Wednesday, 24 June 2009

In Passing

Why not call it “The Waxman-Markey ‘Let’s all subsidize California’ bill”?


From Power LineWinners and Losers on Cap-and Trade:
foo
Big winners (per state, per year):

California:  $385.6 million
Washington State:  $204.2 million
New Jersey:  $104.1 million

Big(ger) losers:
Texas:  $1,159.1 million
Indiana:   $763.5 million
West Virginia:    $684.1 million

(Map source:  National Mining Association. Figures are 2012 estimates based on Energy Information Administration and Congressional Budget Office projections.)

Elsewhere:

Related:

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 16:26:45 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 3 kb.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Clipfile

Clipfile - June 23, 2009

“If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain issues, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable ones.” - Mark Steyn

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 16:51:24 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

In Passing

“If that isn’t the most lame-o ‘reason’ in history for a screw-up like this...

...it’s got to be up there in the top three.” - JSB
Yep:
Officers were trying to serve a warrant for a man wanted on drug charges. The address listed on the paperwork was 4042.  The Minton’s home is 4048, with both house numbers clearly marked.

But Major Mark Robinett of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, who is in charge of warrant sweeps, said he was told that officers had a difficult time reading the addresses because of overcast skies. -
WRTV News: Family Angry After Police Target Wrong House
“Hey, who you gonna believe:  Me, or Your Lyin’ Eyes?”

HT:  Daily Pundit

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 03:15:12 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 2 kb.

Monday, 22 June 2009

In Passing

Empty suit

Knock knock! Anybody home?  Dept.

Does anyone share my reaction to this?
Obama likes to execute long-range strategies but suffers from cognitive dissonance when new facts render them inappropriate.  His 2008 campaign was a largely flawless execution of a smart strategy, but he was flummoxed momentarily when the Russians invaded Georgia and when John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate...

His long-range strategy of propitiating America’s enemies has been undercut by North Korea’s missile launches and demonstrations in Iran against the mullah regime’s apparent election fraud...  He limits himself to expressing “deep concern” about the election... while he misses his chance to encourage the one result — regime change — that could protect us and our allies from Iranian attack. - Michael Barone
Sounds like a man who so distrusts his own knowledge, ability, and instinct that any nontrivial change in circumstances sends him running to check with his handlers.  Or like some badly-programmed CNC system that, faced with an unusual input, locks up until its operators can rescue it.

Intelligence, principle, and guts should be enough to stand any president in good stead, even when the going gets weird and the advisers are out-of-reach.  And political instinct can make getting by possible, even when I, P, or G might be lacking.  Yet time and again, when events move beyond some pre-defined boundary, we have seen Obama freeze up, change the subject, or react inappropriately.

It’s almost like we’re being “led” by an empty suit, the sockpuppet of some ruling committee, incapable of moving beyond its instructions until the next meeting.

Scary when you think about those 3am phone calls(HT: Ace)


Related:
Andy McCarthy says the President’s Iran response is just power politics.

Elsewhere:

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 21:31:10 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 4 kb.

In Passing

Politically-correct generalship

“Age of Obama-nus” Dept
1:
The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday...

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who took command of international forces in Afghanistan this month, has said his measure of effectiveness will be the “number of Afghans shielded from violence,” and not the number of militants killed. - AP story via Breitbart
“Number of Afghans shielded from violence” sounds about as bogus (and as measurable) as the president’s “number of jobs saved or created.”  And if it’s not about killing “militants,” then wotthehel are our soldiers doing there?

UPDATE 090624 14:45 (via IP):  At Captain’s Journal, Herschel Smith has a summary of reaction, and makes this point:
...one of the most important Marine Corps operations thus far in the campaign wouldn’t have been conducted under the new ROE because there was no certainty regarding noncombatants.

2:
The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
  • Attacking the Pentagon
  • IEDs
  • Hate crimes against racial groups
  • Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, is “Protests.”

“It’s part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism,” said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal. - Fox News
Ya see, despotic, totalitarian governments do view protests as dangerous, so whaddaya expect?

3:
The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that “diversity is the number one priority” at the Naval Academy.
The Naval Academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler, echoed him. - Bruce Fleming, The Capital
To which “Uncle Jimbo” declares, “Good gravy sir, I would have hoped that turning out the best Naval officers possible would have been the number one priority.”  Well, that was then...


Via: Ace (1, 2, 3)

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:36:43 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 6 kb.

Saturday, 20 June 2009

Linkage

On the road with F & H


“So Feynman and Heisenberg decided to take a road trip together...”

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 21:16:06 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Administrivia

Did you feel the server move?


Didn’t feel a thing. Which, for server moves, is good.

Thanks, Pixy!

Posted by: Old Grouch in Administrivia at 21:10:15 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Meta

Reminder - Blogmeet June 21


more...

Posted by: Old Grouch in Meta at 21:01:15 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday, 19 June 2009

In Passing

Oh, but that’s DIFFERENT

Sauce, goose, gander  Dept.

Y’know, if  giving investors a “say on pay” is such a good idea, maybe Congress should extend it to their constituents.

Via:  IP

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 21:38:27 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

The Press

Press-to, change-o


If the news isn’t to your liking, make sure it looks uninteresting?

“Jehuda” at The Rhetorican spotted a curious pair of headline revisions on stories about the administration’s latest polling figures:

So a certain NYT story was published on line last night [Wednesday] with the headline “In Poll, Obama Is Seen as Ineffective on the Economy“.  I know it because I saw it with my own eyes. Professor Reynolds linked to it late last night, too.

But I just heard Rush on the radio comment that the headline was changed overnight.  And, in fact, it was.  Much milder headline, isn’t it?

I noticed the WSJ did something similar The Wall Street Journal story, as it appeared in Thursday’s print edition.with another poll related story I linked to yesterday.  It went from “Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow Obama’s Agenda” to something significantly milder
Not just milder; less interesting, too.  Ace:
Is this a big deal?

I'll tell you it is.  Because the NYT’s changed headline had just
the intended effect on me...

Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care

...instantly said “snoozer”... and I navigated away.  I didn’t bother to read it.  The headline successfully dissuaded me from reading or linking the poll.
...
Two newspapers published a poll finding growing doubts about Obama.  Both started the day with strong, punchy, grabby headlines that suggested strongly that Obama was approaching serious trouble.  And both, within a night, changed their headlines to be bland and protective of Obama.

I suggest this is no coincidence.  The Obama White House is scared shitless about the public changing its mind in a hurry, and they want to continue the “Everyone loves Obama” narrative they currently have going, which helps keep public opinion on his side.  Because if everyone loves Obama, you’d have to be weird not to, right?
White House influence or editorial second thoughts?  It doesn’t matter.  Whatever the cause, shenanigans like this will be noticed.  And when they are, it doesn’t encourage trust.

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 19:44:24 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 4 kb.

<< Page 2 of 5 >>
97kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 0.1959 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.1413 seconds, 227 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.