disgraceful for them to act that way and I will fight any attempt to do that to President Obama. Unlike many of the Born Again Ass Clowns Americans who have just discovered they can love and respect their country for the first time in their adult lives, or at least for the last 8 years, I owned a flag and flew it when Clinton was President. I applaud the plethora of new flags I see around, but I think it represents a sad aspect of the patriotism of folks who only feel proud when their team is in power.
But let's get back to Afghanistan. First I will repeat my admonition to Obama to make sure he is not simply trying to cover his political ass and campaign promises by sending more troops to that hell hole without the commitment to work toward victory. What victory means is something we can discuss, but it is more than simply adding a couple of combat brigades to be pulled back when pressure from his left wing spins up. Afghanistan is the longest of long wars and if the effort is not going to reflect this, then don't make it. Use the troops you are sending to squash the bad guys where they have weaseled into, and then let's bomb their bases flat and trust that time-honored dictum "Rubble doesn't make trouble".
I have been in a journalism fellowship for the past days for military reporters and we have met with a number of experts on A-stan and questioned them intensively. The overall consensus I see is that there is no history of, and little likelihood of building, a modern nation state there. Additionally without some answer to the free reign and safe havens in the tribal areas of Pakistan, it will be extremely difficult to create security. This requires a strategy that is not too ambitious but more importantly that is not simply political cover attempting to prove that Obama is not the "cut & runner" all his calls on Iraq would suggest. Any legitimate effort would certainly require an effort comprising all of his four years in office, and likely beyond. That will take a will to face up to calls of "quagmire" and "bring the troops home". I hope President Obama can learn from the fact that he was dead wrong on Iraq, and will listen to Gen. Petraeus and the folks who gave us the winning strategy there as he and his team look for answers in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at
06:49 AM
| Comments (4)
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.
— Gabriel Malor Back to work. Slackers.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:25 AM
| Comments (1)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
February 17, 2009
— Open Blog Also: In the Blogosphere, no one can hear you scream. Unless you use all caps with lots of exclamation points. And colorful fonts.
A couple of items that really need their own posts, or tacked onto other posts, and expanded upon. And probably will be.
1. “Democrats Sneak Net Neutrality Act into Stimulus Bill.” This is from an article at that right-wing bastion CNET.
”The House Democrats $825 billion legislation released on Thursday was supposedly intended to “stimulate” the economy. Backers claimed that speedy approval was vital because the nation is in “a crisis not seen since the Great Depression” and “the economy is shutting down.”“That’s the rhetoric. But in reality, Democrats are using the 258-page legislation to sneak Net neutrality rules in through the back door.”
I've read some about it in the past, and may have even posted something on it, along with others. But I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. It kinda' slid off the radar screen for a while. A lot of people have labeled this the intertubes version of the "Fairness Doctrine" though somewhat more subtle and sinister. I honestly don't know. The CNET article includes links to the 258 page stimulus bill along with this:
"The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. The Commerce Department must ensure that the recipients "adhere to" the Federal Communications Commission's 2005 broadband policy statement (PDF)--which the FCC said at the time was advisory and "not enforceable," and has become the subject of a lawsuit before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C."
According to critics, while language in the FCC policy statement is about limiting (or filtering) porn, the way it's written could easily be expanded to limit or regulate opinion and gives the FCC fairly broad powers to do so. And as we all know, the FCC board consists of political appointees and the balance shifts whenever a new administration takes over that's of a different political party than the previous one.
Hat tip to the mysterious “d.” (tried to send you a thank-you, but Gmail can suck a golf ball through a garden hose)
2. “SEC Raids Offices of Financier With Extremely Close Ties to the Democratic Party, Alleging Massive Fraud.” DrewM. Posted about this earlier here.
The AP story linked at Breitbart conveniently left out the political ties Mr. Stanford had, though some of the commenters picked it up. So I fixed the headline for ‘em. CBSNews ran stories on both the morning show and the Perky One’s evening broadcast (is it sexist to say broadcast? I certainly hope so.) that put Mr. Stanford’s relations with a non-elephant-mascot party front and center. AP’s written story focused on his deep ties to Texas (a land similar to Mordor), Baylor University (right-wing fascist university) and his sponsorship of golf tourneys (and we all know what kind of people play golf don’t we? Well, Tiger excepted and all)
So go watch the vid before CBS News gives it concrete shoes (I made a rhyme!) here.
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to xgenghisx@gmail.com. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Posted by: Open Blog at
10:20 PM
| Comments (7)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.
— Russ from Winterset If you missed Gabe's previous post on Obambi's Afghanistan waffles, it's here. I was over at Politico reading their article referenced in the post, and I got a flash of recognition.
Troop deployments being done for political reasons that are antithetical to tactical reasons given by their commanders?
McKiernan has sought at least some of the additional forces in time for them to be on the ground ahead of expected spring fighting. But the White House appears more concerned with getting troops in place ahead of the Afghan presidential elections, now scheduled for August, an official said.
And then, when you're done slapping your military commanders in the face, you use Pretzel Logic to justify your dumbass political decision?
Instead of using U.S. forces primarily to kill and capture insurgents, the strategy review is likely to recommend placing more emphasis on protecting the Afghan population, several officials said. In that case, getting McKiernan the troops by spring is not the primary concern, an official said.
Yeah, I've seen this story before. In the versions I remember, Al Quaeda's lead scientist, Destro, built a weather control machine so that Al Quaeda (which was called "Cobra Command" in the version I remember - must have been trouble getting AQ to sign off on their portrayal in the show?) could blackmail the UN for ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS! Of course, the elite military force GI Joe (under the direct command of Comrade Obama, natch') managed to destroy the machine and rout AQ's troops, all without suffering a SINGLE battlefield casualty. Busted equipment? Yeah sure, but there weren't any of those pesky flag-draped coffins to distract Americans from praising the genius of Comrade Obama's military knowledge.
Seriously, though. This really worries me.
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at
04:33 PM
| Comments (164)
Post contains 844 words, total size 6 kb.
44 queries taking 0.2961 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
