Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama orders $100 million in office supply cuts
Wait. Does this mean that there's $100 million worth of paper, pens and paperclips that can be cut from the federal budget? So, how much does that leave that isn't cut?
Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics
This defies all rational thinking. Never in our nation's history has one administration demonstrated such animus to a preceding one. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, for example, took the national on an entirely different path than his predecessor, John Adams, but as far as I am aware, there was never an effort to prosecute anyone in the Adams administration or Adams himself (which is the logical extension of what Obama is suggesting).
This is insanity. Would this set a precedent for the next president to prosecute someone in the Obama administration (or Obama himself) for their actions while in office? Obama needs to think long and hard about this.
This is insanity. Would this set a precedent for the next president to prosecute someone in the Obama administration (or Obama himself) for their actions while in office? Obama needs to think long and hard about this.
Tea parties define mainstream America
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
If you just listened to unfair and unbalanced CNN as well as some Chicago media outlets, you'd get the idea that the growing number of "so-called" tea parties is just a right-wing conspiracy that managed to lure a few hundred impressionable loonies from their dark recesses.
No one in his right mind, we're told, would ever think that it's a manifestation of the growing split between mainstream Americans and the political class; a mushrooming fear of the out-of-control audacity of the Obama administration; or rising disgust with political machinations, no matter what the party.
Consider the numbers. Rasmussen Reports has tried to quantify the split between the political class and the rest of us using a "political class index." It shows:
•Three-quarters of the political class gives Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner rave reviews; only 12 percent of mainstream Americans did.
•Fifty-nine percent of "mainstreamers" think that troubled insurance giant American International Group Inc. should be allowed to fail; only 7 percent of the political class does. Sixty-seven percent of mainstreamers say politicians should give back any campaign contributions they received from AIG; only 29 percent of the political class agrees.
•Two-thirds of mainstreamers say that better protection for the nation's borders and reducing illegal Immigration is "very important." Only one-third of the political class does.
•More than half of Americans can be classified as "mainstream" or "populist." Only 7 percent identify with the political class.
Rasmussen found that Democrats, Republicans and independents generally share mainstream views in equal proportions. In other words, the greater divide in this country may not be between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals, but between the mainstream and the political class.
I think that the fundamental split between the political class and rest of us shows up in other ways: Rasmussen recently found that 62 percent of Illinois voters want Sen. Roland Burris to resign, 54 percent would definitely vote against him next year and only 19 percent have a favorable opinion of him. Only 4 percent will definitely vote for him. Lest we forget, Burris is a Democrat in a Democratic state, and Burris is a creature spawned by the political class. Could Illinois voters finally have had enough?
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was once the most popular choice to take President Barack Obama's place in the Senate, but after reports that the feds were looking into claims that Jackson's associates might have offered then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich as much as $5 million for the seat, 63 percent viewed him unfavorably. Seventy-four percent of the state's voters say future Senate vacancies should be filled by a special election, like the one that the state's political class—which happens to be mostly Democrats—blocked.
On the national level, only 27 percent of voters want a second economic stimulus package, but 74 percent say Congress likely will pass one anyway. Fewer than a quarter of Americans believe the federal government reflects the will of the people. Democratic congressional candidates now are regarded with about the same disdain as Republicans. While some polls show that Obama's approval ratings are generally high (as they are for most starting presidents), the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of his conduct in office now is just about equal to the number of those who strongly approve. (All of these polls were conducted by Rasmussen.) Obama's election has failed to mend the split between the mainstream and the political class. If anything, his wild, reckless economic policies are widening that split. The folks at the tea parties only confirmed it.
Chicago Tribune
If you just listened to unfair and unbalanced CNN as well as some Chicago media outlets, you'd get the idea that the growing number of "so-called" tea parties is just a right-wing conspiracy that managed to lure a few hundred impressionable loonies from their dark recesses.
No one in his right mind, we're told, would ever think that it's a manifestation of the growing split between mainstream Americans and the political class; a mushrooming fear of the out-of-control audacity of the Obama administration; or rising disgust with political machinations, no matter what the party.
Consider the numbers. Rasmussen Reports has tried to quantify the split between the political class and the rest of us using a "political class index." It shows:
•Three-quarters of the political class gives Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner rave reviews; only 12 percent of mainstream Americans did.
•Fifty-nine percent of "mainstreamers" think that troubled insurance giant American International Group Inc. should be allowed to fail; only 7 percent of the political class does. Sixty-seven percent of mainstreamers say politicians should give back any campaign contributions they received from AIG; only 29 percent of the political class agrees.
•Two-thirds of mainstreamers say that better protection for the nation's borders and reducing illegal Immigration is "very important." Only one-third of the political class does.
•More than half of Americans can be classified as "mainstream" or "populist." Only 7 percent identify with the political class.
Rasmussen found that Democrats, Republicans and independents generally share mainstream views in equal proportions. In other words, the greater divide in this country may not be between Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals, but between the mainstream and the political class.
I think that the fundamental split between the political class and rest of us shows up in other ways: Rasmussen recently found that 62 percent of Illinois voters want Sen. Roland Burris to resign, 54 percent would definitely vote against him next year and only 19 percent have a favorable opinion of him. Only 4 percent will definitely vote for him. Lest we forget, Burris is a Democrat in a Democratic state, and Burris is a creature spawned by the political class. Could Illinois voters finally have had enough?
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was once the most popular choice to take President Barack Obama's place in the Senate, but after reports that the feds were looking into claims that Jackson's associates might have offered then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich as much as $5 million for the seat, 63 percent viewed him unfavorably. Seventy-four percent of the state's voters say future Senate vacancies should be filled by a special election, like the one that the state's political class—which happens to be mostly Democrats—blocked.
On the national level, only 27 percent of voters want a second economic stimulus package, but 74 percent say Congress likely will pass one anyway. Fewer than a quarter of Americans believe the federal government reflects the will of the people. Democratic congressional candidates now are regarded with about the same disdain as Republicans. While some polls show that Obama's approval ratings are generally high (as they are for most starting presidents), the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of his conduct in office now is just about equal to the number of those who strongly approve. (All of these polls were conducted by Rasmussen.) Obama's election has failed to mend the split between the mainstream and the political class. If anything, his wild, reckless economic policies are widening that split. The folks at the tea parties only confirmed it.
Friday, April 17, 2009
62% in Illinois Say Burris Should Resign
Everything you want to know about what you are thinking. Read it in the Rasmussen Reports
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Democrats hope to torch secret ballot
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
If anyone introduced legislation wiping out your right to vote secretly, he'd be run out of town. The secret ballot is cherished, ensuring that no person, organization or government can intimidate or threaten us in the free exercise of our right to choose. For this reason, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and a raft of other supporters of the ironically named Employee Free Choice Act deserve to meet the figurative tar bucket and rail.
This dramatic change in labor law would allow workers to form a union if a majority openly signed a card in favor of union representation. Not required is an election in which workers can vote confidentially without peer pressure.
As a former union officer, I can sympathize with the bill's purpose of facilitating union organizing. As a small businessman, I don't agree with so blatantly loading the dice in favor of organized labor. ( I am repulsed by a provision that would turn over certain contract negotiations to binding arbitration, a revolutionary government intrusion into private sector labor relations.)
But those are side issues. Nothing can justify any government stripping away the protections of a secret ballot. Ludicrously, some bill supporters say it wouldn't. "It would only give workers a choice to waive that right [to a secret ballot]," said Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.). And why, pray tell, would they do that? Because, Barrow continued, it would be "the price they'd be willing to pay in order to avoid a campaign that goes along with a secret ballot election." Such goofiness is a measure of how desperate organized labor and their toadies have become in trying to deny the obvious.
When Congress returns from its spring recess, it will be challenged to uphold the cherished principle of the secret ballot, and the betting is that only a Senate filibuster stands in its way. In that, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is the deciding vote. He recently said he would vote against the bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said if Specter does, he would not be admitted into Democratic ranks, a move that supposedly would make it easier for the Republican to win re-election next year in the blue state.
Truth is, I wouldn't put money on anything Specter plans to do. President Barack Obama will sign the bill if it gets to his desk, but if it doesn't labor shouldn't feel bad; Obama already has bestowed bountiful blessings on it, although you might not have noticed unless you're an avid reader of the Federal Register. Almost the first thing Obama did as president was to sign executive orders that defer to organized labor's aggressive demands. The orders, reversing Bush administration policy, effectively increase the costs of taxpayer-funded projects and further complicate an already burdensome web of federal red tape.
Executive order 13502, which applies to all federal construction projects of $25 million or more, "encourages" federal agencies to require the use of controversial "project labor agreements." The philosophy behind the agreements is simple: If you can't organize an employer's shop, you can at least get your foot in the door by muscling labor agreements out of companies on a project-by-project basis. Open-shop companies would have to negotiate with whatever union shows up, even before a single employee is hired. It reduces competition for federal projects and weakens government neutrality in the bidding process. The order also mandates a study by administration officials to determine whether the agreements should be extended into other areas of government purchasing, and guess what they'll decide?
Another executive order removes a requirement that most government contractors post a notice on site of employee rights, including this important one: You don't have to be a union member to be hired. Another executive order requires a new contractor (on jobs of $100,000 or more) that is taking over a project from another contractor to hire the old employees first. The effect, again, is to make it harder for open-shop employers to compete for new contracts.
"To the victor belong the spoils," President Andrew Jackson famously said in defense of doing favors for his supporters, and it has been that way in the nearly two centuries since then; that Obama is showering boons on his supporters should surprise no one. Except that Obama, with his usual elan and growing disrespect for reality, declared these changes were done for, ahem, economy and efficiency. Aw, c'mon, Mr. President, don't insult us with your pretense. Your election has brought about a change in policies (for the worse, I'd say), but no change in the way things are done.
Chicago Tribune
If anyone introduced legislation wiping out your right to vote secretly, he'd be run out of town. The secret ballot is cherished, ensuring that no person, organization or government can intimidate or threaten us in the free exercise of our right to choose. For this reason, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and a raft of other supporters of the ironically named Employee Free Choice Act deserve to meet the figurative tar bucket and rail.
This dramatic change in labor law would allow workers to form a union if a majority openly signed a card in favor of union representation. Not required is an election in which workers can vote confidentially without peer pressure.
As a former union officer, I can sympathize with the bill's purpose of facilitating union organizing. As a small businessman, I don't agree with so blatantly loading the dice in favor of organized labor. ( I am repulsed by a provision that would turn over certain contract negotiations to binding arbitration, a revolutionary government intrusion into private sector labor relations.)
But those are side issues. Nothing can justify any government stripping away the protections of a secret ballot. Ludicrously, some bill supporters say it wouldn't. "It would only give workers a choice to waive that right [to a secret ballot]," said Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.). And why, pray tell, would they do that? Because, Barrow continued, it would be "the price they'd be willing to pay in order to avoid a campaign that goes along with a secret ballot election." Such goofiness is a measure of how desperate organized labor and their toadies have become in trying to deny the obvious.
When Congress returns from its spring recess, it will be challenged to uphold the cherished principle of the secret ballot, and the betting is that only a Senate filibuster stands in its way. In that, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is the deciding vote. He recently said he would vote against the bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said if Specter does, he would not be admitted into Democratic ranks, a move that supposedly would make it easier for the Republican to win re-election next year in the blue state.
Truth is, I wouldn't put money on anything Specter plans to do. President Barack Obama will sign the bill if it gets to his desk, but if it doesn't labor shouldn't feel bad; Obama already has bestowed bountiful blessings on it, although you might not have noticed unless you're an avid reader of the Federal Register. Almost the first thing Obama did as president was to sign executive orders that defer to organized labor's aggressive demands. The orders, reversing Bush administration policy, effectively increase the costs of taxpayer-funded projects and further complicate an already burdensome web of federal red tape.
Executive order 13502, which applies to all federal construction projects of $25 million or more, "encourages" federal agencies to require the use of controversial "project labor agreements." The philosophy behind the agreements is simple: If you can't organize an employer's shop, you can at least get your foot in the door by muscling labor agreements out of companies on a project-by-project basis. Open-shop companies would have to negotiate with whatever union shows up, even before a single employee is hired. It reduces competition for federal projects and weakens government neutrality in the bidding process. The order also mandates a study by administration officials to determine whether the agreements should be extended into other areas of government purchasing, and guess what they'll decide?
Another executive order removes a requirement that most government contractors post a notice on site of employee rights, including this important one: You don't have to be a union member to be hired. Another executive order requires a new contractor (on jobs of $100,000 or more) that is taking over a project from another contractor to hire the old employees first. The effect, again, is to make it harder for open-shop employers to compete for new contracts.
"To the victor belong the spoils," President Andrew Jackson famously said in defense of doing favors for his supporters, and it has been that way in the nearly two centuries since then; that Obama is showering boons on his supporters should surprise no one. Except that Obama, with his usual elan and growing disrespect for reality, declared these changes were done for, ahem, economy and efficiency. Aw, c'mon, Mr. President, don't insult us with your pretense. Your election has brought about a change in policies (for the worse, I'd say), but no change in the way things are done.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Obama administration charges juice loan interest rates
Some banks that initially received TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money from Washington want to return it. That should please everyone, especially taxpayers who are fronting the money in the first place.
But the Obama administration is reluctant to allow the repayments, figuring, I guess, that they have a lot more fiddling to do with the banks.
Here's the experience that one bank had when it returned its TARP money, according to the New York Times.
But the Obama administration is reluctant to allow the repayments, figuring, I guess, that they have a lot more fiddling to do with the banks.
Here's the experience that one bank had when it returned its TARP money, according to the New York Times.
Douglas Leech, the founder and chief executive of Centra Bank, a small West Virginia bank that participated in the capital assistance program but returned the money after the government imposed new conditions, said he complained strongly about the Treasury Department’s decision to demand repayment of the warrants. That effectively raised the interest rate he paid on a $15 million loan to an annual rate of about 60 percent, he said.
“What they did is wrong and fundamentally un-American,” he said. “Even though the government told us to take this money to increase our lending, the extra charge meant we had less money to lend. It was the equivalent of a penalty for early withdrawal."
(The warrants he mentioned are the stock warrants the banks had to grant to the federal government in exchange for the loans. Now that the camel's nose is in the tent and the government has tasted the power of running the private sector, there's apparently no backing out.)
Friday, April 10, 2009
Hastert to lobby for Turkey
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a west suburban Repbublican, gets his due from Turkey. (Story here)
It's probably just a coincidence that he blocked--as the Speaker and at the request of then President Bill Clinton--a resolution condemning the Turks' killing of 1.5 million Armenians during the 1915-1916 genocide and that he shares (with former House Democratic Majority Leader Richard Gephardt) a $35,000-a-month contract to lobby Congress on behalf of Turkey.
True bipartisanship, that.
It's probably just a coincidence that he blocked--as the Speaker and at the request of then President Bill Clinton--a resolution condemning the Turks' killing of 1.5 million Armenians during the 1915-1916 genocide and that he shares (with former House Democratic Majority Leader Richard Gephardt) a $35,000-a-month contract to lobby Congress on behalf of Turkey.
True bipartisanship, that.
City 'wolfpacks' to hunt potholes
Wait, wasn't any "shovel-ready" project supposed to have "lasting impact," according to the Obama administration?
According to this, tens of millions of dollars of federal stimulus funding will go "resurfacing" Chicago streets. Considering the brief life-span of Chicago streets, how can the program meet the "lasting impact" standard. Unless, they meant a "lasting impact" that is political, and help get Mayor Richard M. Daley out of his pothole problem.
According to this, tens of millions of dollars of federal stimulus funding will go "resurfacing" Chicago streets. Considering the brief life-span of Chicago streets, how can the program meet the "lasting impact" standard. Unless, they meant a "lasting impact" that is political, and help get Mayor Richard M. Daley out of his pothole problem.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Frank never answers the student's question, and instead tries to make the student look like he has done something wrong merely by asking. Frank never explains his efforts to presure lenders into making loans to unqualified borrowers as part of the community reinvestment act.
For a response to Frank's dodging and weaving, watch this video:
Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism
That's according to a new Rasmussen Reports. It makes me wonder what they're teaching in schools these days.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Big Victory for Daley in Suburban Elections
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Daily Observer
Chicago Daily Observer
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley wasn’t on the ballots in Bensenville or Des Plaines, yet he won resounding victories in the northwestern suburbs when his candidates for town leadership swept away their competition.
Daley’s successful assault on the towns now leaves serious questions about the viability of any remaining opposition to O’Hare Airport expansion. For the Chicago Boss, it has to be a sweet climax to his decade-long campaign to silence elected suburban opposition to the $16-billion-plus airport enlargement.
In Bensenville, he broke the back of O’Hare Airport expansion opposition by vanquishing President John Geils and in Des Plaines, he strengthened his pro-expansion tentacles with the mayoral election of the pro-expansion Martin Moylan.
Read more in the Chicago Daily Observer
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Notre Dame is wrong
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
As a Marquette University graduate, I don't give a hoot what the University of Notre Dame does. It can endow an academic chair in honor of Attila the Hun for all I care, and my life would proceed apace.
But the Indiana school somehow has been crowned the "nation's pre-eminent Catholic university"—a dubious claim considering the quality of other Catholic colleges. So everyone must have an opinion on the honors it will award to President Barack Obama while giving him a commencement podium to expound, if he wishes, his extremist positions on "reproductive rights."
Thus, even secular columnists—well practiced in telling those papists, but not, say, Unitarian-Universalists what to do—have assigned themselves to defend Notre Dame. Don't give in, they say, to troglodytes who would sink academic freedom by demanding that an institution that bills itself as Catholic should honor one of the faith's central tenets: the inviolate right of every life created in its maker's image to enjoy all the inalienable rights bestowed on every person. Shame on those Catholics.
Social justice is another key teaching of the Catholic Church. (This will surprise some who have ignorantly categorized the Catholic Church as a bastion of oppression and indifference.) Now suppose Notre Dame decided to confer an honorary degree on an acknowledged opponent of that particular church teaching, someone like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, no adherent of social justice he.
Because it's always good to hear from "the other side" in academe, let's suggest more folks that Notre Dame should honor: North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Il, who can explain why his approach to social justice is beneficial to all mankind. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who can expound on why the deaths of more than 200,000 and the displacement of more than 2 million people in Darfur was an exercise in social justice. We can all learn from listening graciously to this criminal, recently indicted by the International Criminal Court. Then there's Osama bin Laden. . . .Well, you get the point, which you will protest is too easily made. After all, Obama is none of those characters, and to in anyway equate them with the president is insulting, outrageous. And so it is. But there's this:
It is a firmly held belief by millions of Catholics, hierarchy and laity alike, that the abortion of millions of unborn people is a catastrophe of Holocaust proportions. To them, the legalized slaughter of innocents brutalizes us all. You might not agree, you might argue that the church is wrong on matters of "reproductive rights" and, therefore, there's nothing wrong with Notre Dame honoring Obama. But don't you see? You're telling Catholics what they should believe. It's as arrogant as entering a temple or mosque and telling the adherents that their refusal to eat pork is wrong, so line up for your ration of bacon. So much for your precious "diversity."
You can argue that the purpose of any university is discourse and disputation, so Notre Dame should invite whomever it pleases. John Henry Newman, a respected Catholic scholar, has a deeper, less simple-minded take. In his essay "The Idea of a University," he calls the university a "tribunal of truth." It is arrived at, yes, by conversing and disputation.
But truth is a hard proposition for modern ears to hear. To them, the search for truth is the entire story; its discovery is not to be admitted because truth, say some, is unknowable.
Newman continues: "Truth, a subtle, invisible, manifold spirit, is poured into the mind of the scholar by his eyes and ears, through his affections, imagination and reason; it is poured into his mind and is sealed up there in perpetuity by propounding and repeating it, by questioning and requestioning, by correcting and explaining, by progressing and then recurring to first principles, by all those ways which are implied in the word 'catechizing.' " If, then, disputation is the reason for Obama's appearance, then let it be in a classroom or confrontational format, where the antagonists can fence. Honoring Obama is not the same as disputing him.
Disputation in the academic sense is not the reason for Obama's appearance. Notre Dame assuredly knew that the Obama honors would cause a massive controversy, one that would catch the nation's attention and divide the church. It was a cynical move by an institution captivated by its own "pre-eminence" to draw attention to itself. At the expense of its (now-dead) principles.
Chicago Tribune
As a Marquette University graduate, I don't give a hoot what the University of Notre Dame does. It can endow an academic chair in honor of Attila the Hun for all I care, and my life would proceed apace.
But the Indiana school somehow has been crowned the "nation's pre-eminent Catholic university"—a dubious claim considering the quality of other Catholic colleges. So everyone must have an opinion on the honors it will award to President Barack Obama while giving him a commencement podium to expound, if he wishes, his extremist positions on "reproductive rights."
Thus, even secular columnists—well practiced in telling those papists, but not, say, Unitarian-Universalists what to do—have assigned themselves to defend Notre Dame. Don't give in, they say, to troglodytes who would sink academic freedom by demanding that an institution that bills itself as Catholic should honor one of the faith's central tenets: the inviolate right of every life created in its maker's image to enjoy all the inalienable rights bestowed on every person. Shame on those Catholics.
Social justice is another key teaching of the Catholic Church. (This will surprise some who have ignorantly categorized the Catholic Church as a bastion of oppression and indifference.) Now suppose Notre Dame decided to confer an honorary degree on an acknowledged opponent of that particular church teaching, someone like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, no adherent of social justice he.
Because it's always good to hear from "the other side" in academe, let's suggest more folks that Notre Dame should honor: North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Il, who can explain why his approach to social justice is beneficial to all mankind. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who can expound on why the deaths of more than 200,000 and the displacement of more than 2 million people in Darfur was an exercise in social justice. We can all learn from listening graciously to this criminal, recently indicted by the International Criminal Court. Then there's Osama bin Laden. . . .Well, you get the point, which you will protest is too easily made. After all, Obama is none of those characters, and to in anyway equate them with the president is insulting, outrageous. And so it is. But there's this:
It is a firmly held belief by millions of Catholics, hierarchy and laity alike, that the abortion of millions of unborn people is a catastrophe of Holocaust proportions. To them, the legalized slaughter of innocents brutalizes us all. You might not agree, you might argue that the church is wrong on matters of "reproductive rights" and, therefore, there's nothing wrong with Notre Dame honoring Obama. But don't you see? You're telling Catholics what they should believe. It's as arrogant as entering a temple or mosque and telling the adherents that their refusal to eat pork is wrong, so line up for your ration of bacon. So much for your precious "diversity."
You can argue that the purpose of any university is discourse and disputation, so Notre Dame should invite whomever it pleases. John Henry Newman, a respected Catholic scholar, has a deeper, less simple-minded take. In his essay "The Idea of a University," he calls the university a "tribunal of truth." It is arrived at, yes, by conversing and disputation.
But truth is a hard proposition for modern ears to hear. To them, the search for truth is the entire story; its discovery is not to be admitted because truth, say some, is unknowable.
Newman continues: "Truth, a subtle, invisible, manifold spirit, is poured into the mind of the scholar by his eyes and ears, through his affections, imagination and reason; it is poured into his mind and is sealed up there in perpetuity by propounding and repeating it, by questioning and requestioning, by correcting and explaining, by progressing and then recurring to first principles, by all those ways which are implied in the word 'catechizing.' " If, then, disputation is the reason for Obama's appearance, then let it be in a classroom or confrontational format, where the antagonists can fence. Honoring Obama is not the same as disputing him.
Disputation in the academic sense is not the reason for Obama's appearance. Notre Dame assuredly knew that the Obama honors would cause a massive controversy, one that would catch the nation's attention and divide the church. It was a cynical move by an institution captivated by its own "pre-eminence" to draw attention to itself. At the expense of its (now-dead) principles.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
A rift in the Democratic Party?
After hammering away at Republicans for years about their split between moderate and conservative members, the media need to take note of the rift between moderates and liberals that is splitting the Democratic Party and has the White House worried about enacting the president's far-left agenda. Details in Rasmussen Reports
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Maybe Obama should stay in Europe
Rasmussen Reports finds that the number of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama's presidential performance has jumped dramatically since his inauguration. The number who strongly approve has declined slightly.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
It ain't working...
An item from the-chickens-have-come-home-to-roost department (Part 1):
AIG Rescue Has Failed, Greenberg Tells Lawmakers
AIG Rescue Has Failed, Greenberg Tells Lawmakers
Beware of Presidents Bearing Gifts
LONDON (API)—President Barack Obama, attending the G-20 summit, today presented Queen Elizabeth with a $250 gift certificate to Target stores as an “expression of American solidarity” with Great Britain.
At the same time, the president, responding to the uproar created by his chintzy gift of a bunch of old movie DVDs to British Prime Minister Brown weeks ago, sought to smooth things over by presenting him a with dozen White Castle Sliders. Brown cordially received the gift of Krystal’s miniature square hamburgers, wrapped in a tasteful paper sack.
However, a source familiar with the situation said the prime minister planned to “regift that crap” to the pet dogs at Number 10 Downing Street.
“We had planned to give the Queen an iPod, loaded with pictures of her last visit to America,” First Lady Michelle Obama later cheerfully explained to reporters. “But, we thought Her Majesty might already have one—you know she’s the queen and all that—so we just figured that if she did, she could use the certificate for whatever she wanted. Besides,” Mrs. Obama added, “we had already given recordings to the prime minister, and if we did the same for the Queen, some people might think we totally lack imagination in the gift-giving department.”
As it did after the DVD controversy, the British press was furious over the perceived slight to the Queen and regarded the hamburgers as only deepening what it called it the worst crisis since the War of 1812 between the two previously inseparable allies. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised intensified negotiations to restore normalcy. “We need to address the underlying causes of the problem that has festered over the past eight years of failed diplomacy,” said.
Clinton ignored media questions about whether a present she had earlier presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov bearing an incorrect translation that implied hostility rather than peacemaking was symptomatic of Obama’s own failed diplomacy.
In reaction, the New York Times opined editorially that the gift-giving brouhaha was a “tempest in a teapot,” a reference to the English taste for the beverage. Said the editorial: “We believe other overriding issues at the summit deserve greater coverage and more in-depth analysis, which is why we have assigned our best writers to report on Mrs. Obama’s outfits.
Congressional Republicans, meeting in caucus, could not agree about what to say.
At the same time, the president, responding to the uproar created by his chintzy gift of a bunch of old movie DVDs to British Prime Minister Brown weeks ago, sought to smooth things over by presenting him a with dozen White Castle Sliders. Brown cordially received the gift of Krystal’s miniature square hamburgers, wrapped in a tasteful paper sack.
However, a source familiar with the situation said the prime minister planned to “regift that crap” to the pet dogs at Number 10 Downing Street.
“We had planned to give the Queen an iPod, loaded with pictures of her last visit to America,” First Lady Michelle Obama later cheerfully explained to reporters. “But, we thought Her Majesty might already have one—you know she’s the queen and all that—so we just figured that if she did, she could use the certificate for whatever she wanted. Besides,” Mrs. Obama added, “we had already given recordings to the prime minister, and if we did the same for the Queen, some people might think we totally lack imagination in the gift-giving department.”
As it did after the DVD controversy, the British press was furious over the perceived slight to the Queen and regarded the hamburgers as only deepening what it called it the worst crisis since the War of 1812 between the two previously inseparable allies. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised intensified negotiations to restore normalcy. “We need to address the underlying causes of the problem that has festered over the past eight years of failed diplomacy,” said.
Clinton ignored media questions about whether a present she had earlier presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov bearing an incorrect translation that implied hostility rather than peacemaking was symptomatic of Obama’s own failed diplomacy.
In reaction, the New York Times opined editorially that the gift-giving brouhaha was a “tempest in a teapot,” a reference to the English taste for the beverage. Said the editorial: “We believe other overriding issues at the summit deserve greater coverage and more in-depth analysis, which is why we have assigned our best writers to report on Mrs. Obama’s outfits.
Congressional Republicans, meeting in caucus, could not agree about what to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)