Tuesday - November 04, 2008

US elections: Danger lurks in Barack Obama’s comfort zone. (but, he’s been sent by god.)

And |I won’t even post the editorial cartoon illustration in todays paper.  Jeesh ... and for a conservative (?) paper. Well anyway,
Simon Heffer here at least is on the mark if nobody else is.

The remark re. O. sent by God. Yeah. And who says that? Stupid white folks and not the ones on the fringe right either. 

I need a coffee break. First of the morning.

Stay Tuned.

US elections: Danger lurks in Barack Obama’s comfort zone

By Simon Heffer in New York
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 04/11/2008

Two days ago, when the Sunday political talk shows of the US television networks were brimming with pundits announcing a landslide victory for Barack Obama, John McCain was jetting around America making five campaign stops. Yesterday, with the polls still showing him up to seven points behind his rival, he took in another seven. Most men would have wound down in the face of such apparently inevitable defeat. But John McCain, for whom life has never been so rewarding as when fighting against a seemingly intractable problem, is not most men.

What is regarded as the inevitability of defeat has given Mr McCain new energy. Being 72, it is certainly his last chance. He joked as much during Saturday Night Live last weekend, saying Mr Obama was young enough to have more opportunities, and now was his turn. The joke was only so funny because of its element of truth.

It is no reason to elect Mr McCain. His determination and his warrior-like quality never to admit defeat until it is obvious certainly are. There is an even more important point: he is laden with experience relevant to the job. He is not a rock star like his opponent, but no one has yet argued that this would make him a better chief executive of the world’s only superpower. This contest comes at a unique moment in modern American history and Mr McCain, despite the obliviousness of so much of America to the point, is the man for that moment.

The country is not merely at war in two theatres. It is not merely facing threats to its security. It is also trying to come to terms with the worst economic outlook since the 1930s. Add to that the constantly expressed concern about those scores of thousands of fellow Americans “in harm’s way” on foreign battlefields, and the fear of what challenge might be thrown up next, and you have a landscape of extreme uncertainty.

The choice faced by the electorate is clear. It can either vote for reality or for escapism: and John McCain has the greater appreciation of what reality might entail. I have been struck on several visits here this year just how much Americans, worn down by the failures and embarrassments of the Bush years, want something other than reality. That, though, is simply storing up troubles. The landscape of uncertainty requires someone tested in fire to lead people through it: not just for America’s sake but for the sake of that portion of the world that looks to America for leadership.

Mr Obama is a confection; he is an image, a brand, a lifestyle. He has the talents of the thespian, less obviously those of the executive. He has been branded a socialist by Sarah Palin and, because it was Sarah Palin doing the branding, the term was ridiculed by media here who are almost clinically biased against the Republicans. However, when one examines Mr Obama’s rhetoric about “spreading the wealth”, and looks at spending promises made in the past 21 months, socialism is a fair term. He plans, or at least has promised, expensive projects - such as healthcare reforms. Inflicting tax rises on a country where people are losing their jobs, having their homes foreclosed upon and having their businesses driven into bankruptcy is something whose consequences Mr Obama has yet to outline.

Neither candidate sees that the economic policies they have dealt in have been rendered anachronistic by recent events. Mr McCain was all at sea at the height of the crisis and it damaged him badly, perhaps terminally. Mr Obama knew no better: he just had the sense to keep quiet. As president, he would find he can’t keep quiet. At least Mr McCain, with his long?standing message of smaller government, less regulation and reduced spending, has a better chance of adapting to the new circumstances. An Obama presidency, given the dire straits of America’s economy, will quickly and inevitably disappoint once reality kicks in.

The clinching reason why America should vote for McCain over Obama rests, however, in the question of foreign policy and international security. It is to be hoped that America (and therefore the free world) faces no new security challenges in the years ahead and can extract itself from Iraq and assert control in Afghanistan. But these are only hopes. There are unscrupulous and fanatical elements who may take the election of President Obama as an invitation to see how far America can be pushed. One thinks of Iran, or the failure of Pakistan to rein in malevolent elements. Some argue that the advice of the State Department would be the same to President Obama as to President McCain, and that it would have to be followed. I am not so sure. Mr McCain, who understands well how foreign powers and military operations work, would have a much more informed discussion with his advisers. Mr Obama would be starting from a position of near total ignorance, and on a matter of life and death.

That question of international security is fundamental. It is the case for voting McCain. America is famed for its parochialism, even in time of war. That is why so many have found it easy to enter the Obama comfort zone. Whoever wins, being comfortable will not be part of the job of being president. A man with five-and-a-half years in the Hanoi Hilton under his belt would adapt better to that ultimate reality than would his rival.

http://tinyurl.com/5ex3cy

Posted by peiper     on 11/04/2008 at 03:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Politics •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 03, 2008

nothin from me

I’m tapped out here folks. I can’t stomach to make another post about what a leftist clown Obullshit is. By now you’ve heard it all 100 times over. Get out and vote, and vote for McCain/Palin even if you have to hold your nose the whole time. Our very future depends on it.

Other than that, I’m having a rotten problem with one of my bowling leagues. I’ve spent the better part of today writing things down, and composing a long letter. The league that I am secretary for has a team, all of whom are, um, “natural” Obama supporters and redistribution beneficiaries I guess you could say, who cause a whole lot of dissension. Even though every one of them is a highly experienced bowler, and every one of them drives at least 50 miles to take part in our dinky little 5 1/2 team bowling league up in the sticks of NJ, they make “innocent” mistakes just about every week that cause the scores to appear better for them than they actually are. And when I bring this to their attention, just letting them know that mistakes were made -no accusations from me- the denial and reverse accusations are instant and thunderous. Our league had a lot of problems last year, and we lost half our membership because of it. Those few who did return have told me many times that this same group caused trouble all of last year too. Maybe I should just refer to them as “Team Sharpton”, but that isn’t at all subtle. True though, just not subtle.

So now I am a lying cheating mother fucker who is out to get them. I’ve been told that right to my face. No witnesses of course. I’ve been accused of stealing points, changing the scores, ripping them off, rigging the rules, etc. To say that I am a bit upset by this projectionist BS is about the largest understatement in the world. I fully understand why people got into duels back in the day. I am doing my best to overcome my reflexively violent reaction and to devise a diplomatic solution. If that does not work, then I will be faced with a no-win decision: I can walk away from this league and it will die, or I can push for adjudication and get this team kicked off the league, in which case this league will die. The only way forward that I can see is for me to suck up my injured honor, ignore these accusations, and create a “we all have to try harder” speech to present to the whole league. I am not a happy camper here. I will try to contact our league president and get some advice, though earlier attempts have been fruitless. He doesn’t want to be bothered. I’ve put together some pages that I want to share with the bowling alley owner too, just to keep him appraised of what’s going on.

I’m not sure what to do here. Maybe the best approach is to accept that some people are whiny little crybabies, that some people feel entitled to push as hard as they can, screw other people’s feelings, to get what they want ... and just let the whole thing slide. Ignore it. Eat the whole shit sandwich and hope it’s the last one that shows up on my plate. Yeah right.

Don’t worry about my league though. When Obama becomes President I’m sure the rules will change so that this team wins automatically just because they show up. Have to give certain folks more opportunity you know.

UPDATE: I’ve been advised that this kind of thing is par for the course. So I will do nothing other than let my league president know about it. Some people are just scum, and reacting to their petty nonsense is beneath my dignity. Like using logic to argue with a liberal, it’s just not worth it.

Posted by Drew458     on 11/03/2008 at 04:54 PM   
Filed Under: • Bowling Blogging • Daily Life • Politics •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Man gets stuck to public lavatory and is rescued with,, ah. Seat attached.

And so with this little item I’m gone for the night.

Man gets stuck to public lavatory

Monday, November 3 2008, 12:06 GMT

By Sarah Rollo
Man gets stuck to public lavatory

A man who became stuck to a public lavatory had to be rushed to hospital while still attached to the seat.

It is thought a prankster had covered the rim of the stainless steel toilet with super glue.

An ambulance crew and a rapid response team were called to the cubicle in Brierley Hill, near Dudley, at the weekend but were unable to free the man, reports The Telegraph.

An ambulance service spokesman said: “Despite best efforts it was not possible to remove the 35-year-old local man from his position so, with the help of a local authority and the fire and rescue service, the man was removed from the cubicle still attached to the stainless steel toilet.”

The man was taken to hospital where he was freed with the help of special chemicals. “He appeared to be none the worse for his ordeal other than being understandably somewhat embarrassed,” the spokesman said.

http://tinyurl.com/69cltm

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 02:09 PM   
Filed Under: • News-Briefs • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

MORE LAW AND DISORDER WITH TEEN KILLERS.  AND NO, DON’T EXPECT JUSTICE.

YEAH, YEAH THE BASTARDS WILL GET SOME JAIL TIME AND THEN ....?
Take a good look at these animals.  Jeesh ... and ppl wring their collective hands at the thought of a death penalty. And where there is a death penalty it MUST be oh so gentle.

I think I’ll quit right here cause I wanna let fly with words I don’t really wanna use, all beginning with the letter ‘f’

Note:  1 stone = 14 pounds

‘Eyes of killer’ teenager, 15, facing jail over death
A 15-year-old boy murdered a father-of-three and then filmed himself on his mobile phone as the words “eyes of a killer” were uttered in the background, a court was told.

By Daily Telegraph Reporter
Last Updated: 7:48PM GMT 31 Oct 2008

Jason Bolton (left) and Adam Smith were both convicted of murder. Photo: PA

The phone belonging to Andrew Smith was later recovered by police and the recording was shown to a jury at Manchester Crown Court where he was convicted of the killing.

Smith and his friend, Jason Bolton, 18, set upon Asaf Mahmood Ahmed in a motiveless attack in Deane, Bolton, Greater Manchester.

The pair were drinking on the night of December 21 last year and initially targeted another man in the street but he was too strong and escaped unhurt.

Moments later they turned their attention to Mr Ahmed, who was 5ft 5in and weighed seven stone, and assaulted him at the rear of the Derby Ward Labour Club.

Mr Ahmed left a family party to walk to a local shop when he was punched, kicked and stamped on.

The court was told Mr Ahmed died from an asthma attack as he lay in a pool of blood with his inhaler by his side.

Smith was later arrested at his home in Deane where detectives found the seven-second video clip on his phone which was recorded an hour after he committed the brutal assault.

Smith, now aged 16, and Bolton, also from Deane, were both convicted of murder following a two-week trial.

Reporting restrictions on identifying Smith were lifted by Mr Justice Alistair MacDuff after the verdicts were read out.

Sentencing will take place on a date yet to be fixed.

http://tinyurl.com/6haa4e

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 01:52 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. CHRISTMAS IS BANNED YET AGAIN. REALLY!  MORE MOON BAT FOLLIES.

Christmas banned in Oxford by council-owned charity

By Richard Savill
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/11/2008

Oxford city council confirmed the events in the city would be renamed ‘Winter Light Festival‘ to make them more inclusive, provoking outrage among shoppers in the city who called for a return to tradition.

The idea has come from the charity Oxford Inspires, the cultural development agency for the county, which runs the celebrations.

Sabir Hussain Mirza, chairman of the Muslim Council of Oxford, said: “I am really upset about this. Christians, Muslims and other religions all look forward to Christmas.”

Fr Brian Van-Dungey, a priest in Garsington, Oxon, said: “I am a Christian and pleased to see my Muslim brothers joining in the condemnation of this stupid and dangerous idea; this sort of thinking creates racial problems and should be stopped in its tracks.”

Rabbi Eli Bracknell, who teaches at the Jewish Educational Centre in the city, said: “It is important to maintain a traditional British Christmas. Anything that waters down traditional culture and Christianity in the UK is not positive for the British identity.”

(something tells me that not enough Brits care anymore to overcome this sort of lunacy)

Oxford Inspires spokesman Tei Williams said: “In Oxfordshire we have Winter Light which is a whole festival spanning two months. Within that festival will be Christmas Carol services.”

Liz Gresham of Oxford Inspires added: “We changed the name to be more inclusive.” Ed Turner, deputy leader of the council, said the renaming of the festival was “unfortunate and sends out a problematic message.”

He added: “It is the charity’s festival. Among councillors there is certainly no desire to downgrade the importance or the prominence given to Christmas.

“There is going to be a Christmas tree and even if the lights are called something else to me they will be Christmas lights.”

http://tinyurl.com/55gzsr

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 01:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Stephen Fry attacks sneering anti-Americanism.

Well at least this is nice.
And for once, I don’t have anything to add.” And that’s a good thing.”

Stephen Fry attacks sneering anti-Americanism
Stephen Fry has criticised “sneering” anti-Americanism among the British, ahead of the US Presidential elections.

Last Updated: 1:26PM GMT 03 Nov 2008

In his BBC TV documentary Stephen Fry in America, he toured the 50 states of the US in a black cab

Fry told Good Housekeeping magazine British snobbery towards Americans “horrifies” him.

He said: “When they mock America for its supposed lack of knowledge, irony or sophistication, they are revealing nothing but the pathetic inadequacy and inferiority complex of the British.

“I absolutely hate that sneering anti-Americanism.”

The comedian, writer and actor has published a book version of his BBC TV documentary Stephen Fry in America, for which he toured the 50 states of the US in a black cab.

He told the magazine: “It always comes from people who don’t know America – outside of TV or a holiday in Orlando.

“It has its share of nuts: out of a quarter of a billion people you’re always going to get some.

“But they are as polite, friendly, charming and honourable as any people I have encountered.”

http://tinyurl.com/5steyg

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 12:05 PM   
Filed Under: • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Unruly school pupils will be punished with… a foot massage. (punishment liberal style)

Ever see anything so totally stupid?
Oh right. Not since yesterday.

I GUESS THIS IS HOW THE LEFTARDS THAT MAKE THESE DECISIONS THINK THEY CAN CONTROL BAD BEHAVIOR.
How much more stupid will they get?

Unruly school pupils will be punished with… a foot massage

By Ryan Kisiel
Last updated at 7:46 AM on 03rd November 2008

Some say massaging feet can curb aggression.

Pupils who create mayhem in the classroom are to face a punishment that will make them quake in their shoes.

They will be asked to slip off their socks before being given a foot massage designed to control their unruly behaviour.

Medical experts say there is little evidence that such treatment can improve the behaviour of young tearaways.

Yet Labour-run Lambeth Council in South London is to spend £90,000 next year sending reflexologists into its schools to practise their soothing art.

The team, from a company known as Bud-Umbrella, will work in 60 primary and 14 secondary schools, with children under 13 deemed to be badly behaved.

The firm is run out of a flat in Brixton and its website claims reflexology ‘releases energy blockages’, ‘can calm aggressive feelings, improve listening skills, concentration and focus’ and ‘relieves headaches and sinus problems’.

Tory MP John Penrose is unimpressed. ‘The idea that a foot massage is going to keep a hoodie happy is laughable,’ said the member for Weston-super-Mare.

‘Experienced teachers have a range of ways of dealing with badlybehaved pupils and stroking their feet is not one of them.

‘Dealing with bad behaviour should not look like a reward to those who misbehave. Discipline should be brought back into schools.’

Mark Wallace, spokesman for the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, said: ‘How on earth is the education system going to succeed if there are luxuries given out for naughty children and nothing at all given to those who work hard and do well?

‘With everyone struggling in the financial crisis, this is crazy money being paid out on a crazy scheme.’

Despite Lambeth’s enthusiasm for foot massage in schools, reflexology sessions are not provided for the wider public by the local primary care trust.

The traditional healing art dates from the ancient Egyptians and Chinese. It involves manipulation of pressure points in the hands and feet and is often used to ease period pain, headaches, sinus and back problems as well as the effects of chemotherapy.

By massaging different points on the feet, therapists claim they can unblock energy pathways and help the body regain its natural balance and heal itself.

Reflexology is not a regulated therapy and medical authorities have raised concerns that qualifications are not needed to perform the massages.

However Lambeth Labour councillor Paul McGlone said the council was right to provide the alternative treatment.

‘It’s incredibly important that we address young people’s behavioural problems and we make no apologies for using different and innovative methods but this obviously won’t replace more traditional ways of dealing with anti-social behaviour.

‘We need to deal with the root causes of young people’s behavioural problems and nip them in the bud - prevention is better than cure.’

http://tinyurl.com/6lg9pg

Wanna bet the kids are laughing their socks off?

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 10:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Education • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

WELL IT’s DOWN TO THE WIRE AND MINDS ARE MADE UP BY NOW AND MY STOMACH HURTS.

I guess it’s all that anxiety catching up to me. Thought I’d outrun it.

A NEED TO SHARE SOMETHING I HEARD ON RADIO.

I used to wonder, based on things read in the last few years, if I was going to have a country to come back to when the time came.

My old enemy insomnia had me it it’s grip last night and at around 1am I thought oh the heck with it, I am not a toss and turn type and so turned on the bedside light and the radio.  Apparently I hear better when the light’s on. ??

First of all I want to point out that in spite of all I have heard about the BBC being biased in favor of the left, what really very little I’ve listened to doesn’t bear that out.  And when I do listen, it’s generally only BBC-4.  I could be wrong of course as I’m not a radio listener anymore.  Or not much anyway. 

To be honest, yes.  There are news programs and interview shows on topics that cover everything from health and politics to zoos. And yes, no matter what the subject there is ALWAYS going to be one or two people on the panel that are not friends of America or Americans.  And no matter what the subject is, somehow, someway we (USA) always seem to become either a part of the discussion or else a snide aside.  I’ve no idea how they manage it but they seem to do so fairly easily.  Which isn’t to say we don’t have our defenders. We certainly do.  Just not a lot of em.

Quite often it’s maddening to note, there might be a guest on from the states and no surprise, where an audience is present the American (?) will play to the house and make some crack about the dumb cowboy from Texas who is the chief reason for the ruin of the planet. Yadda,yadda.
This of course generates great laughter and applause and thus proves that not all Americans are cave dwelling gun nuts.  As long as you’re anti-Bush and buy the planet warming thing you are a most intelligent and rational fellow.

Well, last night (this morning actually at around 1am) I caught reports from a few Brit reporters covering our election in the states.  They were reporting on what they (said) they have seen so far, and even they concede that while it certainly does appear to be Obama, things are not totally settled just yet.

The press here for the most part is firmly in favor of Obama with a few exceptions and I should tell you that looking at political cartoons,
(no they are not I have been informed. They are “illustrations.” ) if you look at those, the majority I have seen here are not only pro Obama.
They are pretty much very rudely Anti-Bush. 

During that broadcast when they came back to the studio, they had two guests, one I think I heard a member of the Lib/Dems (liberal democrat party) and a lawyer, and the other a conservative.  I didn’t quite catch if he was an MP (Member of Parliament) or a journalist.

It was I have to say interesting listening and very scary as well.  The soft spoken lady lawyer and Lib/Dem member spoke of how urgently the USA needed an Obama victory and she cited among her reasons one of the really frightening aspects of this election.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT and appointments to same.

Now why in the darn world would some Brit politician be concerned with OUR freeken court ?  That bothered me a lot and it still does.
Why should our court be of any concern to anyone outside our country? But this lady knew her stuff, she is after all a lawyer and a Democrat sweep of the USA bodes ill for the future.

She then went on to say, and you have all heard this already, how much our image would improve by electing the O man.
Oh good.  We should all vote the way folks here would like to see us vote so as to appear what?  Less like racists I guess.  It’s like we have to prove something to Europeans maybe and a victory for Obama will put us all in their good graces again.

Oh right I almost forgot.  Another reason to vote Democrat she said, was the green issue.  With them in power, America would finally see the light and join Europe in securing the planet and at last join the majority instead of being obstructionists.  I’m not certain she used that exact word but hey, a rose is rose.

Meanwhile, the conservative guest stated that Obama had no real experience and there was reason to question him.  BUT ... there’s always a but isn’t there.  While he does lean toward McCain, he does believe Obama might instill something or bring something new to the USA and honestly I forgot what else he said as it was lost in the statement he made to the effect that he held two passports and could were he in the states vote. And would probably vote Obama.

So ,,, How’s your stomach this day?

Stay Tuned ...

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 08:18 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy. (PLEASE READ ALL OF IT PPL)

This is I know a wordy but worthy editorial and I would urge you all to PLEASE read all of it.  See the link and read some of the comments as well.

I don’t want to make this long and so will post something later that NEEDS sharing with you.

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

By Janet Daley
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/11/2008

Read comments: 

(by all means folks, do read some of the comments that follow the editorial in the Telegraph. Amazing that so many ppl who really know so damn little about us, now think they can advise us on how and why we NEED to vote Obama. I guess I’m a bit thin skinned when foreigners tell me who to vote for. But there are some very good comments as well. Perhaps not always seeing our side it, but at least thought out and well expressed without always being nasty.)

Well, it’s nearly over - this presidential election campaign that has gone on for so long I can scarcely remember what life was like before it started. So long has it been running that the world has actually gone through two tumultuous transformations of political reality during its span.

First there was the emergence of Russia as a threat to international stability in a form that should not have, but nevertheless did, come as a startling revelation to a complacent free world: a phenomenon which, in cynical partisan terms, played heavily in John McCain’s favour. But that was followed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the economic implosion that brought every earlier assumption about the electorate crashing down with it.

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed “tribute”, responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.

And not only does it seem likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, but that he will arrive in office accompanied by a legion of new Democratic senators and congressmen which will give his party a lock on both the executive and legislative branches of government, thus permitting it to do precisely anything it wants.

A week ago in New York, I talked to senior Republicans who were dividing their time between conference calls to the White House to discuss the economic crisis and exasperated confrontations with the McCain campaign team over the ineffectiveness of its strategy. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the state of dissension and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the Republican Party - which is why the Obama claim that a McCain White House would simply be George Bush by other means is so ludicrous and disingenuous.

In truth, McCain’s status as an outlaw within his own party ("maverick" is much too mild a word) has meant that he has had only the most ambivalent relationship with what was once a very professional Republican campaigning machine. Those members of the Bush team who have been involved with the McCain-Palin ticket have been accused of being so out of sympathy with its message and tone as to be positively counter-productive.

Combine this with the fact that McCain has been running against not just a super-financed Obama machine but the most monolithically hostile media barrage in electoral history, which forced him to spend most of his time and energy on defensive fire-fighting, and you get a sense of why the Republican effort has so often seemed at cross-purposes with itself.

This media phenomenon may yet prove double-edged. There is just a possibility (maybe I am clutching at straws here, but we shall see) that the relentless onslaught from the mainstream press and television networks has made support for McCain unsayable rather than impossible and that this is producing seriously skewed opinion-polling results. This could mean, to put it in British historical terms, that this election will be 1992 (complete with premature victory celebrations) rather than 1997. Interestingly, in the 1992 election it was the issue of tax that brought about Labour’s defeat in the face of resounding leads in the polls. And it is tax policy that is Obama’s most dangerous ground. It must be surprising to British observers that his proposal to cut taxes for the 95 per cent of people who earn less than $200,000 a year (down, incidentally, from his initial figure of $250,000) has not straightforwardly won the day in the American national debate.

In Britain, such a promise (if believed) would be an electoral free pass to Downing Street. But in the US, voters are aware that the largest category of people who would be hit by Obama’s higher tax would be those who own small businesses, as Joe the Plumber famously aspired to do and as many, many of his countrymen already do. Ordinary working-class people in America do not automatically expect to be low earners, or even employees, all of their lives: they believe that through hard work and resourcefulness, they are as likely as anyone to rise in the world. And so they do not necessarily take kindly to someone who wants to penalise them as soon as they break through an income ceiling in order, as Obama fatally put it, to “spread the wealth around”.

But there is another facet of Obama taxation with even more serious consequences for the US. In order to pay for his tax cut for 95 per cent of the population (half of whom do not pay income tax and whose “cut” would be in the form of a cash rebate), President Obama and his Democratic Congress would raise the US rate of corporation tax - already the second highest in the world - from 15 to 20 per cent. They also plan to punish through taxation companies that employ people overseas rather than “creating American jobs”. These measures would have the almost immediate effect of driving companies and capital out of the US.

In the same “help the little guy” spirit, Obama proposes to raise capital gains tax, thus penalising those whose investment is desperately needed for market recovery. As my economist friends always tell me when I advocate tax cuts for the low-paid: it may seem a morally and politically attractive policy but it doesn’t do a damn thing for economic growth. The tiny amounts that the lower-paid receive in such wide-ranging cuts make little difference as a stimulus and if they are balanced by penalties on business and on the investing classes, they are worse than useless.

So what will happen? For what it is worth, I think it will be a close presidential race with the favourite, Obama, winning by a squeak (which is what happened in 1960 when the then favourite, John Kennedy, was the voice of the “future"). Whoever gets the White House, America will eventually return to being what it must be: the economic engine of the world and the greatest testimony to the power of human initiative in history. On both of those counts, it will once again be resented. But it will take a while longer to reach that point under Barack Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/5cz8uk

Posted by peiper     on 11/03/2008 at 04:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Editorials • Politics • Republicans •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 02, 2008

No Thanks

I want no part of the rift between LGF, GoV, and JihadWatch. I think it’s all pretty stupid. I haven’t spent more than a few minutes reading about this Belgian Vlaam Belang group, so I don’t know, or even care, if they are or are not a pro-white, white supremecist, or fascist organization. They’re in Belgium, for crying out loud, the only place on earth to have all of the faults of the fwench and none of the benefits. It simply does not interest me.

I think it’s a shame though that these 3 conservative blogs can’t get along. LGF (Little Green Footballs, for the acronymically challenged) and GoV (Gates of Vienna) are both excellent blogs with their own very large and very vocal group of members. If the comment threads here were even 1% as long as those there, we’d have the biggest discussion we’ve ever had. JihadWatch is another excellent blog, keeping us abreast of all the allayousnackbar bits that don’t ever make the news. Robert Spencer runs the place, and I buy and read his books. I think he’s one damn smart cookie, and his observations and insights are nearly priceless.

It’s a shame they can’t get along, but I will let them work it out themselves. And if Charles at LGF feels a need to put his foot down and ban everyone and everything associated with those other two blogs, that’s his right. It’s his blog. I don’t agree with that action, but to be frank I have not followed the Vlaams story hardly at all. Maybe this was necessary. Maybe he’s pitching a fit. Maybe I don’t really care, and I can drop by any of these blogs to get caught up with everything else, and then leave.

Posted by Drew458     on 11/02/2008 at 06:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Councils ban ‘elitist’ and ‘discriminatory’ Latin phrases. (ok BMEWSers. Outdumb this one)

What are these folks thinking?  They want “wordier” documents? 

Councils ban ‘elitist’ and ‘discriminatory’ Latin phrases
They are phrases that are repeated ad nauseam and are taken as bona fide English, but councils have now overturned the status quo by banning staff from using Latin terms, which they claim are elitist and discriminatory.

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 12:35AM GMT 02 Nov 2008

Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using the words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public and to rely on wordier alternatives instead.

The ban has infuriated classical scholars who say it is diluting the world’s richest language and is the “linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing”.

Bournemouth Council, which has the Latin motto Pulchritudo et Salubritas, meaning beauty and health, has listed 19 terms it no longer considers acceptable for use.

This includes bona fide, eg (exempli gratia), prima facie, ad lib or ad libitum, etc or et cetera, ie or id est, inter alia, NB or nota bene, per, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and even via.

Its list of more verbose alternatives, includes “for this special purpose”, in place of ad hoc and “existing condition” or “state of things”, instead of status quo.

In instructions to staff, the council said: “Not everyone knows Latin. Many readers do not have English as their first language so using Latin can be particularly difficult.”

The details of banned words have emerged in documents obtained from councils by the Sunday Telegraph under The Freedom of Information Act.

Of other local authorities to prohibit the use of Latin, Salisbury Council has asked staff to avoid the phrases ad hoc, ergo and QED (quod erat demonstrandum), while Fife Council has also banned ad hoc as well as ex officio.

Professor Mary Beard, a professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge said: “This is absolute bonkers and the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing. English is and always has been a language full of foreign words. It has never been an ethnically pure language.”

Dr Peter Jones, co-founder of the charity Friends of Classics said “This sort of thing sends out the message that language is about nothing more than the communication of very basic information in the manner of a railway timetable.

“But it is about much more than that. The great strength of English is that it has a massive infusion of Latin. We have a very rich lexicon with almost two sets of words for everything.

“To try and wipe out the richness does a great disservice to the language. It demeans it. I am all for immigrants raising their sights not lowering them. Plain English and Latin phrasing are not diametrically opposed concepts.”

Henry Mount the author of the bestselling book Amo, Amos, Amat and All That, a lighthearted guide to the language, said: “Latin words and phrases can often sum up thoughts and ideas more often that the alternatives which are put forward. They are tremendously useful, quicker and nicer sounding.

“They are also English words. You will find etc or et cetera in an English dictionary complete with its explanation.”

However, the Plain English Campaign has congratulated the councils for introducing the bans.

Marie Clair, its spokesman, said: “If you look at the diversity of all our communities you have got people for whom English is a second language. They might mistake eg for egg and little things like that can confuse people.

“At the same time it is important to remember that the national literacy level is about 12 years old and the vast majority of people hardly ever use these terms.”

(well hells bells. lets be sure ya don’t screw up and raise the level any.  ah, anyone know how to say that in Latin?)

“It is far better to use words people understand. Often people in power are using the words because they want to feel self important. It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official’s ego.”

Several councils, including Aberdeenshire, and Blackburn and Darwen, have also prohibited the use of the French phrase in lieu, while many local authorities have drawn up lists of English words, which cannot be used as they are considered politically incorrect.

Amber Valley Council, in Derbyshire, has told staff it is no longer acceptable to use language “that portrays once sex as subordinate to the other”.

Staff have been instructed to say “synthetic” rather than “man made”, “lay person” instead of “lay man”, “people in general” in place of “man in the street”, “one person show” rather than “one man show” and “ancestors” instead of “forefathers”.

Broadland Council, in Norfolk, has banned “housewife” and replaced it with “homemaker” and asked staff to refer to “staffing” rather than “manning” levels.

Several councils including Blyth Valley and Weymouth have banned the phrase disabled toilet and disabled parking because they imply that the facilities themselves are disabled. They have renamed them accessible.

http://tinyurl.com/5jcvag

I’ll tell what needs banning.  Authors who find the urgent need to write lines in books in foreign languages without translations.  They always assume that everybody has their superior education and just understands. Lots of time it isn’t possible to figure out what the line means.
But this anti Latin phrase thing is silly.  Besides, I love words like .... IPSO-FACTO.  I hear the Kingfish sayin’ that even now after all these years.
Yeah, I loined it from Amos N Andy on radio. Who needs skool when yiz have radio?

I just thought of something else.
I want to award a bat to Google Chrome for being so erratic.  Yeah it’s way faster then the Fox, but at least FireFox always works.
Goog has outclevered itself.
So this bats for you Goog.

Posted by peiper     on 11/02/2008 at 12:20 PM   
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (16) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Sounds fair to me!

From His Rottiness Emperor Misha I

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As a business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that my taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about 8 to 10%. I will also have to lay off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn’t know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did.

I strolled thru the parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on my employees’ cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.

I can’t think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.

Posted by Christopher     on 11/02/2008 at 12:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Taxes • work and the workplace •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

America decides to fight and win in Afghanistan. (What? We weren’t interested earlier?)

This report today from the Sunday paper.  Kinda reads like maybe we weren’t trying before?

The comment re. the Russians sending 140,000 troops and still losing, ignores the fact that they were also fighting us.
That is, we were arming their enemies.

I confess I never quite understood just why we were supporting ppl opposing the Russians in that godforsaken place.  Except that their enemy was our friend sort of thing. Bah ... that’s one time we should have allied ourselves with the russkies as we did in WW2.  Or stayed out of it altogether and let the Russians finish the job.  If they could have.

You might say with some justification that I am not too terribly fond of that country or their people.  Maybe I shouldn’t think that way but it’s hard not to.

BTW ... is this being reported this way in the states?  Is it a story there at all?

Analysis: America decides to fight and win in Afghanistan
When British and American soldiers were called to Kabul’s Ministry of Culture last week, those who had served time in Iraq were greeted with a grimly familiar scene.

By Nick Meo
Last Updated: 11:31PM GMT 01 Nov 2008

Charred and mangled bodies littered the building, the victims of a suicide bomber who had penetrated security at one of the most heavily-guarded sites in the capital. A Taliban spokesman later gloatingly confirmed that the attack was aimed at the ministry’s Western advisers, part of a new strategy of terror against Kabul’s foreign aid community that saw British aid worker Gayle Williams shot dead two weeks ago.

It was a stark reminder of just how vicious the Taliban campaign in Afghanistan has become – and of the scale of the task facing the American general who has been ordered to claw back victory from the jaws of what is starting to look like defeat.

General David Petraeus, the ‘warrior-scholar’ credited with working a miracle in Iraq, is taking command of the war that America forgot. On Friday he started as head of US Central Command with orders to send more troops to Afghanistan, think up new tactics, and work out a strategy that, after years of muddle, bloodshed and drift under Nato’s confused command, will take the battle to the Taliban and win the war.

His old enemy appear to be planning their own surge; US intelligence believes that Arab jihadists have been arriving in the Pakistan borderlands as Iraq cools and Afghanistan hots up.

American commanders have barely bothered to disguise their growing frustration with their European and Nato allies whose war has been uncoordinated and inadequately resourced. Major military forces from Germany and France have avoided sending their troops to Taliban-dominated areas, while Holland and Canada, whose soldiers have seen ferocious fighting, will soon restrict their troops to training Afghans. It is clear from their actions that many of America’s allies increasingly believe that the war is unwinnable and not a place to put any more troops in harm’s way.

American commanders have looked at all the options in a thorough review and come to a different conclusion; they have decided that now is the time to fight.

“What will eventually win this war is American military power,” a senior Nato source in Kabul told the Sunday Telegraph. “There is no question of America withdrawing from Afghanistan. They are simply not prepared to let the people responsible for September 11th move back in.

“If the Europeans decided to go they wouldn’t that much missed, frankly. Some of them are in the way.”

Although the American military colossus is preparing to shoulder aside its European allies and escalate the war, the plan will almost certainly be very different from the successful strategy in Iraq, where a short-term but massive surge of troops proved instrumental in achieving a degree of peace.

General Petraeus has repeatedly stressed that the Afghan challenge is different. Indeed, some of his army rivals consider him more lucky than brilliant – he took command just as Sunnis had become sickened by the bloody excesses of al Qaeda in Iraq, and they were in a mood to strike deals with Americans.

In Afghanistan, although the Taliban is not popular, its support is growing. And with roughly only a third of the 150,000 troops he had at his disposal in Iraq, Gen Petraeus will simply not have enough manpower to flood the villages and mountains along the Pakistan border.

Instead, the Sunday Telegraph understands that American commanders will soon be presenting the new president in Washington, whoever he is, with plans to fight an intense five-year war against the guerrillas, a war that commanders think looks winnable unlike the morass troops are in now.

Britain will remain a key partner. But battles in Helmand will increasingly be fought by American combat troops and American commanders will call the shots. A serious effort will also be made, at last, to get a grip on the crippling problems of Kabul’s corrupt and ineffective government.

“President Karzai will be told bluntly that it is time for the Kabul government to change its ways.,” the NATO source added. “They will have to get rid of corrupt governors and police chiefs, introduce responsibility and generally improve their act and look like a government worth fighting for.”

President Karzai, who rarely leaves the gloomy confines of Kabul’s Arg Palace, is now said even by his own supporters to be exhausted. He still plans to stand in next year’s presidential elections, much to the dismay of most Westerners in Kabul and plenty of Afghans too.

The rot is so deep within his government that it is not clear how America or anyone else can force him to change, though, however much they may wish to.

The US is so fed up with corrupt and inefficient Afghan police and army forces that it is already considering arming village militias – a plan that sounds very similar to the Sunni Awakening programme that successfully energised Iraqis against al Qaeda.

Afghans fear that it could instead make petty warlords more powerful, and point to the fact that historically, every Western dalliance with warlords in Afghanistan has been a disaster: the Taliban itself was an indirect by-product of US funding of the mujahedeen movements against the occupying Soviets in the 1980s.

The other radical new element of America’s strategy will be talking to the Taliban. But this will be less an attempt to come up with a grand deal, and more an effort to split and demoralise the enemy – and it risks backfiring if anti-Taliban Afghans think a deal will be a figleaf for Britain and America to pull out and leave them to their fate.

America’s military power will have to be the instrument of persuasion for America’s Afghan supporters who are waiting to see if America really means to win.

Nick Day, CEO of Diligence Global Business Intelligence and a former Special Boat Service officer and British Intelligence agent who now monitors Islamist groups, believes that increased US military power could win the war.

He said: “All the drone aircraft and helicopters they can bring in will make a huge difference, and the Americans have learned a lot about counter-insurgency in Iraq. Their soldiers are professional and committed.

“And once the violence level has been dampened down, then it will be time to look for an exit.”

What is not clear, however, is exactly how many more troops General Petraeus will have.

The US military is exhausted after years of combat in Iraq, from where the general plans to gradually withdraw his men.

US commanders have asked for 20,000 more soldiers to reinforce the 64,000 Western troops currently in Afghanistan, but so far the Pentagon has approved only one army brigade – about 4,000 men. More will arrive next summer, but they will certainly be less than the 30,000 extra troops that were sent to Iraq for last year’s troop surge.

If they prove to be not enough, and if the jihadists continue to flock in, American troops could find themselves struggling in an increasingly bloody quagmire instead of getting to grips with the Taliban.

The Soviets, after all, sent 140,000 men to fight Afghan guerrillas at the height of their war and still lost.

As fresh American troops drive between their heavily-fortified bases next year, past ambush points and along roads where the ground can erupt at any moment in a minestrike, they will often see the carcasses of Soviet tanks. And they may reflect that every other army that has tried to win Afghanistan by sending in more troops has left the same way; in humiliation and defeat.

http://tinyurl.com/59h36l

Posted by peiper     on 11/02/2008 at 09:39 AM   
Filed Under: • War On Terror •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Get it in writing!

Oh wretched, heartless, ungrateful son!

Julian McCoy is suing to evict his 88-year-old mother from the home where she has lived for 30 years.

Although she can’t drive, uses a walker, has trouble crossing a room and is hard of hearing, Gladys Napier is fighting back.

She has asked a judge to give her back the house. She deeded it to her son two years ago, believing that she would be allowed to stay there the rest of her life, according to court pleadings.

To me, this is an example of how liberal policies are resulting in the weakening of family ties and obligations. Mr. McCoy doubtless thinks that Social Security, Medicare, etc, will care well enough for his mother. But she’s his mother, not mine, and I shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of caring for her.

Posted by Christopher     on 11/02/2008 at 10:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics • Nanny State • Outrageous •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner