For all those people who thought I was exaggerating when I said that the government is now going to own 70% of GM. Here's the story:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-makes-new-bondholder-offer-rb-15370745.html?.v=8
I wasn't exaggerating; in fact, I was being conservative (hee hee, I made a little joke! :) ). We're not going to be on the line for 70% of GM; we're on the hook for 72.5% of GM! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
So I thought that Obama was supposed to bring civility and a general sense of "Kumbaya" back to Washington and, in so doing, the world. You know; no more "cowboy" diplomacy and all that; sitting down and talking with...well...everyone. But when I go for my daily news mojo, here are some of the international headlines (note: I'm going to leave out the national headlines, although there's a great story that I may write on later about Obama appointing a new "cyber-Czar" to police the internet. That is, I may write about it if I don't get shut down). So here we are:
NKOREA FIRES MORE ROCKETS; SAYS USA HOSTILE...
Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal...
...wants to debate Obama at UN
Netanyahu defies Obama...
So let me get this straight. North Korea fires a nuclear missile and is basically slapping the US in the face, saying, "You want a piece of me? Huh? Do ya?"
Iran is thisclose to developing their own nuclear warheads, and Ahmadenijad still hates the US (hmm, maybe it wasn't all Bush's fault. Maybe? Anyone?)
And Isreal, the one beacon of hope in the pit of quicksand despair that is the Middle East, is getting a sense that we're no longer a country to rely on (which, I'm sure, would make Ahmadinejad happy. If, you know, he didn't already want to go all "Allah jihad" on us).
Man, I'm so glad this new sort of diplomacy is working. I feel so much safer! And I'm so excited to know that Ye Olde Europe respects us and likes us now. Don't you agree?
I know, I know. Two posts in one day? Inconceivable! And yet, here I am. I found this amazing piece in the New York Post, and you should definitely check it out. Yes, it is 100 items long, and yes, it's worth it. #97 is my favorite:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/100_days__100_mistakes_166177.htm?page=0
What do you think?
After Janeane Garafalo calling us racists for protesting high taxes and Sandra Bernhardt suggesting Sarah Palin should be gang-raped, Conservatives are probably used to being called every name in the book. But apparently Liberals don't like how it feels when actual points are made about the way they do business.
I was on one of my favorite sites recently, where a poster suggested that the libs get to create a video using the absolute worst things Repubs have said, and the GOP gets to do the same thing for the Dems. Well, I apparently found the Libs' video:
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/vote-on-the-worst-media-moments-of-obamas-first-100-days/
It's someone else's blog, but Media Matters (a partisan group started by the Hills Clinton)
Check out this video. It really explains just how evident media bias in this country is.
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/The_Cost_of_Media_Bias_-_Did_the_Media_Steal_the_Election_%3F/1736/
Bonus: Congratulate me! I'm officially part of the right-wing extremists! I'm on a terror watch group! Well, okay, not individually. But who knows?
Obama is currently in the news for two reasons that he probably doesn't appreciate very much. The first is because of his "not-a-bow" bow he made to the Saudi prince. Now, I'm just a country-lovin' patriot and I don't know much about international politics, but the leader of the Free World, in my humble opinon, should NEVER abase himself in front of a foreign dictator-type. What's worse is Gibbs coming hurriedly out to deny it was even a bow. That type of denail may have served presidents well in the past, but in the age of the internet--specifically, the age of YouTube--that type of denial is just ridiculous. Anybody can watch the video and see clearly what it was. Shoot, I'll do the hard part for you; here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38. I mean, Gibbs lying like that is like Stephanopoulous going on TV and saying that Clinton hadn't had an affair when there was a stained dress for evidence. Oh, wait...
Which brings me to my point. Clinton got impeached for his likes (yes, I know there was more to it, but that's what's currently down in the history books), and Obama's are getting covered up and excused. It's this kind of dishonesty that worries me the most. Why lie? I'm sure the Obamatrons would feel ecstatic at Obama's "showing the Prince culturally-correct respect" (in fact, they are anyway), and Gibbs could have come out and launched a new attack on the vast right-wing conspiracy. Instead, they lie about it. So my question is, in short, "Whattup wit dat?"
The second reason he's in the news is because of a lack of action in regards to the kidnapping of an American captain by Somali pirates. To me, Obama is chock full of contradictions. He wants to be a leader in the world, but when the time comes for him to actually lead, he hinds out and "relies on the leaders already in place." Shouldn't he be sending a message to the pirates about how we don't stand for American citizens (and American ships) to be harrassed by lawless entities like themselves? How we will not rest until they are brought to justice? Yet we get nothing.
First he gets tested by the economy. Grade: F (TARP money being returned? "Stimulus" money being turned down by states? New taxes? Doesn't sound like a rousing success).
The came North Korea's missile launch. Grade: D (strong words were issued by his teleprompter, but the North Koreans still launched with no repercussions). Now the pirates and he has yet to turn in the assignment--an automatic 0.
So far, I don't feel much hope about the change we've gotten. How about you?
4/13 Update: I wrote this Saturday, and didn't get to post it until today. We have the wonderful news that the Captain is safe, and the more wonderful news that Navy SEAL sharpshooters killed three of the four pirates. Still we have few words from our Dear Leader. The one thing he does well sometimes is speechifying, and he isn't even doing that! He deserves an F-, but unfortunately they don't exist.
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
If you have a sense of humor, you will love this site. I promise.*
*promise subject to change without notice. No, you don't get anything from me if you don't like it. At least, nothing pleasant.
So many things could be written right now. “I told you so” being one of them. However, I try not to waste time casting blame; that will be for history to decide. Or will it? Who writes our history? Who decides what is historic and what isn’t? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: our current media, and their up-to-the-minute headlines.
Most news organizations follow the adage, “if it bleeds, it leads.” However, we’ve seen an astonishing amount of proof in the opposite direction when it comes to our Dear Leader: “If it bleeds and it isn’t Obama, it leads. If it is Obama (or Biden/Pelosi/Reid), it’s shuffled away on the 5th or 6th page, where few people will bother to look.”
We all know that the media got Obama elected; from Chris Matthews’ tingle to George Stephanopolous’ calling his wife and crying whenever the Bamster opened his mouth, directed his eyes to the teleprompter, and let ‘er rip, they presented an image of him to the people that he was their long awaited liberal Messiah, come to correct the wrongs of that bad, bad boy Bush and his sidekick Cheney. Obama was presented as this sort of empty slate; he had something for everyone! Whereas, turns out now, he has nothing for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his belief in the government curing all of society’s ills.
And the media went along with this. And for the most part, I couldn’t blame them. Hosts like Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and even Hannity and Limbaugh have the right to proscribe to (and preach) whatever philosophy they hold, because their job is to talk about the news, not present it. They’re talk show hosts; commentators. They’re like the peanut gallery at baseball games. They’re not calling the plays, just yelling that they should have been different.
My problem is when those people present what they are saying as the news; even worse is when the news reporters let their biases slip when they’re presenting a story. That is the opposite of what our Founding Fathers were protecting when they crafted the First Amendment of our Constitution. Instead of our media acting as watchdogs of the government, they’ve become the lapdogs (No, I didn’t think of that first…I don’t think. But it fits.)
Now, all this has been true since Obama presented a speech at the DNC in 2004, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. What’s of interest to me is, what now? To continue the love-fest for the One who could turn out to be the worst president in recent history (okay, since Carter) is simply not possible; it goes against their DNA. The, “If it bleeds…” mantra has been around a whole heckuva lot longer than Obama; even longer than the liberal bias prevalent in the news today. It simply has to win out. So what happens to Obama then?
It’s already started to happen. Camille Paglia, a staunch Democrat and supporter of Obama (who, incidentally, falls into the “commentator” category), posted last week in her column at Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/index.html) that Obama had made a huge misstep in who he had around to advise him (hmm…nah, too easy). She stopped short of blaming Obama’s mistakes and missteps on Obama himself, but it was clear that the shine is starting to wear off.
So the question is not if they will go back to their nature of blood, but when they will abandon their group love. Any guesses?
So here we are, three days and two oaths of office into the brand-spankin' new presidency of B. Hussein Obama, our first affirmative-action president. I hate to sound bitter and mean-spirited, but, well, I am. So I can't help it. To be fair, I defended Obama when the people around me started complaining that he wasn't doing enough between November 4 and this past Tuesday. After all, the dude wasn't even in office yet. I've always maintained that this was going to be an interesting four years, but I wanted to make sure that people didn't start those four years until it was absolutely necessary.
There's so much to say about this guy, and all of it's bad news. Unfortunately, it seems like everyone knows and no one cares. The people that voted against him already know why he's bad news, and the people that voted for him don't care, with the help of the DLA (Democratic Left Arm), the mainstream media. Sure, they know that Bristol Palin was pregnant and John McCain was a POW (who turned on his country to make the torture stop *gasp* as if they could take someone pulling out a leg hair at a time without crying about it. Shoot, George "Theres-no-stuff-in-my-pants" cried at the inauguration and made national headlines). But I'm so tired of being told that, "You had your turn. Now it's our guy's turn, and you have to sit down, shut up, and support him as the president." Right, like you supported Bush? Riiiiight.
So rather than me rant anymore, I just point out the current headlines on Drudgereport (yes, I know you libs are getting your panties in a twist at the thought of the Drudgereport, but if you stop crying long enough to find out what it is, you'd realize that all he does is compile news sites. Very helpful to people like me who, you know, work so we can pay our taxes to fund all the liberal feel-good programs):
"President Takes on Rush Limbaugh In New Media War"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
"Venezuela's Chavez Warms to Obama After Insults"
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE50M5M420090123?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true
"Obama Lifts Restrictions on Abortion Funding"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23463777.htm
"Obama Urges Isreal to Open Gaza Borders"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7cf745dc-e8ce-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html
"Obama to GOP: I Won"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html
"Gibbs Accidentally Outs Secret White House Briefers" (Will he be going to jail like Scooter Libby?)
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/23/obama-spokesmans-debut-marked-by-discord/
And finally, my personal favorite:
"Obama Stares Down Politico: Not the Time for Questions"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
The reporter asked him how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a deputy defense secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, a defense contracter not unlike Blackwater. You know, the defense contracter the libs love to hate. He got irritated and told the reporters that if they couldn't play nice, he wouldn't come to play anymore.
Arrogant. Conceited. Waaaaay in over his head. And people are fawning over him! They've got the tingles in their various body parts below the belly button! They're crying and fainting and giggling like school children! And most of them are adults!
This should be an interesting four years...
Sure, the election was over a month ago. But I have a life, gosh darnit! Or, as the currently-in-the-lead-after-the-fourth-or-so-recount Al Franken would say, "I'm smart enough, I'm talented enough, and gosh darnit, people like me." Only, in Al's case, he only seems to be liked by people who can't seem to fill out their ballots correctly. Or they just work for Franken and have to be sure he wins so they still have a job in this crazy economy.
In following the Minnesota race (which, by the way, what up Minnesotans? First Jesse "the Body", now Al "the no-talent hack"? What is wrong with you? Though, granted, we have the Governator, so I'm not really in a position to pass judgement), I have seen some striking resemblences to a few other closely contested races. The first being the most obvious, the 2000 Florida general, which was called for Algore, then Bush, then Algore fought it, then was politically murdered with a hacksaw by the Supreme Court. No more recount for you!
But the more striking resemblence is to an apparently little-followed election in 2006 for the govenorship of Washington. I say little-followed because, at the time, I didn't follow it. I was more concerned about my congress going to the asses that are in there now. And I mean ass in the biblical sense, so don't get your panties in a twist.
See, the democrat who was running was in the same position that Franken is currently in: he was losing, but it was very close. Now, granted, the laws they have to abide by are different: Franken's state requires a recount in close calls like this, so he's not entirely to blame. But what happened in Washington was that when the first recount happened, the democrat lost. So he asked for a second recount. It was granted, and he lost again. So he asked for a third recount, and somehow, he magically came out on top, which of course meant that he could stop asking for recounts. Now, I'm not saying he broke any laws; it's certainly within his rights to ask for as many recounts as he wants, and lord knows there's a lot of stuff that happens with ballots that I don't know about. But it seems to me that, if it takes four times to count the ballots in your favor, and the other three times the result was against you, something's not quite on the level.
Now we have Franken challenging ballots that are very clearly designated as to who they wanted to vote for. The voter may not have learned how to bubble in answers (hey, standardized testing IS relevent to modern life!), but it's clear enough to get the point across. This reaks of political opportunism, and having a temper tantrum until he gets his way. Franken is acting like a spoiled two year old who doesn't want to leave the toy section of Walmart!
All I'm saying is this. You don't see Republicans demanding recounts until the vote goes their way; their above that. When they lose, even if it's close, they concede gracefully. If nothing else, on election night John McCain proved that he's a standup guy. I don't agree with him on a lot, but he's a guy that I would want in my corner. It always seems to be the democrats who whine, demand, and scheme their way into office. This is especially bad when a person's trying to get into the only government entity that has a worse approval rating than the President.
Congress has a long way to go to clean up its image, and elections are only proving to most people what they already know: the people we currently have in office won't ever be able to do it. Not surprising considering they're the ones who tainted the image in the first place.
P.S. I hate San Francisco for returning Italian Grandma Barbie to office yet again. I mean, seriously; get a clue.
|