Following the prescription of their practicing physician from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, when Sen. Reid (D-Nev) tried to expose Republican impotence and parade it for public ridicule, Republicans stiffened and showed they still could get it up for fiscal conservatism.
Accustomed to dealing with limp-noodle Republicans, Democrats bundled thirty-five bills already passed by the fiscally promiscuous House and planned to ram them up Sen. Coburn to show him that the Senate could practice unsafe spending as well as the House. Sen. Coburn had placed a hold on each of the bills primarily to focus attention on the need to reduce some programs to pay for increased funding of others.
The Democrats didn’t want anything to do with such fidelity to fiscal integrity, preferring instead orgiastic overspending to please their insatiable special interest groupies. The Democrats’ motto: “If you think money can’t buy you love, you don’t know Democrats.”
But just as Democrats could feel a free-spending climax coming, Republicans dealt them an abrupt dose of spendus-interruptus. The Democrats deflated like a man told he got the placebo instead of Viagra.
Like Bill Clinton when Monica said she it was her turn.
Like Bill Clinton when Hillary told him she felt “frisky.”
When Republicans told Democrats they had to stick to their budget pledge of no spending increases without offsetting decreases, the Democrats lost interest faster than Ted Kennedy when he found out the all-girls school he was speaking at was a nunnery.
As they left the Senate chambers without consummation, Democrats were heard to whine: “Safe spending is no fun!”
Then one of them shouted: “Let’s gang-tax the oil companies!”
As one they raised a rapacious cry and raced back into Senate chambers in the Capitol building.
“We’ve got a Big One for Big Oil, and they’re really going to feel it!” they moaned.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
John McCain was Right - Social Security is a Disgrace
I have been drawing Social Security for two months now, and John McCain was right: “It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed!” Social Security is a horrible investment using the very simple yardstick of what you pay in compared to what you get out.
I am receiving $1,874 per month, or $22,488 per year. I’ve paid into Social Security for 48 years, and in many of those years I paid at or near the maximum annual contribution. During my real estate career of the past eight years, I paid both sides – the employee and the so-called employer contributions – into Social Security. That made obvious what I already knew: the “employer” contribution has always been paid by me, even when I worked for someone else. If the employer did not have to contribute to my Social Security, he would have had to pay me more, and I would have had to contribute more.
Therefore, all the money contributed in my name to Social Security over the years was paid from my earnings.
Many years ago I offered to take what I and my employer had contributed towards my Social Security (forget even getting interest on total contributions going back to 1958) and invest it myself, and in return I would never ever ask the government for a thing from Social Security.
Think about it. The government would have received a “no interest” loan from me, and all they would need to do to drop me forever as a liability is just give me a few of the Special Treasury Bonds they hold in the Social Security Trust Fund.
Of course they can’t do that. The money I contributed has been spent, used to pay other Social Security recipients and any excess used to pay other government operating expenses, like the Medicare cost overrun. The Special Treasury Bonds are worthless. If they were sold to pay current Social Security obligations, more Treasury bonds would have to be sold immediately to replace the cash needed to pay for other government expenses.
Many Americans, including innumerable PhD’s, can’t understand this, so do this simple test: put $10 in a jar labeled “Dining Out Fund.” Now take the $10 out and pay your phone bill, and in its place write an IOU for $10 to the “Dining Out Fund.” Now go out for dinner (at a real cheap place), and when the bill arrives pull out the IOU as payment.
At this point, even a Democrat would refuse the IOU and demand real money, even as you protest that you already spent it on your phone bill. So you reach into your wallet and pull out the $10 you planned to use to fill your empty gas tank. Then you tell your date, “If you don’t want to walk home, you’ll have to loan me $10.”
Our government has done the same thing, and now each and every American has a $455,000 share of the unfunded long-term liability for future Social Security and Medicare expenditures for which we through our government are obligated to pay.
This situation was brought into clear focus by the mortgage banking crisis, with calls for the government to bail out huge mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. With what?
Simply put, the government does what is doesn’t allow businesses to do: it doesn’t put its long-term unfunded liabilities on its books, and the total now for Social Security and Medicare is a whopping $53 trillion, or $455,000 per person.
When I was in the Air Force I griped about having to contribute to Medicare, because at the time military members had “guaranteed” life-time medical coverage in military hospitals. Many military retired near military hospitals. Trust the government to mess things up. Congress passed a law that once a retiree became 65 years old, they had to join Medicare and not be treated in military hospitals.
How about those retirees living near military bases far away from civilian hospitals?
Retirees raised a stink, and for once were listened to. The military retiree program for under-65’s, Tricare Prime, was expanded to Tricare for Life, the secondary insurer to Medicare. So the military retiree gained a little, but basically still came up a loser: the retiree could now use both Medicare facilities without prior approval (which was almost always granted) and military hospitals, but instead of a $460 annual fee covering both retiree and spouse, the annual Medicare fee for a typical retiree and spouse is now $2,360, or roughly one month’s Social Security payment more expensive.
Now I’m having second thoughts about all this, and I realize that John McCain was wrong when he said that Social Security is an absolute disgrace. He should have said that both Social Security and Medicare are absolute disgraces!
I am receiving $1,874 per month, or $22,488 per year. I’ve paid into Social Security for 48 years, and in many of those years I paid at or near the maximum annual contribution. During my real estate career of the past eight years, I paid both sides – the employee and the so-called employer contributions – into Social Security. That made obvious what I already knew: the “employer” contribution has always been paid by me, even when I worked for someone else. If the employer did not have to contribute to my Social Security, he would have had to pay me more, and I would have had to contribute more.
Therefore, all the money contributed in my name to Social Security over the years was paid from my earnings.
Many years ago I offered to take what I and my employer had contributed towards my Social Security (forget even getting interest on total contributions going back to 1958) and invest it myself, and in return I would never ever ask the government for a thing from Social Security.
Think about it. The government would have received a “no interest” loan from me, and all they would need to do to drop me forever as a liability is just give me a few of the Special Treasury Bonds they hold in the Social Security Trust Fund.
Of course they can’t do that. The money I contributed has been spent, used to pay other Social Security recipients and any excess used to pay other government operating expenses, like the Medicare cost overrun. The Special Treasury Bonds are worthless. If they were sold to pay current Social Security obligations, more Treasury bonds would have to be sold immediately to replace the cash needed to pay for other government expenses.
Many Americans, including innumerable PhD’s, can’t understand this, so do this simple test: put $10 in a jar labeled “Dining Out Fund.” Now take the $10 out and pay your phone bill, and in its place write an IOU for $10 to the “Dining Out Fund.” Now go out for dinner (at a real cheap place), and when the bill arrives pull out the IOU as payment.
At this point, even a Democrat would refuse the IOU and demand real money, even as you protest that you already spent it on your phone bill. So you reach into your wallet and pull out the $10 you planned to use to fill your empty gas tank. Then you tell your date, “If you don’t want to walk home, you’ll have to loan me $10.”
Our government has done the same thing, and now each and every American has a $455,000 share of the unfunded long-term liability for future Social Security and Medicare expenditures for which we through our government are obligated to pay.
This situation was brought into clear focus by the mortgage banking crisis, with calls for the government to bail out huge mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. With what?
"People seem to think the government has money," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "The government doesn't have any money."
Simply put, the government does what is doesn’t allow businesses to do: it doesn’t put its long-term unfunded liabilities on its books, and the total now for Social Security and Medicare is a whopping $53 trillion, or $455,000 per person.
"Health care costs are just amazing," said John Shoven, director of Stanford University's Institute for Economic Policy Research. Total health care costs now consume 16 percent of the economy and are headed quickly toward 30 percent, Shoven said. "Social Security is a big problem, but it's dwarfed by health care. Even the housing problem is dwarfed by health care."
Just the built-in rise in spending on programs for the elderly will cost about 25 percent of workers' payrolls over the next generation, said Richard Jackson, director of the Global Aging Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
When I was in the Air Force I griped about having to contribute to Medicare, because at the time military members had “guaranteed” life-time medical coverage in military hospitals. Many military retired near military hospitals. Trust the government to mess things up. Congress passed a law that once a retiree became 65 years old, they had to join Medicare and not be treated in military hospitals.
How about those retirees living near military bases far away from civilian hospitals?
Retirees raised a stink, and for once were listened to. The military retiree program for under-65’s, Tricare Prime, was expanded to Tricare for Life, the secondary insurer to Medicare. So the military retiree gained a little, but basically still came up a loser: the retiree could now use both Medicare facilities without prior approval (which was almost always granted) and military hospitals, but instead of a $460 annual fee covering both retiree and spouse, the annual Medicare fee for a typical retiree and spouse is now $2,360, or roughly one month’s Social Security payment more expensive.
Now I’m having second thoughts about all this, and I realize that John McCain was wrong when he said that Social Security is an absolute disgrace. He should have said that both Social Security and Medicare are absolute disgraces!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
San Francisco Mayor Newsom – I Finked on You to Drudge!
The story is simple and tragic. San Francisco, following its sanctuary policy, did not alert immigration officials of felony convictions of “juvenile” illegal immigrants in order to prevent their being deported and barred re-entry for life.
(This photo illustrates Mayor Newsom answering "Who, me?" and trying to blame the problem on the courts when asked about why his administration spent taxpayer money to illegally fly convicted "juvenile" crack dealers back to Honduras instead of alerting immigration authorities as required by law - and not by San Francisco's sanctuary policy.)
One of the illegal immigrant felons, twice convicted but shielded by San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, used an illegal AK-47 assault weapon to violently murder a father and his two sons in a senseless and unprovoked road-rage attack on a San Francisco street.
At fault were San Francisco Juvenile Justice Department officials who have used their limited brain power and complete lack of common sense to do everything they could think of to defy immigration law.
Dumb No. One was flying convicted “juvenile” crack dealers to
One of the illegal immigrant felons, twice convicted but shielded by San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, used an illegal AK-47 assault weapon to violently murder a father and his two sons in a senseless and unprovoked road-rage attack on a San Francisco street.
At fault were San Francisco Juvenile Justice Department officials who have used their limited brain power and complete lack of common sense to do everything they could think of to defy immigration law.
Dumb No. One was flying convicted “juvenile” crack dealers to
their homeland, Honduras, instead of referring them to immigration authorities for deportation as legally required. With no federal record of felony convictions, the Honduran drug cartels would have their hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers back on the job faster than you could say “dumb Democrats doing dastardly deeds.”
Dumb No. Two, after being caught doing Dumb No. One, was putting the “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers” in unlocked group homes in Southern California at a cost to taxpayers of $7,000 per “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers” per month.
The “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers,” although uneducated, were not as dumb as the San Francisco officials who sent them to the group homes, and wasted no time in escaping and getting back to dealing crack.
Still with no record of felony convictions that would trigger actions to remove them permanently from plying their illegal trade.
What with "Dumb," and then "Double Dumb" to the credit of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his benighted Board of "Stupidvisors" (as they are called by anyone who has studied them in action), I waited expectantly for Drudge to link to this embarassing liberal mess, and give national exposure to the tragedy of the triple killing that Newsom's administration aided and abetted.
Days passed and no link by Drudge, so last night I used the "send news tips to Drudge (anonymity guaranteed)" block at the bottom right of his page to send him a brief summary and a link to my blog post - hoping against hope it would get his attention and that he would link to my bombastic post on the issue. That would have really lit up Blogger!
Of course he didn't link to my post, but this morning I found this link on Drudge: Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law...
Now the rest of California know what Northern Californians are already aware of about the serial philanderer and buck-passer who thinks he can be California's next governor.
It's fitting that Gavin Newsom's political future has been torpedoed by his city's idiot sanctuary law. It's just an awful pity that three honest, innocent citizens had to meet violent and senseless deaths to focus attention on the monumental stupidity of the city government of San Francisco.
Dumb No. Two, after being caught doing Dumb No. One, was putting the “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers” in unlocked group homes in Southern California at a cost to taxpayers of $7,000 per “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers” per month.
The “hardened and experienced youthful-appearing crack dealers,” although uneducated, were not as dumb as the San Francisco officials who sent them to the group homes, and wasted no time in escaping and getting back to dealing crack.
Still with no record of felony convictions that would trigger actions to remove them permanently from plying their illegal trade.
What with "Dumb," and then "Double Dumb" to the credit of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his benighted Board of "Stupidvisors" (as they are called by anyone who has studied them in action), I waited expectantly for Drudge to link to this embarassing liberal mess, and give national exposure to the tragedy of the triple killing that Newsom's administration aided and abetted.
Days passed and no link by Drudge, so last night I used the "send news tips to Drudge (anonymity guaranteed)" block at the bottom right of his page to send him a brief summary and a link to my blog post - hoping against hope it would get his attention and that he would link to my bombastic post on the issue. That would have really lit up Blogger!
Of course he didn't link to my post, but this morning I found this link on Drudge: Killings turn focus on San Francisco sanctuary law...
Now the rest of California know what Northern Californians are already aware of about the serial philanderer and buck-passer who thinks he can be California's next governor.
It's fitting that Gavin Newsom's political future has been torpedoed by his city's idiot sanctuary law. It's just an awful pity that three honest, innocent citizens had to meet violent and senseless deaths to focus attention on the monumental stupidity of the city government of San Francisco.
John Edward’s Love Child
UPDATE:
The ENQUIRER caught John Edwards red-something-or-other sneaking to visit his mistress and their love child in Los Angeles. Unlike sex scandals involving Republicans - Larry Craig, who got made, but not laid; and Mark Foley, guilty of e-mailing while gay, but not of page penetration (unlike Gary Studds, Dem-Mass, deceased) - John Edwards was able to experience the full flowering of his philandering and its fruiting (forgive me, I couldn't stop myself from "effing" this up).
However, the main stream media are not having any such problems in controlling themselves, and are studiously avoiding embarrassing a Democrat for doing what would get a Republican banner headlines and non-stop television exposure 24/7.
Although Helen Thomas emphatically denied that journalists have liberal biases, isn't this hypocritical treatment resounding proof that they do?
Enquiring minds want to know.
(I notice my labels for this post are "Dimocrats" and "Hypocrisy," but I repeat myself)
The following is my previous post on this issue dated December 20, 2007. All that has changed since is that the baby arrived, and the main stream media still is in full avoidance mode.
In the news:
This story will cause particular outrage here in the San Francisco Bay/Northern California area.
“The nerve of John Edwards! Cheating with a ‘breeder!’ Can you imagine the damage to his boyfriends’ self esteem!”
“They’ll be devastated!”
At this point, I apologize to all I’ve offended by this reportage and commentary. I realize that no Democrat will in any way be so narrow-minded and judgmental as to be offended by the sexual adventures of their leaders, and I apologize for even suggesting they would.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
I also apologize to anyone offended in any way by my suggesting that John Edwards is a viable presidential candidate. However, I cannot be totally blamed for this, since I’ve heard that there are some Iowans who actually think he is.
Apparently, these are Iowans who slept through the John Kerrey-John Edwards presidential campaign.
Maybe that explains the John Edwards campaign.
A lot of Americans went to sleep as soon as John Kerrey began to drone his campaign speech. Kerrey, in his only campaign strategy step that appeared wise, kept Edwards quiet and out of sight.
It still didn't do any good.
Maybe if he could have found a way to keep himself quiet and out of sight too.
The ENQUIRER caught John Edwards red-something-or-other sneaking to visit his mistress and their love child in Los Angeles. Unlike sex scandals involving Republicans - Larry Craig, who got made, but not laid; and Mark Foley, guilty of e-mailing while gay, but not of page penetration (unlike Gary Studds, Dem-Mass, deceased) - John Edwards was able to experience the full flowering of his philandering and its fruiting (forgive me, I couldn't stop myself from "effing" this up).
However, the main stream media are not having any such problems in controlling themselves, and are studiously avoiding embarrassing a Democrat for doing what would get a Republican banner headlines and non-stop television exposure 24/7.
Although Helen Thomas emphatically denied that journalists have liberal biases, isn't this hypocritical treatment resounding proof that they do?
Enquiring minds want to know.
(I notice my labels for this post are "Dimocrats" and "Hypocrisy," but I repeat myself)
The following is my previous post on this issue dated December 20, 2007. All that has changed since is that the baby arrived, and the main stream media still is in full avoidance mode.
In the news:
The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant — and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!
This story will cause particular outrage here in the San Francisco Bay/Northern California area.
“The nerve of John Edwards! Cheating with a ‘breeder!’ Can you imagine the damage to his boyfriends’ self esteem!”
“They’ll be devastated!”
At this point, I apologize to all I’ve offended by this reportage and commentary. I realize that no Democrat will in any way be so narrow-minded and judgmental as to be offended by the sexual adventures of their leaders, and I apologize for even suggesting they would.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
I also apologize to anyone offended in any way by my suggesting that John Edwards is a viable presidential candidate. However, I cannot be totally blamed for this, since I’ve heard that there are some Iowans who actually think he is.
Apparently, these are Iowans who slept through the John Kerrey-John Edwards presidential campaign.
Maybe that explains the John Edwards campaign.
A lot of Americans went to sleep as soon as John Kerrey began to drone his campaign speech. Kerrey, in his only campaign strategy step that appeared wise, kept Edwards quiet and out of sight.
It still didn't do any good.
Maybe if he could have found a way to keep himself quiet and out of sight too.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
California Governor Hopeful San Francisco Mayor Newsom Protected Illegal Alien Murderer
As a result of San Francisco’s sanctuary law, a father and his two sons were murdered by an illegal alien who San Francisco had twice shielded from federal immigration authorities when he had committed felonies and should have been deported.
Today (July 23, 2008) Edwin Ramos pled not guilty to charges of murdering San Francisco residents Tony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Mathew near their home on June 22nd. Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors say is a member of a violent street gang, was earlier found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile: a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman (San Francisco Chronicle reporters investigated and discovered Ramo’s prior convictions, and that city officials had shielded him from federal authorities).
In neither instance did officials with the city's Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency's policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States (see SF Chronicle article).
Were it not for the incalculable tragedy of the murders of three honest, innocent, beloved, and productive citizens, the way San Francisco complied with their illegal alien sanctuary law would be comic. Their first approach to preventing convicted illegal alien felons from being deported and banned for life from United States immigration was to fly, at taxpayer expense, the felons back to their home countries.
As Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders notes, this "put the welfare of juvenile gang-bangers and drug dealers, who also were illegal immigrants, before the safety of law-abiding residents who are victimized by gangs and thugs." It signaled drug dealers that using juveniles, or undocumented individuals claiming to be juveniles, to conduct drug dealings in San Francisco was the way to go. When caught the “juveniles” received soft treatment through the city’s Juvenile Probation Department, and when returned to their home countries, were immediately sent back to San Francisco to resume dealing drugs.
When a city official and two convicted “juvenile” offenders were stopped at the airport in Houston enroute to being returned to Honduras, San Francisco’s defiance and violations of federal immigration law finally came to light. That didn’t stop San Francisco officials from compounding their idiocy at taxpayer expense.
Continuing to shield felons from immigration officials, San Francisco recently placed eight illegal immigrant “juvenile” crack dealers in unlocked group homes in Southern California at a cost of $7,000 per individual per month. All eight immediately escaped (i.e., walked out the door) to return to their illegal activities.
For those who believe they escaped to reform themselves and now lead honest lives in America, there is always a place for you in the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.
Overlooked in all the tragic-comedic aspects of San Francisco releasing felons to continue drug dealing and murdering is the San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris’ vow to never seek a death penalty. Since San Francisco has repeatedly earned its reputation as “The City That Knows How…To Really Foul Things Up,” a group is calling on the U. S. Attorney to prosecute the triple murder case.
Not only does San Francisco have a well-deserved reputation for fouling things up, but it would be a conflict of interest, particularly in this case, for San Francisco to prosecute Ramos when they were responsible for him being free to murder in the first place. The San Francisco DA would be under pressure from San Francisco officials to rush to sweep the whole embarrassing matter under the rug rather than seeking justice.
Particularly while the primary offender, Mayor Gavin Newsom, is poised to launch a bid to become California Governor. When this issue was first brought to his attention, he looked totally surprised and immediately blamed the courts for what city officials were doing to comply with San Francisco sancturary policy.
His eagerness to pass the buck exemplified his qualifications to be the Governor of California, where no state officials ever take responsibility for fixing any problem - they just wait for voters to finally lose their patience, pass a proposition, and then have the courts declare it unconstitutional.
Only in California could a serial philanderer (he had an affair with a subordinate, his best friend/campaign manager's wife), recently out of alcohol rehab, who denies any responsibility or even knowledge of what his officials are doing, be considered a serious candidate for any political office, let alone governor.
Today (July 23, 2008) Edwin Ramos pled not guilty to charges of murdering San Francisco residents Tony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Mathew near their home on June 22nd. Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors say is a member of a violent street gang, was earlier found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile: a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman (San Francisco Chronicle reporters investigated and discovered Ramo’s prior convictions, and that city officials had shielded him from federal authorities).
In neither instance did officials with the city's Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency's policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States (see SF Chronicle article).
Were it not for the incalculable tragedy of the murders of three honest, innocent, beloved, and productive citizens, the way San Francisco complied with their illegal alien sanctuary law would be comic. Their first approach to preventing convicted illegal alien felons from being deported and banned for life from United States immigration was to fly, at taxpayer expense, the felons back to their home countries.
As Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders notes, this "put the welfare of juvenile gang-bangers and drug dealers, who also were illegal immigrants, before the safety of law-abiding residents who are victimized by gangs and thugs." It signaled drug dealers that using juveniles, or undocumented individuals claiming to be juveniles, to conduct drug dealings in San Francisco was the way to go. When caught the “juveniles” received soft treatment through the city’s Juvenile Probation Department, and when returned to their home countries, were immediately sent back to San Francisco to resume dealing drugs.
When a city official and two convicted “juvenile” offenders were stopped at the airport in Houston enroute to being returned to Honduras, San Francisco’s defiance and violations of federal immigration law finally came to light. That didn’t stop San Francisco officials from compounding their idiocy at taxpayer expense.
Continuing to shield felons from immigration officials, San Francisco recently placed eight illegal immigrant “juvenile” crack dealers in unlocked group homes in Southern California at a cost of $7,000 per individual per month. All eight immediately escaped (i.e., walked out the door) to return to their illegal activities.
For those who believe they escaped to reform themselves and now lead honest lives in America, there is always a place for you in the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.
Overlooked in all the tragic-comedic aspects of San Francisco releasing felons to continue drug dealing and murdering is the San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris’ vow to never seek a death penalty. Since San Francisco has repeatedly earned its reputation as “The City That Knows How…To Really Foul Things Up,” a group is calling on the U. S. Attorney to prosecute the triple murder case.
Not only does San Francisco have a well-deserved reputation for fouling things up, but it would be a conflict of interest, particularly in this case, for San Francisco to prosecute Ramos when they were responsible for him being free to murder in the first place. The San Francisco DA would be under pressure from San Francisco officials to rush to sweep the whole embarrassing matter under the rug rather than seeking justice.
Particularly while the primary offender, Mayor Gavin Newsom, is poised to launch a bid to become California Governor. When this issue was first brought to his attention, he looked totally surprised and immediately blamed the courts for what city officials were doing to comply with San Francisco sancturary policy.
His eagerness to pass the buck exemplified his qualifications to be the Governor of California, where no state officials ever take responsibility for fixing any problem - they just wait for voters to finally lose their patience, pass a proposition, and then have the courts declare it unconstitutional.
Only in California could a serial philanderer (he had an affair with a subordinate, his best friend/campaign manager's wife), recently out of alcohol rehab, who denies any responsibility or even knowledge of what his officials are doing, be considered a serious candidate for any political office, let alone governor.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Texas Trolls Causing High Oil Prices
James Oglesby’s reply to David Skibbins (Ponzi Scheme, The Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, CA 7/18/08) illustrated textbook economic principles. The following may aid Mr. Oglesby to comprehend Mr. Skibbins’ economic understanding: Mr. Skibbins is a mystery writer, and economics are a mystery to him (leading me to coin the term “Skibbinomics” a couple of years ago).
Mr. Skibbins is not alone, since Democrats are equally mystified. Faced with rapidly rising oil prices, Nancy Pelosi led a Democrat charge against…. commodity speculators! Great shades of Harold Wilson and his 1964 condemnation of the Gnomes of Zürich!
Bush hatred coupled with economic ignorance and myopia make Democrats blame high oil prices on Bush, oil companies, and speculators. Apparently they haven’t noticed the strong economic growth of developing nations – China, India, Brazil, and numerous others – causing prices to increase dramatically since 2002 for resources: aluminum, 96%; copper, 360%; corn, 70%; gold, 125 %; nickel, 452%; steel, 117%; zinc, 314%; and, oh yes, oil, 177%. (see "Let's Shoot the Speculators," by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek.com)
Oil prices are set in world markets, and demand has risen sharply while production hasn’t. China and India alone account for 70 percent of increased consumption.
While Democrats blame Bush, oil companies, and speculators, they continue banning drilling in ANWR (2200 acres of mosquito-infested tundra and bog, about the size of a small airport) and offshore (out of sight from land). Democrats fan fears of offshore drilling oil spills, which now average only 6500 barrels a year, or less than four days worth of natural daily seepage.
(see "Stop the Energy Insanity," By Mortimer B. Zuckerman, USNews.com)
Democrats argue that drilling now wouldn’t produce more oil for ten years. That’s what they said ten years ago. Had we drilled then, we’d have more oil now from reserves totaling 96 billion barrels (equal to 200 years of Saudi Arabian imports), plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Unlike Democrat scapegoating, we would actually be doing something to reduce gas prices.
Mr. Skibbins is not alone, since Democrats are equally mystified. Faced with rapidly rising oil prices, Nancy Pelosi led a Democrat charge against…. commodity speculators! Great shades of Harold Wilson and his 1964 condemnation of the Gnomes of Zürich!
Bush hatred coupled with economic ignorance and myopia make Democrats blame high oil prices on Bush, oil companies, and speculators. Apparently they haven’t noticed the strong economic growth of developing nations – China, India, Brazil, and numerous others – causing prices to increase dramatically since 2002 for resources: aluminum, 96%; copper, 360%; corn, 70%; gold, 125 %; nickel, 452%; steel, 117%; zinc, 314%; and, oh yes, oil, 177%. (see "Let's Shoot the Speculators," by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek.com)
Oil prices are set in world markets, and demand has risen sharply while production hasn’t. China and India alone account for 70 percent of increased consumption.
While Democrats blame Bush, oil companies, and speculators, they continue banning drilling in ANWR (2200 acres of mosquito-infested tundra and bog, about the size of a small airport) and offshore (out of sight from land). Democrats fan fears of offshore drilling oil spills, which now average only 6500 barrels a year, or less than four days worth of natural daily seepage.
(see "Stop the Energy Insanity," By Mortimer B. Zuckerman, USNews.com)
Democrats argue that drilling now wouldn’t produce more oil for ten years. That’s what they said ten years ago. Had we drilled then, we’d have more oil now from reserves totaling 96 billion barrels (equal to 200 years of Saudi Arabian imports), plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Unlike Democrat scapegoating, we would actually be doing something to reduce gas prices.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day - Governor Schwarzenegger
It’s sad when the steroids that bulk up your body make your brain muscle-bound too. Today Arnold shows that some of his injections when right to his brain. With no evidence that man-caused global warming exists, but abundant evidence that natural climate change is occurring, the anthropogenic Austrian has criticized President Bush for not believing in something for which there is no evidence of its existence.
Next he will be all over President Bush for not believing in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
It’s too bad that Arnold didn’t have time between injections to study World History and learn of recent periods of greater natural warming: the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the Holocene Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Or he could have learned of the end of the last Ice Age, only 18,000 years ago, or the terrible famines, epidemics, and storms of the recent Little Ice Ages.
Had he but known of these recent natural climate extremes, he wouldn’t have exposed his Mr. World ignorance - unless, of course, it’s just more pandering to the immensely ignorant masses of California Democrats, who have made him what he now is: just another fumbling, bumbling California politician, succeeding only in making things worse with every misguided attempt at improvements.
It’s Grey Davis on steroids with a charisma transplant.
Next he will be all over President Bush for not believing in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
It’s too bad that Arnold didn’t have time between injections to study World History and learn of recent periods of greater natural warming: the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the Holocene Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Or he could have learned of the end of the last Ice Age, only 18,000 years ago, or the terrible famines, epidemics, and storms of the recent Little Ice Ages.
Had he but known of these recent natural climate extremes, he wouldn’t have exposed his Mr. World ignorance - unless, of course, it’s just more pandering to the immensely ignorant masses of California Democrats, who have made him what he now is: just another fumbling, bumbling California politician, succeeding only in making things worse with every misguided attempt at improvements.
It’s Grey Davis on steroids with a charisma transplant.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award - Paul Krugman of the New York Times
A very upset woman once phoned her bank, outraged that checks she had written were bouncing. “What do you mean, I have to stop? I still have lots of checks left.”
In his article, Mr. Krugman acknowledged that Medicare is broke:
In other words, Medicare is broke.
Mr. Krugman applauds the Democrats for solving the Medicare insolvency problem by ignoring it. According to Mr. Krugman, this is a positive step towards universal rather than privatized health services.
Let’s see if we can sum this up. The government run health system, Medicare, is insolvent and cannot pay its obligations without violating the rules that established its payment methodologies.
The Democrat answer is not to do anything to rescue Medicare from insolvency, like privatization, but instead to increase payment rates beyond legally established levels, and expand the federal budget deficit.
Why do we criticize the woman who wrote checks beyond the funds in her account, when we elect leaders to do the same with our tax money?
For being such a vocal advocate for irresponsible Medicare management, Paul Krugman is today’s honored recipient of the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award. From the evidence of his past articles, Mr. Krugman will consider criticism of his advocacy of irresponsible government spending to be an honor.
In his article, Mr. Krugman acknowledged that Medicare is broke:
This year, the automatic cuts (Medicare expenses far exceed income) would have reduced doctors’ payments by more than 10 percent, a pay reduction so deep that many physicians would probably have stopped taking Medicare patients.
In previous years, payments to doctors were maintained through bipartisan fudging: politicians from both parties got together to waive the rules. In effect, Congress kept Medicare functioning by expanding the federal budget deficit.
In other words, Medicare is broke.
Mr. Krugman applauds the Democrats for solving the Medicare insolvency problem by ignoring it. According to Mr. Krugman, this is a positive step towards universal rather than privatized health services.
Let’s see if we can sum this up. The government run health system, Medicare, is insolvent and cannot pay its obligations without violating the rules that established its payment methodologies.
The Democrat answer is not to do anything to rescue Medicare from insolvency, like privatization, but instead to increase payment rates beyond legally established levels, and expand the federal budget deficit.
Why do we criticize the woman who wrote checks beyond the funds in her account, when we elect leaders to do the same with our tax money?
For being such a vocal advocate for irresponsible Medicare management, Paul Krugman is today’s honored recipient of the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award. From the evidence of his past articles, Mr. Krugman will consider criticism of his advocacy of irresponsible government spending to be an honor.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award - Barack Obama (2nd Award)
After being a part of the Democrat chorus about President Bush being a “unilateralist” and not working with allies, Obama comes out with a pronouncement on Iran that shows he favors being a unilateralist and not working with our European allies.
This is his pattern: criticize when President Bush does one thing, and criticize again when he does the other.
H's saintly grandmother must have at sometime told him, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” (To Democrats President Bush is "W", and to me, Senator Obama is "H." Fair's fair.)
Unless you’re an unglued Democrat idiot.
Congratulation, Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
You’re our first repeat “winner.”
This is his pattern: criticize when President Bush does one thing, and criticize again when he does the other.
H's saintly grandmother must have at sometime told him, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” (To Democrats President Bush is "W", and to me, Senator Obama is "H." Fair's fair.)
Unless you’re an unglued Democrat idiot.
Congratulation, Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
You’re our first repeat “winner.”
Unglued Idiot of the Day - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
This one is too easy. Australian PM Rudd is a raving fool every day, but when he speaks of Australia’s role in fighting “man-caused” global warming, he reaches the epitome of lunacy.
An able Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, notes that the draconian measures Australia could inflict on its economy to reduce CO2 emissions would be equal to 28 days of world emissions in the next decade. In other words, following Al Gore’s admonishments would destroy Australia’s economy with no measurable effect on world weather.
Bolt also reports that India has been tracking climate changes in India for many decades, and does not detect any of significance.
It is obvious that fighting global warming is a “solution in search of a problem.”
An able Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, notes that the draconian measures Australia could inflict on its economy to reduce CO2 emissions would be equal to 28 days of world emissions in the next decade. In other words, following Al Gore’s admonishments would destroy Australia’s economy with no measurable effect on world weather.
Bolt also reports that India has been tracking climate changes in India for many decades, and does not detect any of significance.
It is obvious that fighting global warming is a “solution in search of a problem.”
Friday, July 04, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day Award – Barack Obama Wriggling on Troop Withdrawal
The following excerpt is from an International Herald Tribune article, Changing dynamics in Iraq pose challenge for Obama, By Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny, Published: July 4, 2008.
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."
Obama said that under his plan, there would still be combat troops in Iraq in 2010, seven years after the war began. And he questioned the premise that the recent gains could complicate the withdrawal.
"Those are the same folks who said that we can't pull troops out because things are too violent," he said. "Now that the violence has subsided, you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch-22."
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Unglued Idiot of the Day – Nancy Pelosi and the Fairness Doctrine
Nancy Pelosi, perennial contender, wins the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 25, 2008, for her support of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was dispatched during President Reagan’s administration.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has written a bill to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” - which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Nancy Pelosi supports the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, primarily because conservatives have done such a good job of gaining and holding the interest of radio talk show audiences, and liberals have not. According to Ms. Pelosi, New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
I have a theory about why Democrats want to revive the moribund “Fairness Doctrine.” It’s a desperate attempt to save Air America. Air America, with its ultra-liberal lineup of hosts, steadily tanked from its opening, which is terminal and is maintained on life support only by the Liberal practice of throwing good money after bad. Theoretically, if stations broadcasting Air America had to also include conservative shows – Rush, Hannity, etc. – then maybe people would listen, and sponsors would sponsor.
Air America is like the host of failed Liberal schemes of the last century. If a dumb Liberal idea isn’t working, then the problem must be that it was underfunded, and instead of mercifully pulling the plug and allowing “death with dignity,” Liberals throw more money (usually other people’s) at it.
Off the top of my head, examples include: busing to integrate schools (which succeeded in increasing school segregation while wasting scarce education resources); refusing over ten years ago to allow oil drilling offshore and in ANWAR “because we won’t get more oil for ten years” (now it’s ten years later, and we would have more oil, except… and now Democrats are again saying we shouldn’t drill because “because we won’t get more oil for ten years”); unilaterally saving the planet from “global warming” by proposing destruction to the United States economy, while China and India feed their burgeoning economies a steady diet of oil and coal; and proposing to lower gas prices by increasing taxes on oil companies (I know Liberals who think this will work, the same ones that believe you can raise taxes to grow the economy).
Actually, I don’t believe reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” is a Liberal attempt to save Air America; it just gave me another way to kick failed Liberal programs around some more.
I actually believe that all Liberals want to do is kill the popular outlet for conservative thought, talk radio, because they tried to compete with Air America and failed miserably. In accordance with the Liberal doctrine of “if you can’t compete with it, kill it!”, Democrat legislators know that if they require radio stations to carry expensive but unpopular Liberal programs, the radio stations will have to drop the popular conservative shows and go back to brain-dead formats like “all news,” of course provided by the Liberal dominated Main Stream Media.
Now there’s a good idea! Why don’t Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats require all news and entertainment media to provide equal time? What makes radio different from television, magazines, and newspapers? Throwing aside irrelevant technicalities, they are all in the entertainment business.
Why are news readers (the appropriate British title for news anchors) Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer paid huge salaries? Why is Rush Limbaugh paid more than four prestigious anchors – according to the New York Times, his new contract calls for $400 million through 2016 – combined!?
While the Liberals in my half-vast audience are fuming about Rush’s high valuation, I’ll answer my own question: Rush is paid exorbitant sums because that is his entertainment value. Anyone can read a news article, but only Rush can comment on that article in such a way that he has a huge daily audience eager to hear his take on daily news items. If a radio station carrying his program was forced to run programming every day that in essence said, “we don’t agree with Rush,” that station would lose audience in droves as soon as Rush signed off each day.
Instead of engaging in such programming stupidity, Rush’s stations follow his show with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other popular conservative talk show hosts, building on Rush’s popularity instead of fighting to diminish his effect.
Tiger Woods has a similar effect in golf. There are thousands of professional golfers, and I’m sure that Liberals feels each should be given a chance to appear in a tournament. Therefore, if golf was run the way Democrats want to do radio, each tournament would have to have an equal mix of winners and losers.
Until the Democrats spread their influence wider, golf and most other activities will select participants by ability, not some politicians’ idea of “fairness.”
However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to “hush Rush.”
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has written a bill to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” - which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Nancy Pelosi supports the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, primarily because conservatives have done such a good job of gaining and holding the interest of radio talk show audiences, and liberals have not. According to Ms. Pelosi, New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
I have a theory about why Democrats want to revive the moribund “Fairness Doctrine.” It’s a desperate attempt to save Air America. Air America, with its ultra-liberal lineup of hosts, steadily tanked from its opening, which is terminal and is maintained on life support only by the Liberal practice of throwing good money after bad. Theoretically, if stations broadcasting Air America had to also include conservative shows – Rush, Hannity, etc. – then maybe people would listen, and sponsors would sponsor.
Air America is like the host of failed Liberal schemes of the last century. If a dumb Liberal idea isn’t working, then the problem must be that it was underfunded, and instead of mercifully pulling the plug and allowing “death with dignity,” Liberals throw more money (usually other people’s) at it.
Off the top of my head, examples include: busing to integrate schools (which succeeded in increasing school segregation while wasting scarce education resources); refusing over ten years ago to allow oil drilling offshore and in ANWAR “because we won’t get more oil for ten years” (now it’s ten years later, and we would have more oil, except… and now Democrats are again saying we shouldn’t drill because “because we won’t get more oil for ten years”); unilaterally saving the planet from “global warming” by proposing destruction to the United States economy, while China and India feed their burgeoning economies a steady diet of oil and coal; and proposing to lower gas prices by increasing taxes on oil companies (I know Liberals who think this will work, the same ones that believe you can raise taxes to grow the economy).
Actually, I don’t believe reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” is a Liberal attempt to save Air America; it just gave me another way to kick failed Liberal programs around some more.
I actually believe that all Liberals want to do is kill the popular outlet for conservative thought, talk radio, because they tried to compete with Air America and failed miserably. In accordance with the Liberal doctrine of “if you can’t compete with it, kill it!”, Democrat legislators know that if they require radio stations to carry expensive but unpopular Liberal programs, the radio stations will have to drop the popular conservative shows and go back to brain-dead formats like “all news,” of course provided by the Liberal dominated Main Stream Media.
Now there’s a good idea! Why don’t Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats require all news and entertainment media to provide equal time? What makes radio different from television, magazines, and newspapers? Throwing aside irrelevant technicalities, they are all in the entertainment business.
Why are news readers (the appropriate British title for news anchors) Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer paid huge salaries? Why is Rush Limbaugh paid more than four prestigious anchors – according to the New York Times, his new contract calls for $400 million through 2016 – combined!?
While the Liberals in my half-vast audience are fuming about Rush’s high valuation, I’ll answer my own question: Rush is paid exorbitant sums because that is his entertainment value. Anyone can read a news article, but only Rush can comment on that article in such a way that he has a huge daily audience eager to hear his take on daily news items. If a radio station carrying his program was forced to run programming every day that in essence said, “we don’t agree with Rush,” that station would lose audience in droves as soon as Rush signed off each day.
Instead of engaging in such programming stupidity, Rush’s stations follow his show with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other popular conservative talk show hosts, building on Rush’s popularity instead of fighting to diminish his effect.
Tiger Woods has a similar effect in golf. There are thousands of professional golfers, and I’m sure that Liberals feels each should be given a chance to appear in a tournament. Therefore, if golf was run the way Democrats want to do radio, each tournament would have to have an equal mix of winners and losers.
Until the Democrats spread their influence wider, golf and most other activities will select participants by ability, not some politicians’ idea of “fairness.”
However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to “hush Rush.”
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Michael Kinsley Sank by Swift Boat
To Swift-Boat or Not
Time Magazine, Thursday, Jun. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Michael Kinsley remarks early in his article that “Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. “
Then Kinsley dismisses any arguments about the merits of Kerry’s service:
I for one remember the Swift-Boat campaign – it is seared, seared in my memory.
Just like John Kerry’s memory of Christmas 1968 in Cambodia.
This was the version of his Swift Boat exploits that John Kerry gave on the floor of the Senate in 1986 in a “carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.”
(Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper, Washington Post, By Joshua Muravchik, Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17)
The president he referred to, Richard Nixon, would not take office for another month. The Khmer Rouge were a couple of years away. None of Kerry’s supporters corroborated his searing memories of any Cambodian incursions.
I don’t see anything wrong with Swift-Boat veterans or anyone else making an issue of Kerry’s truthfulness about his Christmas in Cambodia claims, do you, Mr. Kinsley?
If you do, Mr. Kinsley, are you opposed to seeking out truth, or only opposed when a Democrat is challenged? Do you think Kerry told the truth about his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia?
We soon learned that there was no way a Swift Boat would have gone unnoticed into Cambodia. One, the border was well marked and patrolled; you just didn’t stumble across it, because the Mekong flows directly out of Cambodia into Vietnam. Two, a Swift Boat is large and extremely noisy; only a fool or a Democrat would even conceive of one being used for clandestine activities.
But enough of beating on a deserved loser for the lies he told repeatedly over a period of three decades.
Is it fair that Michael Kinsley gives Republicans sole credit for a campaign strategy in 2004 that turned a man’s honorable military service into a negative factor in his campaign?
If you think the answer is yes, then I'm not going to waste precious time in this fascinating blog arguing with you.
Like Hell I’m not!
There was an organized effort by Democrats in 2004 – and before – to denigrate George W. Bush’s service as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. This effort was despicable at many levels.
The first is that at the time George Bush and John Kerry volunteered for duty, serving as a National Guard fighter pilot, even in peacetime, was far more dangerous than Swift Boat service. George Bush went through hazardous pilot training, and then was assigned to fly aircraft intercept missions, often in all weather conditions and at night.
The critics of his service must not have ever served in the military to be so ignorant of the dangers of flying fighter aircraft intercept missions at night and in foul weather.
In contrast, when Kerry chose Swift Boats, their mission was coastal, and only later were Swift Boats assigned riverine warfare duties. Even then, the threat from the Viet Cong was minimal, since they had no ships or guns that posed credible threats to the fast, armored and well-armed Swift Boats.
The cause célèbre of the Democrat’s attack on George Bush’s military service was the forged Texas Air National Guard (TANG) letters that CBS News and Dan Rather rushed before the American public. Unfortunately for CBS News and Dan Rather, the American viewing public included both computer and military experts. The computer experts immediately identified features in the letters that could not have been produced by the typewriters used by squadron military administrative assistants at the time they were purportedly written, and the military experts identified the use of Army terminology instead of Air Force.
Now only Dan Rather, and probably Michael Kinsley, believe that the TANG letters were genuine. And probably only Mr. Kinsley believes that they were the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to John F. Kerry's campaign.
So, Mr. Kinsley, what’s the score?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth exposed obvious Kerry lies.
On the other hand, Democrats engaged in a campaign to smear George Bush’s military service that ignored the inherent dangers of flying fighter aircraft, and attempted to pass off forged documents to discredit his service.
Isn’t it odd that you are offended by the one, and not the other?
Are you a seeker of truth, or just another Democrat tool?
Time Magazine, Thursday, Jun. 12, 2008 By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Michael Kinsley remarks early in his article that “Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. “
Then Kinsley dismisses any arguments about the merits of Kerry’s service:
If you remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and don't see anything wrong with it--or if you believe it was the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to George W. Bush's campaign--I'm not going to waste precious space on the back page of a national newsmagazine arguing with you.
I for one remember the Swift-Boat campaign – it is seared, seared in my memory.
Just like John Kerry’s memory of Christmas 1968 in Cambodia.
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
This was the version of his Swift Boat exploits that John Kerry gave on the floor of the Senate in 1986 in a “carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.”
(Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper, Washington Post, By Joshua Muravchik, Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17)
The president he referred to, Richard Nixon, would not take office for another month. The Khmer Rouge were a couple of years away. None of Kerry’s supporters corroborated his searing memories of any Cambodian incursions.
I don’t see anything wrong with Swift-Boat veterans or anyone else making an issue of Kerry’s truthfulness about his Christmas in Cambodia claims, do you, Mr. Kinsley?
If you do, Mr. Kinsley, are you opposed to seeking out truth, or only opposed when a Democrat is challenged? Do you think Kerry told the truth about his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia?
We soon learned that there was no way a Swift Boat would have gone unnoticed into Cambodia. One, the border was well marked and patrolled; you just didn’t stumble across it, because the Mekong flows directly out of Cambodia into Vietnam. Two, a Swift Boat is large and extremely noisy; only a fool or a Democrat would even conceive of one being used for clandestine activities.
But enough of beating on a deserved loser for the lies he told repeatedly over a period of three decades.
Is it fair that Michael Kinsley gives Republicans sole credit for a campaign strategy in 2004 that turned a man’s honorable military service into a negative factor in his campaign?
If you think the answer is yes, then I'm not going to waste precious time in this fascinating blog arguing with you.
Like Hell I’m not!
There was an organized effort by Democrats in 2004 – and before – to denigrate George W. Bush’s service as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. This effort was despicable at many levels.
The first is that at the time George Bush and John Kerry volunteered for duty, serving as a National Guard fighter pilot, even in peacetime, was far more dangerous than Swift Boat service. George Bush went through hazardous pilot training, and then was assigned to fly aircraft intercept missions, often in all weather conditions and at night.
The critics of his service must not have ever served in the military to be so ignorant of the dangers of flying fighter aircraft intercept missions at night and in foul weather.
In contrast, when Kerry chose Swift Boats, their mission was coastal, and only later were Swift Boats assigned riverine warfare duties. Even then, the threat from the Viet Cong was minimal, since they had no ships or guns that posed credible threats to the fast, armored and well-armed Swift Boats.
The cause célèbre of the Democrat’s attack on George Bush’s military service was the forged Texas Air National Guard (TANG) letters that CBS News and Dan Rather rushed before the American public. Unfortunately for CBS News and Dan Rather, the American viewing public included both computer and military experts. The computer experts immediately identified features in the letters that could not have been produced by the typewriters used by squadron military administrative assistants at the time they were purportedly written, and the military experts identified the use of Army terminology instead of Air Force.
Now only Dan Rather, and probably Michael Kinsley, believe that the TANG letters were genuine. And probably only Mr. Kinsley believes that they were the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to John F. Kerry's campaign.
So, Mr. Kinsley, what’s the score?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth exposed obvious Kerry lies.
On the other hand, Democrats engaged in a campaign to smear George Bush’s military service that ignored the inherent dangers of flying fighter aircraft, and attempted to pass off forged documents to discredit his service.
Isn’t it odd that you are offended by the one, and not the other?
Are you a seeker of truth, or just another Democrat tool?