Thursday, August 27, 2009

Quick question

Over the last several weeks I've been doing a lot of thinking about this blog.

In connection with that thought, I ask you glance to the top right of the main page and answer a simple poll: what age bracket do you fit into?


Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Remember when...

I remember those awful Bush years when the media would remind us on a daily basis just how many American soldiers had died in that needless war.

We always knew exactly how many soldiers had died in Iraq and Afghanistan because the media relished the gory details so long as they could have the blood be on Bush’s hands.

Bush is gone, believe it or not. The way the Left keeps blaming him, you’d think he hadn’t moved his stuff out of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now that Obama is Commander-In-Chief, it seems as if the war has been largely forgotten. The bellyaching over the President being a war monger has certainly stopped now that Obama is in charge of the military.

But the deaths and destruction continue on.

Today I read that 2009 was the deadliest year for American troops in Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban.

DEADLIEST YEAR?? And it’s only August.

Imagine the hysteria and the crazy chatter if BUSH were in charge right now.

Where have all the war protesters gone? Where are all the obstructions of traffic? The daily, weekly, and monthly anti-war get togethers?

Nowhere to be found.

Remember when war deaths mattered?

Read more: 

I am not a fan of war; but I am acutely aware that it is necessary at times.    But the point remains:  do you recall the last time the nightly news, or any of the talking-head shows, ever mentioned the total number of dead soldiers since the wars began?

Wasn't it before 20-January-09?

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Monday, August 24, 2009

More blatant double-standards in media - health care rationing

This humble blog repeatedly warned the dangers of electing Democrats because of their likelihood of enacting a Socialized Medicine scheme.   We're on the threshold of such a horror today.  

What's interesting is how such media giants as the New York Times are suddenly silent when someone they recently praised speaks out against President Obama's agenda.

In January of this year, the NY Times said the following

A well-known newspaper had this to say about writer Nat Hentoff upon his departure from the Villiage Voice at the end of 2008 after a 50-year run:
Across his 83 years, his three dozen books and his countless newspaper columns and magazine articles, Mr. Hentoff has championed free speech and opposed censorship of any kind, whether by liberals or conservatives. Few have more assiduously and consistently defended the right of people to express their views, no matter how objectionable.

The thing is that, agree with him or not, Nat Hentoff offers no opinion that isn’t supported by facts, diligently gathered.

Mr. Hentoff may not hear as well as he once did, or stand quite as straight. But he will not fade to silence.
All well and good if that's how what they believe.  So then why hasn't the NY Times offered Mr. Hentoff's opinion on President Obama's agenda thus far (emphasis by me):

Jewish World Review, Aug 19: I am finally scared of a White House administration

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

.... No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in [a] Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

..... As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, (Dr. Wesley) Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar.

..... Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy — as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?
So if the New York Times is as balanced as it claims, they will give a nod to Mr. Hentoff's position on socialized medicine and town hall attendees.  Even if they disagree, they have to admit his positions are those that are supported by diligently gathered facts.


H/T to NewsBusters

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Friday, August 21, 2009

My how times have changed

Remember when the stars of the Left were coming to the defense of the perpetual basher of President Bush, Cindy Sheehan?

Well, the bloom has fallen off that rose.... as Byron York reports:

In an appearance August 18 on WLS radio in Chicago, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson was asked about anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan's plans to travel to Martha's Vineyard next week, where she will protest the Iraq and Afghanistan wars while President Obama is vacationing there. Gibson, whose newscast and network featured Sheehan when she led anti-war protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch in 2005, answered, "Enough already."

That's a remarkably different stance from the one Gibson took four years ago. On August 9, 2005, the ABC anchor conducted an extensive on-air interview with Sheehan. "Cindy Sheehan is her name," Gibson began. "She says she's not moving until the president meets with her, and I had a chance to speak with her a few minutes ago. Cindy Sheehan, bottom line, what do you hope to accomplish with all this?" During the next week, Gibson and ABC continued to cover Sheehan. On August 17, 2005, when Sheehan left Crawford, Gibson reported, "We're going to turn next to the standoff that is playing out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan, you know, the mother who lost a son in Iraq, is now on the move, but she's still standing her ground. ABC's Geoff Morrell is in Crawford with the details…" The next day, Gibson reported, "All across the country last night, people held candlelight vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan…" Sheehan was mentioned in several other ABC newscasts, as well.

Now that Ms. Sheehan no longer serves any purpose to the left-wing media, especially since President Bush has left office, there's little need for them to pay her even half the respect they did in the past.

As I've said, the nation owes her a debt for the sacrifice of her son; it is a shame how she was led to believe she was the toast of the town, and is now being discarded by the very same people.

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook

Wearing white before Labor Day is OK, but...

I know; it's been a while.  I have fallen behind in my posting.

No one who knows me would ever assume I am fashion authority.   My much-better-half still speaks of her disdain when she learned, some 20 years ago, my wardrobe consisted in a number of blue, white, and white-with-blue pinstriped shirts.   That's all fine by me, and little has changed (much to the chagrin, again, to my MBH).  Fast forward to today, when I observed what may be considered a fashion faux pas, which led to an uncomfortable encounter. 

I am at a FedEx drop site;  my kid's cyber school is upgrading their equipment, so I am completing the RMA process to send back the older devices.   There's a few folk ahead of me in the office, so I am waiting in line. The temperature today was in the upper 80's, and it was quite humid.   I'd be a liar if I suggested I was listening to my better angels, but clearly my mind, and eyes, wandered to the person standing in front of me.    A tall woman, fairly rubenesque, stood in front of me, and what most notably struck me was her choice of white slacks.

Again, I am hardly a fashion expert, but even I know the tendency to wear white in the summer temperatures, and this woman clearly understood this, as hers were probably made of linen. 

What struck me odd, however, was her decision to wear a purple thong.  Now understand: I did not, in any way, go to any extraordinary effort other than to stand about 18" behind this woman, and I was very able to make this observation.    She did not bend over, her slacks weren't below her hips, and her top was tastefully meeting the top of her slacks, so this observation wasn't by any unusual methods.

This wasn't the big awkward moment, however.   A few moments later, as I took a call on my cell phone, the woman standing in front of me turned around and said Hey Charlie, how are you?

The woman who made what perhaps can be considered an unfortunate choice in her wardrobe was a former coworker of mine.   So I ditched the call and made small talk, agreeing to get together soon, amid the incredible awkwardness of the all-too-obvious - how can I say this delicately? - clashing of colors

There's never a dull moment...

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook