Back to Business Tuesday
Enough Fun. Today is back to business Tuesday.
For those concerned I might become warm and fuzzy due to recent pleasant events, please think again.
Actually, just think again. Please is too pleasant.
On Saturday I disclosed my new romance. Sunday was devoted to dad. Yesterday was the first day of Summer, a celebration of hot women.
This is primarily a political blog, so let’s get back to politics.
Tomorrow I will go back to my daily topic du jour, which is French for something that I think is eaten with brisket.
Today there are so many things going on that I will analyze (translate: steal) from the many who are wiser than me.
Mark Steyn remains brilliant. His column analyzing Barack Obama’s most recent speech dealing with the Gulf oil spill should be mandatory reading. Many on the left were surprised that the speech was mediocre, and that Barack Obama was being seen as mediocre. Mark Steyn points out what he, I, and most conservatives have known from the beginning. Barack Obama was always mediocre.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/18/the-epitome-of-mediocrity/print/
Barack Obama is an academic. The left worships academics, and sees them as all knowing. The problem with academics is that they possess keen wisdom on specific topics (that ordinary Americans rightfully don’t care about) at the expense of a basic rudimentary knowledge of everything else. This is how a PhD in 18th century Russian footwear can insist on being called “doctor” and demand the same respect as a heart surgeon.
Mr. Obama’s predecessor was (falsely) seen as intellectually incurious. He was just more of a workhorse than a show horse. He did not have time to regale us with tales of yore or dazzle us with arcane knowledge. He was busy doing his job.
I know this because I have an MBA, and yet am seen as intellectually incurious by those professors who find it odd that 19th century French literature (translation: anti-American drivel, excepting Alex de Tocqueville, who the academics conveniently ignore) would not help me be a better Wall Street Stockbroker.
Somebody needs to tell academics the truth. They are not worldly. They are not sophisticated. They are not erudite. They are boring.
While Mr. Obama waxes poetic about a fictional green society, ordinary Americans just want the d@mn oil spill cleaned up.
This is so simple. Everybody outside of academics can grasp this.
While Barack Obama promised to make the oceans rise and let the waters then recede as if they were his vice president’s hairline, another useless liberal former vice president named Al Gore promised us that the flood waters would literally drown us all before we burned to death.
Forget that Al Gore is pompous, insufferable, and likable only to academics (I know it is hard, but try).
The real story is that Al Gore is repeatedly wrong. Rather than man up and say he was wrong, he just doubles down and insists that he really is right, just in a different way. Even Bill Clinton would be proud of his former veep’s verbal chicanery.
Australia has been leading the charge of global warming skeptics. Ian Plimer is now the new guy to go to for information.
The left then resorts to comparing global warming deniers to Holocaust deniers. When the facts are against you, hurl bile. Liberal is as liberal does.
There is a difference between being a global warming denier and a global warming skeptic. Skepticism is healthy. If the left was accurate, they would not need to cook the books, manipulate the numbers, and alter the term global warming to “climate change.”
Calling it “body beef stew” does not make it any less cr@pola.
Speaking of cr@pola, back to Gore (his argument, not the man himself). His Australian counterpart was ripped to shreds in a radio interview by a host who did nothing more than present unsubstantiated claims that turned out to be completely wrong.
Thank you Andrew Bolt and Tom Minchkin.
Turning to Radical Islam and winning the war on terror, I have some more thoughts on suicide bomber Helen Thomas.
Rabbi David Nesenoff was the one who asked the fateful question that revealed Helen Thomas to be as hideously ghastly inside as her rather atrocious outside.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803204.html
This was no right-wing set up by some Neocon cabal, despite the protests from the left (what a shock, leftists protesting wrongly about nonsense). Rabbi Nesenoff is a liberal New York Rabbi and Obama lover.
Helen Thomas for years was defended by those who asserted that one can be critical of Israel without being an anti-Semite. While this is true, it is undeniable that many hide behind anti-Israel rhetoric to barely mask anti-Semitism. The issue is not Israel. It is a hostility to the very existence of Jews for being Jews.
Thomas finally crossed the line so blatantly that even her liberal cheerleaders had to give pause. She recommended that Jews “get out of Palestine,” and “go back to where they came from,” that being Germany, Poland, and the United States. Yet what was lost in translation was the reason she feels this way.
“I’m from Arab descent.”
As the Rabbi asks us, “that’s it?”
Yes, that’s it.
I have always referred to her as Arab sympathizer Helen Thomas.
This is important because if her being an Arab is the reason she feels this way, it makes her more than an anti-Semite. It makes her a terrible reporter.
The best journalists remove their biases, or disclose them.
(Opinion shows are not the same as hard news programs, for those who wish to bash Fox News. FNC separates the lines clearly, while MSNBC and the Jayson Blair Times blur them to the point of zero distinction.)
Helen Thoman once said, “of course I am liberal. What else would I be?” Now she is telling us that her Arab heritage is what caused her anti-Israel reporting. It was not based on facts. It was based on her emotions.
(I am still waiting for Christine Amanpour to come clean.)
Helen Thomas was a biased woman who let her biases infect her reporting. In this sense she is like most liberal reporters and journalists. She just got caught admitting it.
For those who wonder why I only target the left, they make up 90% of the journalists. The hysteria toward the statistical aberrations on the right are meant to offer a moral equivalence, the only time liberal journalists want balance.
Balance is the issue regarding politicians and vacations. Liberals are doing backflips to explain why Barack Obama playing golf while the oil spill wreaks havoc is fine, while BP executive Tony Hayward going on a yacht is not fine. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
I have zero problem with Mr. Obama playing golf. In fact, he should play more golf, not less. For one thing, every minute he spends golfing is a moment he is not passing harmful legislation. Secondly, he is the best spokesperson for golf. Golf is boring, and so is the president.
I just want the media sycophants to remember that Republicans are allowed to have vacations as well. The media gushed over Bill Clinton at Martha’s Vineyard, enthralled at how relaxed he was. Republican presidents never get to go on vacation without the media hacks talking about the timing, as if the president ever really has the time.
Tony Hayward is no longer the BP spokesman. Therefore, he can go yachting whenever he likes. Mr. Obama should shut up and golf, and stop criticizing everybody else who dares to relax and take a break from the stressful world around them.
(Unrelated but interesting point: Comedian Jay Mohr noted that it was unusual for the president and vice president to be riding on the same golf cart. For safety and security reasons, it is rare for any president and vice president to be in such close proximity in that situation. This is less a criticism than an observation, and hopefully not a trend.)
The last issue today is the oil spill itself, which brings me back to our first academic in chief. For those looking at things objectively, Sir Charles of Krauthammer knows virtually everything, while the president knows virtually nothing. This assessment may seem harsh, but harsh is not wrong.
What Sir Charles has done again, as he always does (I take the man’s brilliance for granted, which may raise the bar too high. Yet he keeps surpassing it.), is lay out a simple concept in an even simpler manner.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/06/18/obama039s_energy_push_divorced_from_reality_236133.html
We all know that Mr. Obama spent too much of his most recent (lecture) speech on creating a new greeniac utopia rather than fix the oil spill.
Yet what really matters is what Mr. Krauthammer points out, that oil itself matters.
Conservatives are accused of wanting to “do nothing.” That is a straw man argument.
Wind power is a potential solution. So is replacing oil with animal waste. Ethanol through corn and sugar were seen as possibilities and now are less favored.
This is not about the “big oil lobby.” This is about the fact that oil actually works.
Of course we should look for alternatives. However, we cannot and must not give up what is currently working in the hopes that something else might work in the future.
Sir Charles says it best:
“There’s a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It’s not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy dense and easy to use.”
We should get off of foreign oil. My solution is to break Iran in half and shove the American flag up the mullahs’ hides until they go to the toilet red, white and blue. That feels good but is politically untenable. “Kick their @ss and take their gas” is a great slogan that nobody to the left of Neocons like myself will embrace.
The next step is to drill for as much domestic oil as possible.
Yes, “drill, baby drill” is the answer.
Drilling for oil does not mean ignoring new potential technologies. Yet the left falsely argues that we cannot do both.
If liberals want to restrict oil, which they do, then they should immediately give up their electricity. Go become Amish and live on a farm in Pennsylvania somewhere. It can be a wind powered farm.
(Again, liberal phony Ted Kennedy banned a wind farm in his backyard because it blocked his view of Nantucket. These people will inconvenience everyone else but protect themselves form the laws they pass.)
Oil works. Until a credible replacement exists, we must get more oil. Either we take it from foreign rogue sources (Iran is at war with us even if we refuse to be at war with them) or we drill it domestically.
Perhaps if the president would spend less time bragging about academics, Nobel prize winners, and other “scientists,” and spent more time talking to roughnecks and wildcatters, he might understand that the way to deal with an oil crisis is to deal with oil.
It is good to be back at the (virtual blogosphere) office. My sleeves are rolled up.
Let’s get to work.
eric
June 22nd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
George Bush tried in vain to get Congress to pass regulations
which would have reduced the sub prime mortgage debacle.
But who knows, and who cares, right, certainly not
the Democrats who have controlled Congress for 4 years.
Bush did a lot more, that we never hear about and that’s for another
post.
BTW, 8 years after we invaded Iraq, we are still fighting there,
and losing. We have been in Afghanistan for 9 years and losing.
Now we learn that our general may quit, thanks to his open
criticism of Biden/Obama.
I mean lets be real. Yes I know the liberals were against our
getting rid of Saddam and voiced opposition to the war afterwards.
“Mission accomplished” was rebuked by them.
Yet one trillion dollars later and 5,000 lives and 40,000 injured,
we are still fighting. They guys approved the funding. Get it,
approved.
We have over 140,000 contractors in Afghanistan and 90,000 troops.
We learn that the Taliban are being paid millions to allow them to pass,
w/o being attacked. Hmmmmm.
Iran just celebrated the first year of the protests. Don’t tell Obama
however, he still believes in diplomacy.
Sure, and I will sell you the George Washington Bridge
or Erie Canal, cheap.
Irans Ahmad said we Jews (including Eric) look human, but
really are not. I’ll have to check myself.
Speaking of Iran, they are sending a boat to break Israel’s blockade
now reduced since Obama put pressure on Bibi to allow more aid.
Included are 10 activists and aid for the hapless residents,
and possibly a suicide bomber or two, who will blow up the ship,
activists, others and Israeli commandos.
But then again, life is cheap in Islam. Hey guys, hear about
the flogging of dozens in Saudi Arabia for attending a mixed
party (men and women). No gays guys and gals, you see they
are permanently flogged (like beheaded).
And this is what Europe wants for themselves?
Will Obama say he is displeased at all? Will he say anything?
I understand that Rahm might leave his government for
greener pastures? If so, Obama is now on his own. Im
sorry, he still has Pelosi (against the genocide definition
vis a vie Turkey) and Reid.
Several hundred protested an Israeli ship docking
in my state. Hmmmm, were they protesting medical supplies,
or computer chips or Israeli scientific achievements?
I don’t hear you Obama.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Steyn and you make a interesting analysis of the problem with the Obama administration, but for some reason you both feel compelled to turn off every one who isn’t already in the choir with your intellectually disingenuous attempt to read the mind of “liberals.” You’re never going to convince liberals of anything if you preface everything with essentially “liberals are idiots.”
Actually, most liberals I know of are very concerned with Obama’s academic style. Of course, if you think MBA’s are any better, then you’re experience in the corporate world must’ve been very narrow and limited. One thing I’ll never forget about the corporate world - when a new MBA walks in the office, the first thing you do is tell them to immediately FORGET everything they learned in school.
Many liberals do seem to believe that academicians are automatically qualified to run government, just as many conservatives seem to think the same of MBA’s. The fact of the matter is that neither are de facto qualified. There must be something else to them. Government is NOT a school any more or less than it is NOT business. Government is government. It does help, I’m sure, that Obama is a student of the constitution and government. Bush, or last excuse for a president, had no experience at anything other than running businesses into the ground. Obama is a better excuse.
His handling of the spill has been disasterous, though. Part of the problem lay wit ha matter of honesty. If the government simply had no way of dealing with this problem, then Obama should have come out from the beginning and announced in his usual overly-well-thought-out, haltered style, “People… the government… has no way… of dealing with… this spill. We simply… never… prepared… for… such… a… thing.” Another thing I learned from the (successful and stable) corporate world - honesty is usually the best policy. He should have taken charge just the same, though, rather than trying to find some balance of responsibility with a crooked corporate sleaze-machine like BP.
The first thing I would have done, if I were president, is get the AG to start looking for charges to file - serious criminal charges, included negligent homocide. The next thing I would have done is tell BP that they answer to US. Period. The next thing would have been to contract every marine clean-up operation in the world to get to work on the mess. Then I’d send the AG in again, to file charges on BP’s cover-up of the spill’s magnitude. Then I’d file civil suits up the wazoo until BP was no more, we owned them, and every dime they ever made wenty into our national coffers.
Had Obama done that, the Righties would still hate him, but the majority of hard-working real Americans would call him a hero forever. That’s Obama’s problem - not that he’s an academic, not that he’s too liberal or moderate or partisan Democratic - is that he’s trying to please eveyone. And you just can’t do that. Screw the Right. Govern with everyone else in mind.
JMJ
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“You’re never going to convince liberals of anything if you preface everything with essentially “liberals are idiots.” ”
Okay.
“Misguided’ will suffice.
As was mentioned in Erics post he did credit liberals with academia, but never said they were smart.
By the way. When you yourself always lead with the premise that conservatives and anyone disagreeing with you are idiots you only reinforce the hypocrisy on the left Eric spoke of.
“Bush, or last excuse for a president, had no experience at anything other than running businesses into the ground. Obama is a better excuse.’
Bull.
At least he ran a state requiring executive know how and served militarily giving him much better insights that didnt cost us more attacks on our soil than weve ever seen since 911
Ask McCrystal
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
“U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman struck down the six month moratorium of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico today. The Department of Interior order under direction from the Obama Administration was in response to the BP Gulf oil spill crisis. The moratorium forced all drilling in excess of 500 feet as of May 28th. In a 22-page decision, Judge Martin Feldman ruled against the Federal ban, he wrote that the Obama Administration had failed to justify the need for the sweeping suspension. Judge Feldman said the moratorium was “generic, indeed punitive”.
Judge Feldman went on to write that “the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drill new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.” The moratorium had shut down some 32 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, costly just in state unemployment compensation, nearly $330 Million dollars per month.
The White House immediately responded that they will appeal the decision. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama “strong believes” that continuing such drilling “makes no sense”. ‘
good grief.
The sooner the left realizes what a looser this president is the better off we’ll all be, that much sooner.
Too bad for Soros.
Now he wont be able lease and move all those rigs to Brazil
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I guess I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that our good host and Steyn (I’m familiar with Steyn from columns and the radio) make the assumption that “liberals” idolize Obama and think “academics” are infallible. True, some seem to, but most liberals are a) too smart to idolize anyone or blindly trust any disipline and b) never thought Obama was some leftist savior (or anti-Christ, depending on one’s degree and direction of ridiculousness).
There’s a fine line between criticism and cynicism. Liberals attempt to walk on the edge of that line. Righties step all the way over it. That’s why, I believe, Righties assume that liberals idolize Democratic leaders, or blanketly trust certain institutional philosophies. The Righties are projecting their tendencies on the Lefties.
Righties are far more likely to blindly follow leadership, even acceoting radical changes in posiition at the drop of an idol’s hat. Remember “nation-building?” But given the choice, Righties are far more likely to aggressively rationalize and impliment philsophies, even at the cost of tremendous damage to the nation. Remember Gramm-Rudman? Remember what happened to the economy the last couple of times the GOP was in control for more than a few years?
Righties are far more likely to adhere to philosophies and personalities even when they completely, proveably, statistically, factually, really, and inarguably fail. Even in this column here, we see George Bush reinvented for the umpteenth time into some kind of brilliant, level-heaed, in-charge head of state who was good for the nation. I doubt there’s more than a few of positive statistics to come out of the Bush/GOP years out of dozens. Yet he is idolized here.
At the same time, we’re told that “liberals” are doing the same thing with Obama, but we’re not. Most of us were not even big fans of Obama in the primaries. He seemd to be too much of a modernate, DLC-style, party man. We too were concerned about his ability to lead. We too were worried that he may allow himself to be played. So far, he’s been pretty good. But we certainly don’t think he’s great, or some transcendent leader. He’s doing “okay.” That’s about all most liberals would say. You guys just think we idolize Obama because you guys idolize Republicans and Conervative leaders. Liberals rarely idolize anything or anyone. Especially today’s younger, more critical liberals.
JMJ
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
‘ but most liberals are a) too smart to idolize anyone or blindly trust any disipline ”
Gimme a break.
Half the moonbats I debated during the campaign were rooting for him because
A) He was black and we needed to show earth how tolerant and dicverse we could be.
B) Hope and Change with no clear plan was sufficeint qualification.
C) He beat up on and blamed Bush for everything convincing moonbats GW was in the race.
“Yet he is idolized here.”
And everywhere else heads are not in a$$es
Now, only 32% of the country has any confidence he can lead. That means hes lost roughly half the morons that voted him in.
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Well, even I was thriolled at the prospect of a black man winning the presidency. I mean, that was pretty big. I never thought I’d see it in my life time. But you make a huge misjudgement in the character of most voters. Obama won, not because he was black. He won because my generation was the first generation in American history that didn’t care that he was black.
The hard left, like me, were behind Kucinich and most liberals were behind Edwards in the primaries anyway. We’re all breathing a lot easier now, though! What a disaster that would have been!
JMJ